Purposely Leaving The Court ...
 

"Purposely leaving the court."

What if a player's momentum accidentally carries a player off the court?

Can said player legally be the first to touch the ball after returning to the court (must immediately return inbounds and have something in, and nothing out, not necessary to have both feet back inbounds) if they did not purposely step out of bounds?

Enquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 

This is from my 2022-23 Misunderstood Basketball Rules list.

If a player's momentum carries the player off the court, that player can be the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds. That player must not have intentionally left the court for an unauthorized reason, and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in, and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds. It is a technical foul for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

Has it changed with the new 2023-24 9-3-3 rule?

What did you do before? The only change in the rule is the delay portion of the rule. So if their toe was on the line and they did not know they touched the line, I would treat that differently than someone going around the screen set for them and having their entire foot or both feet to get open on the other side of the end line.

Peace

Delay ...
 

A technical foul for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds has been around for many, many years.

How is this a change?

The rule about a player intentionally leaving the court for an unauthorized reason (not legally being out of bounds to better use a screen, or to avoid three seconds) being a violation has also been around for many, many years.

Violation every day the week, been that way for many, many years.

I'm not sure if there was an actual recent change, and if so, exactly what the change is?

Have unintentionally (momentum) and purposely (intentionally) been combined as a violation if said player is the first player to touch the ball after returning inbounds?

If so, why add the word "purposely" to the comments on the 2023-24 rule 9-3-3 change?

This has nothing to do with that rule. You are waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy overthinking this.
So if they are not the first to touch, you do not have a violation right? Is that not a delay to wait for such a violation to take place? Is there not a delay in a FT violation committed by the opponents of the FTer to if or when we call a violation in most cases? If the ball goes in then we do not call a FT violation in those cases, right? So if the player that goes out of bounds is the 2nd or 3rd person to touch the ball after entering the court, do we still call a violation? No, we do not.

Unless they have something completely in mind, this is the rule from college. There is already an application of this rule that is being implemented. Unless the NF completely had something else in mind, this is the rule we have now.

STOP MAKING THIS CONFUSING WHEN IT IS NOT!!!!!

Peace

Purposely ...
 

Only because of the word "purposely" is spelled out in the new language, with no mention of "momentum", "accidentally", or "unintentionally" spelled out in the new language.

And no where is the word "delay" mentioned any where in the new language.

Agree for college.

Not sure what the NFHS has in mind for high school?

Why did the NFHS stick the word "purposely" in there?

Does the NFHS limit the violation to "purposely" (assuming it's not to gain an advantage (screen) or to avoid a violation (three seconds)?

Or a violation for the player running out of an exit to confuse the opponents (intentionally leaving the court for an unauthorized reason).

Here is the college rule (for clarification purposes)
 

Peace

Piss Poor Job ...
 

Thanks JRutledge.

Let's hope that the NFHS has the same intent and purpose and uses the same well defined rule language, maybe with some helpful interpretations.

Because right now the NFHS is doing a piss poor job of explaining this new rule.

I think some of us are a little impatient as to what the rules suggest. There are rules announced and we will see the examples later. The NCAA does the same thing. They announce rules changes and we wait to see what they really mean in the fall (like the new LGP changes in NCAA Men's). I think you are wanting something that has to be ironed out with language and other consequences. I really would not worry about this until the new rulebooks are out and the casebooks are finished. Just an opinion.

Peace

That is correct.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Just reread your question and realized there were two parts to it.

Yes, if Team A commits a back court violation where the actual violation takes place in their own front court (ball bounces into the back court then returns into the front court before being touched by Team A), Team B's throw in will be in their back court at a designated spot closest to the violation.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Own Volition ...
 

I just revised my 2023-24 Misunderstood Basketball Rules list.

A player who steps out of bounds under the player's own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation. A player whose momentum causes that player to accidentally go out of bounds may be the first to touch the ball inbounds. That player must not have intentionally left the court for an unauthorized reason, and must immediately return inbounds. That player must have something in, and nothing out. It is not necessary to have both feet back inbounds.

It is a violation for a player to intentionally leave the court for an unauthorized reason. It is a technical foul for a player to leave the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust, or intimidation. It is a technical foul for a player to purposely or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

I will revise again if I discover that I'm wrong.

My local Interpretation Meeting (rule changes) is Wednesday, October 18, 2023.

2023-24 Misunderstood New Basketball Rules ...
 

Also revised these:

Shorts on teammates, while allowing for different styles, must be the same color. Players are required to tuck in jerseys that are designed to be tucked inside the shorts.

Undershirts must be a single solid color similar in color to the torso of the uniform jersey, and shall not have frayed edges. Undershirts worn by a visiting team may be black, or a single solid color similar to the torso of the jersey. Undershirts shall be the same color for all members of a team who choose to wear them. Undershirt sleeves shall be the same length. Note that this rule does not require all players to wear the same length sleeves on their undershirts, but each individual player must have sleeves the same length on the undershirt when worn.

I will revise again if I discover that I'm wrong.

My local Interpretation Meeting (rule changes) is Wednesday, October 18, 2023.

4-8-1 — Eliminating the one-and-one, shooting two free throws after a team’s fifth foul in a quarter and resetting the fouls after each quarter has the potential to provide a better flow by allowing teams that run into early foul trouble the opportunity to self-correct their style of play at the outset of both the second and fourth quarters. Second, by eliminating the one-and-one, the number of opportunities for correctable errors that result from awarding an unmerited free throw or failing to award a merited free throw are significantly reduced. Finally, the guarantee of two free throws eliminates the physical play that has often been associated with rebounding action on the first free throw.

How will this affect coaching late in the game when a team is down? 1+1 extended the game and allowed strategy to foul .

A team will be more likely to play defense and try to steal the ball rather than foul. It will shorten the elapsed time of the game.