Would you call this violation?

[Coach Bill]

Sideline out-of-bounds in the backcourt. Player inbounds the ball to his teammate and then runs up the sideline out-of-bounds about 15-20 feet and then comes on the court. He passed behind the official as he was running up the sideline out-of-bounds. Did the official hand him the ball on the wrong side?

I thought it should have been called, but not really a big advantage gained. They were walking the ball up the court.

[bainsey]

A violation? No. This is actually a technical foul for purposely not returning to the court after being out of bounds legally.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by bainsey

A violation? No. This is actually a technical foul for purposely not returning to the court after being out of bounds legally.

My bad. Would you call it? Seeing what the punishment is, I agree with the no call.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

My bad. Would you call it? Seeing what the punishment is, I agree with the no call.

NFHS, yes. The NCAA rule regarding this may be different. Who wants to take this?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

My bad. Would you call it? Seeing what the punishment is, I agree with the no call.

It's interesting that you put it that way. That actually has been named as a reason for a rule change, as I recall. Swinging an elbow without contact was changed from a T to a violation, at least partially because officials were hesitant to call it. Having said all that, the OP is pretty much identical to a casebook play. If an official refuses to make this call simply because he disagrees with the penalty, his position is impossible to justify.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It's interesting that you put it that way. That actually has been named as a reason for a rule change, as I recall. Swinging an elbow without contact was changed from a T to a violation, at least partially because officials were hesitant to call it. Having said all that, the OP is pretty much identical to a casebook play. If an official refuses to make this call simply because he disagrees with the penalty, his position is impossible to justify.

Like those officials who refuse to put the ball down on the floor and implement the resuming play procedure?

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Would you call it?

Yep.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That actually has been named as a reason for a rule change, as I recall. Swinging an elbow without contact was changed from a T to a violation, at least partially because officials were hesitant to call it.

And it will be again this year. Already submitted.

Suggested NFHS Rule Change

Background:

NFHS 9-3-3: A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

NFHS 10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.

Rationale:

Change 10-3-2 from a technical foul to a violation. Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds should carry the same penalty as leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

NFHS 9-3-3-B: A player shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It's interesting that you put it that way. That actually has been named as a reason for a rule change, as I recall. Swinging an elbow without contact was changed from a T to a violation, at least partially because officials were hesitant to call it. Having said all that, the OP is pretty much identical to a casebook play. If an official refuses to make this call simply because he disagrees with the penalty, his position is impossible to justify.

I don't have a problem with calling a TF for this infraction of the rules. I have called it twice this year already.

MTD, Sr.

[Pantherdreams]

How long is too long?

THis may be subjective but clearly the OP is a violation. A kid standing there because they ball watch for a couple of seconds clearly isn't? What or where is your line?

1) Let me give you a couple of scenarios. SLOB team A front court. A3 Inbounder throws into A1. A4 who had been posting up/coming tot he ball cotinues to run at the inbounder. Stops short of sideline and sets a screen to send the inbounder to the corner/or rim who steps down the line to use the screen and enters using the screen(no more space used then they would normally be allowed to step either way). ?


2) A backcourt BLOB after a made hoop by B. A1 nbounds the ball to A2. A1 1 runs the length of the baseline before stepping back onto the floor and receives a reversal or kick back pass from A2.?

[Adam]

Unless I'm seeing this wrong in my head, I wouldn't call this.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Sideline out-of-bounds in the backcourt. Player inbounds the ball to his teammate and then runs up the sideline out-of-bounds about 15-20 feet and then comes on the court. He passed behind the official as he was running up the sideline out-of-bounds. Did the official hand him the ball on the wrong side?

I thought it should have been called, but not really a big advantage gained. They were walking the ball up the court.

Originally Posted by Adam

Unless I'm seeing this wrong in my head, I wouldn't call this.

NFHS 10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.


Adam:

I do not understand why you would not call this TF?

MTD, Sr.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Sideline out-of-bounds in the backcourt. Player inbounds the ball to his teammate and then runs up the sideline out-of-bounds about 15-20 feet and then comes on the court. He passed behind the official as he was running up the sideline out-of-bounds. Did the official hand him the ball on the wrong side?
I thought it should have been called, but not really a big advantage gained. They were walking the ball up the court.

Probably ... I can't see how this could happen otherwise. Official should be trailing the play, on the side closer to the opponents basket than the thrower is. An official who doesn't know what side of the thrower to administer the throw in probably has no clue about the rule involving a delay in returning to the court.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS 10-3-2: A player shall not: Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.


Adam:

I do not understand why you would not call this TF?

MTD, Sr.

I may or may not depending on the play.

If the player throws the ball in and the play is 20 feet ahead of him and he lazily trots down the sideline (OOB) and eventually comes back in such that he is no part of the play, I'm not calling anything.

On the other hand, if there is a throwin on the endline and the player runs across the endline after throwing the ball in and pops inbounds to receive a return pass for an open shot....getting that.

The case/rule talks about "Purposely and/or deceitfully". If I don't see a purpose or deceit in the player's actions, no T. Lazy or sloppy is not purposeful or deceitful.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I may or may not depending on the play.

If the player throws the ball in and the play is 20 feet ahead of him and he lazily trots down the sideline (OOB) and eventually comes back in such that he is no part of the play, I'm not calling anything.

On the other hand, if there is a throwin on the endline and the player runs across the endline after throwin the ball in and pops inbounds to receive a return pass for an open shot....getting that.

The case/rule talks about "Purposely and/or deceitfully". If I don't see a purpose or deceit in the player's actions, no T. Lazy or sloppy is not purposeful or deceitful.

THAT'S what I'm picturing, and your reasoning matches my own.

The fact that the official was on the wrong side of the thrower just makes it look worse.