Throw-in Reset
 

Situation: After timeout official fails to designate spot for throw in. Official hands ball to Thrower A1 which he/she proceeds to run the endline. Official sounds whistle and basiclly gives team A a mulligan and tells the thrower that it is a spot throw in. Is the official correct? I tend to think so because the Official's manual 2.2.2 A.2 states the "The spot should be designated by the administering official." Is this similar to when the official announces to the players during a free throw "1" or "2" shots or even fails to tell them?

Some may argue that the throw-in should be assumed to be a 'designated spot' throw-in unless otherwise stated by the official.

Personally, I would be inclined to call the violation on this. To me, it's more like failing to count the number of players before starting play.

It certainly looks better if you tell them it's a designated spot. But they still violated.

+1

I've had a lot of players ask me this year whether or not they are allowed to run the end line on a throw in.

Would this be a "teaching moment" for lower level games?

Depending on how "lower" you're talking, but perhaps. A quick "you only get that after they make a basket" might fit.

I always (well, assuming it's after a TO or similar and I'm administering the throw-in) answer that question, at every level.

I always communicate the type of throw-in to A1 on any endline throw-in from the backcourt.

+1 (especially if the kids has the wherewithal to ask)

Right. Not saying I would ever ignore the question.

Sounds like a good habit to get into.

I'll answer this each and every time regardless of what level. This assumes I haven't already informed the thrower to whether or not it is a designated spot throw-in.

What is the rationale for not answering this simple question? :confused:

I don't ignore the question. What I meant by a "teaching moment" was, if the violation happens at a lower level, would you stop the game, re-iterate the rule, and then go on? Or just call the violation, even after saying "Hold your spot"

Naw, just answer them. It's a legitimate question...no more, no less...and it only takes a second to respond. But if they violate, as Scappy said, you do have to call it.

Gotcha. I'd probably go ahead and call the violation, especially if I told the thrower what type of throw-in it was. You better believe they'll know the rule after you call the violation haha :D

Well, you need to "stop the game" to call the violation anyway, and the violation includes (or should include) a verbal "left the spot" (or similar), I'm not sure what else there is to say.

Doesn't "re-iterate" and "iterate mean the same thing?

Does anyone care?

That ain't no double negative:D

Yes, kinda like ravel and unravel.

And in my experience, no, nobody cares. :p

It's also the proper mechanic.

Like I said, a good habit:)

When using the ROP procedure, there will be no time to give proper mechanic.

Sure there is; just because A1 isn't there to hear it doesn't mean you can't take the half a second to specify the type of throw-in.

if a tree falls in the forest....:D

"Hold your spot"?? Does this mean you'll call a violation if they move? Not valid as a 'teaching moment', IMO. Verges on coaching a player, which is above our pay grade!
Just plain old "Spot" does the trick as well as "2" on free throws or "Blue" on throw in. No need for superfulous, er, superflus, sperlious.....er...superfluous
unnecessary verbiage.

You calling for your dog?

You're talking to a specific player, not making a call. Being a little more conversational is not a bad thing.

I either tell the player "You can run the line" or "You have to throw from this spot", or "Its a spot throwin". I want them to understand what I'm adminstering....not just communicate the minimum and tag them with a call if they don't grasp it.

While "2" on the FTs might be sufficient, "2(3) shots" provides a confirmation of the number with the plural "shots" vs. "1 shot" or "1 and 1" ..... This allows for a little higher chance that everyone gets the information. This is completely different than something like "I've got a foul on while number 42 with a block" where the extra words are truly a waste.

I've cut my FT words down to "1," "2," or "3," but I agree adding the word "shots" isn't really an issue. I used to have the nasty habit of adding something like, "this one's live" or "relax on the first one" as if they didn't know.

On the throw-ins, I do the same as you. "Here's your spot," (accompanied by a point to the spot) or "You can run the line."

Which One Won't Catch On Fire ???
 

Flammable and inflammable.

"Boy, I won't make that mistake again!" -- Woody from Cheers.

I don't see it as coaching to tell the players (and I always make sure both teams know) whether it's a "spot" or "you can run". And when the defense comes right up to the boundary line, I say "You can move back, but not side to side". I don't want the kid to hear "spot" and think, he has to stand there with the defender in his face.