Delayed Return ...
 

This question and answer recently appeared on a local webpage:

Question: A1 has an end line spot throw in...throw in goes to A2, who in turn passes to A3 at the top of the key. Meanwhile, A1 runs the entire baseline out of bounds to receive a pass from A3 in position for a 3-point shot...what is the ruling?

Answer: There should be no delay in A1 returning immediately to the court at the completion of the throw-in. Since you know of A1's actions, hold your delayed signal and assess a violation to A1 if they are the first player to touch the ball after gaining inbounds status.

By rule, wouldn’t this be a technical foul?

A1 did not step out of bounds, they were already legally out of bounds, and then purposely delayed their return back onto the playing court.

9-3-3: A player shall not step out of bounds under the player’s own volition and then become the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court or to avoid a violation.

10-4-2: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

In forty-plus years, I have never seen 10-4-2 called, but I have orally warned a few times.

The description of the question and answer completely matches the rule language of 10-4-2 “purposely …delay returning after legally being out of bounds”.

Would any Forum members use new rule 9-3-3 in this situation rather than 10-4-2?

Is the penalty too harsh (technical foul on A1, two free throws by best free throw shooter on Team B, Team B gets ball at division line opposite table) to use 10-4-2, whereas 9-3-3 is simply a violation (Team B gets ball at spot nearest the violation)?

Usual 9-3-3 Situation ...
 

In the "usual" new 9-3-3 situation (not involving a delayed return from a legal inbound) does Team B get the inbounds at the closest spot to the "first touch", or closest spot to where A1 illegally stepped out of bounds under their own volition?

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.

Looks like the actual violation may be the "first touch", not A1 illegally stepping out of bounds under their own volition.

Without the "touch", there is no violation at the "stepping out" site (as we've had for the past forty-plus years).

Yes.

Yes.

That's correct.

Which Rule ???
 

Thanks.

You forgot to answer the hard question:

Only if such an official desires to misapply a rule.

Always listen to Bob. :)

Tell them to get on the darn court. Problem solved. ;)

Peace

Been There, Done That ...
 

I would (and have) normally agree with JRutledge, but the inbounder gained a distinct advantage here, so "something" had to be called once he became the first to touch.

Is that "something" a harsh technical foul (situation pretty much matches word for word in the rule language), or a less harsh (new) violation (though not really exactly what the new rule says)?

Do you want to call the rule or call what you think is fair? Only you can answer that and it might depend on what else is done in your area, the level of the game, for how far the player ran, and whether the team had already been informally warned.

The same question can apply to almost all rules.

And, you should submit a rules change proposal. Seriously.

(But note that NCAAW has had the "first to touch" rule for several / many years, and still has a T for delaying to return inbounds.)

Submitted and Denied ...
 

I have.

I tried to have 10-4-2 (purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds) changed from a technical foul to a simple violation (to complement the old version of 9-3-3).

I figured that the penalty for illegally "going out" should be similar to the penalty for illegally "coming in".

Also suggested that officials would be more likely to call purposely delaying returning if the penalty wasn't so harsh.

A few years ago (not too long ago) my suggestion made its way all the way up the ladder to the table of the NFHS Rules Committee, where it was voted down.

Too Harsh ...
 

Over the past forty-plus years I seem to recall a few other technical fouls being changed to violations for the same reason (too harsh, not called enough).

Excessively swinging elbows with no contact may have been one?

Not sure about the other, but I'm pretty sure a second one exists.

Lots Of Paperwork ...
 

I know the process.

I've been fortunate to have three rule change proposals accepted by the NFHS.

3-3-E Defensive Match-Up, 2003-04
4-22 Goaltending, 2015-16
3-5-3 Compression Shorts, 2016-17

Increase Likelihood Of Infraction Being Called ...
 

NFHS Changed Their Minds ...
 

I checked.

In forty-plus years, excessively swinging elbows with no contact had gone from a violation, to a technical foul, and is now back again to a violation.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

With bob's encouragement, I decided to submit my proposal again.

It's on its way up the ladder again (last submitted in 2020), local, state, national.

If at first you don't succeed ...

NFHS Proposed Basketball Rule Change

Delete Old Rule: Player Technical Foul 10-4-2: A player must not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. Penalty: (Section 4) Two free throws plus the ball for a division-line throw-in.

Add New Rule: Out Of Bounds Violation 9-3-4: A player must 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.

Many officials don’t call players for purposely delaying returning in bounds because they believe that the penalty of a technical foul is too harsh. The penalty for illegally "coming in" should be similar to the penalty for illegally "going out" (9-3-3).

The NFHS did something similar many years ago with swinging elbows excessively with no contact. Forty-plus years ago it was a violation to do so, then the NFHS changed it to a technical foul. Many officials, believing this to be too harsh a penalty, didn’t charge the technical foul. In response, the NFHS reversed course and changed this illegal act back to a violation.

Same thing happened in 2005-06 when the NFHS changed leaving court for an unauthorized reason from a technical foul to a violation. The rules committee believed that the former penalty of a technical foul was not being assessed and hoped that changing the penalty to a violation would increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate a tremendous advantage.