Henderson delivered a cheap shot and got one game for it. Hopefully it was contribute to Duke losing that first game, always makes my day a little brighter when the self righteous Dukies lose.

Incorrect. That's another rule myth. There is no pivot foot. You have an area ,I think, about 3 feet wide that you can move within. There is no rule requiring you to keep a pivot foot. That's only when you're in play.

Rule 9, Section 4, Article 1 clearly states that an inbounds thrower shall not leave a designated spot when inbounding a ball. Sparks left his designated sopt by moving both feet.

I thought Sparks did travel, he wasn't allowed to move his feet on the inbounds right?

You are allowed to move your feet as stated above. If you are inbounding after a possesion that did not end with your opponents scoring you have a "designated" 3 foot area from which you can throw in. You can do a backflip as long as you remain in the spot. I had a long conversation with a ref this year also believing an inbounder had to keep a pivot foot if the throwin was not after a score. I went on a rules site and found out I was incorrect. 3 foot area is correct.

^ I just looked up the rule...there is no mention of a 3 foot area...it actually states a designated SPOT...now that is a judgement rule...I am fine with letting that go...NOW, the travel on the inbounds is not grey at all.

:scared: Wow! this is a large thread that has nothing to do with UK...

 

All of a sudden it is a UK thread. How does that happen:lol:

^ I just looked up the rule...there is no mention of a 3 foot area...it actually states a designated SPOT...now that is a judgement rule...I am fine with letting that go...NOW, the travel on the inbounds is not grey at all.

 

RP - its not a judgment rule. 4-41-6 says "the designated throw-in spot is 3 feet wide with no depth limitation and is established by the official prior to putting the ball at the thrower's disposal. Note: The thrower must one foot on or over the spot until the ball is released. Pivot-foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in."

 

 

In other words, Sparks did NOT commit a violation.

RP - its not a judgment rule. 4-41-6 says "the designated throw-in spot is 3 feet wide with no depth limitation and is established by the official prior to putting the ball at the thrower's disposal. Note: The thrower must one foot on or over the spot until the ball is released. Pivot-foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in."

 

 

In other words, Sparks did NOT commit a violation.

Right about Sparks. How about Henderson? Seemed flagrant to me.

^ Let's see a video...three feet is so small

Right about Sparks. How about Henderson? Seemed flagrant to me.

We've debated...I think the foul was over the top...I can deal with the ejection, and suspension...he didn't purposely elbow Tyler in his face...it's ALL history.

We've debated...I think the foul was over the top...I can deal with the ejection, and suspension...he didn't purposely elbow Tyler in his face...it's ALL history.

Right, but it is the subject of this thread. Not so sure how Sparks traveling a couple of years ago fits in here, other than Packer being an idiot.

^ I didn't bring him up.

^ Let's see a video...three feet is so small

 

 

Go to the 4:36 mark. He will shuffle his feet but barely goes anywhere. He's easily within the 3 foot box.

Yeah its getting serious when the youtube is broke out. I love this stuff.

Perfect no travel on the inbounds.....but wowzer, I had forgotten about the in play travel.

I think everyone has it wrong. The question should be why did Hansborough use his nose to stop Henderson elbow.