Delayed Return ...

[BillyMac]

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)?

[BillyMac]

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).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This question and answer recently appeared on a local webpage:


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



Is the penalty too strong (?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Yes.

Yes.

That's correct.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes. Yes. That's correct.

Thanks.

You forgot to answer the hard question:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Only if such an official desires to misapply a rule.

Always listen to Bob.

[JRutledge]

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

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

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)?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... submit a rules change proposal.

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