Jurassic,
Disagree if you wish. How much time are you going to allow before calling a T in this case? Is it :00.5 seconds, :01 second, :01.5 seconds, :02 seconds?

In this case, a player stayed stationary for about three seconds (I will assume no stop watch on the play -- I have frequently heard spectators begin sceaming for 3 seconds when a player has only been in the lane for 2 seconds) before stepping in and catching a pass.

Reread my post, I said ALMOST no official will make this call. I did NOT say "no official will make this call." You can disagree with this statement as well. I will tell you, I know of only a VERY small number of officials who have made this call. NONE of them mentioned making this call in the last 10 seconds of a tie game.

As you know, the penalty for leaving the court changed from a technical foul to a violation several years ago. Just why do you suppose that change was made?

Once again, disagree if you wish, I still maintain that this is no different from leaving the court voluntarily -- and should be penalized in a like manner.

If a player accidentally leaves the court thinking he was subbed for, he can step back onto the court DURING play without penalty as long as it is not deceiving the opponent.

For gosh sakes, it's not like the defense doesn't KNOW where the inbounder is -- he's throwing the ball inbounds. Keep an eye on him -- there are MANY inbounds plays in which the play is designed to get the ball back to him. If he comes on the floor from the same spot he made the throw-in from, there is nothing deceptive about it.

If my defender responsible for the inbounder has ADD so bad that he cannot remember that his man is the inbounder for THREE seconds, my defender has a problem. I certainly do not count on an official to make this call -- I expect my player to do his job.

Yes, the rule currently may allow for a technical after some length of time (do provide your answer to the question above). But, I would prefer the rule be changed to a violation for attempting to gain an advantage by re-entering at a different location. I would prefer no penalty for a tardy entry directly onto the floor albeit late. But, I could deal with a violation in this case, but disagree with the penalty of a technical foul and maintain that as long as the penalty is a technical foul that it will seldom be called at all.

While I DISAGREE with the current rule, if someone truly delays coming onto the court (particularly if they attempt to run along the endline before jumping back into play), there is clearly NO current RULE to hide behind to justify calling anything but a technical here. The case of running along the end line makes it much easier to call since no "brain fart" or other slow response onto the court would apply.

Some officials can always find a reason not to call a warranted and deserved technical foul.

Other officials just call the game according to the rules that they have, not the ones that they would like to have.

'Nuff said...and as always, jmo.

Whether we agree or disagree with the rule is irrelevant - it is what is. If/when NFHS changes it, then I will change accordingly. Until then, if in my judgment the actions of the player fit the criteria in the rules, I will assess a technical foul. This isn't a common occurrence - I've only seen it a handful of times in the last ten years, and yes, I have called it every time. Oh, and whether it's in the first 10 seconds or the last 10 seconds of the game, or it's a close game or a blow out, is completely irrelevant as well.

This is a discussion board, we're always discussion rules we'd like to see changed.

Yep, you are right -- in theory. In practice, well, I will just tell you that officials who may have the, well you know, to make a call midway through the third quarter of a blowout may not have the same to make the call with 10 seconds to go in a tie game.

This view not only applies to this particular rule, but applies to any rule in the book.

Just out of curiosity, why would you quote me on this matter -- I indicated that I WOULD call it even though I disagree with it. There was another poster who indicated that they would not. Would it not have made more sense to quote that post???

I call the rules that are in the book. For the ones with which I disagree, I attempt to lobby for changes through the proper channels. In most cases, changes are not made. In some cases, they are.

As for a view being irrelevant, I completely disagree. If it weren't for dissenting opinions, nothing would ever change. I believe that several changes could be made to make the great game of high school basketball even better. In many cases, folks disagree. That's fine. It is their opinion.

Snaq,

I agree, but there's a big difference in discussing the pros and cons of a rule some might like to see changed, and advocating outright ignoring it, or worse yet, making up their own rules (both of which have occurred in this thread - and no, CMHCoachNRef, I'm not referring to you). Unless/until a rule is changed, it is our job to enforce what is - to do otherwise is both irresponsible and unprofessional.

Did you ever consider that the best way to get the rule changed might be to enforce it? If enough folks don't like the results of a rule being enforced as it's supposed to be, maybe that will provide more impetus for change...

If the whistle is blown, then only one call can be made. A technical foul. To assess the wrong penalty is no different than the AAU coach being 10 ft onot the court and his team getting the ball. I think the penalty should be changed. I have completed the survey last spring as such. I have written to my interpreter each year while he was on the rules committee. It was considered a few seasons back, but the committee was hung up on the other delays having a technical foul assessed and could not come up with a consensus. A note would be sufficient.

That said, I refer back to my first sentence.

I call it a violation because hardly anyone knows about it and unless I have called one before there is no way I'm calling it a tech. I go by the book for the most part but I'm no strict fundamentalist. take that Scalia:rolleyes:

Your can get away with a lot if that's the only excuse you need.

If I made calls based on whether or not coaches knew about specific rules, I wouldn't be making any calls at all. :p

Sad.

Just sad.

You try to insult me with a compliment?

I guess it must be a suggestion book to you.

ha, how true
"If I made calls based on whether or not coaches knew about specific rules, I wouldn't be making any calls at all. "