Why isn't throw in spot after a "T" POI...?

[Dixon21]

After a technical why doesn't the throw in spot just go back to where it normally would have prior to the technical

I saw this "cost" a team in a game I was officiating.....

3 seconds left

Team A 60
Team B 61

Neither team in bonus

Team A gets fouled under the basket they are trying to score at. The foul is not a shooting foul and Team A will not be shooting free throws. The designated throw in spot is outside the lane under the basket they are trying to score at.

Prior to the throw in a technical foul is assessed to Team B.

Team A misses both free throws (but thats not the point)

Now Team A has to take the ball out at half court instead of under the basket where the originally would have. Team A ends up having to launch a desparation shot from much further away than they potentially would have had they been able to run in an bounds play from the original throw in spot under the basket they were trying to score at.

In my opinion, they were put at a disadvantage from the new throw in spot. Being awarded free throws is not the issue here and whether they make them or not doesn't matter.

Why are we still doing this?

[Adam]

They had two free throws, the throw in spot didn't cost them the game. Missing those free throws did.

I don't know why it is the way out is. Probably because on a technical foul, the POI may well be the other team getting a throw in.

Also, poi is not the right term here. In the case of intentional personal fouls, it's put in play at the spot of the foul. That's completely different than POI.

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by Adam

They had two free throws, the throw in spot didn't cost them the game. Missing those free throws did.

I don't know why it is the way out is. Probably because on a technical foul, the POI may well be the other team getting a throw in.

Also, poi is not the right term here. In the case of intentional personal fouls, it's put in play at the spot of the foul. That's completely different than POI.

the award of free throws and whether they are made or not has nothing to do with it.....thats why I said that twice....and the score of the game doesn't matter either or time on the clock.....(but if it makes you feel better say they were down by 3 at the time instead of 1 and they made them both)

point is....they still get moved back to half court instead of being under the basket.....

even if it is the other team getting the throw in, it should still be at the same spot......it should go both ways....

the terminology is not the issue here.....yes on intentional fouls it is the "spot of the foul".....howver the administration of everything else is just like a Technical (you clear the lanes and shoot the free throws).....but with an intentional you go back to the "spot of the foul".....

why on a technical do we have to go back to half court?.....when as indicated above, it can actually put a team at a disadvantage....

just go back and make it wherever the throw in spot was no matter who the T is on.....IMO changing the throw in spot after a T is unneccessary.....

[Welpe]

This goes back to simplification of enforcement which is something that the Fed tries to take into consideration. It's much easier to say that all technical fouls result in two shots and a throw in for the offended team at half court. Otherwise you will have multiple throw in spots such as what NCAA has. That's not something Fed wants and would prefer a uniform approach, even if sometimes it is at the cost of "fairness."

[Treeguy]

One reason is I won't remember where the throw in spot is. I am lucky if I can remember a number from the spot of the foul and reporting it to the table.

But what happens if the losing team gets the ball under the opponents basket and is foul then a T. They would get a huge advantage throwing in at half court whether they make free throws or not.

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by Welpe

This goes back to simplification of enforcement which is something that the Fed tries to take into consideration. It's much easier to say that all technical fouls result in two shots and a throw in for the offended team at half court. Otherwise you will have multiple throw in spots such as what NCAA has. That's not something Fed wants and would prefer a uniform approach, even if sometimes it is at the cost of "fairness."

not buying the "simplification of enforcement" arguement.....it would actually make it simpler to get rid of the half court option.....and it would make it less confusing....the throw in spots would be uniform (meaning where they would have normally been)....moving to half court actually adds to the number of potential throw in spots instead of getting rid of some....

and I would think....getting as close as we possibly can to fairness with all of our rules and administrating procedures would be something the federation would be all about.....

[Dixon21]

what most don't understand is that the score, time, making or missing the free throws, etc....doesn't matter

and I am all for keeping the spot the same, no matter who the T is on so that you take "gaining an additional advantage or disadvantage" of moving the ball to half court out of the equation.....

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

not buying the "simplification of enforcement" arguement.....

