The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Travel or not (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/30264-travel-not.html)

Nevadaref Thu Dec 21, 2006 08:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Howinthetheheck did you go from the throw-in pass that Snaqs was talking about to a dribble?:confused:

That just happens to be where the term bat is defined in the NFHS rules book. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear anywhere else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP
Alright, I have to confess that I did mean (but left out in post #30, apparently in my haste to type it out) that the player had one foot out of bounds and one foot inbounds. - Nevada's correct in his<strike>/her</strike> assumption.


Adam Thu Dec 21, 2006 09:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo
If you bat the ball with your hand that is legal ... but, what if you strike it with your fist? That is illegal, correct?

Yes, it's illegal, but not because it doesn't say you can. It's illegal because it specifically says you cannot do it.

HawkeyeCubP Fri Dec 22, 2006 02:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
OOB isn't really OOB

When did I write that, or anything to that effect?:confused:

Anyway, straddling the line is what I meant in my original post(s), and it's why I intentionally left it vague when I said "has out of bounds status" - otherwise I would've said "who is out of bounds." I'm pretty careful how I word things on here - I just left something out. Take it for what it's worth, but be assured that I'm not trying to make myself sound smarter (or less incorrect) by writing my previous post. I admit I'm wrong all the time on here.

HawkeyeCubP Fri Dec 22, 2006 02:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
He implied it in post #30 which you quoted in #32 when he described the player as "one foot touching out of bounds," and then later wrote, "(I agree that the ball touching another A player who is completely out of bounds on an endline pass during the throw-in would not be a violation.)"

One would have to understand that he meant the first player with "one foot touching out of bounds" has the other foot touching inbounds, otherwise this player would, in fact, be "completely out of bounds."

This is a correct inference and interpretation of what I wrote, because it's what I was (unclearly) implying.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Where did he <b>state</b>, not <b>imply</b> that the player was straddling the end line?

I didn't. As I essentially said earlier: MY BAD.

HawkeyeCubP Fri Dec 22, 2006 02:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Nevada's correct in HIS/her assumption.

Thanks for the info. I just don't like to gender-assume.:)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1