Where is the Throw-in?
 

Team A throws the ball out of bounds on the side line. Team B has a throw-in at the location the ball went OOB. As Thrower, B1, attempts the Throw-in, B1 steps into the court before the ball is released. Does Team A's throw-in come back to the original spot? Or does it go to the 28' mark?

That's a rule change / clarification for this coming year and we'll have to wait for a case play or to see the actual wording to be sure.

(I'll vote for the 28' mark.)

Editorial changes with a throw-in location.
 

Peace

Eight Pre Marked Spots ...
 

Me too.

It's no longer an out of bounds violation (nearest spot), but a throwin violation (nearest of eight pre marked spots).

But I still need more clarification from the NFHS to be sure.

Rule 9-2 Penalty clarified that when an infraction occurs on a throw-in, the location of the violation is the original throw-in spot. If the original throw-in spot is not a designated spot, the ensuing throw-in is moved to such a spot.

This "word salad" above just confuses me.

The original rule change was quite simple, out of bounds, closest spot; any other violation or foul, closest pre marked spot.

Live ball clock running time out: closest pre marked spot, still not too complex.

Exception for timeouts after an out of bounds, original spot, still not too complex.

And similar throwin timeouts under other circumstances (other violations and fouls)

Four spots to eight spots and interpretations for backcourt violations; still kept it relatively simple.

Things got difficult when the NFHS made it more complex with various interpretations involving violations during the throwin for an out of bounds violation.

Makes me yearn for the good ole days, only three years ago.

Or maybe we should go back four years before any of this crap started.

It was a solution looking for a problem.

I do like the three point arc instead of the rocket ship diagram.

I don't have access to books. Has "a designated spot" been defined in rule 4?

Just asking because, as I've mentioned somewhere else, I think there is going to be some confusion because a throw in after an out of bounds violation is a "designated spot" throw-in, as it is colloquially called, universally, throughout the officiating community.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Agreed. I've been thinking about the language, but I am traveling and away from my books. And, it's subject to change once the NFHS clarifies things. But, I think this is a start:

Two types of throw-ins: “Run the Endline” and “Spot”

Run the Endline

After a made or awarded score
After a time out that happens before the throw-in ends
After a defensive violation (kick or fist) or common foul that happens before the throw-in ends

Spot

Division Line Opposite the Table

To start the second, third, and fourth quarter
After any T
After a timeout that happens before the throw-in ends

Along a boundary line closest to the violation

After an OOB violation
After a time-out that happens before the throw-in ends.

At one of the eight designated spots

After any other violation or non-shooting personal foul
After an intentional or flagrant personal foul
Both of the above including any that happen during any throw-in
After a time-out that happens before the throw-in ends

Timeout Before The Throwin Ends ...
 

After two plus years of somewhat confusing experience, didn't this stay at the original spot (unless it was originally at one of the eight premarked designated spots)?

Throwin Violations ...
 

(Note: "Other" meaning other than an out of bounds violation.)

Does other include throwin violations?

A timeout has never moved the location of the throw-in. Never has, and not sure why that is confusing. If the violation was an out-of-bounds throw-in and they cannot get off the throw-in and call a timeout, we do not move the throw-in spot several feet because of only a timeout. They made that clear in the roll out of the 4 spots in the FC.

I get some situations being an issue, but this is not one of them.

Peace

Always Listen To bob ...
 

A throwin originally due to an out of bounds violation?

Or a throwin for some other (non OOB) violation or foul?

It's bob jenkins recent post that confuses me.

Timeout ...
 

How about a timeout taken during a player control, team control, live ball, clock running situation?

Doesn't (or didn't) the throwin in get moved (if it wasn't there already) to the nearest of the eight pre marked designated spots?

Deep In Frontcourt Corner ...
 

White 10 is about to get caught up in a held ball situation deep in the frontcourt endline corner, just outside the three point arc. Head coach of White Team requests and is immediately granted a timeout. Coming out of the time out, White team gets the subsequent throwin at the nearest pre marked designated spot, the 28 foot line (not down in the corner).

Right?

That is certainly a move, and a change of location, after a timeout.

I would say that throw-in location is determined by where the ball was when the time-out occurred, not that the time-out moves the location. The spot doesn’t change after the time-out. It is the same as when the time-out was granted and when it was started.

1) I thought about this while traveling, and put it on paper while poolside

2) Wasn't meant to replace the actual rules -- just to try to address some of the confusion

3) "After a TO before the throw-in ends" was meant to apply ONLY during the specific throw-in type being discussed.

4) I did forget "TO during a live ball" -- this goes to one of the 8 designated spots. I'll add it.

