The 9-step pivot

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Depends. Camron never specified what kind of stepping OOB the player was doing. If Camron meant to imply that the player had the ball and stepped OOB, it's obviously a violation and my comment is sarcasm. If Camron meant an off-ball player stepping OOB then that's obviously nothing and my comment can be taken literally.

And no I don't think OOB violations can be subject to advantage/disadvantage. Some violations like OOB are black and white, while some like traveling, carrying, etc. are much more gray and thus can be subject to A/D.

Originally Posted by Adam

I think in context, it was obvious to me that he meant a player with the ball, given that's the only situation where "stepping out of bounds" is always a violation.

Player with the ball.

Sort of like this player, with the the ball, where the facts (holding the ball, feet moved several times, etc.) are not in dispute. There is no good reason to argue that it is OK to not call this play a travel anymore than the same player stepping OOB with the ball.

And I generally don't think that traveling is so much advantage/disadvantage call. There is nothing authoritative I've ever heard or read to suggest otherwise. Most of the cases where traveling (and even carrying) is disputed, unlike this one, have a definite advantage.