Technical on Inbounder
 

I had this happen over the weekend. I coach in Arizona and I have tried like hell to find the actual discussion and verbage in the rule book. My player inbounded the ball on a BLOBs situation and then sprinted to the corner and received a pass. Now he had established himself inbounds before he caught the ball. The ref "T's" him up and says he did not enter right away.

First, in my mind he entered, he just didn't step forward, instead he stepped diagnolly which is a straighter line and quicker line to where he was going. He did not run around the OB's line.

Second, is this still a technical foul? I can't find this anywhere in the rule book and I've ran this play for 5 years and this is the first time I've ever gotten a kid T'd up.

Any help is appreciated.

It is a technical foul for the thrower to not immediately return to the playing court. It's a judgment call for the definition, but my first question is just how far your player ran out of bounds before he came back in.

First: BLOP? What is that?

Second: by rule, it is a technical foul for the thrower in staying and delaying returning to the playing floor. Whether the officials were correct or not, video would only prove

Player must enter the court directly. They cannot hang out of bounds or run around out of bounds to create an advantage.

Without seeing it who knows what the officials judged the action to be, but he/she does have support to call a T. It is not called very common, but I have seen it called.

It is also not about running a play, it is about the execution.

Peace

Ha, he said BLOB not bloP. Rocket scientist here says that means "base line out of bounds play. " If your kid throws ball in and then runs length of baseline, to the corner, then steps in he has delayed entry. T under rules. Many dont know the rule which is likely why you have always gotten away with it. Others, like me, dont like to call that a T and ignore what they can. In college i can call a violation.

By rule offical was likely correct. Need to see video to be certain. If your kid runs out of bounds length of baseline, then steps in I'm likely to blow whistle

I (think I ) know in College it's a violation to leave the court, return and be the first to touch the ball.

But, I'm not sure it's a violation to delay returning to the court afger legally being out of bounds.

Class B technical foul under NCAA-M rules

I called this just last year. The thrower ran out of bounds around his screening teammate and got a pass for a wide open shot.

If the player returns to the court in an unfairly advantageous position (which is what the rule is intended to prevent), I don't give a warning. If (s)he doesn't gain any advantage from not going directly back inbounds, I'll warn him/her at the next opportunity not to do it again.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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

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.

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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

I agree. It looks like the official was doing his timing in dog years. ;)

I don't even think he is interpreting the rule correctly to begin with. But anyways, thanks for all the advice and feedback.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Agree, and agree.

Or what if the official just isn't that good?

You're willing to go there because of one call?

Glad to see you're still as perfect as ever.

No, it's an option among all the what ifs. If anyone were to ask me why anyone did something and I wasn't there I could make assumptions. One such assumption is skill level. So since we play all these what ifs what I stated is a perfectly fine conclusion.

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

Sure, it's a possibility, but it's not a valid conclusion based on the evidence provided. There's simply not enough evidence to make that conclusion based on one call.


So don't.