Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Are you refering to Snaq's example or the play from the NCAAW's quiz?
I happen to think that BOTH should be travels, but obviously the folks that govern NCAAW ball don't agree.  |
Ok, it goes back to my initial comment - I can see the reasoning where the quiz example can be legal, and I agree Snaq's play is a travel. Regarding the quiz play, there is no pivot foot established, so how can there be a travel violation without a pivot foot? Since the NCAA doesn't use the Fed case play, we have to go under the assumption that no pivot foot = no travel violation. In Snaq's play, he was trying to provide another example of no pivot foot established, however, I disagree in that once the player jumped, there was a pivot foot established due to Art. 2. So, in that respect, I agree with both of you on the fact his play is a travel, just not on the reasoning why. Does that make sense?