New Rule 7-6-6 Throw-in Administration
 

If they allow time to be restored when the official has direct knowledge, then why don't they mention it in the rule. They don't even mention it in the Case book play. The only spot you see it is on page 4 of the Case Book. The very beginning, "Comments on the 2023-024 Revisions". Next year it will be missing.
Also, did you know that if you are correcting the throw-in. You go back to the original Throw-in location. A true 'Do-Over'.

Citation ...
 

I haven't gotten my new rule book and case book.

Really?

Do you have access to 'NFHS All Access'?
If you get an IAABO Handbook, then you will also see wording about correcting the time and moving back to the original Throw-in location

IAABO Handbook ...
 

We get our IAABO Handbooks next week.

Some IAABO board in Maine just put out a new rules video and it confirmed what the OP states. Indeed a true do-over. I don’t think even IAABO would so boldly pronounce this without qualified inside knowledge from NFHS.

But why so vague in the new rules/case books is a mystery to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So Goes Maine, So Goes The Nation ...
 

Let's be careful here. This would not be the first time IAABO overstepped its bounds by prematurely making an interpretation before the NFHS.

Last time was in 2014-15 when the NFHS changed from "hit" to "release" on free throws and IAABO interpreted the "limitations" on marked lane space defenders crossing the free throw line into the semicircle a full year before the NFHS weighed in with a rule update (as it tuned out IAABO and the NFHS had the same interpretation, the NFHS was just delayed by one year).

Oddly, the premature interpretation was made by the IAABO International interpreter who was also the state interpreter in Maine, The Pine Tree State

Of course, now IAABO "technically" no longer uses NFHS rules and caseplays, they publish their own rules and "caseplays" (actually call it something else) in their self published IAABO Manual.

In regard to rules questions, the CIAC in Connecticut has actually stated that Connecticut high schools will use "IAABO rules" since Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state.

If IAABO unilaterally decided that a field goal made from behind the division line is four points, then it will worth four points in an IAABO game in Connecticut.

I find this to be quite odd, especially since all Connecticut IAABO members were forced to join the NFHS through the CIAC this new year and $17 was added to our local IAABO dues.

An Actual Do Over In Basketball ???
 

We had our local Interpretation (New Rules) Meeting last night.

Regarding the wrong team getting a throwin being correctable until a dead ball or a change of possession, we were told that the correct team will get the throwin back at original spot (not the point of interruption) and time consumed may be reset if officials have definite knowledge.

Keep in mind that that Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state using IAABO "rules" and "interpretations", however almost everything is based on NFHS rules and interruptions.

IAABO Pre Game Card ...
 

Putting time back
 

So if you can put time back for this correctable error, why can't we do it for the other correctable errors if we have definite knowledge and it is within the time frame?

This isn't a Correctable Error

Because the rule book says we can't?

Written Rule ...
 

I would still like to see "point of interruption" OR "original spot" actually written in the rulebook, casebook, etc.

A mistake by the official giving the ball to the wrong team (error).....recognized before the 1st dead ball (correctable). Just because they are not adding it to the list does not mean we would not be correcting a mistake that was made on the floor. We can go back and forth on this but this is not what I am puzzled about.
Why can we put time back on in this case and not other the other errors? Or is that coming and this is a test scenario on how well we can manage the clocks to see if it can be expanded....

Are you asking us to know why the rule was written as it was? I don't think anybody here was in the room when the correctable error rules were written or when this new throw in rule was written.

So I'll go back to my original answer. The reason why is because that's how the rules are written.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

And, the casebook contains one or two other errors that are correctable but are not Correctable Errors (I forget the details at the moment).