Running out of bounds to fool opponents

[BillyMac]

Some contend that leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, now a violation, was a technical foul in ancient times.

I'm a pretty good basketball rules historian, but don't remember this change.

How about it Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Some contend that leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, now a violation, was a technical foul in ancient times.

I'm a pretty good basketball rules historian, but don't remember this change.

How about it Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

100% true. It became a violation instead of a technical foul about 14 years ago.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It (leaving the court for an unauthorized reason) became a violation instead of a technical foul about 14 years ago.

Previous to that both leaving the court for an unauthorized reason and delay returning after legally being out of bounds were combined in one rule as a technical foul.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes - 9-3-2 New Changed the penalty for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to a violation from a technical foul.

COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS - LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

100% true. It became a violation instead of a technical foul about 14 years ago.

They should make the delay returning inbounds after legally being OOB the same. It makes no sense for that to be a T for the same reasons this was changed.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They should make the delay returning inbounds after legally being OOB the same. It makes no sense for that to be a T for the same reasons this was changed.

Through my state IAABO board and my state interscholastic sports governing body I suggested this to the NFHS a few years ago, with the rationale being that the technical foul penalty was not being assessed and that changing the penalty to a violation would likely increase the likelihood of the infraction being called.

My suggestion made its way all the way up the ladder to the NFHS rules committee and was actually on the table at the final meeting, but was not accepted.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They should make the delay returning inbounds after legally being OOB the same. It makes no sense for that to be a T for the same reasons this was changed.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Through my state IAABO board and my state interscholastic sports governing body I suggested this to the NFHS a few years ago, with the rationale being that the technical foul penalty was not being assessed and that changing the penalty to a violation would likely increase the likelihood of the infraction being called.

My suggestion made its way all the way up the ladder to the NFHS rules committee and was actually on the table at the final meeting, but was not accepted.

I've proposed the same thing.

I've even called this a violation (only seen it summer/travel ball) instead of the "correct" T because it's an absurd rule difference.

It's not a rule people know, not even coaches. I usually just tell a player "get in, get in" after a second or so and they oblige. If they are delaying, the don't know it's illegal - so hitting them with a T for it is excessively punitive.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

I've proposed the same thing.

I've even called this a violation (only seen it summer/travel ball) instead of the "correct" T because it's an absurd rule difference.

It's not a rule people know, not even coaches. I usually just tell a player "get in, get in" after a second or so and they oblige. If they are delaying, the don't know it's illegal - so hitting them with a T for it is excessively punitive.

This is similar to people not knowing that flopping, or "faking being fouled" in rulebook language, is a technical foul under NFHS rules (10-4-6-f).

I have seen and called flopping, but I have yet to see people not coming back inbounds after a throw-in.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is similar to people not knowing that flopping, or "faking being fouled" in rulebook language, is a technical foul under NFHS rules (10-4-6-f).

I have seen and called flopping, but I have yet to see people not coming back inbounds after a throw-in.

While it's true few people know this rule exists, and at risk of wading into a different issue, "flopping" and "faking being fouled" are distinctly different acts in practice.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They should make the delay returning inbounds after legally being OOB the same. It makes no sense for that to be a T for the same reasons this was changed.

It seems to this outsider that having different penalties here causes a perverse, or at least strange, incentive. If the player in the throw-in example wants to achieve the same effect as tactically delaying his return in-bounds, he could come in bounds, then go out of bounds again, and be subject only to a violation rather than a technical foul. Not only that, but the discrimination would rest on an official's having close watch on both feet of a player off the ball.