Throw-in violation missed?

 

!

I didn't watch the entire video, but I was watching it live & saw the replay a few times.

 

I think he established himself & gained possession simultaneously.

I always thought you had to have two feet to be established, but they were saying later that it's only one. Is it the same on a potential over-and-back play?

I didn't watch the entire video, but I was watching it live & saw the replay a few times.

 

I think he established himself & gained possession simultaneously.

 

I always thought you had to have two feet to be established, but they were saying later that it's only one. Is it the same on a potential over-and-back play?

 

You raise the key issue. How does one establish themselves inbounds?

You raise the key issue. How does one establish themselves inbounds?

 

The way I heard the rule explained, the player in question was established because he had one foot inbounds before touching the ball.

I think he gained possesion. Same principle if he would have thrown it off a Miizzou player.

The way I heard the rule explained, the player in question was established because he had one foot inbounds before touching the ball.

 

I thought it had to be both feet. I think it was incorrect based on that. The video quality isn't the best but it looks like the ball is in his hand before his other foot hits the ground.

The way I heard the rule explained, the player in question was established because he had one foot inbounds before touching the ball.

 

Basically correct.

 

It's a myth that two feet have to be touching. No such rule in the book. It just says you have to be inbounds. So in order to be inbounds coming from out of bounds two things must happen: 1. touch inbounds (any part of the body) and 2. NOT be touching out of bounds.

 

If you are jumping inbounds but haven't touched inbounds yet and touch the ball you're out of bounds.

 

Impress your friends at the next Polar Bear game with that one.

I think he gained possesion. Same principle if he would have thrown it off a Miizzou player.

 

I don't follow the "same principle" comment.

Basically correct.

 

It's a myth that two feet have to be touching. No such rule in the book. It just says you have to be inbounds. So in order to be inbounds coming from out of bounds two things must happen: 1. touch inbounds (any part of the body) and 2. NOT be touching out of bounds.

 

Impress your friends at the next Polar Bear game with that one.

 

What about at half court? This happened to me in a church league game, where the stakes are much higher than an NCAA game. :lol:

 

One of our players brings it across half-court & is immediately trapped. I'm lazily jogging up the floor and he throws it in my direction. I catch it before either foot has touched onto our half of the court. I'm in the air, but have not had a foot touch. Ref calls it over-and-back, which I believe is right. But my question is: Does it take one foot or two feet in that scenario to be established?

Impress your friends at the next Polar Bear game with that one.

 

After watching me play there for four years, I'm beyond impressing anyone.

What about at half court? This happened to me in a church league game, where the stakes are much higher than an NCAA game. :lol:

 

One of our players brings it across half-court & is immediately trapped. I'm lazily jogging up the floor and he throws it in my direction. I catch it before either foot has touched onto our half of the court. I'm in the air, but have not had a foot touch. Ref calls it over-and-back, which I believe is right. But my question is: Does it take one foot or two feet in that scenario to be established?

 

Both feet.

Both feet.

 

That's what the referee said right before I flipped him off, got ejected, & went outside and slit his tires.

^ :lol: Those church league are intense. I hope you got grounded for that.

That's what the referee said right before I flipped him off, got ejected, & went outside and slit his tires.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol: That's classic.