Inbounds play - inbounder delays entry

[rfp]

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.

[Adam]

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

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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

[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

[Adam]

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.

[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......