Leaving the court tech?

[Sharpshooternes]

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?

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

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....

[APG]

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

[Adam]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

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

That ^

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

[potato]

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?

[APG]

Originally Posted by potato

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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?