Inbounds play - inbounder delays entry

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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.

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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?

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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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'.

[CMHCoachNRef]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Yup, again there's millions of reasons being made to not call a technical foul, even though the rule is clear. The purpose and intent of the rule is to have the thrower start back on to the court immediately after they finish their throw-in. If they don't, the penalty is a technical foul. Please don't try to tell me that a thrower simply forgot to come back in-bounds after making the throw-in. That's ridiculous.

I don't particularly like the rule as written also. But in the OP the thrower received an advantage not meant by rule. It's as simple as that.

Please continue with any new excuses that y'all can dream up. Onwards and upwards!

[just another ref]

If the word immediately was contained in the rule, it would be much more difficult not to make the call in the OP, but it isn't. So, is an immediate return the key? If so, would we make the call if the thrower stands for a 3 count, then steps in and is not involved in the play? Is the key advantage gained? Does the 3 second pause gain an advantage? I'm not convinced that it does.

[tjones1]

I saw this type of delay 3 times last year. I had the call once and the other 2 were called by my partners.

So this year when I went and worked a local scrimmage a week before the season started, the coach had us talk about changes and odd/ends. I brought up this point and that the thrower needed to return as soon as possible.

I don't think it's an accident that I saw this multiple times last night... I think it's being taught and some officials are not enforcing it.