So you're telling me that two rules/mechanics can't/shoudn't be combined unless the NFHS explicity does so for every combination and permutation? Do you need everything spelled out?

Simply put, we have a mechanic that says who is to administer the throwin when the ball becomes dead (and it makes no exception for timeouts). Unless there is something that tells us otherwise, that is what we do. I suggest that it is you that needs to show me something that negates the mechanic we already have.

Agree.

Say what?

Yes, I sureasheck do need everything spelled out. And I need it spelled out from a source other than someone posting on this forum who has no official NFHS rules-making or interpretation powers.

I'm not the poster that's claiming that his way is the only true way, with absolutely <b>no</b> real proof cited to date to back up his claim. That would be you. All I'm saying is that I'm not aware of any definitive NFHS language anywhere that will prove conclusively who is right or wrong. I asked you to cite anything that the FED has issued that will back up your claim and prove that the posters who disagree with you are wrong. I'm still waiting.

Note that I haven't claimed that one side or the other actually has the correct procedure. I'll wait until I see something in writing from a definitive source before I make that decision.

You <b>may</b> right. You <b>may</b> also be wrong.

OK, if you're going to be that stubborn and make me post mechanics 101 show you how to add 2+2, I will type it all out. If you still don't think that is enough, I challenge you (or anyone) to cite anything that suggests these mechanics don't apply when a timeout is called.

Officials Manual #218

b. In the frontcourt, the throw-in is administered by the official responsible for the boundary where the throw-in occurs....

c. The new trail official shall administer all throw-ins in the backcourt and may need to change sides of the court...

Officials Manual #223

Diagram 18 (caption) For the administration of the throw-in in the frontcourt, the Lead official is responsible for the entire endline and the nearer sideline. The Trail official is responsible for his/her entire nearer sideline.... Each official will handle the throw-in our out-of-bounds play in the frontcourt along his/her designated lines.

Diagram 19 (caption) Trail official administers all throw-ins in the backcourt.

There are 5 more diagrams and captions the enumerate the different possibilities implied in #218.

And lastly, Diagram 24's caption (refering to a throw-in in the FC on the lead's sideline above the FT line extended.) says

This is the only non-foul situation in which officials will force a dead-ball switch.

The last statement makes it very clear that there is no switch on a timeout except for that one case. So, if the lead calls a timeout (where the throw-in will be on the endline) and goes to report, do you still assert that it may be possible that trail will go to the spot and administer the throw in? If they do, they've just switched on a dead ball...contrary to my last cite?

Yup, and what about <b>foul</b> situations? Why exactly is there a switch on one case and not others? If the lead calls a TO after making a foul call entailing FT's, why do the officials switch instead of following your proposed mechanic?

You'll find "timeouts" on page 44 in the Officials Manual. Note that "timeouts" is in a completely <b>different</b> section than anything that you have cited above. Note that <b>nowhere</b> under <b>"timeouts"</b> can you find any definitive mechanic listed similar to what you are claiming. Soooooo, cite me something <b>definitive</b> re: timeouts.

I don't have to <b>prove</b> anything. I'm not the one that is making any claims that my mechanic is right and someone else's mechanic is wrong. That would be you. And I hate to say it, but you still not have <b>definitively</b> proven anything about <b>timeout</b> mechanics. As I said, you <b>may</b> be right. You <b>may</b> be wrong.

Please let me know when you find something <b>definitive</b> re: <b>timeouts</b>. Right now, we're going in circles.

Btw, let the record show that personally I could really care less if 2 different officials handle this particular situation differently. It definitely ain't a biggie in the wondrous world of officiating.

Agreed about the importance.

Why is there a switch on fouls? Because the mechancs explicty say to switch on fouls.

What I've shown you is the definitive mechanics on who administers in the general case. I've shown a definitive statement that says the ONLY time a switch should occur is on a foul and on one specific throwin case. To suggest a switch can also occur with a timeout depeding on who calls the timeout is in direct contradiction to that very statement. Unless you can show a specific exception that says the cited mechancs don't apply, you have no basis to suggest anything is correct (or even might be correct) other than what I've posted.

The section on timeouts doesn't change who administers the throwin. That is covered clearly in the sections I cited. The timeout section refereces who administers with regards to where each official should stand but doesn't define or change who will be administering the throwin...so you use the part where it is defined.

Disagree.

Yawn.:)

Your stance is very Old-Schoolian! Presented with citations yet you refuse to believe them....prefering to hold on to the possibility that their might be something else, something else you suggest might be but are unwilling or unable to locate. You can't/won't reference anything that counters what I've cited. Show me where I'm either wrong or even show me somehing that even suggests I'm wrong. You've offered nothing useless but babble.

Old Schoolian? Babble?

I'm through discussing this with you. You still haven't <b>proved</b> a damn thing and I'll leave the name-calling to you also.

What if rainmaker emailed Howard and got his opinion? :D

Seriously?

He was on the FED rules committee and he's a state interpreter. I think that gives him a little more credibility than the average poster on this forum, including myself. Seeing that, unlike other posters in this thread, I haven't taken any position at all yet on this particular question, I sureashell would give credence to whatever his answer might happen to be.

Of course, it's still a "who really cares" discussion imo anyway. I could care less if different officials handled this in different ways. If someone wants to stand someplace during a TO to get a better angle to check out the cheerleaders, and he wants to force a switch to do so, hey, good luck to him. :D

Hmmmmmm........that does bring up any another critical question. If the Manual tells you to stand someplace, do you move for the cheerleaders if they wanna do a routine where you're standing? Or do you have to stand on that spot and let 'em run and jump around you?

That oughta be good for another 10 pages......

That's fine for you OS since you're usually working the big gyms (Rupp Arena, Dean Smith Center, Freedom Hall etc...). For the rest of us, a good gym is where over half of the lights in the scoreclock are working.

Fuel On Fire ???
 

I hate to add "fuel to the fire" of this post, and at the risk of making the situation even more complex, here's my IAABO "two cents". I realize that the majority of officials on this Forum are not IAABO officials, so those who are not affliated with IAABO can ignore this. IAABO switched from NFHS mechanics to IAABO mechanics a few years ago, and although they are very similar, there are some differences. In regard to time out mechanics:

2006-07 IAABO Crew Of Two Basketball Officials Manual, Page 63: "W. Officials do not switch postions during a timeout, positions are to be as prior to the timeout being granted."

I always just stand there and let them rub up against me while they're performing. ;)

Er, just the girls, not the boys. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. :p

BTW - don't argue with Camron. The dude knows what he's talking about. :)