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

[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.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Three seconds is a lot of time from the to ball being inbounded at the division line.

Just sayin...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

If memory serves (and I'm sure some on here can correct me if my memory is bad), at one time Ts were one shot and resume from where it was. Over time, two things were done to enhance the punishment: (1) move to 2 shots, & (2) award the ball to the other team -- and that was done with where the ball would be taken out.

So I don't think the change was done to take away advantageous position, but to ensure the ball was taken from the miscreants team. I think you're looking for a "reason" for something that wasn't part of the decision -- just a very rarely encountered side effect. And because it is very rare, no one has ever cared enough to push forward for a change that would permit the team to keep what they deem to be a more advantageous positition for a throw in. (Think about it -- this really only has any negative bite in the last few seconds -- and how often is the team with a thin lead stupid enough to pick up the T at the time? That makes it tough to break inertia and get a rule change.)

So Cal Lurker:

I am just now reading this thread and I am going down it post by post so I do not know if your question has been addressed yet.

In the "Ancient Days" in both boys'/girls' H.S. and men's/women's college, if the TF was neither Intentional nor Flagrant, the penalty for a TF was one FT and a TI at the Division Line with the Team 's Captain would decide from which side of the court to take the TI.

Later the NFHS (first) followed by the NCAA, one year later, made the penalty for TFs two FTs and the ball would be inbounded at the Division Line opposite the Scorer's Table.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

In the "Ancient Days" in both boys'/girls' H.S. and men's/women's college, if the TF was neither Intentional nor Flagrant, the penalty for a TF was one FT and a TI at the Division Line with the Team 's Captain would decide from which side of the court to take the TI.

Thank you oh great seer, soothsayer, and sage. May a bloated yak change the temperature of your Jacuzzi.

[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...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

After a technical why doesn't the throw in spot just go back to where it normally would have prior to the technical?

Like my mother used to say to us, "Because I said so".

[Raymond]

You asked "WHY". You then complained about the answers given. You came here to b!tch about something thinking everyone would jump on the bus with you. Well we didn't. And even if everyone here did agree with you, then what? Where would the conversation go from there?

I don't come here to read gripe sessions so you'll be regularly put off by my responses.

[StripedYooper]

I don't understand where the disadvantage would come from. Even if a team were down three with three seconds left, I would take two FTs by the best shooter on the team and the ball vs no points and the ball regardless of position. Technicals can happen anywhere on the floor and I don't have any issue with the NFHS rule of 2 FTs and the ball at half court.

[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.....

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

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.....

The spot of the inbounds has no part in why a team loses. The fact that 2 free throw were missed, and the missed shots, and the turnovers committed are huge factors.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

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

Just...no. I love football. I also officiate it but football is horribly complex with its rules. There is a certain elegance to the simplicity of basketball, let's keep it that way.

[Triad zebra]

Originally Posted by Dixon21

this makes zero sense.....

I am simply saying take the moving of the throw in spot out of the equation.....the two free throws and the ball should be the only "award" for the T.....moving the throw in spot should not be part of it....the throw in spot should not put either team at an advantage or disadvantage.....leave it the heck alone......

Dixon you need to think about what your saying as you rest your brain tonight. This is just your opinion and no one else is agreeing. And because we don't agree doesn't make your opinion wrong. My opinion is they should award the team 5 points and run the clock to zero, but I don't believe anyone else would agree with me so I don't bring it up. I have read this forum on an extremely regular basis for the past 10 years and I assure you these guys are here to help with any rules questions or interpretations. Don't let your first experience cloud your judgement of the members.

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You asked "WHY". You then complained about the answers given. You came here to b!tch about something thinking everyone would jump on the bus with you. Well we didn't. And even if everyone here did agree with you, then what? Where would the conversation go from there?

I don't come here to read gripe sessions so you'll be regularly put off by my responses.

I did not complain about the answers....sorry if you took it that way...I just saw a portion of a rule that I don't think make any sense and I haven't heard a reason yet that I think really justifies why we take it to half court....if people think it's simpler....thats fine....I think I gave pretty good examples of why it isn't, but so be it.....


I didn't come here to b!tch about anything....I don't have a horse in the race one way or the other.....as an official I just saw a portion of a rule that doesn't make any sense and seems unneccessary....I came here to see if other officials saw it the same way.....sure I countered with some of the discussion, but I'm not looking for people to agree with me, I am actually looking for the reasons why I should change my opinion....I just haven't heard any yet.....

to answer the question about "even if we do, then what"....well maybe as wth anythng if more people discuss it, it will initiate change.....and as an official I think this would be a positive change for our game....

and nobody is forcing you to keep reading/participating iin this thread.....if you don't come here for this, why are you still here......

[Dixon21]

Originally Posted by Triad zebra

Dixon you need to think about what your saying as you rest your brain tonight. This is just your opinion and no one else is agreeing. And because we don't agree doesn't make your opinion wrong. My opinion is they should award the team 5 points and run the clock to zero, but I don't believe anyone else would agree with me so I don't bring it up. I have read this forum on an extremely regular basis for the past 10 years and I assure you these guys are here to help with any rules questions or interpretations. Don't let your first experience cloud your judgement of the members.

I believe it is just a matter of time before we see the change....like many others that have trickled down from the upper levels......

I could really give a rats butt, this is just discussion/debate for me......others seem to be bothered by that.....I had a situation happen in a game and it just didn't "feel right" to me.....so I brought it up......no big deal