5) "Any other violation" means any non-OOB violation -- including, imo, any throw-in violation for some other type of throw-in. (subject to change based on Fed interps and the actual rule wording)

If you have a PC foul, it goes to one of the four spots. If you have a timeout before the throw-in ends, why would the spot move? When did that ever happen?

Peace

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

Timeout ...
 

I'm pretty sure that the interpretation, especially in the first year, was that if a player/team called a timeout during a live ball clock running situation (player control, dribbling or holding) in the front court (back court added the second year) that the subsequent throwin would be from one of the four (or eight) closest premarked designated spots, not the spot closest to where the ball was when the timeout was originally requested and granted (as we did for the past century).

This whistle was not due to a foul or a violation, the new rule in its simplest form, but is nevertheless a stoppage in play (like a held ball, or inadvertent whistle) that requires the subsequent throwin to be at one of the four (or eight) closest premarked designated spots.

Note, I'm not talking about a timeout requested and granted during the five seconds during an ongoing live ball (clock stopped) throwin subsequent to an out of bounds violation, nor a time out requested and granted immediately after a whistle (stopping the clock) for an out of bounds violation. I believe that these all go back to the original out of bounds throwin spot.

Could someone please confirm or deny.

Yes, that last paragraph, the next throw-in goes back to the original spot where the timeout was called or granted. That has always been the case, even with the new rule.

Peace

Timeout Spot Being Moved ...
 

Lets talk about my first paragraph (quoted above).

Is this not one very specific example of a "spot" being "moved" due to a timeout?

Player dribbling the ball requests and is granted timeout while deep in the frontcourt corner outside of the three point arc.

Won't the subsequent inbounds throwin be from the twenty eight foot mark on that side of the court?

Is this not one very specific example of "moving a spot" (in this case moving a spot almost twenty eight feet) "because of a timeout"?

Yes.

No. At least not as most who speak English would use the phrase "moving a spot." There is no spot until the TO is granted. Then the spot is established and thereafter doesn't move

Six Seven ...
 

Good point.

The designated spot moved from where it was three years ago (almost 28 feet)?

Parlez-vous français?

Thanks.

Always listen to bob.

MY games last about an hour, not three years.

No, no more than it would be "moving the spot" for a foul or violation. It's making the throw-in spots consistent, like they were before "marked spots".

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Semantics ...
 

After forty-five plus years, I will admit that the spot didn't move, but it simply changed and almost twenty eight feet is a pretty big change (as I got a few questions about such by coaches and partners over the past two years).

Not the first time spots have changed. At one time wasn't the spot after a technical foul at the division line on either side of the court (can't remember how it was determined)?

Need a little help here Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

You keep talking about this spot moving (which it doesn't). The spot is established when play is stopped and where the ball was when play was stopped or the foul or violation took place. That spot is specifically established on the location of a foul or violation. You keep talking about something that moves 28 feet when we say anything outside of the 3-point line all those times, the throw-in goes to the 28 foot mark. It is that simple. If it is an out-of-bounds violation, it goes to where the ball is out of bounds. Who else is having this issue with this at this point?

Peace

Changes (David Bowie, 1971)
 

As I already clarified, in many (but not all) situations the designated spot has changed its position from a few years ago (from nearest spot to nearest of the eight marked spaces).

I called that change in position a "move" and others disagreed with my word choice.

Move: To cause something to go from position to another.

The closest spot was based on a different model. We do not use that model anymore. I do not get why this is so hard?

Peace

Out With The Old, In With The New ...
 

That's what this entire thread and some upcoming NFHS (hopefully) clarifications are all about.

Of course I know that we are now using a new model.

I've been comparing what we used to do in the old model with the new model.

With the new model, some timeouts (i.e., immediately before, or during, a throwin), result in the original spot; other timeouts (requested and granted during player control clock running) result in nearest of the eight spots.

Just two choices.

OK, so what is the problem? How is that confusing?

Peace

Little Sketchy ...
 

Once it was pointed out to me the difference between a "change" and a "move" I became fully on board.

I fully understand the different timeout scenarios, but not so for many of my partners over the past two years, and some varsity guys I observed in state tournament games two years ago.

I'm still a little sketchy on throwin violations.

The answering got away from the original question. Let me restate the question.
Where is the Throw-in, when a throw-in violation occurs during a throw-in following an Out-of-Bounds violation?
For you IAABO members, look in the IAABO Handbook 2025-2026 pages 412-413 Chapter 12, Segment 2E. So if it is on the sideline, then it goes to the 28' mark.
IAABO posted a 'Make the Call' play. A1 has the ball for a sideline throw-in. The Throw-in is close to the Volleyball attack line. The attack line is 10' from the division line, thus it is 32' from the endline on a 84' high school court. If the court is 94' (NCAA), then this attack line is 37' from the endline. A1 throws the ball directly into the basket. This throw-in must be from an Out-of-Bounds violation because the throw-in IS NOT at the 28' mark. Their correct response to the play is Team B gets the throw-in at the designated 28' mark. Thus the new throw-in 'moves' slightly from 32' to 28' from the endline.
That's my answer and I'm sticking to it. BillyMac get out your slide ruler
I hope the 'New' rule will be clearly stated. :-)

I agree with IAABO that the second throw-in in the above play would be from the 28' mark.

