I had a situation last night in a boys V game that made me want to see the fed. change a penalty. We had a good game going. Visitors (B) were down 15 at one point in the first half and came back. At one point B had a throw in under their basket. I'm administering the throw in. B1 throws the ball inbounds, runs the entire lenghth of the baseline oob, steps in and hits a shot cutting the lead to 4 or 6. I booted the call and used the new violation penalty on this (I've had conversations with an assignor and some other officials on this) when by rule it's a T. My idea is to change this to a violation as well. A T at that point in the game would not have improved our game in any way, in fact, it might have really gotten the visiting coaches on our butts, but the player clearly gained an advantage by staying oob. Any thoughts on changing this play to a violation so we don't have to consider the game managment end of calling the T? By the way, I apologize to all officials for administering the penalty wrong. I don't think I've ever misinformed a coach on a rule like that and I'm kicking myself today for doing it.

I think that is suppose to be a technical foul. See rule 10-3-3. it was also on the test, question #71.

I'm not taking sides in the other debate about "the game management end of calling a T" vs. calling something by the book. But I wonder, why would that philosophy differ in a close game near the end, as opposed to a blow-out in the third quarter?

i would like to know the rationale of why they left it a "t" also when they changed the other to a violation...


so in this sitch, if B1 would of thrown the ball in, stepped in bounds then ran out of bounds around the pick and back on the floor for the shot, it would of been a violation instead of a T.... i'm like you Junker, i don't see the difference...they both should be violations... But i can't say i agree with changing the call myself and going with what i think should be the rule!!

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels they should both be violations. It was my understanding that they changed the penalty to get this call made more. Btw, I didn't change the rule myself, I misapplied the new penalty and therefore booted the call.

it happens! As close as they are i bet your not the only one that this will happen too!!! Learn from it, and go on, you know it won't happen to you again though!! :)

Worrying about whether a coach might get on your butt or not should never, ever be a factor in <b>any</b> call. And especially not just because a T happens to be involved.

In this case, whether a T would have improved the game or not would only be a factor if the game was outa sight. One way or another, the B coach shoulda been made aware that what he's teaching is illegal and T-worthy. If not, the next crew that gets him is put on the spot if they do call a T.

I too feel this one should be changed to be a violation.

If the thrower, as jritchie said, had merely stepped inbounds and did the same thing, it would have been a violation. I can't see that omitting that one step inbounds should change the penalty from violation to T.

I am thinking the reasoning is that since no one was calling the technicals on the player leaving the court, they changed it to a violation to make it easer to call. As far and the player that already out of bounds, passing the ball in and running down the side line to get a pass, that would be an easy technical to call opposed to the other.

That part of the rule hasn't changed at all. It's the same penalty it always was. It's still a T if a player delays returning in-bounds after being <b>legally</b> OOB.

They split the old rule. It used to cover 2 completely different situations-- (1) leaving the court for an <b>unauthorized</b> reason and (2) delay returning after being <b>legally</b> OOB. #1 is now a violation-- #2 is still a T.

The FED obviously thought that #1 wasn't a serious breach of the rules as #2 was, and thus was deserving of a lesser penalty. That was their rationale as I understand it.

JR,
I agree with what you're saying. The penalty is a T, but like someone else said, they changed the leaving the court penalty because no one would call it. I'd like to see the Federation change this as well. Calling the T is the correct call and you shouldn't worry about the coaches reaction. On the other hand, I've only talked to one crew that has ever called this T. With the game going the way it was, I hated to teach the T rule at that time.

The problem that I've seen so far seems to be a lack of understanding of exactly what the intent of these rules was and how they differ. I'm still having a comprehension problem with some of my guys also. We've put these 2 rules on the agenda of our next meeting so we can review them <b>again</b>.

One of the problems, I think, is that some officials aren't really sure of the difference between going OOB legally and going OOB illegally. They also don't really understand that there are now 2 separate rules with different penalties for each- one covering a player being <b>legally</b> OOB and gaining an unfair advantage by delaying their return in-bounds - and one covering a player illegally <b>going</b> OOB to gain an unfair advantage.

That was the point I was trying to get across, Junker. I certainly wasn't trying to dump on you in any way and I hope you didn't take it that way. There isn't one of us that can honestly say that they've never blown a call or made a mistake. That's how we learn. Officials who won't admit when they've blown one are the ones that drive me nuts.

Nope, didn't take any offense. This morning, after convesations I've had with other officials I work with and on the board, I realize I misinterpreted how the new penalty was to be used. The reason I posted was because I wanted to consider other people's thoughts on the situation. I honestly think if we changed this to the violation penalty, it would better "suit the crime" so to speak, but I don't write the rules, I just enforce them (wrongly last night in one instance). This rule kind of reminds me of the problems we have with the coaching box. We need to apply it uniformly or change it because it leads to confusion for all parties involved. The think I'm most upset with myself about is that there's now a coach out there that doesn't understand the new penalty corretly because of me. I hesitated to enforce a rule because I've never seen or heard of a person calling that T. I didn't want to be the first one to call it on that coach's team in that situation. Instead I really complicated things by making a call I shouldn't have. You can bet I won't make that call again.

So how many steps is allowed before you are saying they delayed coming back in bounds!!! A1 throws ball in, takes one step to the left steps in bounds behind pick to receive pass???? Tech. or okay??? Same sitch but takes 2 steps?? where do we define directly on the court after the inbounds pass??? can the thrower take a diagonal route or does it have to be a straight line??? i think the situation in this thread is the player ran down to the other end of the floor oob, which i agree would be a big advantage so is a "T", but my question is where do we define "back on the court after the throw", do we give a step or two either way, or a step in the diagonal direction??? just wondering!

It ain't brain surgery. The player has to take the quickest way back onto the court. Judgement call. If they're not staying OOB to gain an advantage, don't worry about it. If you think that they're gaining an advantage, call it.

Sounds like you're trying to talk yourself outa having to make that call. :)