After a "T" why do we move throw in spot to half court...?
 

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

I saw this "cost" a team in a game I was officiating.....

3 seconds left

Team A 60
Team B 61

Neither team in bonus

Team A gets fouled under the basket they are trying to score at. The foul is not a shooting foul and Team A will not be shooting free throws. The designated throw in spot is outside the lane under the basket they are trying to score at.

Prior to the throw in a technical foul is assessed to Team B.

Team A misses both free throws (but thats not the point)

Now Team A has to take the ball out at half court instead of under the basket where the originally would have. Team A ends up having to launch a desparation shot from much further away than they potentially would have had they been able to run in an bounds play from the original throw in spot under the basket they were trying to score at.

In my opinion, they were put at a disadvantage from the new throw in spot. Being awarded free throws is not the issue here and whether they make them or not doesn't matter.

Why are we still doing this?

They had two free throws, the throw in spot didn't cost them the game. Missing those free throws did.

I don't know why it is the way out is. Probably because on a technical foul, the POI may well be the other team getting a throw in.

Also, poi is not the right term here. In the case of intentional personal fouls, it's put in play at the spot of the foul. That's completely different than POI.

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.....

This goes back to simplification of enforcement which is something that the Fed tries to take into consideration. It's much easier to say that all technical fouls result in two shots and a throw in for the offended team at half court. Otherwise you will have multiple throw in spots such as what NCAA has. That's not something Fed wants and would prefer a uniform approach, even if sometimes it is at the cost of "fairness."

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.)

The NCAA uses POI because it believes on most Ts 2 free throws is enough. Like Adam said, POI results some times in the team receiving the T keeping the ball after the other team shoots its free throws. The NFHS still wants a penalty that always gives the non offending team 2 shots and the ball. It has just declared the ball goes mid court opposite table.

What you are asking for is that the team entitled to the 2 shots and the ball be given the ball where it was located when the T was called. that doesn't sound unreasonable but neither does giving it at mid court. it isn't like your situation happens all the time. if the ball was in the backcourt when the T was given the team would be given an advantage by the mid court rule.

I will say I've coached a team where i would have felt better running and inbounds play under the basket (a stack play, assuming the zebras don't let the other team in:)) rather than shooting 2 free throws. So I hear what you are saying. However, long before I blamed a rule or asked that it be changed, i'd tell my kids this is why you need to shoot free throws every day…alot of them...and concentrate when you do. I'd also look at all the other shots the team missed, defense, lack of blocking out etc….did i call the right plays or have the right people in the game..that's my two cents.

.

One reason is I won't remember where the throw in spot is. I am lucky if I can remember a number from the spot of the foul and reporting it to the table.

But what happens if the losing team gets the ball under the opponents basket and is foul then a T. They would get a huge advantage throwing in at half court whether they make free throws or not.

I can't come up with a play where "two FTs plus the ball back at mid court" is worth less than "no FTs and the ball at the original spot." So, while the penalty might not be as advantageous as it would be if the ball was at the original spot, it's not exactly a loss for Team A.

Mine is not to reason why...


BTW, what is a disadvantage for a frontcourt T, is an advantage for a backcourt T. So it all comes out in the wash.

not buying the "simplification of enforcement" arguement.....it would actually make it simpler to get rid of the half court option.....and it would make it less confusing....the throw in spots would be uniform (meaning where they would have normally been)....moving to half court actually adds to the number of potential throw in spots instead of getting rid of some....

and I would think....getting as close as we possibly can to fairness with all of our rules and administrating procedures would be something the federation would be all about.....

3 seconds left if plenty of time to run a play that originates from the division line. A throw-in from the offensive end line probably would have been passed out to the 28' line anyway.

what most don't understand is that the score, time, making or missing the free throws, etc....doesn't matter

and I am all for keeping the spot the same, no matter who the T is on so that you take "gaining an additional advantage or disadvantage" of moving the ball to half court out of the equation.....

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......

So what do you want from us?

The NFHS has determined that the advantages of shooting 2 free throws outweigh the possible disadvantage of moving the throw-in spot.

And remember, rules come from what coaches want seen, so you should also post this question on a basketball coach's forum.

if the ball was in the back court at the time of the T....I don't think they should be allowed to advance it to half court for the throw in.....

my point is to take the automatic moving of the the ball to half court out of the equation "no matter what".....