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

[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.

[Dixon21]

[QUOTE=Welpe;943834]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.[/QUOTE

????....wait wat....lol

T during live ball = throw in spot where the ball is at the time of whistle

dead ball T= wherever the ball was to be thrown in prior to T

[Welpe]

Spot of the foul != point of interruption

You do realize the throw in on an intentional foul is where the foul is, right coach?

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Spot of the foul != point of interruption

You do realize the throw in on an intentional foul is where the foul is, right coach?

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...

[LSCoach]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

yeah...and I'm not a coach

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.

[Dixon21]

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....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

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

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

Originally Posted by Dixon21

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

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.

Originally Posted by Dixon21

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....

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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

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

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.

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

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....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

????....wait wat....lol

T during live ball = throw in spot where the ball is at the time of whistle

dead ball T= wherever the ball was to be thrown in prior to T

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

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

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

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

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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 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...