Technical on Inbounder

[jTheUmp]

There was a potential for an illegal screen, but the player being screened didn't really seem to care about being screened, so I've got nothing there.

What age level is this game? I'm guessing 8th/9th grade based on the fact that the game seems to be taking place in a back/side gym. If that's the case, that means you're almost certainly dealing with newer, less-experienced officials.

Assuming newer officials, this has all the markings of the classic new official "I just read about this in the rule book the other day and now I'm going to call it so everyone knows I know the rules" call. I'd wager that most of the posters here went through that phase; I know I definitely did.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by grunewar

With so much to concentrate on and watch in a game, I'm not calling this. IMO, OOO.

So if the Inbounder runs almost the entire length of the Endline, while out of bounds, before coming back inbounds, you are going to let him/her do that every time?

MTD, Sr.

[zhettel]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

There was a potential for an illegal screen, but the player being screened didn't really seem to care about being screened, so I've got nothing there.

What age level is this game? I'm guessing 8th/9th grade based on the fact that the game seems to be taking place in a back/side gym. If that's the case, that means you're almost certainly dealing with newer, less-experienced officials.

Assuming newer officials, this has all the markings of the classic new official "I just read about this in the rule book the other day and now I'm going to call it so everyone knows I know the rules" call. I'd wager that most of the posters here went through that phase; I know I definitely did.

This is a high school varsity game. WE are a smaller school so only have bleachers on one side of the gym. Can't tell it maybe from the film but #30 in white is about 6'7ish. Not many 8th graders are that big.....

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

So if the Inbounder runs almost the entire length of the Endline, while out of bounds, before coming back inbounds, you are going to let him/her do that every time?

MTD, Sr.

That's not even close to the play in question.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zhettel

He does not delay entering. He does however probably take one maybe two steps in which he could be "partially running out of bounds. I mean it is literally an OB's play where we make a pass to sideline top, he sprints to the corner for a pass and shot. By the time he catches it, he has already established himself and it's not running down the Baseline out of bounds and then stepping in.

I do appreciate the person who actually cited the rule book. However what rule book is that? I have looked up and down the NFHS rule book for 2016-17 and can't find this at all. I did find a few things back in 07-08 where it said if you go out of bounds legally, and delay coming back in to gain an advantage it's a T. However that says nothing about a throw-in and if you don't take your first step in bounds it's a technical.

Here's a link to the play.

https://app.krossover.com/r/2fog

My work filters prevent me from watching the video, but I trust bob's judgment on this. The rule hasn't changed that I'm aware of (no books here at work either). The point is, though, that this rule isn't meant to nail a player who runs diagonally onto the court. It's meant for the player who throws it in, then runs OOB across the lane to come back in at the opposite corner. It's meant for the player who throws it in and stands there for a little bit hoping the defense forgets about him.

In that 07 reference, "going out of bounds legally" includes being out of bounds for a throw in.

[BigT]

Thank you for sharing coach. This is not a T. This isnt even a warning to the player.

That screen is more of a problem yet as spoken about probably wouldnt be called. I think you will fine except if you have that referee who is (snip) overzealous.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Viewing the video, the official was over-zealous in making this call. imo, of course.

Agreed.

[zhettel]

Appreciate all the feedback guys. When he gave my player the T, I asked for an explanation. His explanation was he did not "immediately enter" after he threw the ball in. I asked him if he's saying my player has to step immediately forward and only forward? Or could he take a step diagonally in the direction he was headed. As you can see from the video he takes one, maybe one in a half steps out of bounds but is by no means trying to delay or deceive what he's doing. He told me "it's in the rule book" and that it says he must "immediately enter". When i asked if the book states what direction he said yes. I stopped right there because I knew better.

I'm not here to flame officials. I am a coach that likes to chirp, but at the end of the day I get a long with most, if not all of them. This guy I've had before and it seems he likes to watch one kid and just hammer him. Not sure why.

Anyways, I agree about the screen. If my player would understand who he was screening in the first place it wouldn't be an issue. As you can tell he starts to go screen the middle of the zone and last second remembers he's supposed to screen the bottom wing. Oh well.

Thanks everyone.

[Rich]

I think it's not a good call, but I have that said about me all the time.

The rest of the stuff just isn't necessary and isn't going to happen here.

2-person crew, huh? Amazing how in the last 5 years we've gone from the stone ages here to where I will never work another 2-person game.

[crosscountry55]

I agree with the general sense that this was a "gottcha" call. Technically correct (no pun intended)? Yes. But not a call I would make.

As a coach, you could probably run this play another hundred times without it being called.

One message I'd pass to your player: not all technicals are unsporting, this being one of them. No stigma need be attached to the call.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I agree with the general sense that this was a "gottcha" call. Technically correct (no pun intended)? Yes.

I wouldn't say this one is even technically correct. There's just nothing there. By his second step, the player is already returning to the court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ODog

I wouldn't say this one is even technically correct. There's just nothing there. By his second step, the player is already returning to the court.

+1. It's either a rule that the official misunderstands or a play that he misjudged.
And I'll simply add that all the moderators seem to be on the same page.

[Adam]

And now that I've seen the play, a word of advice, coach:
Forget about this call. Don't have your players adjust, don't adjust the play itself. There's a reason you aren't getting this called in other games. Like I said in my previous post, he's either misjudging the play or misunderstanding the rule. This doesn't even fit into a technical violation of the rule.

If you have this guy again and he makes the call again, then I would send a video to the state and ask for clarification. Let the state decide whether or not to address it with the official, nothing good will come if you try during a game.

[Rich]

It's a 2-person game and I'm guessing the official thinks the player did something that he didn't do. Always dangerous when you guess.

I don't think it's anything more.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's a 2-person game and I'm guessing the official thinks the player did something that he didn't do. Always dangerous when you guess.

I don't think it's anything more.

It's also possible that the player (or the team) did something more egregious earlier, and may or may not have been "warned", and now the official is looking to enforce the rule to the nth degree.

Or, the opposing team put a bug in the official's ear about the "illegal inbounds play "they" always run."