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

[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.....

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 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.....

So what do you want from us?

The NFHS has determined that the advantages of shooting 2 free throws outweigh the possible disadvantage of moving the throw-in spot.

And remember, rules come from what coaches want seen, so you should also post this question on a basketball coach's forum.

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So what do you want from us?

The NFHS has determined that the advantages of shooting 2 free throws outweigh the possible disadvantage of moving the throw-in spot.

And remember, rules come from what coaches want seen, so you should also post this question on a basketball coach's forum.

give them the two free throws....and the ball....no problem....thats the award for the penalty.....just don't move the throw in spot.....

[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.

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.



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.

well all I can tell you was one of the coaches was really happy to see the ball get moved to half court and the other one wasn't.....I'll let you figure out which one was which.....

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

well all I can tell you was one of the coaches was really happy to see the ball get moved to half court and the other one wasn't.....I'll let you figure out which one was which.....

I'm guessing you were the one that wasn't?

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.



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.

the enforcement (two shots and the ball) is the same as an intentional foul....but the throw in spot is different....it actually adds another throw in spot to the equation making it less simple......

if we are going by this simplicity of enforcement that you speak of from a procedural standpoint....we should throw in intentional fouls from half court too.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

the enforcement (two shots and the ball) is the same as an intentional foul....but the throw in spot is different....it actually adds another throw in spot to the equation making it less simple......

if we are going by this simplicity of enforcement that you speak of from a procedural standpoint....we should throw in intentional fouls from half court too.....

The thing is, not every technical foul happens at the spot where the ball was going to be put into play. The way it is now, once a T is called, we can forget about the previous spot and who had the ball and all that. It's simple, half court.

With an intentional foul, there is always a "spot of the foul."

Your change isn't a bad idea, but again, I think it's a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't happen often enough to be an issue. No more often than a team actually gets better field position because of the throw in spot.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

the enforcement (two shots and the ball) is the same as an intentional foul....but the throw in spot is different....it actually adds another throw in spot to the equation making it less simple......

if we are going by this simplicity of enforcement that you speak of from a procedural standpoint....we should throw in intentional fouls from half court too.....

Now you're grasping. What is simpler than saying technical foul = division line?

An intentional foul always will have a throw in spot, the spot of the foul. A technical is not always going to have a spot of the foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

the enforcement (two shots and the ball) is the same as an intentional foul....but the throw in spot is different....it actually adds another throw in spot to the equation making it less simple......

if we are going by this simplicity of enforcement that you speak of from a procedural standpoint....we should throw in intentional fouls from half court too.....

And intentional foul has a lot differences for one, it is involves contact with a player, not just an act that might be called on anyone. The team called for an intentional foul might not even involve the ball. You are trying to be too cute with your logic. The rule is the rule, get over it. It is not changing at all for until the end of the season and I doubt the rule will even change at that time either.

Peace