That's your prerogative but that's one of the reasons as to why. Despite what you think, it is far simpler to say that a technical foul will result in two shots and the ball at the division line. The Fed has always put a premium on simplicity in enforcement and that's in all of their sports, not just basketball.

and I would think....getting as close as we possibly can to fairness with all of our rules and administrating procedures would be something the federation would be all about.....

The problem is that the definition of fairness is rather subjective. I personally see nothing unfair with a uniform enforcement like they have now. That is fair in that it is a rule that applies to both teams.

[so cal lurker]

If memory serves (and I'm sure some on here can correct me if my memory is bad), at one time Ts were one shot and resume from where it was. Over time, two things were done to enhance the punishment: (1) move to 2 shots, & (2) award the ball to the other team -- and that was done with where the ball would be taken out.

So I don't think the change was done to take away advantageous position, but to ensure the ball was taken from the miscreants team. I think you're looking for a "reason" for something that wasn't part of the decision -- just a very rarely encountered side effect. And because it is very rare, no one has ever cared enough to push forward for a change that would permit the team to keep what they deem to be a more advantageous positition for a throw in. (Think about it -- this really only has any negative bite in the last few seconds -- and how often is the team with a thin lead stupid enough to pick up the T at the time? That makes it tough to break inertia and get a rule change.)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

If memory serves (and I'm sure some on here can correct me if my memory is bad), at one time Ts were one shot and resume from where it was. Over time, two things were done to enhance the punishment: (1) move to 2 shots, & (2) award the ball to the other team -- and that was done with where the ball would be taken out.

So I don't think the change was done to take away advantageous position, but to ensure the ball was taken from the miscreants team. I think you're looking for a "reason" for something that wasn't part of the decision -- just a very rarely encountered side effect. And because it is very rare, no one has ever cared enough to push forward for a change that would permit the team to keep what they deem to be a more advantageous positition for a throw in. (Think about it -- this really only has any negative bite in the last few seconds -- and how often is the team with a thin lead stupid enough to pick up the T at the time? That makes it tough to break inertia and get a rule change.)

So Cal Lurker:

I am just now reading this thread and I am going down it post by post so I do not know if your question has been addressed yet.

In the "Ancient Days" in both boys'/girls' H.S. and men's/women's college, if the TF was neither Intentional nor Flagrant, the penalty for a TF was one FT and a TI at the Division Line with the Team 's Captain would decide from which side of the court to take the TI.

Later the NFHS (first) followed by the NCAA, one year later, made the penalty for TFs two FTs and the ball would be inbounded at the Division Line opposite the Scorer's Table.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

In the "Ancient Days" in both boys'/girls' H.S. and men's/women's college, if the TF was neither Intentional nor Flagrant, the penalty for a TF was one FT and a TI at the Division Line with the Team 's Captain would decide from which side of the court to take the TI.

Thank you oh great seer, soothsayer, and sage. May a bloated yak change the temperature of your Jacuzzi.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

...
why on a technical do we have to go back to half court?.....when as indicated above, it can actually put a team at a disadvantage....

Mine is not to reason why...


BTW, what is a disadvantage for a frontcourt T, is an advantage for a backcourt T. So it all comes out in the wash.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

the award of free throws and whether they are made or not has nothing to do with it.....thats why I said that twice....and the score of the game doesn't matter either or time on the clock.....(but if it makes you feel better say they were down by 3 at the time instead of 1 and they made them both)

point is....they still get moved back to half court instead of being under the basket.....

even if it is the other team getting the throw in, it should still be at the same spot......it should go both ways....

the terminology is not the issue here.....yes on intentional fouls it is the "spot of the foul".....howver the administration of everything else is just like a Technical (you clear the lanes and shoot the free throws).....but with an intentional you go back to the "spot of the foul".....

why on a technical do we have to go back to half court?.....when as indicated above, it can actually put a team at a disadvantage....

just go back and make it wherever the throw in spot was no matter who the T is on.....IMO changing the throw in spot after a T is unneccessary.....

There are currently two ways play is resumed following technical fouls.

POI : This means whoever had the ball last gets it after the shots are done. NBA and NCAA use this for some of their free throws. It means the guilty team gets the ball sometimes, depending on what type of technical foul.

