Thorw-In Spot

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bucky

Forgive me...can't recall exactly but...

Ball goes out of bounds last touched by Team A. Team B has throwin nearest the spot of the out of bounds violation. Team B commits a five second throwin violation. Team A is to inbound the ball due to Team B's five second throwin violation. Is ball inbounded at original out of bounds spot, or the closest of the eight applicable designated spots?

This is the throw-in team committing a throw-in violation. Wasn't there a previous situation discussed whereby the inbounding team inbounds the ball but it touches nothing and continues out of bounds? And wasn't the decision to give the ball to the opponent for a throw-in at the original spot?

If so, what is the difference? Or, what am I missing? In once case, the inbounding team commits a throw-in violation and the subsequent throw-in is at one of the 8 spots and in the other, it is at the original spot.

Per this season’s NFHS rules all throw-in violations result in the opposing team being awarded a throw-in at the nearest of the 8 spots to the violation based upon being either inside or outside of the 3pt arc.

[bucky]

Yup, thanks Bob/Nev. Eight spots it is!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ball goes out of bounds simultaneously off two opponents. Alternating possession arrow is utilized. Now becomes an alternating possession throwin. Is ball inbounded at original out of bounds spot, or the closest of the eight applicable designated spots?

This was not a rhetorical question.

[bob jenkins]

OOB spot. Use the reason the ball became dead; not the method of determining who gets the throw-in.

So, simultaneous BI violations, or "through the basket from below" -- use one of the 8 spots.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

OOB spot. Use the reason the ball became dead; not the method of determining who gets the throw-in.

So similar to a timeout taken immediatley after an out of bounds violation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So similar to a timeout taken immediatley after an out of bounds violation?

Or just use the rule. Paraphrased: Use the 8 spots for a foul, any violation except OOB, or any other reason the ball becomes dead.

Nothing in there about complicating things with the AP arrow.

Held ball uses the arrow. Simultaneous OOB uses the arrow. That doesn't mean treat a held ball the same as simultaneous OOB.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Use the 8 spots for a foul, any violation OOB, or any other reason the ball becomes dead.

I certainly try to understand, and I want to understand, but I still find it somewhat confusing.

Not a big deal if I screw up in the first period, but if I screw up in the last ten seconds of a close game it can be disastrous, especially with throw in spots that can "magically move" almost thirty feet.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I certainly try to understand, and I want to understand, but I still find it somewhat confusing.

Not a big deal if I screw up in the first period, but if I screw up in the last ten seconds of a close game it can be disastrous, especially with throw in spots that can "magically move" almost thirty feet.

Sorry --edited my rules statement: Use the 8 spots for a foul, any violation except OOB, or any other reason the ball becomes dead.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Sorry --edited my rules statement: Use the 8 spots for a foul, any violation except OOB, or any other reason the ball becomes dead.

Still not right. See my post above about goaltending and defensive BI, but even a technical foul would make the above statement false.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Still not right. See my post above about goaltending and defensive BI, but even a technical foul would make the above statement false.

Agreed, and that's why it's a paraphrase of the rule. I'm just trying to get BillyMac off the "AP arrow effects" on the spot

[BillyMac]

Everything except simple uncomplicated out of bounds plays, technical fouls, and the start of periods, should be at one of the eight spots.

Anything that complicates a simple whistle for an out of bounds play, like opponents simultaneously last to touch, team last to touch unknown to the officials, immediate timeouts, timeouts durng the throwin, or subsequent throwin violations, should be at one of the eight spots.

As I've said before, I find this so distracting (along with the new bounce the ball across the lane on a backcourt endline throwin) that I often fail to advise (orally and with a signal) the inbounder on a backcourt endline throwin if he has a "spot", or can "run the endline", something that I was previously very good at.



Of course, it doesn't help that most of my partners don't know, or don't care, about this new (now two years old) rule.

This was a solution looking for a problem.

All we really needed was to just get rid of the old imaginary "rocket ship" trapezoid and switch to the three point arc.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Everything except simple uncomplicated out of bounds plays, technical fouls, and the start of periods, should be at one of the eight spots.

We could even use the frontcourt twenty-eight foot spots after technical fouls and to start periods, the frontcourt of the team to inbound.

Then the only time we don't use any of the eight spots is for simple, uncomplicated out of bounds violations.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed, and that's why it's a paraphrase of the rule. I'm just trying to get BillyMac off the "AP arrow effects" on the spot

It's often hard to focus these conversations on realistic situations that legitimately need to be addressed or debated bc of rabbit holes that are placed on the landscape.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's often hard to focus these conversations on realistic situations that legitimately need to be addressed or debated bc of rabbit holes that are placed on the landscape.

The implementation and "roll out" of this new rule over the past two years was not the NFHS's best work.

It was certainly a far reaching rule change across many aspects of the rule book that had a built in high degree of difficulty and high probability of some problems from the get go.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The implementation and "roll out" of this new rule over the past two years was not the NFHS's best work.

It was certainly a far reaching rule change across many aspects of the rule book that had a built in high degree of difficulty and high probability of some problems from the get go.

It really was not that hard. You have tried to invoke every possible inconsistency when the reality is that most situations are rather straightforward.

I have hardly had a single issue with where to put the ball in play the last two years. And this year they made it easy, outside the 3 point line or inside the 3 point line. Not really hard.

Peace