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

[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

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

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.....

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

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.....