Quote:
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........