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

[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.