Inbounds play - inbounder delays entry

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by cmathews

yep 10-3-2 but I don't think it is a stretch..advantage disadvantage here yep clear advantage. Normally this is the call where the inbounder runs down the endline around any defensive pressure then enters, but this one gives them just as much advantage....IMHO

I agree - "Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out
of bounds" - seems like it fits the situation described.

[tjones1]

Whack!

Already said, but 10-3-2 and 10.3.2 Situation A.

[26 Year Gap]

I really hope they make this a violation for next year. Just like they changed the leaving the court penalty a few years back.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I really hope they make this a violation for next year. Just like they changed the leaving the court penalty a few years back.

Gap,
I agree. I just don't think that the penalty fits the crime.

For example, in the case of the OP, the offensive team was playing with four players on the court for the three seconds. Shame on the defensive team for not keeping track of a STATIONARY player!!! But, by rule (already cited), the offensive player COULD have been deemed guilty of delaying coming back onto the court.

RESULT: Two free throws and the ball for the opponent -- basically deciding the game.

TRUE RESULT: Almost no official will make this call in this situation -- as happened, here.

In my mind (NOT in the minds of the NFHS rule committee), there are two different potential situations that can happen in these cases. A player who merely STANDS out of bounds for a few seconds and then proceeds directly onto the court is the first situation. Other than a minor delay, there is nothing deceitful about the re-entry. Unlike a player entering the court coming out of a timeout late, this player is already ACTIVELY involved in the play for the throw-in. The defense should know where he/she is. So long as the player returns to the court within the area of the legal throw-in spot, the re-entry is legal. In my mind, I would like to see this situation completely ignored -- no penalty.

In the second case, the inbounder delays coming onto the court, BUT does NOT come directly onto the court. In this case a player may make a 10 to 20 foot run along the sideline or end line with NO traffic to slow him/her down. The player then returns to the court coming around a screen for an open shot. I would like to see this situation penalized as a violation as it is more akin to the violation now called for leaving the court without permission.

A player must directly return to the court, but no specific timeframe is given -- other than "directly." Due to the penalty involved, it has been my experience that I have heard officials "talk" players onto a court rather than calling the technical foul.

[26 Year Gap]

Even a delay and a return to the closest spot can gain an advantage. It was on the NFHS survey last year. So, maybe they will make the change this year. A notation that addresses this specific play would be needed as the other delays in return have that same penalty.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Gap,
I agree. I just don't think that the penalty fits the crime.

For example, in the case of the OP, the offensive team was playing with four players on the court for the three seconds. Shame on the defensive team for not keeping track of a STATIONARY player!!! But, by rule (already cited), the offensive player COULD have been deemed guilty of delaying coming back onto the court.

RESULT: Two free throws and the ball for the opponent -- basically deciding the game.

TRUE RESULT: Almost no official will make this call in this situation -- as happened, here.

In my mind (NOT in the minds of the NFHS rule committee), there are two different potential situations that can happen in these cases. A player who merely STANDS out of bounds for a few seconds and then proceeds directly onto the court is the first situation. Other than a minor delay, there is nothing deceitful about the re-entry. Unlike a player entering the court coming out of a timeout late, this player is already ACTIVELY involved in the play for the throw-in. The defense should know where he/she is. So long as the player returns to the court within the area of the legal throw-in spot, the re-entry is legal. In my mind, I would like to see this situation completely ignored -- no penalty.

In the second case, the inbounder delays coming onto the court, BUT does NOT come directly onto the court. In this case a player may make a 10 to 20 foot run along the sideline or end line with NO traffic to slow him/her down. The player then returns to the court coming around a screen for an open shot. I would like to see this situation penalized as a violation as it is more akin to the violation now called for leaving the court without permission.

A player must directly return to the court, but no specific timeframe is given -- other than "directly." Due to the penalty involved, it has been my experience that I have heard officials "talk" players onto a court rather than calling the technical foul.

I disagree. NFHS has repeatedly emphasized that the game is intended to be played within the confines of the court. IMHO, deliberately delaying re-entry to the court in order to deceive the opponent and thereby gain an advantage clearly fits the definition of unsporting conduct in 4-19-14 and should be penalized. Further, 10-3-2 specifically addresses this situation.

I will agree that there is a degree of judgment on the part of the officials - they need to determine if it was done "Purposely and/or deceitfully" or simply a brain fart on the part of the player. If the former, penalize in accordance with the rules - if the latter and no advantage was gained, use it as a teaching moment and remind the player they need to re-enter directly and promptly.

