Can't find a decent answer on the internet so turning to scoop knowledgables. Is that out of bounds line really out from both sides? I thought Greg's foot would have to be inbounds, not just on the line that makes the start of the out of bounds? Definitely wasn't inbounds.
The line is out from either side.
Quote from: THEbig0 on February 20, 2022, 08:18:56 PM
Can't find a decent answer on the internet so turning to scoop knowledgables. Is that out of bounds line really out from both sides? I thought Greg's foot would have to be inbounds, not just on the line that makes the start of the out of bounds? Definitely wasn't inbounds.
Rules change, but when I was a guard 42 years ago you had to be behind the line.
Quote from: tower912 on February 20, 2022, 08:29:04 PM
The line is out from either side.
This is correct. The line is out of bounds in every scenario. To commit a violation on an inbound pass you must go over the line.
As I watched the replay I wondered " why is he even close to that line? How about you stand 6 inches behind it? Then if you foot moves an inch or 2 you're not on the line. Or did he start out further back and move forward when he couldn't hit the first open man?
Is there a good picture? He didn't look like his foot was over the line. The ref really had to be scrutinizing it to see that. Couldn't have been more than a millimeter over the line if he was.
I was wondering the same thing. The rule is illogical. If the baseline is out of bounds, and you have to throw it in from out of bounds, you're still out of bonds if your foot is on the line and not over it. But the rule is the rule and Greg should have been comfortably behind it.
If you touch the line while touching the ball, it is a violation.
Sometime when you are bored, pull up MU's comeback against Davison. See if you think Davante committed a violation after his man made the lay up.
Not called.
So there must be a standard on how wide that line is right? I'm guessing teams can't just make it arbitrarily wide as it is it's width then becomes truly meaningful.
Others have explained, but to get right to the rule – which is very clear – we look to the Men's Basketball Rules Book 2021-22, Rule 4 Definitions, Section 6 Boundary Lines: Boundary lines of the playing court shall consist of end lines and sidelines. The inside edges of these lines define the inbounds and out-of-bounds areas.
As for markings, look to Rule 1 Court and Equipment, Section 3 Boundary Lines, Restraining Lines and Other Markings
Art. 1. The court shall be marked with boundary lines (sidelines and end lines), restraining lines and other mandatory lines and markings as shown on the Court Diagram. All lines must be clearly discernible and distinguishable.
Art. 2. Instead of the 2-inch boundaries listed on the Court Diagram, it is legal to use contrasting-colored floor areas by painting the out-of-bounds area, the center circle, and the free-throw lanes and lines so that the mathematical line between the two colors is the boundary. Such a contrasting-colored out-ofbounds belt should be at least 8 inches wide.
Art. 3. The restraining line shall be a solid, interrupted or mathematical line formed between two colors. The line may be a color that is either the same or different from that of the end lines. When space is not available for a 6-foot restraining line, the line should be marked using the maximum available distance. Non-playing personnel shall not be permitted in this area when the ball is live.
Art. 4. A shadow line is a line that designates the required 2-inch width by use of border lines at least 1/4-inch wide, all of which shall lie within the 2-inch width. All shadow lines must be clearly discernible and distinguishable.
Well that's a weird rule. The line is a dead space if it is there but doesn't have to be there if you just use colors. I could see that confusing a player in the heat of the moment. Not an excuse but a dead space line strikes me as an odd feature since it isn't even required. Oh well.
Quote from: THEbig0 on February 21, 2022, 09:02:11 AM
Well that's a weird rule. The line is a dead space if it is there but doesn't have to be there if you just use colors. I could see that confusing a player in the heat of the moment. Not an excuse but a dead space line strikes me as an odd feature since it isn't even required. Oh well.
Most coaches teach their players to stand at least a foot behind the line when inbounding so that there is no possibility of what happened to Elliott.
The way Greg's feet were positioned, it looked like he was lining up for an effen free throw. There is no advantage to doing that -- but there are many potential disadvantages, as we saw.
That was a BS call. With how loose the refs are on that rule throughout the season, to make that call to basically end the game is horrible.
Quote from: BrewCity83 on February 21, 2022, 09:09:59 AM
That was a BS call. With how loose the refs are on that rule throughout the season, to make that call to basically end the game is horrible.
Nice job not using teal.
