Leaving the court tech?

[APG]

Originally Posted by potato

does it have to be both feet? for off ball players. is there any exception? like can the defender step out of bounds for a second to avoid traffic just to get to his guy?

If we're talking about NFHS, then one foot would be sufficient, by rule to call a violation.

When you're dealing with violations or a player's location that relatse to the OOB boundary, a player is OOB if any part of him is touching OOB...both feet, one foot, hair, arm, etc. A player is inbounds when he's touching something completely inbounds, and nothing is touching OOB. There's nothing that deals with having to get both feet inbounds or OOB.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

If we're talking about NFHS, then one foot would be sufficient, by rule to call a violation.

When you're dealing with violations or a player's location that relatse to the OOB boundary, a player is OOB if any part of him is touching OOB...both feet, one foot, hair, arm, etc. A player is inbounds when he's touching something completely inbounds, and nothing is touching OOB. There's nothing that deals with having to get both feet inbounds or OOB.

Maybe, but I'm not even considering a violation for "leaving the court" (note, the violation is not for going "out of bounds") unless the player is clearly and completely out of bounds with nothing touching in bounds.

[just another ref]

10.3.6.C says the OP is a technical foul.

The OP was on our study guide.

Originally Posted by just another ref

10.3.6.C says the OP is a technical foul.

The OP was on our study guide.

I have read and understood the case play, but don't you think it changes when it is the 5th foul versus 2nd or 3rd? In the case play the player is leaving the court before their legal substitution opportunity. In the OP's case of a 5th foul, the player is replaced immediately anyway, so I think they are leaving during a legal substitution opportunity. Unless the interpretation is they can't sub until we inform the coach and start the timer...

What do you think JAR?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I have read and understood the case play, but don't you think it changes when it is the 5th foul versus 2nd or 3rd? In the case play the player is leaving the court before their legal substitution opportunity. In the OP's case of a 5th foul, the player is replaced immediately anyway, so I think they are leaving during a legal substitution opportunity. Unless the interpretation is they can't sub until we inform the coach and start the timer...

What do you think JAR?

The rule says leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to indicate resentment or disgust. Which is the more important part, the leaving or the indication of resentment/disgust? By the letter, I think you could make the call, but, by the letter you can call a T every time a coach steps outside the box and not many of these get called.

I'd have to see it. It would take quite a display.

The reason I answered was because I had recently seen the situation on the study guide and thought perhaps the OP was preparing for a test.

Originally Posted by just another ref

The rule says leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to indicate resentment or disgust. Which is the more important part, the leaving or the indication of resentment/disgust? By the letter, I think you could make the call, but, by the letter you can call a T every time a coach steps outside the box and not many of these get called.

I'd have to see it. It would take quite a display.

The reason I answered was because I had recently seen the situation on the study guide and thought perhaps the OP was preparing for a test.

Good point. I was treating the demonstration of disgust and the leaving of the court as separate issues, which I see now the rule and case play do not.

I definitely think the display of disgust is more important and would, based on the qualifications for unsporting acts, call a technical.

Variation on the case play: If a player committed a foul resulting in free throws, knew they were going to be subbed and went quietly to the bench and sat down before a substitution opportunity I would probably ask them to come back on the court until they could legally sub. Should I just leave this situation alone, or is this a tenable way to handle it?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Variation on the case play: If a player committed a foul resulting in free throws, knew they were going to be subbed and went quietly to the bench and sat down before a substitution opportunity I would probably ask them to come back on the court until they could legally sub. Should I just leave this situation alone, or is this a tenable way to handle it?

Sounds good to me.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Variation on the case play: If a player committed a foul resulting in free throws, knew they were going to be subbed and went quietly to the bench and sat down before a substitution opportunity I would probably ask them to come back on the court until they could legally sub. Should I just leave this situation alone, or is this a tenable way to handle it?

The better way is tell their coach. It happens more than we might think. Just say, “Coach, #xx has to come back on until you sub for him/her.”

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I have read and understood the case play, but don't you think it changes when it is the 5th foul versus 2nd or 3rd? In the case play the player is leaving the court before their legal substitution opportunity. In the OP's case of a 5th foul, the player is replaced immediately anyway, so I think they are leaving during a legal substitution opportunity. Unless the interpretation is they can't sub until we inform the coach and start the timer...

What do you think JAR?

My question to go along with this is when do they become bench personnel? When they leave the court or after their legal substitute enters or when the coach is informed of the 5th foul. The distinction is important in the fact that bench personnel TF results in loss of coaching box and an indirect T foul to the coach.

[bob jenkins]

Post 11 gives a case play (10.3.6C) -- what section of the book (player technical or bench technical?) is that in?

See 4-34 for information on when individuals become players and bench personnel (esp Article 3).

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

My question to go along with this is when do they become bench personnel? When they leave the court or after their legal substitute enters or when the coach is informed of the 5th foul. The distinction is important in the fact that bench personnel TF results in loss of coaching box and an indirect T foul to the coach.

For those without book access at the moment ...

4-34

ART. 3

A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court. If entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live. A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification.

Hmm, I always thought a substitute becomes a player (and vice-versa) when they are beckoned onto the court by an official. Is this still applicable or is there a caveat?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Adam

Maybe, but I'm not even considering a violation for "leaving the court" (note, the violation is not for going "out of bounds") unless the player is clearly and completely out of bounds with nothing touching in bounds.

That would be the realistic application of the rule. My point is the rule doesn't mandate both feet be OOB.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

That would be the realistic application of the rule. My point is the rule doesn't mandate both feet be OOB.

No, but I don't think it makes it illegal to "be out of bounds." It's illegal to "leave the court for an unauthorized reason." I don't think a player has left the playing court unless no part of them is touching the playing court. IOW, I see a difference between being out of bounds and having left the playing court.

The problem is, while they very clearly define being out of bounds, "leaving the court" is not really defined. But every time it's described in a case play, it involves the player being completely out of bounds.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

The problem is, while they very clearly define being out of bounds, "leaving the court" is not really defined. But every time it's described in a case play, it involves the player being completely out of bounds.

True ... but "the court" is defined at the beginning of the book. To "leave" the area defined as "the court" in that section, I think it's safe to say you must be completely out of bounds - and this would be consistent with the case plays.