Technical on Inbounder

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by zhettel

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.

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

The first part (10-3-2) is from the rules book. The second part (10.3.2) is from the case book.

It's possible that the sections have changed a bit since this rule was re-organized.

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

[grunewar]

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

[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.

[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.

[grunewar]

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.

Nope, and that's my point. IMO, this is ticky-tacky. A few feet is not the length of the endline.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out
of bounds.

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 set
by 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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The first part (10-3-2) is from the rules book. The second part (10.3.2) is from the case book.

It's possible that the sections have changed a bit since this rule was re-organized.

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

In the 2016-17 books, it's 10-4-2 and 10.4.2.

Billy, you need to note when you are using an outdated reference.

[Rob1968]

I'd rather see a call on White 10 for an illegal screen.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

I'd rather see a call on White 10 for an illegal screen.

There was certainly potential for an illegal screen -- but it didn't really happen in this play.

[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.

[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.....

[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.