What was strange about Greg's decision making was that Jones came to the ball and seem to be wide open, but for some reason he hesitated, decided not to give him the ball.
With only 5 or so seconds on the clock, I don't know why Jones runs directly towards the ball? Creighton didn't seem to really be contesting the ball being thrown in within the first 10-12' or so. Jones should have curled as he headed up court, caught the ball with his momentum now going towards the basket. Had Elliott hit him initially without curling, he would have had to gather himself to change direction thus taking a good second off the clock. It's totally different as you know when you catch the ball on the run going in the right direction.
Quote from: OffTheGlass on February 21, 2022, 09:28:09 AM
What was strange about Greg's decision making was that Jones came to the ball and seem to be wide open, but for some reason he hesitated, decided not to give him the ball.
With only 5 or so seconds on the clock, I don't know why Jones runs directly towards the ball? Creighton didn't seem to really be contesting the ball being thrown in within the first 10-12' or so. Jones should have curled as he headed up court, caught the ball with his momentum now going towards the basket. Had Elliott hit him initially without curling, he would have had to gather himself to change direction thus taking a good second off the clock. It's totally different as you know when you catch the ball on the run going in the right direction.
I just watched the (painful) replay a few times. Kam didn't really run at the ball; to me, it looked like he mostly ran across the court as a decoy. The idea was for Greg to inbound to Oso, who was then gonna give it right back to a sprinting Greg to take it up the right sideline.
That's why Greg was in such a hurry to step inbounds.
Had Greg actually executed the play, he'd have caught the ball on a full sprint some 75 feet from our offensive basket with about 4.5 seconds to go. Time for a few big dribbles and then maybe let fly a 25-30 footer.
Creighton did have a foul to give, so maybe one of their guys woulda grabbed Greg near midcourt with a coupla seconds left. If so, the refs probably woulda done a quick review to put the right time on the clock, which woulda given Shaka time to draw up a play. We'd have inbounded from midcourt -- still a long shot, but far stranger things have happened (including Sam's shot in 2019).
Unfortunately, Greg was standing too close to the line to start, and then got excited and stepped on the stripe. So we'll never get to know how it would have unfolded.
I'm not sure Greg is the ball handler I'd want going full speed either. Just a weird play.
That line violation happens all the time, but they hardly ever call it. It seems there is a violation half the time if you watch carefully.
Again, he didn't look over the line. The ref really had to want to make that call. That was a 100 on the 1-100 ticky tack reffing call line.
Quote from: cheebs09 on February 21, 2022, 12:16:28 PM
I'm not sure Greg is the ball handler I'd want going full speed either. Just a weird play.
Then whom?
IMO OMP
You can only see this attachment via phone but Creighton Scored earlier in the 2nd Half on this possession after Creighton was clearly out of bounds with ref starring at it. And Greg did not step on the court on his inbounds.
In March 1971, Marquette was 26-0, ranked #2 in the country and playing Ohio State in the NCAA Tournament. I believe MU was clinging to a 1 point lead with just a few seconds to go and had to inbound a ball. The MU inbounder stepped on the line (so said the referee). Turnover. A couple of seconds later an OSU guard hits a 15 foot jumper as time runs out.
Game over. Season over. NCAA Title hopes over.
I've seen this before.
If there are some old timers out there with better memories than me, how close did I get on the scenario???
Quote from: Dickthedribbler on February 21, 2022, 01:29:39 PM
In March 1971, Marquette was 26-0, ranked #2 in the country and playing Ohio State in the NCAA Tournament. I believe MU was clinging to a 1 point lead with just a few seconds to go and had to inbound a ball. The MU inbounder stepped on the line (so said the referee). Turnover. A couple of seconds later an OSU guard hits a 15 foot jumper as time runs out.
Game over. Season over. NCAA Title hopes over.
I've seen this before.
If there are some old timers out there with better memories than me, how close did I get on the scenario???
You don't have to go back 50 years...this is how Marquette's season ended in 2009.
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 21, 2022, 08:17:44 AM
Others have explained, but to get right to the rule – which is very clear – we look to the Men's Basketball Rules Book 2021-22, Rule 4 Definitions, Section 6 Boundary Lines: Boundary lines of the playing court shall consist of end lines and sidelines. The inside edges of these lines define the inbounds and out-of-bounds areas.