It's not a repeat, or a continuation, of the original throw-in, nor is it a throw-in under the same conditions

Always Listen To bob ...
 

I agree with bob jenkins.

The new 2026-27 IAABO Handbook (rules, case plays, mechnaics) just came out online and seems to imply that bob jennings is correct, but it's poorly worded.

Throwin Violation After Out Of Bounds ...
 

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8e226394_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a6f41ba7_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6373149d_b.jpg

That's what I have been saying this whole time.

Missouri, The Show Me State ...
 

You certainly showed us!

Wait? What?

Aren't we supposed to show you?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.1...=Api&h=220&P=0

Be Quiet
 

I have been told... Officials don't want to hear what I have to say. They do not want me to speak, Even when I am spoken to. Just listen

Speak No Evil ...
 

Three Questions ...
 

Not only am I a very curious person, but I also want details, and I'm never satisfied until I get all my questions answered.

During all my thirty years of teaching middle school science, I was always limited to only three questions at all monthly faculty meetings.

Somehow my referee colleagues discovered this, and I was likewise limited to only three questions at our local referee board's meetings.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.u...=Api&h=220&P=0

The wording on 3. is: "When a throw-in violation occurs during a throw-in for a violation (other than an out-of-bounds violation)".

The only reasonable way this can be parsed is that this applies only if the original throw-in was not for an OOB violation, because otherwise it would have been worded as "When a throw-in violation (other than an out-of-bounds violation) occurs during a throw-in for a violation".

Other Than ...
 

Odd wording by IAABO.

If the original throw in was for other than an out of bounds violation, then it must have been for another type of violation, a foul, or some other stoppage in play and would have been at one of the eight spots anyway.

Various types of timeouts could complicate the issue.

I am still trying to get the confusion. If it is not a violation for a throw-in, then it goes to the out-of-bounds spot. Why are we still struggling with this, and why are we adding timeouts to it? If the violation occurs, we do not move the new spot. When would that ever happen?

Also, this is basically how the NF describes this right now. For some reason, it was never noted like the other violations at the location of the possible spot in Rule 9. This is to help correct this.

Peace

Timeouts ...
 

Ordinary garden variety live ball clock running timeout requested and granted? Throwin at one of the eight spots.

Out of bounds violation followed by a requested and granted timeout? Throwin at the spot closest to the out of bounds.

Non out of bounds violation, foul, or any other stoppage in play? Throwin at one of the eight spots.

Out of bounds violation followed by a requested and granted timeout followed by a throwin violation? Throwin at one of the eight spots.

Non out of bounds violation, foul, or any other stoppage in play followed by a throwin violation? Throwin at one of the eight spots.

Of course.

Why? Where in any rules does it say if you have an out of bounds violation you move the spot because of a timeout? Why? The spot is where the timeout took place, just like always.

It is one of the 8 spots because of the violation or foul, not because of the timeout. We would put the ball before because of where the ball was located when a timeout is called. The timeout situation is as it has always been based on factors of where we calling the timeout and put it at the closest spot. Now we have the spots on the FC and BC and we put it simply based on if it is outside the 3 point line or inside the 3 point line. Sorry, but not sure where you are getting that we move any spot because a timeout changes things.

Peace

Throwin Violation ...
 

It's moved to one of the eight spots because of the throwin violation, not because of the timeout.

What Timeout ???
 

What timeout?

I did not mention a timeout in this situation.

You did not say this below?

If the throw-in violations took place, it goes back to the original spot. Like throwing the ball out of bounds with no one touching the ball. Or like a 5-second violation. Nothing says we move the spot to my understanding. And now there is editorial clarity that is to make this clearer. I have not seen the final version of this wording either, just stating that they cleared this up at some point.

Peace

IAABO Throwin Violation ...
 

It's "only" an IAABO interpretation, but IAABO and the NFHS have been working closely together for the past several years.

It appears that throwin violations (not at one of the eight spots) subsequent to an out of bounds violation move to one of the eight spots.

Of course, if a non out of bounds violation, foul, or other stoppage in play leads to a subsequent throwin violation one is already at one of the eight spots and stays there.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8e226394_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a6f41ba7_b.jpg