Inbounds play - inbounder delays entry

[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 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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why are you making up your own rules?

Just wondering......

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.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Whether we agree or disagree with the rule is irrelevant

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

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

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.

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.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

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.

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why are you making up your own rules?

Just wondering......

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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).

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

You are an evil genius!

[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.