As for markings, look to Rule 1 Court and Equipment, Section 3 Boundary Lines, Restraining Lines and Other Markings
Art. 1. The court shall be marked with boundary lines (sidelines and end lines), restraining lines and other mandatory lines and markings as shown on the Court Diagram. All lines must be clearly discernible and distinguishable.
Art. 2. Instead of the 2-inch boundaries listed on the Court Diagram, it is legal to use contrasting-colored floor areas by painting the out-of-bounds area, the center circle, and the free-throw lanes and lines so that the mathematical line between the two colors is the boundary. Such a contrasting-colored out-ofbounds belt should be at least 8 inches wide.
Art. 3. The restraining line shall be a solid, interrupted or mathematical line formed between two colors. The line may be a color that is either the same or different from that of the end lines. When space is not available for a 6-foot restraining line, the line should be marked using the maximum available distance. Non-playing personnel shall not be permitted in this area when the ball is live.
Art. 4. A shadow line is a line that designates the required 2-inch width by use of border lines at least 1/4-inch wide, all of which shall lie within the 2-inch width. All shadow lines must be clearly discernible and distinguishable.
Watching the close up in the replay, if you look carefully Creighton's out-of-bounds area has a royal blue background and a darker navy blue end line. 8:33 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGZ0PddTyMQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGZ0PddTyMQ) Given that you can barely make it out due to the close shades of blue, that dark blue end line would seem to be in clear violation of the rule that "All lines must be clearly discernible and distinguishable."
Greg is stepping on the dark blue line, but not on the clearcoat wood.
In my view, its entirely possible that Greg thought he was safe as long as he didn't step on the clearcoat wood under the Article 2 court markings.
Compare Creighton's court:
https://d2560u4h06m0te.cloudfront.net/images/2019/12/10/20fansaction11.jpg?width=1920quality=80&format=jpg (https://d2560u4h06m0te.cloudfront.net/images/2019/12/10/20fansaction11.jpg?width=1920quality=80&format=jpg)
The color of the end line is not at all clearly discernible and distinguishable.
to MU's:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PWwaz2yc-Zo/maxresdefault.jpg (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PWwaz2yc-Zo/maxresdefault.jpg)
MU clearly has the white borders on either side of the end line per Article 4.
Obviously, Greg could have avoided the entire situation by standing further back, but clearly, Crieighton's court doesn't meet the spirit of the rules at minimum and may be in violation at worst.
Quote from: MarquetteMike1977 on February 21, 2022, 01:01:52 PM
You can only see this attachment via phone but Creighton Scored earlier in the 2nd Half on this possession after Creighton was clearly out of bounds with ref starring at it. And Greg did not step on the court on his inbounds.
The rules only apply if you are wearing a Marquette uniform; even if we are playing at home.
First of all, Greg's violation hardly "cost us the game." We still would have had to get the ball into the frontcourt and make a miracle shot.
Second, Greg committed a violation that could have been avoided if he had just used proper inbounding fundamentals.
Third, the ref was standing right there. Greg made it damn easy for the ref to make that call.
Fourth, if we make a few layups down the stretch and don't have our 2 best players kicking the ball all over the court, maybe we don't need a desperation, length-of-court play to save us.
If Creighton committed a similar violation earlier in the game, well, the refs missed it and it sucks. That happens. It doesn't let Greg (and Shaka) off the hook for Marquette's screw-up. It's pretty funny watching fellow MU fans trying to make us out to be victims here.
It was a well-earned loss. We gave it away, and doing so was a team effort. Greg's mess-up was merely the nail in the coffin.
Confirmed, the nit pickiest call to potentially decide a game I have ever seen and probably will ever see. I think that's why it bothers me so much. If he was over, it was measured by the tenths of inches. And looking at the closeup I'm still not even sure he touched the line or his foot hovered over it enough to look like it was touching on the way down. How on earth does that ref choose to make that call?
Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2022, 02:20:46 PM
First of all, Greg's violation hardly "cost us the game." We still would have had to get the ball into the frontcourt and make a miracle shot.
Didn't "cost us the game", but it ended any chance we had of winning the game.
Quote from: THEbig0 on February 21, 2022, 02:23:12 PM
Confirmed, the nit pickiest call to potentially decide a game I have ever seen and probably will ever see. I think that's why it bothers me so much. If he was over, it was measured by the tenths of inches. And looking at the closeup I'm still not even sure he touched the line or his foot hovered over it enough to look like it was touching on the way down. How on earth does that ref choose to make that call?
