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

[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

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....

Because a T does not have a spot of the foul like an intentional foul. All fouls give the ball back to the offended team (unless there is a double foul element). Why would we treat a T any different? And an intentional foul might not take place at the other end of the court and in your situation with 3 seconds a team will have to go the length of the court to make the shot. Again, make the FTs and none of this is and issue. There is only so much a rule can do for you anyway.

Peace

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Because a T does not have a spot of the foul like an intentional foul. All fouls give the ball back to the offended team (unless there is a double foul element). Why would we treat a T any different? And an intentional foul might not take place at the other end of the court and in your situation with 3 seconds a team will have to go the length of the court to make the shot. Again, make the FTs and none of this is and issue. There is only so much a rule can do for you anyway.

Peace

:rollseyes:....again making or missing doesn't matter.....but just for fun, use my original scenario but make Team A down by 3 instead of 1 and say they do make both throws.....the bolded attitude above baffles me.....

[Dixon21]

lol....maybe a compromise is to give them an option like many things in football.....

you can take it here (where it would have been)....or you can take it at half court.....

[BryanV21]

With the huge number of rules and their penalties simpler is better.

You may not believe it, but I believe that being able to say "it was a tech, therefore the ball is at mid-court" is simpler.

If the rule was or is changed to "the POI is where the throw-in will be," then I'd learn it and that would be that. But at this point why change it for such a rare occasion?

The answer to the coach when asked why the rule is like that is simply "you know what? I don't know." And it's not your job to know, either. If that coach is so concerned then let him/her go to the NFHS or whoever.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

lol....maybe a compromise is to give them an option like many things in football.....

you can take it here (where it would have been)....or you can take it at half court.....

Dixon, I've decided that, before calling the T, you should have thought about the injustice of calling a T on the team ahead on the scoreboard, requiring the team trailing by 2 to shoot 2 free throws that could have tied the game, and then giving that same team the ball at mid court. You just shouldn't have called the T.

In all seriousness, it isn't too hard to do what you say but it just isn't a big enough deal to change. Good luck to you...

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Dixon, I've decided that, before calling the T, you should have thought about the injustice of calling a T on the team ahead on the scoreboard, requiring the team trailing by 2 to shoot 2 free throws that could have tied the game, and then giving that same team the ball at mid court. You just shouldn't have called the T.

In all seriousness, it isn't too hard to do what you say but it just isn't a big enough deal to change. Good luck to you...

no worries....but as far as not being that big of a deal.....tell that to the losing team......guess it will take it happening in a state final or something.....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

:rollseyes:....again making or missing doesn't matter.....but just for fun, use my original scenario but make Team A down by 3 instead of 1 and say they do make both throws.....the bolded attitude above baffles me.....

If you make the FTs, then what is the disadvantage? The rules allow for you to get FTs with no one on the line, with no one else around the lane to make FTs. Anyone can shoot the FTs that is in the game and then you move on. You miss the FTs, then you consider it a disadvantage. But as shown, getting the ball at half court gives you many options and if you run a play right you might get a very good shot. Life is not always going to be fair and if you cannot make FTs, you have nothing to complain about in this situation.

Peace