yeah...and I'm not a coach

I was giving you the scenario if our rule on the throw in for a T was basically POI...

And if the ball was on the other end line (with the other team in possession), then what? You would be complaining then too. You need to stop thinking of only this situation, you need to think of the other possibilities. And why would a coach try not to get a T to cause that very thing to happen?

Peace

Maybe I just suck as a coach but I'd be pi$$ed at my player for missing the opportunity to take the lead and run out the clock.

I believe he's not a coach.

thanks for the discussion guys.....surprised most don't agree it's stupid

if our only good reason for moving it to half court is because it's "simpler"....we might want to think about that.....

I still haven't heard a good reason other than that....and honestly thats not even a good reason...and quite honestly it's a pretty lame reason not to change an administrative part of a rule....if we aren't good/focused enough to remember where the ball should be thrown in, we might want to pick up a new hobby....

no I wouldn't be complaining....and I'm not complaining now...just talking about why we move it to half court because I saw a situation where it potentially cost a team....


in the situation you describe the offended team gets the two free throws and then gets the ball which they didn't have....no complaints

and in the original scenario I presented....I never said the T was on the coach....it was actually a player

Most of us do not care. We do not have the energy to dissect every rule.

That is not the only reason you were given. The rule is more punative than other levels. And when a team has the opportunity to make the FTs and get the ball back, other levels do not necessarily give the ball to the offended team.

Well take it up with the rules committee. And you might have to take it up with other rules committees because even at the NCAA level, there are situations where the very same application would take place depending on the classification of the T. And once again, most of us here and other places do not care. Not our job to spend all that time worrying about this issue. Actually the is the first time I have had this kind of conversation about what is equitable with the rule.

Peace

In a way you are. You are asking people that have no decision making process in with rules and telling us what we should think about this or any other rule. And it does not matter if the T was on a coach or a player, the application would be the same. And in a dead ball contact situation at the NCAA, a player T would result in a ball at the division line as well. And dead ball contact Ts in NCAA are always contact with a player. I also did not suggest the T was on a coach. I said a coach could instruct his player to get a T that would put the ball in a worse situation than the end line of the team trying to score.

Peace

no worries....I am only talking in reference to high school....I don't care about what the other levels do.....and what their different enforcements are...or are not....

you basically implied above that it is considered more punitive at the high school level, because it is two shots and the ball at half court no matter what....I just presented a scenerio, that the final administrative portion of the rule "at half court" actually turned out not to be "punitive" to the offending team......that "portion" of the rule actually may have helped them win the game....

no problem...I know it doesn't matter whether coach/player...I was just a little confused by the coach part of your post and was just letting you know it was on a player...

You might actually try articulating that next time then. You made a reference to an intentional foul and I simply explained to you how an intentional foul and technical were not the same thing.

That is fine, but your suggestion is kind of what the other levels do on some level. And if you want to really cause confusion, then do something that other levels have never thought of or have in their rules (that can be dangerous). And why would POI matter then but not in other situations? The flaw as I see it from your point of view, is the fact that if a team does what you suggest, then if the right scenario does not take place, you would have to have an exception to the rule to allow the team the best chance in the closing seconds. Because if this takes place with 10 seconds, I do not even see a problem. It sounds to me like you are looking for a solution looking for a problem.

Peace

my apologies...I thought that was the response you were kind of looking for as in a "what do you do about it when this happens then" scenario...

I was actually hoping to keep POI and comparisions to "intentional foul" out of the discussion as much as possible as I was corrected in the first response about use of the terminology and how it may have confused things....

I really only bring up intentional fouls for comparision....because administration of the two is basically the same except for the following throw in spot.....and people talk about keeping it simple....well we have to remember where to go after an intentional, we could probably do the same after a T....

This has been said before, but here goes it....
 

Because a T does not have a spot of the foul like an intentional foul. All fouls give the ball back to the offended team (unless there is a double foul element). Why would we treat a T any different? And an intentional foul might not take place at the other end of the court and in your situation with 3 seconds a team will have to go the length of the court to make the shot. Again, make the FTs and none of this is and issue. There is only so much a rule can do for you anyway.

Peace

not asking to make any exceptions at all...not asking to give an advantage one way or the other to any team......I am actually asking the opposite....I am actually asking that any possibility of an advantage for any team be taken OUT of the equation by not moving the throw in spot.....

you almost have to look at it backwards.....let's say that since the beginning of basketball....any time there was a T.....the following throw in spot after the two shots just came from wherever the ball was at the time (basically POI)....so no team....no matter who the T was on......benefited at all from the throw in spot.....it was just right there where it would have been normally thrown in....

and then let's say they changed that rule.....and now the throw in spot was moved to half court......?.....now you are bringing potential advantage/disadvantage INTO the equation.......

depending on the sitaution....moving it to half court could be an advantage or a disadvantage......take that possibility out of the equation either way, by just leaving it at (basically) POI.....

:rollseyes:....again making or missing doesn't matter.....but just for fun, use my original scenario but make Team A down by 3 instead of 1 and say they do make both throws.....the bolded attitude above baffles me.....