ADVERTISEMENT

UVA struggling again

SteelBowl70

Freshman
Mar 12, 2016
1,244
813
113
Up 53-48 with 5 minutes left against a ND team who keeps missing wide open shots. Both teams are an identical 7-24 shooting threes (29%)
 
Guys does anyone agree that a player that is already out of bounds cannot have the ball thrown at him and the result being that it is considered off of him and gets rewarded to the other team? It's one thing to be falling out of bounds with the ball and that player throws it off the legs of a player in bounds and then the ball goes out of bounds, but to throw the ball off the legs of a player that's already out of bounds makes zero sense to me. HE IS OFF THE COURT. This just happened in Indiana Illinois game. I've seen it before and I think it's the wrong call
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteelBowl70
Guys does anyone agree that a player that is already out of bounds cannot have the ball thrown at him and the result being that it is considered off of him and gets rewarded to the other team? It's one thing to be falling out of bounds with the ball and that player throws it off the legs of a player in bounds and then the ball goes out of bounds, but to throw the ball off the legs of a player that's already out of bounds makes zero sense to me. HE IS OFF THE COURT. This just happened in Indiana Illinois game. I've seen it before and I think it's the wrong call
Technically the right call. It's a dumb rule but you don't become an object like a chair if you're entirely out of bounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Millerton24
Guys does anyone agree that a player that is already out of bounds cannot have the ball thrown at him and the result being that it is considered off of him and gets rewarded to the other team? It's one thing to be falling out of bounds with the ball and that player throws it off the legs of a player in bounds and then the ball goes out of bounds, but to throw the ball off the legs of a player that's already out of bounds makes zero sense to me. HE IS OFF THE COURT. This just happened in Indiana Illinois game. I've seen it before and I think it's the wrong call
I agree that the rule seems dumb - why is a player who is out of bounds still considered to be in play?

Illinois really blew a few chances to win that game. Kept passing up open looks and trying to get the ball inside, and losing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Millerton24
Guys does anyone agree that a player that is already out of bounds cannot have the ball thrown at him and the result being that it is considered off of him and gets rewarded to the other team? It's one thing to be falling out of bounds with the ball and that player throws it off the legs of a player in bounds and then the ball goes out of bounds, but to throw the ball off the legs of a player that's already out of bounds makes zero sense to me. HE IS OFF THE COURT. This just happened in Indiana Illinois game. I've seen it before and I think it's the wrong call
So then technically you could never be considered to have dribbled out of bounds. Cause the moment your foot is out of bounds it is no longer considered in play?
 
Guys does anyone agree that a player that is already out of bounds cannot have the ball thrown at him and the result being that it is considered off of him and gets rewarded to the other team? It's one thing to be falling out of bounds with the ball and that player throws it off the legs of a player in bounds and then the ball goes out of bounds, but to throw the ball off the legs of a player that's already out of bounds makes zero sense to me. HE IS OFF THE COURT. This just happened in Indiana Illinois game. I've seen it before and I think it's the wrong call
Also, why wouldn’t you set up defensive play where one or more players steps outside of the court and just slap at the ball if a dribbler goes by. In your version the dribbler is tagged as dribbling out of bounds. The player out of bounds would not be. The rule makes perfect sense
 
Also, why wouldn’t you set up defensive play where one or more players steps outside of the court and just slap at the ball if a dribbler goes by. In your version the dribbler is tagged as dribbling out of bounds. The player out of bounds would not be. The rule makes perfect sense
Simple - if you are out of bounds, you are out of play. You cannot make a play or be part of a play.
 
Simple - if you are out of bounds, you are out of play. You cannot make a play or be part of a play.
Not at simple. In the original scenario the dribbler throwing the ball at the guy out of bounds is consdiered to have committed the turnover per the original poster. So why wouldn’t the original poster consider the dribbler to commit the turnover if a guy was out of bounds? You guys are drawing too fine a detail of this situation that is why the rule is the way it is.
 
Simple - if you are out of bounds, you are out of play. You cannot make a play or be part of a play.
Then y can the guy make a play off of u if u are already out of bounds? The guy out of bounds in this case is part of a play.
 
I don’t understand your confusion with the ball being tossed off of the guy out of bounds. He is the one that caused it.
The guy is already standing out of bounds (out of the play?), how can the guy with the ball thrown it off of him and get rewarded the ball? It should be the wrong call.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT