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".....

give them the two free throws....and the ball....no problem....thats the award for the penalty.....just don't move the throw in spot.....

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.

So again, what you want FROM US?

Do you think we write the rules or something?

Aren't you an official? What are you going to do about fixing this?

well all I can tell you was one of the coaches was really happy to see the ball get moved to half court and the other one wasn't.....I'll let you figure out which one was which.....

I'm guessing you were the one that wasn't?

that was funny:D

Because at the HS level I believe the NF wants to make these actions more punitive. It is that simple from my point of view. The purpose of sports in other levels is not the same at the HS level.

Peace

It's times like this I really miss Jurassic. :(

I never asked you to do anything....this is an officiating forum where I thought we could discuss things like this and seek out opinions from other officials and have some discussions.....

quite honestly I am surprised by the "thats just the way it is, it all comes out in the wash, make your free throws" points of view.....

I would have thought there would have been more "you know it doesn't make a lot of sense" views in here.....but I guess I was wrong

I just think it should stop at two shots and the ball.....and leave it at that....take the "ball at halfcourt" part out....

and to answer your last question, I have submitted this question to our local state rules interpreter and asked that it be passed on to NFHS and also to Peter Webb and the powers that be at IAABO as it appears according to the NFHS website that is how we are supposed to inquire....

nope I was the official working the game....and who answered inquiries afterwards about the reasoning behind "that part" of the rule.....

and the reason I came in here to ask the question.....because I didn't (and I still don't) have a good answer as to why we have to move the ball to half court after a technical....other than, thats just the way it is....

this situation got me to thinking how stupid it is that we automatically, no matter what, move it to half court.....thats what causes the problem...

if we just leave it where it was going to be thrown in, we don't have to answer these questions......

two shots and the ball....leave it at that

Eh, they can be unhappy all they want. They had a chance at 2 free points, after all.

did you not read the initial post/situation....in this situation who got "punished" by moving the ball to half court.....it sure as heck wasn't the team that got the T.....

Look, we do not care who won. We are not here to complain about what the rules should be for the most part. That is the rule. That is the way the rule has been for years and just because the rule is done different is not our concern.

Peace

So where would you have the ball thrown in on a technical against the head coach?

What you seem to be disappointed with is that nobody so far shares your view that this is a problem.

My explanation is always "That's the rule coach."

There are currently two ways play is resumed following technical fouls.

POI : This means whoever had the ball last gets it after the shots are done. NBA and NCAA use this for some of their free throws. It means the guilty team gets the ball sometimes, depending on what type of technical foul.

Ball at half court : Every technical foul, at every level, that is not adminstered with POI is done this way. NFHS has determined, to keep it simple (whether you buy it or not doesn't matter, that's their reasoning) and have all of them administered this way.

Making the change you suggest would mean, sometimes, a team would be put into a worse position. If the T was called prior to a throw in deep in the BC, then your change would send the ball back there. You're essentially asking that we take into consideration the location of the ball (or pending throw in) when the technical was called. This isn't POI, but a sort of hybrid.

Frankly, I can only imagine how badly this would screw up the rules if they were to make this change, but other than that, it's not an unreasonable change. It's just that it's essentially a solution in search of a problem.

You said it "cost" the team the game. That's what I object to. They had two free throws, with no one on the lane to distract them. If his best shooter can't even make one of those, he needs to redirect his anger. You say that doesn't matter, but it I disagree. As bob noted, two shots and the ball at half court is better than no shots and the ball on your own end line.

Only a coach who just had his best shooter miss two freebies would bother to complain about this, IMO.

OK, it doesn't make much sense to me.

But, why should I care either way? I choose not to muddle up my brain with "what I wish a rule would be" so that I can concentrate on what it actually is and administer it properly.

And since I bounce back-and-forth from college to HS games throughout the season, it's more important for me to know the rules than question them.

You asked a question, you got an answer, now you are still complaining. You must have been a coach at one time, because that what happens when coaches ask me about a rule they don't like.

The punitive action is giving the ball to the team that was offended. Not to possibly give it to the team that caused the T in the first place. You got the ball, what is the problem? Putting in the ball under the basket does not necessarily make you have a better advantage. There are 3 seconds on the clock, not .3 seconds on the clock. That is plenty of time to shoot the ball from another position where under the basket you might not get a good look at all.

Again, this is not our problem. Because if the T was given to the team that was called for the FT and you give them the ball under their basket, some would say that was not right either. It is all about perspective.

Peace

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.....

As a coach, I'd rather diagram a play from the division line than from underneath my basket. I would feel I could better utilize the spacing on the court.

I rarely see any plays where the PG runs down to the end line and yells "Motion!!!" :cool:

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.

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.

And intentional foul has a lot differences for one, it is involves contact with a player, not just an act that might be called on anyone. The team called for an intentional foul might not even involve the ball. You are trying to be too cute with your logic. The rule is the rule, get over it. It is not changing at all for until the end of the season and I doubt the rule will even change at that time either.

Peace

the team that was offended already had the ball....and they were going to keep it and throw it in under the basket.....then there was a T and their throw in spot got moved to half court....if you or anybody else in here doesn't think that is a disadvantage I don't know what else to say....

Why am I supposed to care? My job is to officiate the game according to the rules, not ensure everyone has a fair experience.

Three seconds is a lot of time from the to ball being inbounded at the division line. Actually unless you can get the pass directly in the lane area, then you are making a possible bad pass or you are not going to get time to make a couple of passes to get the shot off in time. The division line at least gives you a chance to get someone up in a spot to take a decent shot. But I get your point. I just see plays work better in that situation away from the basket unless the defense completely misses an assignment, which usually does not happen that badly.

Peace

I am aware of the who had the ball. My point is that it was not a tragic situation. The NBA runs plays all the time from half court and you see a spectacular play. Closer is not always better. But if that is the worst you have to complain about, that is not the rules makers problem. Because the alternative is to possibly give the ball to the other team and you get no shot at winning the game. At least you still had a chance in this specific situation.

Peace

Maybe we should let the offense check the ball at the top of the key after a 'T'. Or we can go all soccer-like and have them take penalty free throws from the spot of the infraction.

[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

Spot of the foul != point of interruption

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

could go back and forth all day about different scenarios....time/score/ etc....but its not the point...for every one of your I'd rather have it at half court....I'll give you the 0.02 seconds left and I have a 7 foot center scenario where I want it under the hoop to make that in bounds pass...

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...

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

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.

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....

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

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

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 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....

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...

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.

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

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....

This has been said before, but here goes it....
 

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

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.....

: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.....

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.....

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.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/J3_IT622Sbc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Just sayin...

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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. The Magnificent ...
 

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

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...

Because I'm Your NFHS ...
 

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

lol
 

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......

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

Dixon, I've told you your idea isn't a bad one. Makes sense. Ok with me. But your "tell that to the losing team" attitude about it and idea that this is some severe injustice that demands immediate attention is where you lose me and likely everybody else. Any coach on the planet who blames this rule for losing shouldnt be a coach. Any team that blames this rule for losing a game isn't much of a team and never will be unless those thoughts change. That coach and that team need to look in the mirror.

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

How would this be coming from upper levels? There is no level who does it as you suggest. None.

Let's move the situation. A1 scores to go up by 1 with 3 seconds left and gets a T for taunting (assume he earned it). Would you rather have B take their shots and then head back down to the other end for the end line throw in?

Your initial argument makes no sense at all. POI would potentially give the ball to the offending team, which is silly. And in at least half, if not the majority of cases, you will end up putting the offended team at a disadvantage rather than an advantageous position. Only in a small number of cases would your awesome rule change help the offended team. You have tunnel vision - all you're seeing is the affect from this one play that might (might not) help this team, who would have probably won the game if they made the free throws. The free throws matter. Everything that happened earlier in the game matters, too. If they hadn't missed shots in the first half they may have won, too. You can't blame the rule for this loss. Lighten up, Francis.

Horse dead, buried, dug up, beaten.