[CMHCoachNRef]

OK, there has been much discussion concerning the delay of return to the court following an inbounds play. I have broken the situations into two categories:
1. The STATIONARY player simply SLOW to get back onto the court -- per the rules, we MUST ascertain intent for a technical foul to be called (Per the NFHS Rules Book: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds).
2. A player MOVES OUTSIDE THE CONFINES OF THE COURT (without worrying about defenders since they are on the court) AND moves around a screen or otherwise returns to the floor from a different location to receive a pass.

I agree that a violation would be more appropriate in situation (2) above than a technical foul, but this situation is clearly gaining an advantage regardless of what the defense does -- short of defending the inbounder by moving out of bounds to prevent the inbounder from being able to use the screen. This fits exactly to case play 10.3.2A.
10.3.2 SITUATION A: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. A1 completes the throw-in to A2 and then purposefully delays his/her return by taking four or five steps along the end line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen setby A3 and A4. A1 gets a return pass from A2 and takes an unchallenged try for goal. RULING: A1 is charged with a technical foul for purposefully delaying his/her return to the court following the throw-in. A1's movement out of bounds along the end line was to take advantage of the screen and return to the court in a more advantageous position.

On the other hand, situation (1) appears to be far closer to the situation presented in case play 10.3.2B.

10.3.2 SITUATION B: After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains there, mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A' frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return and he/she sprints directly onto the court and catches up with the play. RULING: No technical foul is charged to A5. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court.

In the case of 10.3.2B, the defense is REQUIRED to keep track of A5 even though he was not on the court when play commenced. The defense is actually responsible for picking up the player from the bench -- somewhere, anywhere along the bench. In fact, there is no reference as to where the player re-enters other than implying not ahead of the play, but rather behind it. In case 10.3.2B, A5 could legally become the trailer for the play (the case play specifically says "catches up with the play" which is specifically what a trailer does). The player could then spot up for a jump shot -- coming from BEHIND the play without the defense being aware of his presence AND the play by case 10.3.2B would be legal. The player legally rejoins the play AFTER the throw-in. I view this play to be far more similar to the inbounder being STATIONARY and then returning to the court FROM THE SAME POSITION. I still fail to see how merely STANDING STILL (within the throw-in location) can be deceitful. Players set up screens all game long by changing speeds, stepping away from a screen, etc.