Gaining an advantage by Violating?

[Time2Ref]

I had an interesting discussion with a customer concerning a game that he attended. I looked up the rule, but was concerned with the penalty. Here is the sitch:

A1 inbounding spot throw-in at the end-line. B1 closely defending the end-line. A1 steps back about 2 feet to gain some room to throw-in. A1 gets the ball inbounds to A2. B1 goes out of bounds and guards A1 so that A1 is having problems getting inbounds. No violation called.

Best I could find would be a violation on B1 for leaving the court. The penalty seems to be throw-in for A.

It didn't effect this game, but I could think of situations where B might gain an unfair advantage by continuing to violate. (Say they were ahead by 1 with 15 seconds on the clock. Team A wanted to call the play where the A1 throws-in to A2, comes inbounds, A2 passes to A1 and A1 scores. Team B is stopping A1 from getting inbounds. A1 is the best scorer on his/her team. B keeps violating, clock runs down. Penalty is still just another throw-in)

Is there a warning? Or just more throw-ins? Could delay of game be called after the first violation?

Any thoughts?

[Nu1]

Interesting question. At first, I thought it could be a T under 10-3-3...for being off the floor...however that section actually reads... "Delay returning after legally being out of bounds." I would say this doesn't fit because the defensive player wasn't legally OOB.

How about a T under 10-6-6...assuming you thought this action warranted more than a violation? This sections reads... "Delay the game by acts such as:" I think "such as" means the items listed below are not all inclusive. Then again, one might argue that the "game" is not being delayed. Although the offensive player OOB is being delayed from doing what they required to do, and that is enter the court.

Let's see what others think.

[FrankHtown]

If there is contact by B1, why not call a foul? The ball is live.

The precedent has been set, in that a defender, with a foot touching the out of bounds line, cannot be considered to have legal guarding position, even if he has roots growing from his feet. It is, by rule, a block.

Also, I believe there is still in the rule book, a provision for a Technical foul for leaving the court, in addition to the violation, in circumstances were it is egreg.....ergre... done deliberately.

[Raymond]

Under NCAA rules it possibly could be an indirect technical under Rule 10 Section 4 Art. 16: Deceptively leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason and returning at a more advantageous position.
A.R. 7. A player steps out of bounds to avoid contact. RULING: This shall not be called an indirect technical foul unless the player leaves the playing court to deceive or gain a more advantageous position in some way. When the player is a dribbler, the ball shall be ruled out of bounds. When the player returns to the playing floor and is the first to touch the ball, a violation has occurred since he/she left the playing court under their own volition.

But I'll leave interpretation of that rule for one of our more seasoned college officals to weigh in on.

I don't have a NFHS rulebook with me but try to find a reference concerning Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

[Nu1]

Good NCAA reference, BadNews.
As far as NFHS, leaving the court is a violation. That's the problem. The technical is listed for delaying return after being OOB legally.

[bigwhistle]

Not a problem. It is a technical foul per rule 10-1-10 which states following the team warning for delay in 9-2-11, commit a violation of the throw-in boundary line plane. When the defensive player goes out of bounds to defend the pass by the thrower in, he has violated. 2nd time = T.

[Time2Ref]

Originally Posted by bigwhistle

Not a problem. It is a technical foul per rule 10-1-10 which states following the team warning for delay in 9-2-11, commit a violation of the throw-in boundary line plane. When the defensive player goes out of bounds to defend the pass by the thrower in, he has violated. 2nd time = T.

Yeah, I looked at that one. But the throw-in is complete when the A2 touched the ball. THEN, B1 goes OOB.

[bigwhistle]

If B is not totally inbounds he cant have legal guarding position by rule. Therefore you can call a foul on B as soon as contact between A and B occurs.

[SmokeEater]

Frankly if B is deliberately impedeing the path of A to get back inbounds and any contact occurs I got a personal foul. SO instead of a throw in there is the possibility of bonus shots. If not in bonus yet and we have another throw in then it would be preceeded by a warning not to do it again. Then if it happens again I got a T and we shoot 2. JMO, probably no rules reference to support it, but I dont think I would get any arguement about handling it that way.

Smokey

[rainmaker]

1st time: violation with a loud verbal warning about contact, loud enough that A1 hears and knows that any contact will be a foul on B1.

2nd time: foul as described.

There won't be a 3rd time.

[bradfordwilkins]

"1st time: violation with a loud verbal warning about contact, loud enough that A1 hears and knows that any contact will be a foul on B1."

But in talking about an end of the game, potentially winning or tying at the buzzer type situation, I think you've gotta get the foul on the first contact.

The new question is what if B1 never leaves to go out of bounds but gets right to the edge without touching the line and continues to move to block A1 from getting in bounds... Also a block, right? So why wouldn't we have the same call out of bounds... Just hypothesizing here.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

"1st time: violation with a loud verbal warning about contact, loud enough that A1 hears and knows that any contact will be a foul on B1."

But in talking about an end of the game, potentially winning or tying at the buzzer type situation, I think you've gotta get the foul on the first contact.

The new question is what if B1 never leaves to go out of bounds but gets right to the edge without touching the line and continues to move to block A1 from getting in bounds... Also a block, right? So why wouldn't we have the same call out of bounds... Just hypothesizing here.

B1 has the right to be wherever they wish...inbounds....even up to the boundary. If A1 runs into B1, it MAY be a block if B1 didn't allow time/distance.

If B1 leaves the court and fouls A1 (who is attempting to get back inbounds after a throwin), I'd have no problem calling the foul....but it must be one that would have been a foul if the same contact were to occur inbounds.

[crazy voyager]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

"1st time: violation with a loud verbal warning about contact, loud enough that A1 hears and knows that any contact will be a foul on B1."

But in talking about an end of the game, potentially winning or tying at the buzzer type situation, I think you've gotta get the foul on the first contact.

The new question is what if B1 never leaves to go out of bounds but gets right to the edge without touching the line and continues to move to block A1 from getting in bounds... Also a block, right? So why wouldn't we have the same call out of bounds... Just hypothesizing here.

What do you mean "gotta get it on the first contact" the game should be called the same way wheter or not it's the last or first qtr, first or last minute, you're an official and can not care wheter or not one team must get the foul on the first contact to suceed. Call the game consistently, if it's a warning it is a warning and if it's a foul it's a foul regardless of the outcome.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

If there is contact by B1, why not call a foul? The ball is live.

The precedent has been set, in that a defender, with a foot touching the out of bounds line, cannot be considered to have legal guarding position, even if he has roots growing from his feet. It is, by rule, a block.

Also, I believe there is still in the rule book, a provision for a Technical foul for leaving the court, in addition to the violation, in circumstances were it is egreg.....ergre... done deliberately.

This rule only applies to block charge scenarios where "legal guarding position" is required to avoid a defensive foul. It is still possible in this situation to call an offensive foul.

Now, for the original scenario, I'd have to see it. But if there's no contact, I've got nothing. If B is causing contact to prevent A1 from returning to the court, easy foul.