Astute Coach …

[BillyMac]

I’m the trail. Team A, who has been struggling to break Team B’s press all day, is once again struggling in their own backcourt and, as usual, I’m counting ten seconds.

Ball is deflected by Team B, and “pin balls” on the floor for a few seconds, but I’m keeping my count because Team A never lost team control. I’m getting really close to ten when A1 picks up the ball on the table side “neutral block” and gets ready to throw a pass. I figure it’s going to be thrown into the frontcourt, but instead A1 passes it to A2, still in their backcourt, across the basket line, past the “wing” position, near the sideline. I’m past ten when the pass is in the air, so I sound my whistle just before A2 catches the ball.

My partner, the new trail, is getting ready to administer a opposite table side sideline throwin, when Team B coach politely asks, “Isn’t it a throwin from the lane area?”.

He catches me off guard and I start to say, “No”, but give it a second thought and say, “Yeah, you’re right”.

4-4-3: A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

9-8-Penalty: The ball is dead when the violation occurs. The opponent is awarded a possession throw-in in its frontcourt at one of the four designated spots nearest the violation.

[ChuckS]

I had the opposite happen this week. I am administering a throw-in on the endline, near the lane. Defense deflects the throw-in OOB, near the corner. I start to administer the throw-in near the corner, and the coach says "It should be near the lane...I know the new rule".

If anyone knows the reason why OOB throw-ins are not subject to the new rule, I would love to know. OOB is a violation, just like the others.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

If anyone knows the reason why OOB throw-ins are not subject to the new rule, I would love to know. OOB is a violation, just like the others.

The rationale for the new rule is a joke from a bunch of circus clowns

The rationale for the new rule was: Simplifies throw-in procedure when there is team control in the frontcourt and the defensive team commits a violation, eliminates much of the judgment for an official about where exactly the throw-in spot should be located and allows teams to develop throw-in plays both offensively and defensively from four pre-determined locations.

So let's break down the rationale.

Simpler? No way, not even close, it's way more complicated.

Eliminates much of the judgment about where exactly the throw-in spot should be located? Absolutely no way, officials still have to know which of the four spots to use based on the exact location of where the defensive violation or defensive common foul occurred (the Rocket Ship diagram). And, of course, we still have to set the designated spot along the frontcourt endline or sidelines closest to the exact spot of any defensive OOB violation.



Allows teams to develop throw-in plays both offensively and defensively from four pre-determined locations? Really? Was the rules committee high when they came up with this rationale? In the frontcourt, teams still need inbounds plays from every single inch along the two sidelines and the endline. If teams plan inbound plays for the four pre-determined spots, what happens when the defense deflects the ball out of bounds in the endline/sideline corner?

For some reason, possibly more tolerant in my old age, I haven't said this in a while, but I have to say it now.

Stupid NFHS.

[Raymond]

It's real simple. If there's a foul or violation that would have went to any spot along the sideline, it goes to the 28 ft line. If a foul or violation would have went to the end line, it goes to the three foot mark. That way we don't have to tell coaches the exact spot the foul or violation correlated to. Don't forget, rules are written by the participants of the game, not the officials. So for some reason coaches wanted this rule. I think it's pretty obvious why they wanted it. They got tired of getting conflicting answers from officials on the court.

Out of bounds, is out of bounds. You don't have to guess where the ball should be. I don't know why folks are trying to make it more complicated than what it is.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

They got tired of getting conflicting answers from officials on the court.

Rarely, if ever, does this occur in my little corner of Connecticut.

During a timeout, IAABO mechanics always have the soon to be administering official standing with the ball at the throwin spot, designated, or where the inbounder will be given the ball to run the endline.

If I'm at the division line on the jump ball circle during a timeout and a coach asks, I just point to my partner standing with the ball.

I can't fathom how that is overly complicated.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Rarely, if ever, does this occur in my little corner of Connecticut.



During a timeout, IAABO mechanics always have the soon to be administering official standing with the ball at the throwin spot, designated, or where the inbounder will be given the ball to run the endline.



If I'm at the division line on the jump ball circle during a timeout and a coach asks, I just point to my partner standing with the ball.



I can't fathom how that is overly complicated.

That's good for your little corner. My widespread experience is officials not knowing the exact spot their partners would be administering from. Now it is really, really simple...and communicated immediately.

If officials focus on what we're doing NOW instead of who is on their lawn, it shouldn't be a struggle.

AGAIN, this rule originated from COACHES.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

This is not that hard. Why are we making this so hard? If you call the violation, you should know where the location of the next throw-in is. Tell your partner where you want the throw-in. Problem solved.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you call the violation, you should know where the location of the next throw-in is. Tell your partner where you want the throw-in.

Agree 100%. That's exactly what we've been doing for the past forty-plus years.

The only time that we've had problems in the past is with a few officials who identify wrong throwin spots. Three seconds, not the point of interruption. Backcourt, not always at the division line. Double foul, not closest spot to the foul. Foul away for the ball, not point of interruption.

