Player out of bounds and returning

[thedewed]

Does he need one foot back in, or two? I used to think two.

Then on here a couple years ago was told it takes just one.

As I look at the rules and casebook for college, I don't find anything that really spells it out. Only thing relevant I find is in rule book 7.1, that seems to imply that only one foot is needed, but is not explicit. It's pretty close I guess, says player is out of bounds if any part touching out of bounds, and for an airborne player, it is based on where he was last touching. So on the T tech player, if blocks shot, comes down both feet simultaneously, then pulls the out of bounds foot up first when jumping, then then inbounds foot second, and goes up and saves, he is considered inbounds. that isn't what happened, but I guess that analysis is correct

Is there other language that makes it more clear?

I ask because most people I run into in the game seem to think it's two.

And then Gene the rules expert after the T Tech game said it takes 2 feet back in.

Then I find this online:

https://www.livestrong.com/article/4...ouch-the-ball/

So what is it?

Something in, nothing out.

[thedewed]

No other reference than NCAA rules 7.1? I agree with you, but it is astonishing that Gene whats his name, the guy put on national TV by the NCAA or whomever for the multi-billion dollar tournament, doesn't understand that. He clearly doesn't.

[deecee]

Could have mixed up NFL with NCAA. It can happen when you do 1,034,567 games a year between the sports. I would mix up HS and NCAA

[Raymond]

We're not responsible for the incorrect information passed along by television networks.

This is a rule that veteran referees know, it only gets confusing when talking heads in the studio start bombarding the world with incorrect information.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[ODog]

Originally Posted by thedewed

… I ask because most people I run into in the game seem to think it's two ...

Like who? Fans, coaches and players? They don't know the rules.

I'm assuming you don't mean (legitimate) officials.

[BillyMac]

Slightly off topic.

After trying twice over the past several years, I've once again submitted a rule change to the NFHS (through my state interscholastic sports governing body) regarding players deliberately out of bounds. This will be the last time that I submit this change. I know when I'm not wanted.

Suggested NFHS Rule Change

Existing Rules:

NFHS 9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

NFHS 10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.

Change 10-3-2 from a technical foul to a violation. Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds should carry the same penalty as leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Delete: NFHS 10-3-2

Add: NFHS 9-3-3-B: A player shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Slightly off topic.

After trying twice over the past several years, I've once again submitted a rule change to the NFHS (through my state interscholastic sports governing body) regarding players deliberately out of bounds. This will be the last time that I submit this change. I know when I'm not wanted.

Suggested NFHS Rule Change

Existing Rules:

NFHS 9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

NFHS 10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.

Change 10-3-2 from a technical foul to a violation. Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds should carry the same penalty as leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Delete: NFHS 10-3-2

Add: NFHS 9-3-3-B: A player shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

How many times have you ever called either of these? In over 20 years officiating I have called a violation once and one technical foul for remaining off the court. Both of them were in IM ball in college. The violation was because he was going to get called for three seconds. The tech was for going off the court, hiding on the bench and then coming off to collect a pass for a breakaway dunk (he ended up being an NFL Wide Receiver).

I have never called either in a high school game.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

How many times have you ever called either of these? In over 20 years officiating I have called a violation once and one technical foul for remaining off the court. Both of them were in IM ball in college. The violation was because he was going to get called for three seconds. The tech was for going off the court, hiding on the bench and then coming off to collect a pass for a breakaway dunk (he ended up being an NFL Wide Receiver).

I have never called either in a high school game.

I think your two calls is an exact reason this should NOT be a rule change. There is a difference in running out of bounds around a screen and gaining an advantage, and deceitfully hiding out of bounds, and there should be separate penalties for them.

[Rich]

I was listening live and it sounded to me like Gene corrected himself pretty quickly there.

As someone who's done limited play-by-play/color work, it's not as easy as it looks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

How many times have you ever called either of these?

Never. Had a partner (high school) call a "not leave the court for an unauthorized reason" (around a screen) violation (he beat me to the punch).

I considered calling a technical foul for a "deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds" but decided to just warn to not do it again (middle school game, delayed after inbounding the ball).

I believe that a technical foul is too harsh a penalty for the act. Both acts involve going or staying out of bounds to gain an advantage and both should have the same penalty.

If the kid delaying after inbounding the ball had only been a violation, I would have called it. A technical foul seemed too harsh, so I decided to just warn.

Certainly not a big deal, but every change for the good or to simplify in the rulebook helps a little.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I considered calling a technical foul for a "deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds" but decided to just warn to not do it again (middle school game, delayed after inbounding the ball).

With much love to BM....

To everyone reading, please, oh please, do not ever call this in a MS game.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Never. Had a partner (high school) call a "not leave the court for an unauthorized reason" (around a screen) violation (he beat me to the punch). I have never called this, but there are times I likely could have during games, but decided against it.

I considered calling a technical foul for a "deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds" but decided to just warn to not do it again (middle school game, delayed after inbounding the ball). I agree with bucky. Please don't ever call this in a MS game. I would have a hard time making a case for my call if the player just stood their out of bounds that he deceitfully delayed in returning to the court. Yes he may have delayed, but just standing their alone doesn't meet the definition of deceitful in my book unless he is doing it right in front of his bench where he could be confused with a team mate on the bench.

I believe that a technical foul is too harsh a penalty for the act. Both acts involve going or staying out of bounds to gain an advantage and both should have the same penalty. I think the key issue is the word deceitful. I would have no problem with a violation being called for a player not returning to the court in a timely manner when legally being out of bounds because that could be they were just a spectator to what is going on. I think a T is appropriate for a player who is intentionally trying to deceive an opponent by being out of bounds. I think there is a reason this is worth a T, as it is an unsportsmanlike act.

If the kid delaying after inbounding the ball had only been a violation, I would have called it. A technical foul seemed too harsh, so I decided to just warn. I would agree with you on this, but at the same time, would a T have been deserved because of the word deceitful?

Certainly not a big deal, but every change for the good or to simplify in the rulebook helps a little.

Response in red

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by bucky

With much love to BM....

To everyone reading, please, oh please, do not ever call this in a MS game.

I will never say never to making a call. If you have warned the player previously and he continues to do the same thing, even at the MS level where the attention span is way too short, I think a T could still be deserved, but it would take a situation where repeated warnings are issued before I would call it, and in over 20 years I've never had to repeatedly warn this, so I hopefully I never have to deal with this issue.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Response in red

We agree.