Editor’s Note: It was brought to our attention via email and on our message boards that prior to the game-winning basket in Saturday’s VT-WVU game (won 68-67 by WVU), the WVU inbounder traveled with the basketball. Believing that the traveling rules governing inbounding the ball after it was knocked out of bounds are the same as live-ball traveling rules, we put together a video showing that the WVU player had traveled.
It turns out that it was NOT a traveling violation. On an inbounds play after a referee’s stoppage, the player inbounding the ball has a three-foot area in which he can move his feet to find an open teammate. He commits a turnover if he leaves the three-foot area before he throws the ball inbounds. He does not have to maintain a pivot foot or restrict himself to taking just one step.
Hey, we’re here to educate, even if it means making fools out of ourselves by being wrong. You’re welcome.
The original text of the post follows ….
This video shows that West Virginia committed a walk just before their game winning basket in VT’s 68-67 loss in Morgantown, but the referees blew the call.
FOR BEST VIEWING RESULTS, CLICK THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER TO VIEW THE VIDEO FULL-SCREEN.
Aren’t there certain times and situations when the inbounder must be stationery and can not move his pivot foot?
Apparently not.
Appreciate the clarification, but did the player inbounding the ball stay inside the three foot area? Started out with one foot on the ‘W’ and one foot on the ‘E’ and doesn’t get rid of the ball until just before landing between the ‘T’ and ‘V.’
Huh. I was always taught that you have to have a pivot foot if it isn’t a made-basket in bounds. I am 90% sure I’ve seen it called before as a walk. Has this rule changed in the last fifteen years?
This falls under Rule 4, Section 18 (Designated Spot):
Art. 1. The designated throw-in spot shall be 3-feet wide with no depth
limitation.
Art. 2. The designated spot is the location at which a thrower-in is presented
disposal of the ball out of bounds.
Art. 3. The thrower-in must keep one foot on or over the designated spot
until the ball is released. Pivot foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in.
Hope this clears up the controversy!
Do you know if this rule has been changed in the recent future? I was definitely taught to keep a pivot foot.
hokiehorn08 says in another comment further down: “…shouldn’t be a different rule from the past.”
To be honest, I don’t know when the last time that particular rule was changed and/or clarified – it may well have lacked the qualification in Art. 3 (Pivot foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in) until the rules committee determined that the rule was not being interpreted consistently. This was the case a couple years ago when a clarifying statement regarding team control existing once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower-in.
In short, I’m not sure WHEN the rule was written the way it currently reads, and I’m not sure what it said before it was last changed. I guess it doesn’t make much sense to me that it would have been significantly different since I started officiating high school ball about 5 or 6 years ago since the NFHS rule hasn’t changed in that time – and, admittedly, I haven’t been keeping track of the NCAA rules changes over that time becuase I only recently started getting interested in officiating college ball. It might surprise you to know, though, that the NFHS and NCAA rules aren’t really very different – and many of the passages are identical.
That’s weird, why would HS coaches teach the pivot foot rule if the 3′ rule existed? It’s a strategic advantage to not have to use the pivot foot, so I doubt a coach would use the pivot foot rule just to make sure his guy didn’t go outside the 3′ circle. There is a reason soccer throw ins require stationary feet.
I bet it was a rule at one point and then just passed down over the years and never corrected. I just can’t imagine it has always been the 3′ rule yet taught as the pivot foot rule.
It was a travel, however, every single time Kilicli had the ball in his hands. Apparently Euro basketball (and these refs) have a very liberal interpretation of maintaining one’s pivot foot.
That being said, WVU deserved the win with the way they dominated our boys on the boards.
I think I’d disagree, Rudy – the rule says only that some part of the player has to be over the space. It’s not that it isn’t close – it is – but I think the WVU player’s foot stays just enough over the space for the ref administering the throw-in to give him the benefit of the doubt.
From an officiating standpoint, the call you are looking for isn’t something that’s likely to be given this close to the end of the game unless something similar had been called earlier in the game, OR the violation was not quite so marginal. It’s not as though this is the first time in the game a thrower-in moved over his designated space to improve his throwing angle – but from a standpoint of consistency, if that same leverage had been granted earlier in the game, it probably needs to be granted at the end of the game too.
I think I’m going to have to agree to disagree. Someone posted the rule (or at least what they said is the rule). Part of it reads…
Art. 3. The thrower-in must keep one foot on or over the designated spot until the ball is released. Pivot foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in.
So by specifically adding “or over” they have ruled out jumping sideways to throw in the ball. The WVU players shuffles left, barely has a foot “on” the area, then jumps to the left to throw the ball in. To me it is a clear violation that gained them an advantage.
As to whether the refs should or shouldn’t make that call at that time I can’t comment as I don’t know what refs usually do in those situations.
Thanks for the feedback.
Rudy – hey, no problem with the disagreement. Believe it or not, officials take this stuff (and the video) back to the locker room after the game and look at this stuff to see whether we got it right or not. At the college level, games are being continuously reviewed and officials continuously graded on how well they did.
From my standpoint, having watched the video several times and recognizing the time, score, and situation…I’m not sure I make a different call “in-game” than the official did here. There’s just not enough there for me to conclude decisively that the WVU player’s foot was outside of the designated space – and in an end-of-game situation on a violation that hasn’t been called to this point in the game, I’d really need iron-clad proof that he moved well outside of the spot. Three feet is kind of a long way, to be honest – about half the height of any of the guards – and to my eye the player’s foot is over the “E” while the spot was apparently the middle of the “W.” I don’t think those letters are 3-feet wide, but I guess they might be.
At any rate, that’s a real-time judgement call and I think a case can be made for either decision. Sucks that the ref decided the way that hurt the Hokies, but I can’t really beat him up for that one. It’s not like the Duke game 5 or 6 years ago when the guard was trapped and walked about 5 feet down the court as he pivoted before being granted a time-out…
Not a walk but he still broke the 3 foot wide space rule. If you consider the player is straddling the middle of the 3 foot wide space then he only has to move his body 18 inches in either direction to be completely out of the box. The WVU player moves several steps to the left to get an open passing lane.
Who came up with this? The rule governing putting the ball in play from out of bounds indicates that the thrower-in has a three-foot wide space that some part of his body must remain in until the ball has been released, and that the three-foot wide space has no depth constraint. Besides, it isn’t possible to travel when there is no player control – and player control cannot be established until a player with inbounds status is holding or dribbling the ball…
Good to know. I have updated the blog post.
By the way, is this a different rule from the past? I recall traveling being called on inbounds plays in the past. Was I just witnessing a violation of the three-foot rule?
Will – shouldn’t be a different rule from the past. The key is probably “what violation was it.” The technical term for it would be a “throw-in violation” as opposed to traveling, since traveling has a very precise definition in the rule book and it has to do with pivot feet, the dribble, and so on.