Ball at half court : Every technical foul, at every level, that is not adminstered with POI is done this way. NFHS has determined, to keep it simple (whether you buy it or not doesn't matter, that's their reasoning) and have all of them administered this way.

Making the change you suggest would mean, sometimes, a team would be put into a worse position. If the T was called prior to a throw in deep in the BC, then your change would send the ball back there. You're essentially asking that we take into consideration the location of the ball (or pending throw in) when the technical was called. This isn't POI, but a sort of hybrid.

Frankly, I can only imagine how badly this would screw up the rules if they were to make this change, but other than that, it's not an unreasonable change. It's just that it's essentially a solution in search of a problem.

You said it "cost" the team the game. That's what I object to. They had two free throws, with no one on the lane to distract them. If his best shooter can't even make one of those, he needs to redirect his anger. You say that doesn't matter, but it I disagree. As bob noted, two shots and the ball at half court is better than no shots and the ball on your own end line.

Only a coach who just had his best shooter miss two freebies would bother to complain about this, IMO.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

After a technical why isn't the throw in spot (POI) point of interruption....just like it is after an intentional foul?

I saw this "cost" a team in a game I was officiating.....

3 seconds left

Team A 60
Team B 61

Neither team in bonus

Team A gets fouled under the basket they are trying to score at. The foul is not a shooting foul and Team A will not be shooting free throws. The designated throw in spot is outside the lane under the basket they are trying to score at.

Prior to the throw in a technical foul is assessed to Team B.

Team A misses both free throws (but thats not the point)

Now Team A has to take the ball out at half court instead of under the basket where the originally would have. Team A ends up having to launch a desparation shot from much further away than they potentially would have had they been able to run in an bounds play from the original throw in spot under the basket they were trying to score at.

In my opinion, they were put at a disadvantage from the new throw in spot. Being awarded free throws is not the issue here and whether they make them or not doesn't matter.

The procedure for intentional foul free throws is the same as a technical fouls, yet on on intentional fouls we go to POI and technicals we go to half court.

Why are we still doing this?

The NCAA uses POI because it believes on most Ts 2 free throws is enough. Like Adam said, POI results some times in the team receiving the T keeping the ball after the other team shoots its free throws. The NFHS still wants a penalty that always gives the non offending team 2 shots and the ball. It has just declared the ball goes mid court opposite table.

What you are asking for is that the team entitled to the 2 shots and the ball be given the ball where it was located when the T was called. that doesn't sound unreasonable but neither does giving it at mid court. it isn't like your situation happens all the time. if the ball was in the backcourt when the T was given the team would be given an advantage by the mid court rule.

I will say I've coached a team where i would have felt better running and inbounds play under the basket (a stack play, assuming the zebras don't let the other team in) rather than shooting 2 free throws. So I hear what you are saying. However, long before I blamed a rule or asked that it be changed, i'd tell my kids this is why you need to shoot free throws every day…alot of them...and concentrate when you do. I'd also look at all the other shots the team missed, defense, lack of blocking out etc….did i call the right plays or have the right people in the game..that's my two cents.

.

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The NCAA uses POI because it believes on most Ts 2 free throws is enough. Like Adam said, POI results some times in the team receiving the T keeping the ball after the other team shoots its free throws. The NFHS still wants a penalty that always gives the non offending team 2 shots and the ball. It has just declared the ball goes mid court opposite table.

What you are asking for is that the team entitled to the 2 shots and the ball be given the ball where it was located when the T was called. that doesn't sound unreasonable but neither does giving it at mid court. it isn't like your situation happens all the time. if the ball was in the backcourt when the T was given the team would be given an advantage by the mid court rule.

I will say I've coached a team where i would have felt better running and inbounds play under the basket (a stack play, assuming the zebras don't let the other team in) rather than shooting 2 free throws. So I hear what you are saying. However, long before I blamed a rule or asked that it be changed, i'd tell my kids this is why you need to shoot free throws every day…alot of them...and concentrate when you do. I'd also look at all the other shots the team missed, defense, lack of blocking out etc….did i call the right plays or have the right people in the game..that's my two cents.

.

if the ball was in the back court at the time of the T....I don't think they should be allowed to advance it to half court for the throw in.....

my point is to take the automatic moving of the the ball to half court out of the equation "no matter what".....