+1000
Quote from: BrewCity83 on February 21, 2022, 02:25:56 PM
Didn't "cost us the game", but it ended any chance we had of winning the game.
Yep. So Greg shouldn't have committed the violation.
Quote from: THEbig0 on February 21, 2022, 02:23:12 PM
Confirmed, the nit pickiest call to potentially decide a game I have ever seen and probably will ever see. I think that's why it bothers me so much. If he was over, it was measured by the tenths of inches. And looking at the closeup I'm still not even sure he touched the line or his foot hovered over it enough to look like it was touching on the way down. How on earth does that ref choose to make that call?
Yep. So Greg should have given himself more than a one-inch margin of error.
Blaming the refs in a game when our best and/or most experienced players messed up numerous times down the stretch is pretty good.
If not for the Marquette-hating refs all across America, we'd be 27-0 right now. Damn refs!
Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2022, 02:45:51 PM
Yep. So Greg shouldn't have committed the violation.
99 times out of 100 the ref doesn't consider what Greg did a violation. And ESPECIALLY when it effectively ends the game. You never see that call made unless the passer is clearly obviously over the line. And Greg was not clearly over the line.
Quote from: BrewCity83 on February 21, 2022, 02:51:50 PM
99 times out of 100 the ref doesn't consider what Greg did a violation. And ESPECIALLY when it effectively ends the game. You never see that call made unless the passer is clearly obviously over the line. And Greg was not clearly over the line.
Greg committed a violation -- the last of the many screw-ups by Marquette's most experienced and/or best players (and perhaps our coach) that combined to cost us a game.
The baseline ref gets 0.00% of the blame for our well-earned defeat.
Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2022, 02:55:53 PM
The baseline ref gets 0.00% of the blame for our well-earned defeat.
False.
Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2022, 02:55:53 PM
Greg committed a violation -- the last of the many screw-ups by Marquette's most experienced and/or best players (and perhaps our coach) that combined to cost us a game.
The baseline ref gets 0.00% of the blame for our well-earned defeat.
I understand calling the over the line violation if he was over the line. But on replay it didn't look like he was over. So at the very least it looked like a bad call.
Two layups cost us the game. But we got fined for going exactly the speed limit by an over zealous police officer.
Waaaaa! Lewis and O-Max missed bunnies, Lewis and Morsell kicked the ball around, Kolek played so badly that the coach who loves him benched him for the last 12 1/2 minutes, and a 5th-year senior who shouldn't have had his toes anywhere near the baseline on a last-ditch play committed a boneheaded violation ... but waaaa! ... we lost because the refs hated Marquette! Waaaa!
*5th year junior
Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2022, 03:08:43 PM
Waaaaa! Lewis and O-Max missed bunnies, Lewis and Morsell kicked the ball around, Kolek played so badly that the coach who loves him benched him for the last 12 1/2 minutes, and a 5th-year senior who shouldn't have had his toes anywhere near the baseline on a last-ditch play committed a boneheaded violation ... but waaaa! ... we lost because the refs hated Marquette! Waaaa!
I don't think anyone disputes MU lost the game on their own accord (at least I'm not). That call should never have been made though. That's my only point. Strange call.
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on February 21, 2022, 03:14:50 PM
I don't think anyone disputes MU lost the game on their own accord (at least I'm not). That call should never have been made though. That's my only point. Strange call.
That comment wasn't meant for you, Shooter. I think you and I happened to hit the post button at the exact same instant.
Although I will agree to disagree with you about the call. It looked like Greg stepped on the line to me.
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 21, 2022, 03:09:59 PM
*5th year junior
Yeah, haha ... I forgot. Maybe the refs hate the way Marquette classifies its basketball players, and that's why we're not 27-0!
Again, as I said earlier in this thread:
"Didn't "cost us the game", but it ended any chance we had of winning the game."
KI don't know if anyone else saw it, and I've not been able to find the replay of the game yet to find the exact moment it happened, but with only a couple minutes to play (or less), Greg was inbounding the ball on the baseline under MU's basket. The ref handed him the ball and Greg dropped it onto the baseline, picked it up and inbounded the ball. Clearly a drop and not a dribble, with it looking like the ball hit the baseline. It was not called, but I was screaming when it happened, thinking he just turned the ball over.
