Over and Back Rule

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"Both feet and the ball, consecutively" means that the feet must enter first, followed by the ball.

That's clearly not true.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

True, but it does add something, otherwise a player who puts two feet over the line, then retreats, then advances just enough to dribble over the line would gain FC status. I didn't say which order, but they all need to have FC status at the same time.

I didn't state the order, but I see how that could be inferred.
I'll go back and add "in any order" to make it correct.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I didn't state the order, but I see how that could be inferred.
I'll go back and add "in any order" to make it correct.

Still wouldn't be correct, since the events need not be ordered. They can be simultaneous.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Still wouldn't be correct, since the events need not be ordered. They can be simultaneous.

The day I see a dribbler put the ball and both feet down into the FC simultenously, I'll concede this point.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The day I see a dribbler put the ball and both feet down into the FC simultenously, I'll concede this point.

Why? My point is that it's possible, not that we see it every day. You're not conceding that it's possible? Dribbler jumps over the line, lands on both feet, and continues dribbling?

I'm not sure why you're going to the mat for the sake of the word 'consecutively'. It's not that great a word.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Why? My point is that it's possible, not that we see it every day. You're not conceding that it's possible? Dribbler jumps over the line, lands on both feet, and continues dribbling?

I'm not sure why you're going to the mat for the sake of the word 'consecutively'. It's not that great a word.

Shut up.

Now I concede.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Now I concede.

And you feel better too, don't you?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Why? My point is that it's possible, not that we see it every day. You're not conceding that it's possible?

Unless you have youtube evidence to prove otherwise, I agree with Snaqs, it is impossible.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I didn't state the order, but I see how that could be inferred.
I'll go back and add "in any order" to make it correct.

I believe the word you are looking for in concurrently.