Leaving the court tech?
 

Near the end of 4th quarter A is down and full court press in play trying to force a turnover. A1 picks up a fifth foul on a questionable call. Gets angry and storms off the floor and sits on the bench. This happens before the foul is reported, the coach is informed of the 5th foul, and no substitutes are presently at the table. What do you have?

...probably nothing....

Coach that's 5...tell the table to start the 20

I don't care if it's questionable or not, I've likely got nothing here unless A1 does something even more stupid.

That ^

Except I'll tell the table to start the clock myself rather than asking the coach to do it. ;)

Would you call a technical if a non ball handler player on court went out of bounds for second due to traffic or to shake off his defender & get open for a pass?

Does it matter if he has 1 foot/ both feet out of bounds?

During play, it's a violation rather than a technical foul.

Interestingly enough, a new rule this year in the NBA makes it violation for an offensive player to go OOB and not immediately return to the playing area. It's also illegal for a player to repeatedly go in and out of bounds. Exceptions to the rule include the thrower on a throw-in, injury, or an unusual circumstance.

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.

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.

10.3.6.C says the OP is a technical foul.

The OP was on our study guide.

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

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.

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?

Sounds good to me.

That's a violation on the defense.

In NCAA (at least W, but I think also M), it's a violation if the offense does so and is the first (next) to touch the ball after coming inbounds.

As a practical matter, that's often how it gets called at the FED level (and before that there's often discussion with the players and / or coach to keep the players inbounds on the baseline screens -- which is where it happens most often).

The T is for plays like running OOB, behind the bench and then re-entering at the other end of the court.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

This is a violation in NCAA-M as well. In fact, John Adams has included a few plays from last season on his start of the year video and pointed out that this needs to be seen and called.

A substitute legally enters the court by being beckoned by an official.

In most cases "beckoned" and "legally enters" are pretty much synonymous.

When they are not, go by the rule.

The rule is what's stated above.

Note that 4.43.3 says "A6 became a player upon being beckoned and entering the court."

Endline Screens ...
 

Bingo. That's where this situation happens the most. If I'm the lead, and the players are almost running into me, then I'm considering calling this violation.

Just trip the kid and then tell them if they stayed on the court where they belong they would not have fallen on their face:D

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.”

Quote:
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?

What's the penalty for a violation on the defense in this situation?

At minimum just a violation, at maximum a TF I think.

Give the ball back to the offense. Not much of a penalty, so you don't see it called much -- but if the defense gets around a screen and disrupts the ball ...

That's what I was thinking. Not much of a penalty. so if your choices are leave a guy wide open cuz u got screened pretty good on the baseline, or go around the screen out-of-bounds, it's an easy decision. But, I like the no-call if it gives an advantage not intended by the rules.