Thorw-In Spot

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

That's definitely a "you" problem. You work the slowest paced games, yet you still can't concentrate on basic things.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The spot does not change after a timeout.

So, which of my interpretations were wrong?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... you call something it goes to a spot. Now we put it in only 4 spots in almost every case.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Originally Posted by Raymond

Everybody in this discussion except you knew he wasn't talking about OOB plays when referencing the four spots.

I did know that JRutledge was not talkng about out of bounds plays.

I was just pointing out that there does not seem to be a simple statement or "rule of thumb" to cover everything.

That why this new rule is scattered all over the rulebook.

First hint of a problem showed up early last year when the NFHS had to deal with issues regarding backcourt, that it eventually fixed.

I don't beleive that a simple statement, or "rule of thumb", to cover everything is, or will be, possible; each situation has its own interpretation.

That's been my point throughout this thread.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I did know that JRutledge was not talkng about out of bounds plays.

I was just pointing out that there does not seem to be a simple statement or "rule of thumb" to cover everything.

That why this new rule is scattered all over the rulebook.

Early last year the NFHS had to deal with issues regarding backcourt, that it eventually fixed.

I don't beleive that a simple statement, or "rule of thumb", to cover everything is, or will be, possible; each situation has its own interpretaiton.

You said the rule was not explained very well. Well, the change made it clear that out-of-bounds violations were different. Not only was this something other levels did, this certainly applied to the change for the NF.

Nothing covers every possible situation in one location of the rulebook. Many rule changes, even the BI and GT rules, have layers to them. But you said it was not made clear, and I am asking how that is? But again, I have rarely seen anyone not adjudicate the rule rather easily and consistently. And if you are stuck on the term "rule of thumb," well, that can apply to many things. But the 8 spots apply in almost every case except for an out-of-bounds violation. If you start in a location, it does not move because of something else almost all of the time. Why would the location move? It did not move before, so why now? The rule basically says why we put the ball at a spot, no different than before. It is all about the live ball action that we stopped the game, whether a foul, violation or stoppage. If we were not moving the ball before on some situations, why think that means something different now?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Throwin violation (eight spots)

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where does it say a throw-in violation changed to one of the 8 spots if the original violation was not at the 8 spots? You calling a 5 second violation that was a throw-in as the result of out of bounds violation, then you are moving it to the 4 spots in the frontcourt or backcourt?

Thanks for checking.

I was using the concept that most violations go to one of the eight spots.

Are you sure I was wrong?

Enquiring minds want to know.

These are the odd plays that I've been talking about.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I did know that JRutledge was not talkng about out of bounds plays.

I was just pointing out that there does not seem to be a simple statement or "rule of thumb" to cover everything.

That why this new rule is scattered all over the rulebook.

First hint of a problem showed up early last year when the NFHS had to deal with issues regarding backcourt, that it eventually fixed.

I don't beleive that a simple statement, or "rule of thumb", to cover everything is, or will be, possible; each situation has its own interpretaiton.

That's been my point throughout this thread.

Your point mostly is confusion, including confusing yourself.

Jeff didn't make a blanket statement that covered everything. You specifically referenced OOB in response, which obviously was not part of his statement. You did that just to be obtuse.

You're constantly having problems remembering new rules or concentrating during games. Maybe the problem is your train of thought and how you approach learning rules.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Nothing covers every possible situation in one location of the rulebook.

Agree. My point exactly. Well spoken.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks for checking.

I was using the concept that most violations go to one of the eight spots.

Are you sure I was wrong?

Enquiring minds want to know.

These are the odd plays that I've been talking about.

It is not about being wrong; I was only addressing your claim that these situations were not relatively clear. That, to me, you were actually rather wrong about. Unless a play is an out-of-bounds violation, you use the spots stated in the rule in the FC or BC. Even the committee said that all BCVs are to be assigned to one of the 4 spots in the new FC. That, to me, was the only major issue that was confusing because of how other levels handle some BCVs. Nothing changed in how we administered technical fouls, so it seems like, as Raymond said, you were confusing yourself mostly, not what was stated in the rules.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You said the rule was not explained very well.

Yeah, we were pretty much told out of bounds are treated as in the past and everything else (violations and common fouls before bonus) go to one of the four (now eight) spots, and a brief mention about timeouts.

No mention of held balls, goaltending, defensive basket interference, throwin violations, alternating possession arrow, inadvertent whistles, etc.

We were all sent into our games last year with our own interpretations of "odd" situations.

Other than the change from four spots to eight spots, the use of the three point arc instead of the imaginary trapezoid, and bouncing the ball across the lane on a backcourt endline throwins, there was no followup this year on the new eight spot rule because most of our time was spent on the new rules for above the rim plays.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Throwin violation (eight spots)

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not about being wrong.

I still want to know if I was wrong.

I learn a lot from this Forum.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless a play is an out-of-bounds violation, you use the spots stated in the rule in the FC or BC.

Some throwin violations happen after an out of bounds violation.

Thus, it's originally an out of bounds violation that now turns into a throwin violation.

Original OOB spot, or one of eight spots?

Throwins that don't result from an OOB violation are most likely already at one of the eight spots.

Or are they?

Throw violation during a throwin following a technical foul, or at the start of a period?

Original spot, or one of eight spots?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I still want to know if I was wrong.



Some throwin violations happen after an out of bounds violation.

Thus, it's originally an out of bounds violation that now turns into a throwin violation.

Original OOB spot, or one of eight spots?

Throwins that don't result from an OOB violation are most likely already at one of the eight spots.

Or are they?

Throw violation during a throwin following a technical foul, or at the start of a period?

Original spot, or one of eight spots?

Pretty sure all those have been addressed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I still want to know if I was wrong.

I learn a lot from this Forum.



Some throwin violations happen after an out of bounds violation.

Thus, it's originally an out of bounds violation that now turns into a throwin violation.

Original OOB spot, or one of eight spots?

Throwins that don't result from an OOB violation are most likely already at one of the eight spots.

Or are they?

Throw violation during a throwin following a technical foul, or at the start of a period?

Original spot, or one of eight spots?

Every one of those situations was addressed by the NF, and even when there were questions, they clarified all of those situations. You just choose to try to find nits in the s#!t to prove something, which I have no idea what is being proven.

Peace

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Thanks Nevada! Very helpful!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Some throwin violations happen after an out of bounds violation. Thus, it's originally an out of bounds violation that now turns into a throwin violation. Original OOB spot, or one of eight spots?

Eight spots, no longer an out of bounds violation.

PENALTY
The ball becomes dead when the throw-in provision violation occurs.
1. When a throw-in violation occurs during a throw-in following an
out-of-bounds violation, the offended team is awarded the ball for a
designated-spot throw-in from the applicable throw-in spot.

"Applicable" not "original".

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Throw violation during a throwin following a technical foul, or at the start of a period? Original spot, or one of eight spots?

Original spot (sure surprised me).

When a throw in violation occurs during a throw‑in for a violation, foul or other stoppage, the offended team is awarded the ball for a designated‑spot throw‑in from the original throw‑in spot.

Rather than rely on some general "rules of thumb", I decided to use the "penalty" section of different rules (common fouls, violations, etc.) that would subsequently lead to a throwin.

General "rules of thumb" will definitely never work with these new throwin rules.

It's time consuming, I need to study and memorize, and will have to look at each individual situation at a time.

Thanks to JRutledge for his post:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Nothing covers every possible situation in one location of the rulebook.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...to prove something, which I have no idea what is being proven.

To quote JRutledge:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Nothing covers every possible situation in one location of the rulebook.