Is it outside the 3-point line? Yes, it goes to the 28-foot mark. Again, the rule is clear: a foul, violation (not OOB), or stoppage of play (which is an injury or timeout) occurs, the ball is put at the 4 spots. The only change last year is it did not apply to the backcourt before last season. Now it does. So what is the issue here? We no longer use the arbitrary lines that we had to kind of imagine to determine where we would put the ball before last season (at least in the backcourt). So why is this a struggle to understand?

Peace

Garden Variety Timeout ...
 

JRutledge misinterpreted my post. Not a player control foul, but simply a player holding or dribbling the ball in the frontcourt and requesting and being granted a timeout.

During the first year (only four frontcourt spots), we were told that while this was not a (non OOB) violation or foul, it was a stoppage of play that led to a throwin at one the four (now eight) pre marked designated spots.

Was out local interpreter originally mistaken, or has the interpretation changed since then?

Simple Timeout ...
 

This situation is simply a player holding or dribbling the ball in the frontcourt and requesting and being granted a timeout.

During the first year (only four frontcourt spots), we were told that while this was not a (non OOB) violation or foul, it was a stoppage of play that led to a throwin at one the four (now eight) pre marked designated spots.

Was out local interpreter originally mistaken, or has the interpretation changed since then?

Foul Followed By A Timeout ...
 

It wouldn't. Always beleived that (now eight spots). Never said it any other way.

Very Long Move ...
 

Always beleived that (now eight spots). Never said it any other way.

Agree. Simple and well stated.

Now we just need to take care of those pesky throwin violations subsequent to an out of bounds violation.

Yes, a TO request during a live ball that was inbounds goes to one of the eight marked throw-in spots.
A TO request during a throw-in or during the dead ball prior to a throw-in kept the ensuing throw-in at that location.

No the interpretation was always the same. Maybe your people that you spoke to did not know the rule very well?

Peace

Easy Peasey Lemon Squeezy, Not ...
 

Our local board IAABO trainers breezed through the new eight spot rules at our first (interpretation) new rules meeting (the same "breeze through" for the four spots the year before) like this would present no problems for anybody.

In the first year almost all my subvarsity partners really didn't seem to fully embrace the new rules. Even varsity friends that I observed in the state tournament had some issues.

The second year, I saw no improvement with my subvarsity partners. I hope the varsity guys and gals did better in the state tournament, but I did not have any opportunity to observe them due to my late season battle with sciatica (snow shoveling followed by four days of middle school and freshman games in a row, 72 year old bodies are not designed to "push through pain" like young'uns).

The NFHS and IAABO could have done a better job with these new rules over the past few years.

Well, he or she must have really blown through that information because this could have been easily cleared up and has been several times. Also, NASO and others put out information that made it clear what we do with those 4 spots. Timeouts were made very clear where the ball goes when the rule was first put in place, and just expanded the information to the backcourt before last season.

I am a basketball clinician with my state, and in the meetings I presented, I addressed this on my own, did not need anyone to ask a question. That being said, we did have some questions from officials who were hearing the presentation, but I directly addressed how they were handled. So if this was not addressed in your area, shame on them for not being clearer. This was not that difficult honestly. It goes to the 28 or the 3 foot mark. Now we have the 3 point line as the line of demarcation.

Peace

All Cleared Up ...
 

First year we spent much of the (needed) time on the new and improved faking being fouled rule, especially the timing the warnings and penalties.

Some marked spot issues with backcourt and various timeouts.

Some held ball marked spot isssues, a held ball is technically not a violation nor a foul, but is a stoppage in play.

Wise move by the NFHS to go from four marked spots to eight marked spots.

Now we're dealing with throwin violations.

Hopefully the NFHS (and IAABO) will get this all cleared up this coming season.

Again sounds like a personal issue of understanding or a lack of understanding. I was not struggling with FBF because, as a college official, we were doing this for some time. I just love that we had people so loud about "It was already a technical foul," but never called that ever in their careers but would tell you how much the rule was already in place. Now they came up with a remedy and now that is too much to handle (officials in general) and people come up with all kinds of reasons not to call a FBF warning. So instead of the behavior stopping, we keep it going because everyone in the game does it.

I do not see anything the NF or the IAABO needs to clear up, the rule is already in place. They changed some wording to take away some debates over when that original spot is to be considered, but it seems like people were just trying to overthink this anyway, and why we are where we are.

Peace

Throwin Violations At Non Marked Designated Spots ...
 

Throwin violations after an out of bounds violation at non marked designated spots.

I would like to see the actual wording of the new clarified rule as well as some case plays, or annual, interpretations, just to be certain.

In my opinion, it is no longer an out of bounds violation (closest spot, marked or unmarked), but it's now a throwin violation (closest marked spot).

I actually gave the editorial wording. So if you do not understand it beyond what was shown, then I cannot help you beyond that. ;)

Peace

Interpretation ???
 

I wonder how many Forum members agree, or disageee, with my interpretation?

Or does everybody want to wait for the actual rulebook language, maybe some case plays, or annual interpretations, and the preseson meeting Power Point presentations?

I am sure there is someone who might be confused. But considering all the things out there and those trying to be so super specific with language, of course, there is likely a situation or two that might be confusing. My point is, there is literature out there that makes it clear you would not move a spot because of a timeout. Not before the change of the throw-in spot from the 3 point line to after. Sounds like you are likely stuck on what an interpreter did not cover IMO. Can you not just call or contact that person? People contact me all the time with this kind of stuff.

Peace