None of these problems will disappear with the new rule (or the old rule), but will only get better with some old fashioned "book learn'in".

[BillyMac]

... let the lie in it.

Originally Posted by Raymond

AGAIN, this rule originated from COACHES.

I can't argue with that, nor do I want to.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The only time that we've had problems in the past is with a few few officials who identify wrong throwin spots. Three seconds, not the point of interruption. Backcourt, not always at the division line. Double foul, not closest spot to the foul. Foul away for the ball, not point of interruption.

I misspoke. Just worked with a first year official a few days ago who was very good except for one thing - poor preliminary signals.

I'd be observing my primary coverage area, hear his whistle, and not knowing what caused the whistle (because I wasn't watching), look for his "at the site" preliminary signal to know what I was to do next - color, direction, force a switch, identify a free throw shooter, etc.?

The only way I knew if it was a foul, or a violation, was if he left the site of the call to report, or stayed at the site.

Worst issue was shooting foul, or possession (designated spot).

Kids were asking me to what to do next (line up for free throws, inbound (which team)) and I often had to wait until I saw what my partner reported to the table, and even then, I wasn't sure.

We discussed it after the game.

Give clear preliminary signal for all fouls, let partner know "what's next" by indicating shooting foul, or designate out of bounds spot, before leaving the area. Noncalling official should communicate to calling official if the ball went in the basket, identify free throw shooter, and force the switch.

None of these problems will disappear with the new rule (or the old rule), but will only get better with some old fashioned training.

[Raymond]

Now coaches know if we simply say sideline, they don't have to worry about what part of the sideline, they know. If we say end line, they don't have to worry about what part of the end line, they know.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Now coaches know if we simply say sideline, they don't have to worry about what part of the sideline, they know. If we say end line, they don't have to worry about what part of the end line, they know.

Again, during a timeout, we just point to our partner on a boundary holding the ball, no need to say anything.

Raymond's most recent post is true for almost all frontcourt timeouts (but not after timeouts granted during a throwin after out of bounds violation), some frontcourt violations by the defense, and all frontcourt non-shooting fouls by the defense.

But not for any frontcourt out of bounds violations by the defense.

It's only a small sample size for me, only eleven games over the past two weeks, but I'm estimating that most (possibly slightly more than half) of my frontcourt violations by the defense, that require a front court throwin by the offense, have been due to frontcourt out of bounds violations by the defense.

Teams still need to know frontcourt inbounds plays from the endline/sideline corner, as well as every other single inch along the frontcourt endline and sidelines.

Lots of frontcourt out of bounds calls in a game, many by the defense, and lots of places where the ball can go out of bounds in the frontcourt.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... true for almost all frontcourt timeouts (but not after timeouts granted during a throwin after out of bounds violation), some frontcourt violations by the defense, and all frontcourt non-shooting fouls by the defense. But not for any frontcourt out of bounds violations by the defense.

This sounds simpler than the old rule?

I'll agree that the new rule isn't much more complex than the old rule, but it certainly isn't any simpler, as stated in the NFHS rationale.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Again, during a timeout, we just point to our partner on a boundary holding the ball, no need to say anything.

Raymond's most recent post is true for almost all frontcourt timeouts (but not after timeouts granted during a throwin after out of bounds violation), some frontcourt violations by the defense, and all frontcourt non-shooting fouls by the defense.

But not for any frontcourt out of bounds violations by the defense.

It's only a small sample size for me, only eleven games over the past two weeks, but I'm estimating that most (possibly slightly more than half) of my frontcourt violations by the defense, that require a front court throwin by the offense, have been due to frontcourt out of bounds violations by the defense.

Teams still need to know frontcourt inbounds plays from the endline/sideline corner, as well as every other single inch along the frontcourt endline and sidelines.

Lots of frontcourt out of bounds calls in a game, many by the defense, and lots of places where the ball can go out of bounds in the frontcourt.

All those words are going to distract you during a game.

Not sure what out of bounds has to do with the easiness of determining a throw-in spots for fouls and violations? Only people who have problems are those who are more concerned about not liking the mechanics than knowing the mechanics.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

All those words are going to distract you during a game.

While "distracting" is a strong word, I'll have to answer "Somewhat" based on my first eleven games.

I thought that it would be easier, but me and my partners have had to "re-adjust" the throwin spot several times in each game. Some times instinctively going to the closest spot (as I've been doing for forty-plus years), and then realizing that we have to move it to one of the four spots based on the new rule. Or, seldom, wanting to go to one of the four spots (possibly after a timeout) but then realizing that it was originally an out of bounds violation, and move it to the closest spot to the out of bounds violation.

Not just me, but all of my partners, and everybody else I've observed so far this year.

I'll get it eventually. It only took me a month to get use to two hand reporting. However, it's been a few years and I'm still stopping the clock for held balls with a "jump ball" signal instead of an open hand first.

Old dog (very old), new tricks.

And I still contend that the new rule isn't "simpler" than the old rule. What's simpler than closest spot?