From the description in the OP it looked like the delay was a part of a designed play, and should have been penalized per 10-3-2. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck........

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

I disagree. NFHS has repeatedly emphasized that the game is intended to be played within the confines of the court. IMHO, deliberately delaying re-entry to the court in order to deceive the opponent and thereby gain an advantage clearly fits the definition of unsporting conduct in 4-19-14 and should be penalized. Further, 10-3-2 specifically addresses this situation.

I will agree that there is a degree of judgment on the part of the officials - they need to determine if it was done "Purposely and/or deceitfully" or simply a brain fart on the part of the player. If the former, penalize in accordance with the rules - if the latter and no advantage was gained, use it as a teaching moment and remind the player they need to re-enter directly and promptly.

From the description in the OP it looked like the delay was a part of a designed play, and should have been penalized per 10-3-2. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck........

I agree whole heartedly. with both the coached and brain fart situations. We have a coach in our area that late in the game after a made basket will have a player from his team throw grab the ball after the basket (made by them) and toss it to him... he wants a delay of game warning...we have talked about it, and there will certainly be a delay in the game next time it happens, as we will be shooting two free throws at the other end

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Gap,
I agree. I just don't think that the penalty fits the crime.

For example, in the case of the OP, the offensive team was playing with four players on the court for the three seconds. Shame on the defensive team for not keeping track of a STATIONARY player!!! But, by rule (already cited), the offensive player COULD have been deemed guilty of delaying coming back onto the court.

RESULT: Two free throws and the ball for the opponent -- basically deciding the game.

TRUE RESULT: Almost no official will make this call in this situation -- as happened, here.

In my mind (NOT in the minds of the NFHS rule committee), there are two different potential situations that can happen in these cases. A player who merely STANDS out of bounds for a few seconds and then proceeds directly onto the court is the first situation. Other than a minor delay, there is nothing deceitful about the re-entry. Unlike a player entering the court coming out of a timeout late, this player is already ACTIVELY involved in the play for the throw-in. The defense should know where he/she is. So long as the player returns to the court within the area of the legal throw-in spot, the re-entry is legal. In my mind, I would like to see this situation completely ignored -- no penalty.

In the second case, the inbounder delays coming onto the court, BUT does NOT come directly onto the court. In this case a player may make a 10 to 20 foot run along the sideline or end line with NO traffic to slow him/her down. The player then returns to the court coming around a screen for an open shot. I would like to see this situation penalized as a violation as it is more akin to the violation now called for leaving the court without permission.

A player must directly return to the court, but no specific timeframe is given -- other than "directly." Due to the penalty involved, it has been my experience that I have heard officials "talk" players onto a court rather than calling the technical foul.

Disagree completely.

The player immediately received a pass and scored after delaying their return back onto the court. If that isn't gaining an illegal advantage, then I don't know whatinthehell us. That's exactly why the FED implemented this rule.

And I completely disagree with the statement that no official would make that call either. Any official with rules knowledge and balls will make that call. They won't let another team gain an unfair advantage not meant by rule. Shame on an official who wouldn't make the call.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree completely.

The player immediately received a pass and scored after delaying their return back onto the court. If that isn't gaining an illegal advantage, then I don't know whatinthehell us. That's exactly why the FED implemented this rule.

And I completely disagree with the statement that no official would make that call either. Any official with rules knowledge and balls will make that call. They won't let another team gain an unfair advantage not meant by rule. Shame on an official who wouldn't make the call.

Agreed. And even if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it's all we have. Easy call in an obvious attempt to decieve the other team, and not a basketball play IMO. I hope someday they change this to a violation.

[mutantducky]

I've called this three times and every time a violation. I only call it when it is obvious they are delaying but it is a call to be made. Tech? nah.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I've called this three times and every time a violation. I only call it when it is obvious they are delaying but it is a call to be made. Tech? nah.

Why are you making up your own rules?

Just wondering......

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree completely.

The player immediately received a pass and scored after delaying their return back onto the court. If that isn't gaining an illegal advantage, then I don't know whatinthehell us. That's exactly why the FED implemented this rule.

And I completely disagree with the statement that no official would make that call either. Any official with rules knowledge and balls will make that call. They won't let another team gain an unfair advantage not meant by rule. Shame on an official who wouldn't make the call.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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.

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.