For a 7th year senior, he's got to do better than that....
Quote from: BrewCity83 on February 21, 2022, 03:26:10 PM
Again, as I said earlier in this thread:
"Didn't "cost us the game", but it ended any chance we had of winning the game."
The baseline ref gets 0.00% of the blame for our well-earned defeat. The final mistake was 100% on Greg (or maybe 50/50 on Greg and Shaka).
Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2022, 03:29:03 PM
The baseline ref gets 0.00% of the blame for our well-earned defeat.
False.
We can keep doing this as many times as you want, but just because you keep saying it's so doesn't make it so.
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on February 21, 2022, 03:27:52 PM
KI don't know if anyone else saw it, and I've not been able to find the replay of the game yet to find the exact moment it happened, but with only a couple minutes to play (or less), Greg was inbounding the ball on the baseline under MU's basket. The ref handed him the ball and Greg dropped it onto the baseline, picked it up and inbounded the ball. Clearly a drop and not a dribble, with it looking like the ball hit the baseline. It was not called, but I was screaming when it happened, thinking he just turned the ball over.
For a 7th year senior, he's got to do better than that....
I did notice it, and I also thought it might have been a turnover.
In that situation, a ref has to quickly determine if the inbounder simply didn't hang onto the basketball after it was handed to him, or if the inbounder had control but lost it and the ball bounced on the baseline. If it's the latter, it's a violation. If it's the former, the ref usually will ask for the ball back and then hand it back to the player to re-start the process.
I haven't seen a replay, but in live action it looked like Greg might have gotten away with one there.
Which means that the Creighton-hating ref almost stole the game from Creighton. Luckily for CU, one of the other refs -- the one who hates Marquette -- maliciously stole the game from our heroes with 5.2 seconds to go.
Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2022, 03:29:03 PM
The baseline ref gets 0.00% of the blame for our well-earned defeat. The final mistake was 100% on Greg (or maybe 50/50 on Greg and Shaka).
The reffing was sh1t. 2x the fouls called on MU making it really difficult for MU down the stretch. There were plays where Creighton was literally trying to use a foul and refs didn't call it. Did MU still make some costly mistakes...of course. That said, if the roles were reversed, and MU won a game that ended with a toe on the line, I can promise you I would 1) take the win 2) feel like the other team got screwed on the call.
Geez, it isn't about whether the ref robbed us or Greg screwed up to me, so no need to make these straw man arguments. Was it a strange call - when it most often never gets called? Yes. Last time I remember ever even seeing it was Lazar. Was it very, very close to the point of perhaps needing review? Yes, which makes it even stranger. Did it have a major impact on the game seeing as it was our last possession to really take the lead? Yes. So I find it odd a ref chooses to make that call - not that they were Marquette hating refs. And is the rule just wonky? Yes. The line is both in bounds (when you are out of bounds) or out of bounds (when you are in bounds). And actually not even required by the rules.
I'll stop now.
Quote from: avid1010 on February 21, 2022, 03:50:08 PM
The reffing was sh1t. 2x the fouls called on MU making it really difficult for MU down the stretch. There were plays where Creighton was literally trying to use a foul and refs didn't call it. Did MU still make some costly mistakes...of course. That said, if the roles were reversed, and MU won a game that ended with a toe on the line, I can promise you I would 1) take the win 2) feel like the other team got screwed on the call.
I've already said that I didn't think it was a well-officiated game and that we got the worst of it. I'm quite surprised you think the ref standing right there should have just ignored Greg's colossal mess-up, though.
OK ... I've said my piece. I wish we had won but we shot ourselves in the foot (and not just the one attached to Greg's toe) too many times. Others can have the last word in this thread.
We Are Marquette!
Quote from: THEbig0 on February 21, 2022, 02:23:12 PM
If he was over, it was measured by the tenths of inches. And looking at the closeup I'm still not even sure he touched the line or his foot hovered over it enough to look like it was touching on the way down.
But also, if he shuffled his foot even a little bit, it would have been a travel. Same effect. His feet should not have been moving.
Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2022, 12:08:55 PM
Had Greg actually executed the play, he'd have caught the ball on a full sprint some 75 feet from our offensive basket with about 4.5 seconds to go. Time for a few big dribbles and then maybe let fly a 25-30 footer.
