2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Forty-plus years and I've never had a debate about this.

Closest spot to foul, violation, out of bounds, or point of interruption.

No big deal.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Plus, during a timeout, one of us always stands with the ball where we will inbound, so if the coach asks, we just point.

In the rare situation where officials need to get together during a timeout for a tête-à-tête, we leave the ball at the throwin spot.

Yeah, I know that some frown at that, but we've never had a ball stolen.

I've had many occasions where the throw-in spot was in dispute amongst the crew.

As far as the bolded statement, why can't the other officials come to the throw-in spot instead of having the administering official come to them? Your approach makes zero logical sense to me.

[Nevadaref]

I like all of the changes. I believe that eliminating 1&1 speeds up the end of games as teams are less likely to foul since they will be conceding two free throws and the team with the lead would have to miss both in order to not increase its advantage.

I do have a question about the new rule permitting an incorrect throw-in to be fixed.

“7-6-6: Allows the official administering a throw-in to the wrong team to correct the mistake before the first dead ball after the ball becomes live unless there is a change of possession. Rationale: Allows for a correction of an official's mistake in a more reasonable timeframe.”

Why does it have to be only the administering official who can correct this? I hope that it will be worded such that any of the officials can do so.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why does it have to be only the administering official who can correct this?

Maybe it will allow communication between officials but leave it up the administering official to actually decide to reverse the call, similar to how we already communicate on possibly reversing a partner's questionable out of bounds call.

"Hey partner. We may have screwed up that throwin a few seconds ago. What do you think? Should you reverse it? You were the administering official."

I've got a good question.

Back to original spot of throwin, or to the point of interruption?

I'm guessing point of interruption, but but with my history of mind reading the NFHS, I'm not betting my villa in Tuscany on it.

If a head coach politely questions the nonadministering official, who is convinced into also questioning the throwin, and then stops the game to discuss with the administering official, and both officials decide that no error was made, it will definitely be point of interruption.

I would think that to also be true if the throwin was reversed - point of interruption.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe it will allow communication between officials but leave it up the administering official to actually decide to reverse the call, similar to how we already communicate on possibly reversing a partner's questionable out of bounds call.

"Hey partner. We may have screwed up that throwin a few seconds ago. What do you think? Should you reverse it? You were the administering official."

I've got a good question.

Back to original spot of throwin, or to the point of interruption?

I'm guessing point of interruption, but but with my history of mind reading the NFHS, I'm not betting my house on it.

And time elapsed from the clock?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

And time elapsed from the clock?

Another great question, especially in an end of period, or end of game situation.

With my history of mind reading the NFHS, I'm not betting my 2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer on adjusting the clock, or not adjusting the clock.

But as I already said, a great question.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Raymond

And time elapsed from the clock?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Another great question, especially in an end of period, or end of game situation.

With my history of mind reading the NFHS, I'm not betting my 2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer on adjusting the clock, or not adjusting the clock.

But as I already said, a great question.

I think this will be treated much like correctable errors, where we can fix the error for a time, but consumed time before its discovery will be a sunk cost.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I think this will be treated much like correctable errors, where we can fix the error for a time, but consumed time before its discovery will be a sunk cost.

Plus remembering that any violation--held ball, foul, or granted timeout--before recognition also makes it too late to correct.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I think this will be treated much like correctable errors, where we can fix the error for a time, but consumed time before its discovery will be a sunk cost.

Agree. Sounds rational.

How about original throwin spot, or point of interruption?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I like all of the changes. I believe that eliminating 1&1 speeds up the end of games as teams are less likely to foul since they will be conceding two free throws and the team with the lead would have to miss both in order to not increase its advantage.

I do have a question about the new rule permitting an incorrect throw-in to be fixed.

“7-6-6: Allows the official administering a throw-in to the wrong team to correct the mistake before the first dead ball after the ball becomes live unless there is a change of possession. Rationale: Allows for a correction of an official's mistake in a more reasonable timeframe.”

Why does it have to be only the administering official who can correct this? I hope that it will be worded such that any of the officials can do so.

I agree. If I'm a non-administering official and I notice it, I'm fixing it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I agree. If I'm a non-administering official and I notice it, I'm fixing it.

By sounding your whistle, discussing it with your partner, and allowing him to fix it if necessary (similar to how we already communicate on possibly reversing a partner's questionable out of bounds call), or by sounding your whistle and immediately reversing his "call"?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

By sounding your whistle, discussing it with your partner, and allowing him to fix it if necessary (similar to how we already communicate on possibly reversing a partner's questionable out of bounds call), or by sounding your whistle and immediately reversing his "call"?

The administering official is not necessarily the person who had the whistle that caused the throw-in, so why would I need confirmation from them?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The administering official is not necessarily the person who had the whistle that caused the throw-in, so why would I need confirmation from them?

Good point that I didn't consider, but the administering official is the one who made the mistake, and by the new rule, the one who is allowed to correct the mistake, so that's worth, a least, a few seconds of discussion.

Note: To Raymond's point above (not necessarily the person who had the whistle that caused the throw-in), I had a rookie partner this past season who's oral communication and signal was so extremely poor after his whistle that I didn't know (I had absolutely no idea) if it was a violation, out of bounds, foul, etc. and whether I should switch, not switch, or cut bait. If I was going to be the new throwin administering official (I wasn't) I would definitely not know who to give the ball to, and any guess on my part would have a 50% chance of being wrong. Of course, I wouldn't guess, I would ask.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I like all of the changes. I believe that eliminating 1&1 speeds up the end of games as teams are less likely to foul since they will be conceding two free throws and the team with the lead would have to miss both in order to not increase its advantage.

I do have a question about the new rule permitting an incorrect throw-in to be fixed.

“7-6-6: Allows the official administering a throw-in to the wrong team to correct the mistake before the first dead ball after the ball becomes live unless there is a change of possession. Rationale: Allows for a correction of an official's mistake in a more reasonable timeframe.”

Why does it have to be only the administering official who can correct this? I hope that it will be worded such that any of the officials can do so.

To me, this is like saying the Referee designates the scorebook and officials scorer before the game starts or says the Referee inspects all the equipment, court, backboard, and other things. We know we do that as a crew, not just the Referee, and inspecting is not going up to each item and seeing if it is legal. We do that together and if my partner does not feel something is right, I am not saying "I'm the Referee so I can only do......" We do this together. Bad wording for what is reality, but if the non-administring officials notice something, we changing it if it is wrong. Just my opinion.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We do this together. Bad wording for what is reality, but if the non-administering officials notice something, we change it if it is wrong. Just my opinion.

Agree 100%. Love the word "we". We're the third team on the court.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I like all of the changes. I believe that eliminating 1&1 speeds up the end of games as teams are less likely to foul since they will be conceding two free throws and the team with the lead would have to miss both in order to not increase its advantage.

I do have a question about the new rule permitting an incorrect throw-in to be fixed.

“7-6-6: Allows the official administering a throw-in to the wrong team to correct the mistake before the first dead ball after the ball becomes live unless there is a change of possession. Rationale: Allows for a correction of an official's mistake in a more reasonable timeframe.”

Why does it have to be only the administering official who can correct this? I hope that it will be worded such that any of the officials can do so.

I don't think they're intentionally restricting it to just one official even if the wording seems to suggest that.