Inbounds play - inbounder delays entry
 

Saw this the other night. GV game, 10 seconds left in a tie game. Team B inbounds under their basket. Inbounder B1 passes into the corner and then remains out of bounds for approximately 3 full seconds, in what appears to be part of their inbounds play strategy, so the defense loses attention on her. After 3 seconds she comes inbounds at the box, receives a pass and puts up a lay-up for the go-ahead score.

What's the right call? More interestingly, would you make it? Gut check time.

In this OP, no call was made. Team B wins by 2 on this game-deciding play.

The only possible call is 10-3-2, but it's a stretch.

I agree I disagree LOL
 

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.

Whack!

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

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.

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.

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........

agreed
 

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 ;)

Since I'm in the minority here (my opinions usually are, but that's a thread for another board), I'll add that three seconds is a pretty short time. I'm going to give the benefit of any doubt to the offense on this.

Don't forget to charge this to the player, though, if you call it.

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.

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?:confused:

Just wondering......

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Snaq,

I agree, but there's a big difference in discussing the pros and cons of a rule some might like to see changed, and advocating outright ignoring it, or worse yet, making up their own rules (both of which have occurred in this thread - and no, CMHCoachNRef, I'm not referring to you). Unless/until a rule is changed, it is our job to enforce what is - to do otherwise is both irresponsible and unprofessional.

Did you ever consider that the best way to get the rule changed might be to enforce it? If enough folks don't like the results of a rule being enforced as it's supposed to be, maybe that will provide more impetus for change...

If the whistle is blown, then only one call can be made. A technical foul. To assess the wrong penalty is no different than the AAU coach being 10 ft onot the court and his team getting the ball. I think the penalty should be changed. I have completed the survey last spring as such. I have written to my interpreter each year while he was on the rules committee. It was considered a few seasons back, but the committee was hung up on the other delays having a technical foul assessed and could not come up with a consensus. A note would be sufficient.

That said, I refer back to my first sentence.

I call it a violation because hardly anyone knows about it and unless I have called one before there is no way I'm calling it a tech. I go by the book for the most part but I'm no strict fundamentalist. take that Scalia:rolleyes:

Your can get away with a lot if that's the only excuse you need.

If I made calls based on whether or not coaches knew about specific rules, I wouldn't be making any calls at all. :p

Sad.

Just sad.

You try to insult me with a compliment?

I guess it must be a suggestion book to you.

ha, how true
"If I made calls based on whether or not coaches knew about specific rules, I wouldn't be making any calls at all. "

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.

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! :)

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.

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.

Agree ...
 

Where do I sign?