I think this is underestimating how long 5 seconds is in that situation. The inbound happened at 5.2 seconds. That's penty of time to drive the distance. Here's a full-court layup - defended with a change or direction - that took 4.7 from inbound to release: https://youtu.be/JZWIw0U7brU?t=73
Elliott had a half-second more than that.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on February 21, 2022, 04:27:20 PM
But also, if he shuffled his foot even a little bit, it would have been a travel. Same effect. His feet should not have been moving.
Yes, but he would have had to shuffle both feet for it to be a travel. He still has a pivot foot on an inbound.
Quote from: BrewCity83 on February 21, 2022, 04:33:14 PM
Yes, but he would have had to shuffle both feet for it to be a travel. He still has a pivot foot on an inbound.
I don't know how to do a video capture, but just re-watched the last few seconds on YTTV and he actually did travel - took 3 steps.
edit: there it is... This link should take you the exact spot @ 5:13 https://youtu.be/aHPowQYsnsQ?t=313
https://youtube.com/v/aHPowQYsnsQ?t=313
Quote from: rocky_warrior on February 21, 2022, 04:37:17 PM
I don't know how to do a video capture, but just re-watched the last few seconds on YTTV and he actually did travel - took 3 steps.
Yes he did travel. But that's not what the ref called.
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on February 21, 2022, 03:07:42 PM
I understand calling the over the line violation if he was over the line. But on replay it didn't look like he was over. So at the very least it looked like a bad call.
Two layups cost us the game. But we got fined for going exactly the speed limit by an over zealous police officer.
Don't have to be over, you can't step on it to pass inbounds.
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on February 21, 2022, 03:14:50 PM
I don't think anyone disputes MU lost the game on their own accord (at least I'm not). That call should never have been made though. That's my only point. Strange call.
It's s violation that has ended our season in the past.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on February 21, 2022, 04:37:17 PM
I don't know how to do a video capture, but just re-watched the last few seconds on YTTV and he actually did travel - took 3 steps.
#FakeNews #Lies
You can do the running man for 4 seconds and then throw it in - no problem. There is no such thing as traveling when throwing the ball in.
I'd direct you to Rule 7, Section 6, Art. 8(c) which says, in part, "pivot foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in"
When you can't run the baseline, you still have a "designated spot" which is defined as 3-feet wide with no depth limitation.
This is one of the more misunderstood rules for casual fans, as they often believe the throw-in player can't move his pivot foot or take steps. Not factual.
Quote from: BrewCity83 on February 21, 2022, 09:09:59 AM
That was a BS call. With how loose the refs are on that rule throughout the season, to make that call to basically end the game is horrible.
i see line violations a lot, but the refs are not paying attention. The refs are going to pay more attention to the in bounder when he is not allowed to move, which was the case here. A senior should know better.
Quote from: bilsu on February 22, 2022, 08:16:20 AM
i see line violations a lot, but the refs are not paying attention. The refs are going to pay more attention to the in bounder when he is not allowed to move, which was the case here. A senior should know better.
An in bounder is allowed to move
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 22, 2022, 08:02:47 AM
#FakeNews #Lies
You can do the running man for 4 seconds and then throw it in - no problem. There is no such thing as traveling when throwing the ball in.
I'd direct you to Rule 7, Section 6, Art. 8(c) which says, in part, "pivot foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in"
When you can't run the baseline, you still have a "designated spot" which is defined as 3-feet wide with no depth limitation.
This is one of the more misunderstood rules for casual fans, as they often believe the throw-in player can't move his pivot foot or take steps. Not factual.
Yeah, lots of folks don't understand inbounding rules, but that's OK. They can get educated here. As you said, there's no "traveling" while inbounding the ball. Shuffling one's feet is not against the rules.
The inbounder can start 2 1/2 feet behind the baseline and take 10 choppy steps forward if he or she wants to, and it's not a violation. If he or she makes contact with the baseline before throwing the ball in, however, it is a violation. And unfortunately, that's what Greg did.
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 22, 2022, 08:02:47 AM
#FakeNews #Lies
You can do the running man for 4 seconds and then throw it in - no problem. There is no such thing as traveling when throwing the ball in.
