Running out of bounds to fool opponents
 

Had this yesterday. Team A secures a rebound in the first half. Player A-1 who was on the floor trotts along the sideline out of bounds in front of the table and opposing bench before returning to the floor under the basket A is shooting at. NFHS rules.... is this a technical foul or just a violation.

Violation ...
 

Violation.

NFHS 9-3-3: A player must not leave the court for an unauthorized reason. Penalty: 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.

9.3.3 SITUATION B: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. A3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to have his/her defender detained by the double screen. RULING: The official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as he/she steps out of bounds. The ball is awarded to Team B at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.

Technical Fouls ...
 

This play above is a violation.

Do not confuse the play above with these technical fouls below.

10-4-1: Player Technical: A player must not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

10.4.2 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.

10-4-6-I : Player Technical: A player must not: Leave the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust or intimidation.

10.4.6 SITUATION C: With 4 minutes remaining in the second quarter, B1 commits his/her third foul against airborne shooter A1; the try is unsuccessful. Team B’s coach sends B6 to the scorer’s table to replace B1 after A1’s first free-throw. B1’s replacement may not enter the game until after A1’s first free throw. B1, disgusted with the official’s ruling and realizing he/she will soon leave the game, goes and sits on the end of Team B’s bench just after the official reports the foul. RULING: B1 is assessed an unsporting technical foul for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate disgust. A1 will attempt the two shooting-foul free throws followed by any Team A member attempting the two free throws for the technical foul. (10-3-6i; 3-3-2)

Ancient Times ...
 

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.

One Combined Rule ...
 

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.

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.

Rationale ...
 

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.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3b851630_m.jpg

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.

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.

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.

What is the difference? As far as I know, if a player falls down to try to draw a call, it is both faking being fouled and flopping.

I don't want to get into a semantic debate lol

That said, if the NFHS or IAABO wanted us to deem "flops" worthy of technical fouls, it would have been a point of emphasis at some point. They clearly do not, despite "flopping" being something both NCAA and NBA have attempted to address in the last decade.

NCAA-Men's has done a good job of addressing it and defining it.

Flop ???
 

A flop is when it's called.

Or is it vice versa?

Other than the call essentially disappearing over the last month, I agree.

My point is that what is a "flop" in an NCAA game is different from "faking being fouled." If NFHS/IAABO deemed it necessary to address, they would make it a point of emphasis - and ideally, they'd give us a penalty less than a T to apply.

They are the same to me. IMO, too many people confine the definition of flop to defenders on potential crash plays. Most flopping I see at the HS level is 3 point shooters throwing themselves to the ground--trying to fool the referee into calling a foul. Same with the head bob by ballhandlers and defenders who run into screens.

Have you ever penalized such action with a technical foul?

There is no reason why the penalty should be 2-shots AND possession AND a personal foul when in the NCAA is merely 1 shot and POI.

In a college games, yes. In a HS game, no.

But that doesn't change the fact that HS players frequently throw themselves to the ground after 3-pointers and bob their heads like they've been shot in the forehead all for the purposes of fooling the officials into thinking they've been fouled.

*Our crew had this play in a game this season and the ref who whistled the action called it a technical foul. We very briefly convened and I told the ref that it should've been a violation, but he insisted on the tech and rushed to administer accordingly. This occurred early in the first quarter; when we met during the between-quarter break he told us both that he'd had the same odd play in previous game and ruled it the same way "those trick plays don't fool me", he proudly proclaimed.

Did he go out of bounds to just avoid a screen or did he delay coming back on the court in some way? Because delaying coming to the court is actually a technical foul. That is according to 10.4.2 Situation A.

Peace

*Nothing was special about that play, I was the C, and it was a simple throw in from the opposite sideline of where I was. The player/pass receiver appeared to just run out of bounds to avoid defensive pressure. The ref called a Tech.

No tech unless the player doing throw-in, who was already legally oob, delayed returning inbounds.

Your sitch was a violation for intentionally leaving the court.

Rare Play ...
 

... for an unauthorized reason.

NFHS 9-3-3: A player must not leave the court for an unauthorized reason. Penalty: 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.

10-4-1: Player Technical: A player must not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

We also have the rare case of a technical foul for a player, who was not legally out of bounds (not a throwin play), leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust, or intimidation.

10-4-6-I : Player Technical: A player must not: Leave the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust, or intimidation.

Seen this called only once in forty-plus years. Called a foul on a player (not her fifth foul) who was verbally upset with the official who made the foul call and then ran off the court (not waiting for a substitute) straight into the locker room. After checking with the coach that it was for an unauthorized reason (not a bathroom break, injury, etc.) we charged her with the technical foul.

*At the time that action occurred I had informed the ruling referee of such; however, as I stated earlier the ruling referee was self-assured and had ostensibly adjudicated similar plays in the past. Basically, I "said my peace" and we moved on.