I have never done this. I have only indicated when they can run.
Perhaps I should start telling the players, "Do not pass go and do not collect $200."

Bob, between you and I and the keyboard, I understand that and like I said to MBryon, I'm probably doing the same thing and calling the violation whether I remember if I verbally or visually stated spot throw-in. Like I also said, it hasn't or will probably never happen with me because I know that I am suppose to do this. But if I does happen to me, depending on the situation, I may be inclined to re-set and if the coach mumbles about it, I will tell them why I did the "do-ever" (coach, I am required to verbally and/or visually give the spot throw-in and I didn't, plus you're up 40 points so stop whining). :D

You're usually the "Mr. Rulebook and Officials Manual" referee so you do as you please. I guess in this case, you're the "Mr choose what rule or mechanic I am going to comply with" referee. :D

It's a simple mechanic that can avoid any confusion, so why not put it in your game.

Because it is a new manual and I haven't read through the entire thing yet.

That statement was not in the previous manual.

The mechanic tells you <b>where</b> the spot is and whether it's a designated spot. It doesn't give anybody license to commit a <b>subsequent</b> violation. You're choosing to completely ignore NFHS rule 9-2-1.

Do what you want to do, Joe. You obviously don't believe any of us. For others reading this who might not be sure, you would be wise to check with your local rules interpreter before doing what Joe is recommending.

You're trying your awful darnest to put words in my mouth or telling others what I am and what I am not advocating. I gave the actual page number of the mechanic, you should do, just like all officials should do, when somebody says something, go back and read what he is referencing or go back to the rulebook or manual and check it for yourself.. Now again, and again, like I said to Bob, Mbryon and others, I would probably call the throw-in violation like the OP did, regardless of what I did or didn't visualize or verbalize to the thrower. I just brought up the other stuff so "newer" officials or officials who didn't know, that it is a prescribed mechanic to visually and verbally state what type of throw-in is going to happen at the ENDLINE, when the clock is stopped, period. Again, that's page 53 of the Officials Manual #5 (RIF).

Those are your exact words, Joe. That's what you advocated.

You are advocating a do-over after a player has committed an obvious violation. You are advocating officials to completely ignore NFHS rule 9-2-1.

<b>In my opinion</b>, you do <b>not</b> understand what the mechanic entails. Your advice above is <b>wrong</b>, again imo. Also, imo, the "newer officials and officials who aren't sure" shouldn't believe me or you. They should check with their local rules interpreter.

Is that clear enough for you?

Again, that's what you advocated.

And if a coach asks me wth I am doing, I will simply say "coach, I am required to vebally and visually tell the thrower it is a spot throw-in and I didn't do that" now you're up 40 stop your whining.. :D

This situation isn't happening to me. If I did screw it up and not do as I am suppose to, again, I may be inclined to reset the throw-in.

Again, and again, and again..... It's a prescribed mechanic in the officials manual, that's really all i was trying to point out. I hope somebody saw that or somebody who didn't know realizes that "when the clock is stopped, we should use the proper verbal and visual signal to indicate whether a spot throw in or running the end line privileges are in effect". Hopefully I made my point, so I'm done with posting with you on this. I'm not on here trying to see how many posts I can post on this site.

I am not convinced that the verbal and visual signal is anything new. I think it is the same procedure (i.e., wave the line, finger back-and-forth, or point to the spot) with the addition of words (i.e., "it's a spot", "you can run").
The purpose remains to be to keep all participants on the same plane (as always) and is not specifically directed to the in-thrower.

And further, I suspect you have been doing that mechanic for years.
[ '05-'07 Officials Manual Ref: 223. Reminders (last sentence.)]

You can't make a ruling if you don''t know the rules.

The rule to know is 9-2-1.

I'm done too.

No one is really arguing that you should do the mechanic. The point is, do you reset if you forget and the thrower violates? No.

Likewise, we're supposed to count the players prior to the ball becoming live. If we forget once, and suddenly Team A has 6 playing, are you going to re-set because you forgot a mechanic? I hope not. The responsibility is still on the players.

No I will not reset in your situation. Now I am going to play Nevada... Can you show me in the manual where we are suppose to count the players prior to the ball becoming live, with the exception of the Jump ball to begin play?

You know it's not there, JoeTheRef. That is under the unwritten Preventive Officiating Techniques section learned at camp.

I know this Mick, and you may know that I know this. But the very simple mechanic that I am just trying to bring to light is in the Officials Manual. Really, that's all I'm trying to point out. Not trying advocate kicking any rules, but honestly I can think of several situations where I've called a live ball back because I didn't do something that I am required to do or because i gave the wrong information, and one of those is at the free throw. If I gave the wrong information, or didn't give any information and the free thrower has the ball (now live) are we saying I can't blow the whistle and get the ball back to give the information or give the right information? Again, the mechanic is written in the manual and we all already use it, the point was to inform those who don't use it or it or didn't know. Maybe I shouldn't have initially wrote it as an absolute that I would re-set the play, because chances are I wouldn't. I know I read somewhere on this site that "there are no absolutes in this racket"...