I'd direct you to Rule 7, Section 6, Art. 8(c) which says, in part, "pivot foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in"
When you can't run the baseline, you still have a "designated spot" which is defined as 3-feet wide with no depth limitation.
This is one of the more misunderstood rules for casual fans, as they often believe the throw-in player can't move his pivot foot or take steps. Not factual.
Fair enough, appreciate the explanation.
It is not a matter of whether the rule is good or bad.
It is a matter of having the experience and poise to execute.
What Sunday proved is we have a lot of growing to do if we expect to win ANYTHING in the NCAAs.
Greg as a "senior" guard never should have been anywhere near that line.
Darryl as a senior should have read the defense, seen the trap and passed.
Tyler as our all-world point guard, who has been so important to us for so long should have been on the floor handling the ball. Maybe that meant Kur or ever JLew was on the bench, but Tyler need to be there.
Shaka should have had our "best five" on the court when it mattered. Obviously, he didn't.
There is no guarantee we would have made the shot and, if we missed, I'd feel bad but would understand. But when you shoot yourself in the foot, your fans get angry.
We've lost two games to Creighton because of self-inflicted incompetence. The kind of stuff we were used to seeing under Wojo. We've gone from being a 4 or 5 seed to probably being a 9 seed, assuming there is no more absurdity. Fortunately, we're at home for the remainder of our games (at DePaul, we probably will have more fans there than they will) and should be favored. But, gosh, clean the mess up, OK?????
dg: I appreciate your passion, but we do not yet know the whole story behind why Kolek wasn't part of Shaka's "best five" on Sunday, and there's a chance we never will.
Oh, and there's no "best lineup" without Lewis.
Agree with most of the rest, especially the cleaning-up part!
At the reisk of continually beating this dead horse (and we still have 4 more days until the next game) one thing I haven't seen clearly is a look where ball is released and where his foot is at that exact moment . Perhaps that footage (ha ha) doesn't exist, but I wondered was the ball still in his hands when his foot crossed the line. With all the super slow motion replays we see when a ball is tipped out of bounds by two opponents or when a shot is released as time expires, I thought we'd see that. Never happened that I recall.
And as a previous poster pointed out there was the "dropped" ball before an inbound which was never called, but could have been an issue.
Finally, there was a blatant over the line (in my opinion) on an inbound pass following a made CU basket where I believe it was Oso, who grabbed the ball, stepped OB and then threw it back in with barely even establishing himself OB and clearly, I thought, stepped over before releasing the ball.
Probably should work on inbound passes right after free throws next practice.
Quote from: romey on February 22, 2022, 03:00:24 PM
At the reisk of continually beating this dead horse (and we still have 4 more days until the next game) one thing I haven't seen clearly is a look where ball is released and where his foot is at that exact moment . Perhaps that footage (ha ha) doesn't exist, but I wondered was the ball still in his hands when his foot crossed the line. With all the super slow motion replays we see when a ball is tipped out of bounds by two opponents or when a shot is released as time expires, I thought we'd see that. Never happened that I recall.
And as a previous poster pointed out there was the "dropped" ball before an inbound which was never called, but could have been an issue.
Finally, there was a blatant over the line (in my opinion) on an inbound pass following a made CU basket where I believe it was Oso, who grabbed the ball, stepped OB and then threw it back in with barely even establishing himself OB and clearly, I thought, stepped over before releasing the ball.
Probably should work on inbound passes right after free throws next practice.
For that last one, I think it would need to be egregious to call. I'm not sure Davante was ever fully out of bounds when he inbounded after a made basket.
Dead ball inbounds, especially at the end of games, are the ones that will get the most scrutiny.
Quote from: Dickthedribbler on February 21, 2022, 01:29:39 PM
In March 1971, Marquette was 26-0, ranked #2 in the country and playing Ohio State in the NCAA Tournament. I believe MU was clinging to a 1 point lead with just a few seconds to go and had to inbound a ball. The MU inbounder stepped on the line (so said the referee). Turnover. A couple of seconds later an OSU guard hits a 15 foot jumper as time runs out.
Game over. Season over. NCAA Title hopes over.
I've seen this before.
It was Allie McGuire that stepped over the line.
If there are some old timers out there with better memories than me, how close did I get on the scenario???
Quote from: Marqevans on February 22, 2022, 03:58:32 PM
It was a sideline play, and if I remember correctly, he had very little room to stand as he was near the bench.