Straightforward ...
 

Agree, most, but, unfortunately, not all.

"Magically move" correctly, or unfortunately, incorrectly.

And I can assure you that almost all of my partners will not be of any help.

These changes, for some reason, were not highlighted here in Connecticut.

We picked a bad year to only have two educational meetings, with one of them on Zoom.

I've had partners who had no idea that they could bounce the ball across the lane on a backcourt endline throwin.

Also had partners who thought that they could bounce the ball across the lane on a frontcourt endline throwin.

Plays above rim got most of the attention and thus, were the "talk of the town".

Then it's a CT issue, not an NFHS issue. While some everywhere will have issues, here it's only those who pay almost no attention to rules changes, or use "muscle memory" to determine the throw-in spot. No one who is either a reasonable official or who cares (and is trying to be a reasonable official) has an issue with the implementation of this rule.

Old Dogs, New Tricks ...
 

Bingo.

The brain is not a muscle.

I do care and I consider myself a reasonable official (and a local rules expert), but I'm flummoxed at some odd situations (some described in this thread).

If this is that confusing, it seems like you have to go searching for the situations where there might be confusion. Again, just like previously, you call something it goes to a spot. Now we put it in only 4 spots in almost every case. Still have not had this happen in 2 years, where there is that much debate over where those basic spots are. Again, pretty straightforward across the board. The things you focus on are not very common and should be clarified, but not very common in the first place.

Peace

Should Be Clarified ...
 

We agree.

Almost Every Case ...
 

I must have way more out of bounds plays my game than you have in yours.

You mean you are struggling with out of bounds plays? You do not know where to put them? This was not understood at the announcement of the new rules?

Again, I am convinced this is only an issue you are having. I do not know many officials who struggle with where to place an out-of-bounds violation when it is not at one of the 4 spots, but at the actual spot the ball went out of bounds. This sounds like it's a "YOU" problem, not what everyone else is having.

Peace

Added Layer Of Decision Making ...
 

No, I was reacting to your statement, "... you call something ... 4 spots in almost every case".

That's not always true (i.e., out of bounds).

Every time we "call something" (blow the whistle), we now have more additional choices of what happens next.

In almost all cases in the past (with a few exceptions) "next" was to shoot free throws, or to go to the closest spot (based on an imaginary trapezoid), a mostly binary decision choice.

Now (with a few exceptions) it's shoot free throws, closest spot (based on the three point arc), or go to one of the eight appropriate "designated" spots, now ternary decision choices.

An added layer of decision making that can be even tougher is if we have some "weird" plays, that should, or shouldn't, go to one of the eight appropriate "designated" spots.

But what does the rule say? The rule says that it goes to the 4 spots in the FC or BC unless the ball goes out of bounds, in which it is at the spot the ball was ruled out of bounds. Where is the confusion? Again this is my point, you took a basic statement and assumed that there were not out of bounds portion to the rule that I was speaking. That is just being obtuse on your part, honestly. ;)

Unless you have called a technical foul, what are all these options?

You do not see the the 3 point line being a much easier choice to know where to put the ball in play or to put the throw-in? :rolleyes:

What is the added layer? And I do not have games where there are a bunch of weird decisions on fouls, violations, and out-of-bounds violations. Again, unless you call a technical foul, everything fits easily into an easy decision. The only issue is that the wording changed on the "original spot," where if you have a throw-in violation of not touching the ball on the court, that is about the only situation I can come up with that is really a hole. Every other situation, like a timeout or stoppage of play is pretty simple.

Peace

Adjust ...
 

It's much easier and certainly less subjective, but it took me a few weeks to adjust.

Nuanced ...
 

The situations discussed in this thread.

Most decisions are easy; some are more nuanced (my interpretations in parentheses (how did I do?)).

Out of bounds immediately followed by a time out before the inbounds (closest spot)
Violation (not OOB) immediately followed by a time out before the inbounds (eight spots)
Common foul (not bonus) immediately followed by a time out before the inbounds (eight spots)
Goaltending or defensive basket interference (run the endline)
Offensive basket interference (eight spots)
Ball goes out of bounds simultaneously off two opponents (closest spot)
Throwin violation (eight spots)
OOB Team last to touch unknown to the officials (closest spot)
Timeouts during the throwin (closest spot)
Live ball clock running timeouts (eight spots)

Some alternating possession arrow situations go to the closest spot, some go to the eight spots.

There doesn't seem to be a simple statement or "rule of thumb" to cover everything.

Nice list...

If out of bounds simultaneously off two opponents, wouldn't it be an A/P throw-in and thus, at one of the 8 spots?

No, a held ball goes to one of the eight spots. A simultaneous oob violation which requires the use of the AP arrow to award possession is still an OOB violation. The throw-in will be from that location.

The spot does not change after a timeout. If it were an out-of-bounds violation, the timeout never changed the spot before, like it always did. Still trying to figure out the confusion. A timeout never moved the spot where we already were administering the throw-in. Why does this rule change that? It doesn't. And AP Arrow situations go to the 8 spots unless it is an out-of-bounds violation. They made that very clear a couple of years ago and this year the only thing that was reasonable added was the spots in the backcourt. Nothing changed. It sounds like you are confusing yourself more than anything.

Peace

Billy, quit making ridiculous statements. Everybody in this discussion except you knew he wasn't talking about OOB plays when referencing the four spots.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk