View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 21, 1999, 10:15pm
Todd (Mike) Mullen Todd (Mike) Mullen is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 31
Question

quote:
Originally posted by Thom on 12-21-1999 08:25 PM [T]he rule now fascinates me. We have a baseline in-bounds play in which the in-bounder hesitates for a 3 count after throwing the ball in before she enters the floor. [W]ould this be considered a "delay in re-entering the floor to gain an unfair advantage"?


Similar to my comment in the other thread:

It is a technical foul (10-3-4) for a player to "leave the court for an unauthorized reason or delay returning after legally being out-of-bounds." (Nowhere does it mention "unfair advantage.")

I cannot find a definition for "legal" reasons for being out of bounds, but the case book gives two examples of the application of this rule and one is similar to your question.

Case 10-3-4b describes a play where the thrower, after inbounding the ball, moves along the end line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen. The ruling is a technical foul because, "in this case it should be obvious that [the] movement out of bounds along the endline was to take advantage of the screen."

In your case, according to the rule, your player delayed returning to the court after being legally out of bounds (I will go out on a limb and postulate that a player is legally allowed out of bounds for the throw-in), so I can only say it is a technical foul.

Does this mean all officials will call it? I have no idea. When I played, we often went out of bounds, especially when there was a lot of traffic under the basket, during the normal running of our offense - and even on defense.

If it is a technical for an offensive player to step out of bounds to avoid a three second call - is it a technical for a defensive player to step out of bounds to go around a screen and avoid a fouling the screener?

My problem is that without a definition for "legal" reasons for being out of bounds, I am reluctant to expand the definition beyond the two examples in the case book. Perhaps the rule book [as opposed to the case book] should be clearer on this.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

[This message has been edited by Todd (Mike) Mullen (edited December 21, 1999).]
Reply With Quote