While I agree with you, I will say I like his made up rule better.

I just know when I glanced away, he must have stepped inbounds but subsequently returned OOB (unauthroized). :p

You are an evil genius! ;)

I'm still not sure about this one. Is it possible to be "purposeful and deceitful" by just standing there? The case play has the thrower going around a screen while out of bounds. This is pretty cut and dried. But if the thrower stands in the spot a couple of seconds, then enters, how does this gain an advantage?
If the rule included the phrase "return immediately" it would be different, but, as written, pass, wait, step inbounds directly, I don't think I would make this call.

In reality, even if one were hell-bent to make this call, I think it would be easy to overlook, particularly in two whistle. In the OP, the ball went to the corner. I assume the lead went with it.

And if you didn't make any calls at all, your percentage of correct calls would probably go up.

Answered in the OP:

Per the NFHS Rules Book:
Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out
of bounds.

I get the rule. At the same time, while the STATIONARY player who stands for a one, two or three count and then steps DIRECTLY onto the court MAY fit into the area of "Purposefully", as a COACH I still can't understand how such a delay could not reasonably be defended. The offensive team has five players involved in the play -- one of them legally out of bounds. Eventually, the player will be back on the court. Until that time, the offensive team is playing FOUR vs. FIVE -- not exactly what I would consider an "advantage."

I completely understand the situation of a player skirting around any defenders by running along the end line or sideline. It makes perfect sense. A player simply standing (or, perhaps he slipped, or perhaps he realized his shoe was untied and bent down to tie it), should NOT create an advantage for an offense unless the defense is just plain stupid.

Just my opinion, of course.

Perhaps it's "just plain stupid" for the defense to forget about the OOB player, leave the player undefended, and allow the player to step in, receive a pass, and get a wide open look.

But that would still be an advantage, stupid defense or not. The rules punish certain types of stupidity and not others: defenders should not be required to scan the sidelines for players who might be lurking there.

This is not a basketball play, and there is an advantage to be gained here. That said, I'm not sure I'd call a T unless the player was obviously waiting for the defense to go away -- the OP mentions 3 seconds, but after 2 I'd be telling that player to get in bounds.

I would support a rule change to make this a violation.

I had this play a year ago...
 

... team had endline inbounds play set up. I am Lead and hand thrower the ball.

Thrower passed ball in, it was swung to the top of the arc, then back to wing and then to my thrower who stepped on to the court just in time to receive pass for open 3-pointer.

The key for me is the fact that this was the design of the play. The thrower's failure to return was key in getting the defense to lose track of them.

I didn't know the rule then.
I know the rule now.
10 seconds in or 10 seconds to go, this is a player technical and I will call it.

And they want is to read the minds of the player to determine whether it was on purpose vs. the possibility that they were just watching the action and remembered they had to get inbounds?

I thought the NFHS was on a bent to remove all the mindreading requirements (such as 2pts vs 3 pts on a ball thrown from behind the arc).

Since, by their prior edicts, we can't read the player's minds, is it even possible for us to decide that the player remined OOB on purpose? Is it even possible in the NFHS philosophy of no mindreading to ever make this ruling?

I didn't realize Calvinball had officials.

And yet, it does. And apparently often enough that the rules committee bothered to put a rule into the book about it. And has left the rule in place for quite a while. And the only evidence I've seen that they intend to change the rule concerns reducing the penalty, not removing the rule. Thus the committee STILL believes it creates an advantage for the offense. And with good reason, because unless referee99 is flat out lying to us...coaches are still designing plays utilizing this tactic. I guess they do that because it creates no advantage? :confused:

There are plays like this at every level, from every throw-in spot. The defense has a tendency to look away from the player who makes the throw-in after that pass is made, and he frequently is open and receives a return pass, even when he makes his move immediately. If the player simply waits at the throw-in spot and then enters, does this provide an additional advantage, more particularly, one that is prohibited by rule? If so, how long is too long? All this is debatable.

If they change the penalty, you will see this called. Just like the 'sister play' of going OOB intentionally that had ITS penalty changed. Each year since the change was made, there have been fewer instances of this happening. I have called it less frequently because it occurs less frequently. And I think the same would happen with this type of 'play'.

OK, there has been much discussion concerning the delay of return to the court following an inbounds play. I have broken the situations into two categories:
1. The STATIONARY player simply SLOW to get back onto the court -- per the rules, we MUST ascertain intent for a technical foul to be called (Per the NFHS Rules Book: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds).
2. A player MOVES OUTSIDE THE CONFINES OF THE COURT (without worrying about defenders since they are on the court) AND moves around a screen or otherwise returns to the floor from a different location to receive a pass.

I agree that a violation would be more appropriate in situation (2) above than a technical foul, but this situation is clearly gaining an advantage regardless of what the defense does -- short of defending the inbounder by moving out of bounds to prevent the inbounder from being able to use the screen. This fits exactly to case play 10.3.2A.
10.3.2 SITUATION A: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. A1 completes the throw-in to A2 and then purposefully delays his/her return by taking four or five steps along the end line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen setby A3 and A4. A1 gets a return pass from A2 and takes an unchallenged try for goal. RULING: A1 is charged with a technical foul for purposefully delaying his/her return to the court following the throw-in. A1's movement out of bounds along the end line was to take advantage of the screen and return to the court in a more advantageous position.

On the other hand, situation (1) appears to be far closer to the situation presented in case play 10.3.2B.

10.3.2 SITUATION B: After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains there, mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A' frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return and he/she sprints directly onto the court and catches up with the play. RULING: No technical foul is charged to A5. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court.

In the case of 10.3.2B, the defense is REQUIRED to keep track of A5 even though he was not on the court when play commenced. The defense is actually responsible for picking up the player from the bench -- somewhere, anywhere along the bench. In fact, there is no reference as to where the player re-enters other than implying not ahead of the play, but rather behind it. In case 10.3.2B, A5 could legally become the trailer for the play (the case play specifically says "catches up with the play" which is specifically what a trailer does). The player could then spot up for a jump shot -- coming from BEHIND the play without the defense being aware of his presence AND the play by case 10.3.2B would be legal. The player legally rejoins the play AFTER the throw-in. I view this play to be far more similar to the inbounder being STATIONARY and then returning to the court FROM THE SAME POSITION. I still fail to see how merely STANDING STILL (within the throw-in location) can be deceitful. Players set up screens all game long by changing speeds, stepping away from a screen, etc.