It’s my understanding that they only review OOB plays that were called OOB.
Since this wasn’t called OOB…not reviewable
Rutgers Must Contest
- Thread starter RutgersClassof2004
- Start date
It’s my understanding that they only review OOB plays that were called OOB.
Since this wasn’t called OOB…not reviewable
otherwise, an offensive player could have a huge advantage. Just run out of bounds on the sideline, run around the back of the basket and come back on court where the ball handler knows to pass the ball to you for an easy open shot.
It’s nitpicking but potentially important to clarify that it’s not even an intent thing, it’s momentum. He could have done it accidentally but his momentum didn’t take him there and he didn’t re-establish so it’s against the rule
The proper thing would be to put those three bastards in front of a wall with a firing squad at the ready.
Only on a Rutgers board would so called “fans” make this ridiculous argument and worse have 10 losers like it. That was an indisputable illegal play. RU won that game. But I guess it makes these idiots fell righteous. I am tired of rationalizing the obvious.
Agreed, upon further understanding and clarification of the rule, it makes this moot about re-establishing (which, had it mattered, he didn't successfully do) since in hoops, like football, if you go OOB voluntarily, you cannot be the first to touch the ball upon re-entry.
The refs bit this one hard, on multiple fronts and have stolen one from our guys, who scrapped on the road to earn this one.
You are 100% wrong. BOT feet were in the air as he was jumping back in when he touches the ball
If this interpretation is correct, then when would the rule ever apply? Why have the rule?
It’s also irrelevant since the shooter was in the air, jumping in from out of bounds, when he caught it. It was out of the passers hands before the shooter landed back in bounds. So even by your interpretation, he was the first to touch it.
There were “indudlutsble” illegal plays all gane that weren’t called. And some indisputable legal calls that were.
Hence is sports..
how could that even happen? the rule would be better stated saying he can’t be the next person to touch the ball.
That’s exactly what the rule says. A player who was out of bounds on his own cannot be the next person to touch the ball once he’s in bounds
Ummm, I agree, if you read my whole post including the ETA paragraph ("edited to add"), I reversed my position.
What’s maddening is all the other reviewable plays throughout a game, most of which are totally inconsequential. How many times did they go to the monitor in the IU game. And each one was an absurdly long review. But when it really matters, on a game winner, not reviewable. F’ng brutal
This is the correct interpretation. The rule is if a player goes out of bounds under his own volition, he can’t be the first to touch the ball when he re-enters. Holden just wanders out of bounds on his own clear as day.
Kcg88 said it well - they are just not going to overturn it via a ‘contest’ as much as I would like them to.
searching for the actual language of the rule.....it looks like it depends on if the player out of bounds was pushed there or momentum carried him out....see part b at the bottom
if the player went out on purpose it is a violation
if momentum took him out, or went out unintentionally he dose not need both feet in either when catching the ball
I am more disturbed at our decision to foul, and foul so early to boot
again, look at part b.....rule 7-4.6b
because the rule allows for a player to be out and come back in and catch the ball in some situations , and also can be a violation if intentionally going out of bounds, this gives the refs all the wiggle room they need
1. A player who steps out of bounds under the player’s own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.
a. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of bounds as permitted by Rule 7-4.6.b, does not receive the pass along the end line from a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after returning to the playing court.
b. A player whose momentum causes that player to go out of bounds may be the first to touch the ball inbounds if that player reestablishes one foot inbounds prior to touching the ball.
if the player went out on purpose it is a violation
if momentum took him out, or went out unintentionally he dose not need both feet in either when catching the ball
I am more disturbed at our decision to foul, and foul so early to boot
again, look at part b.....rule 7-4.6b
because the rule allows for a player to be out and come back in and catch the ball in some situations , and also can be a violation if intentionally going out of bounds, this gives the refs all the wiggle room they need
1. A player who steps out of bounds under the player’s own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.
a. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of bounds as permitted by Rule 7-4.6.b, does not receive the pass along the end line from a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after returning to the playing court.
b. A player whose momentum causes that player to go out of bounds may be the first to touch the ball inbounds if that player reestablishes one foot inbounds prior to touching the ball.
Last edited:
Seriously - they spent 5 minutes reviewing that play where Simpson mixed-it up with that Indiana player. It was ridiculously obvious that there was nothing there. But they spent 5 minutes. I was so pissed at the time - what the hell where they looking at!!!
And then here…. Nothing?!!!!! Really ?!?!?
This is the at John’s game 2.0
This x100. They waste time going to the monitor over other nonsense. They should be able to take 5 seconds to see they blew this call. It would take one look
It’s not about intent. Not paying attention to where you are and walking out of bounds on your own doesn’t give you a pass to come back in and touch the ball
You are right
But the refs can hide behind that rule
since there are situations that allow you out of bounds
screw this crap tonight about moving on--do that in a day or so --RU should ***** like a bastard and be heard even if it's only a sorry
Although the refs clearly missed the call byRule as well as the point guard stepping out of bounds just missed by the refs , supposedly both are not reviewable , which is ridiculous but might be true. However , the clock does not start when Caleb goes to the line with 5.0 seconds left for 1 to 1.5 seconds so that time would have run out before the pass was even attempted let alone the shot. That is reviewable. A clock malfunction is reviewable and that should have been done by the chicken **** refs ran off the court. That is the only chance of a reversal. I used a stopwatch to time when Caleb missed and it is clearly without a doubt 5 seconds when Thornton gets to half court trying to get around Caleb and the ball is still in his hands.