Stetson @ FGCU (Video)

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am sorry, but I do not see a travel. I see an issue of which foot he has established and certainly not enough to where I am going to say, "Damn that is a travel." Now if you are better at getting these, more power to you. I am at the lead likely looking for contact mainly. Maybe the Trail picks this up, but the are also likely looking at bodies in front of them or around them.

It's one thing to not call it live, but do you truly not actually see a travel there? Now I realize I have the benefit of slow motion replay multiple times (as do you), but it's pretty clearly a travel.

In play #1, I can see the foul call, and would not dispute it, but I really don't think the hand in the back is what caused the player going for the rebound to move forward like that, a) I think he was moving forward anyways, and b) it was a longer rebound, and was over his head regardless. If the officials pass on this call, I would be absolutely fine with it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by frezer11

It's one thing to not call it live, but do you truly not actually see a travel there? Now I realize I have the benefit of slow motion replay multiple times (as do you), but it's pretty clearly a travel.

In play #1, I can see the foul call, and would not dispute it, but I really don't think the hand in the back is what caused the player going for the rebound to move forward like that, a) I think he was moving forward anyways, and b) it was a longer rebound, and was over his head regardless. If the officials pass on this call, I would be absolutely fine with it.

Just the opposite view from me. He extended his arm and pushed -- and then he gets the ball. Too much for me to pass on and an easy one to see on video.

[HokiePaul]

1) Announcer: "and a foul over the back" ... I thought now that my HS season was over, I might be able to go a few days without hearing the phrase "over-the-back". Apparently not.

2) Seems like a good call. Minor touch on the arm, but it severely impacted the shot. Traveling never crossed my mind until after reading these posts. Only by taking both angles together could I see a travel if you are considering the right foot as the pivot foot, then lifted and replaced. In real time I would have seen the left foot plant as the pivot foot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by frezer11

It's one thing to not call it live, but do you truly not actually see a travel there? Now I realize I have the benefit of slow motion replay multiple times (as do you), but it's pretty clearly a travel.

I do not see an obvious travel because it is a question of when he actually gathers the ball. To me that means not when they are bringing the ball in, but when they have actual control of the ball. I do not see that clearly on this video and if you say you do that is fine, but I tend to want "clear" evidence and not angles that make that in doubt. Travels to me have to be so obvious that they call themselves. This is not one of those times.

Peace

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not see an obvious travel because it is a question of when he actually gathers the ball. To me that means not when they are bringing the ball in, but when they have actual control of the ball. I do not see that clearly on this video and if you say you do that is fine, but I tend to want "clear" evidence and not angles that make that in doubt. Travels to me have to be so obvious that they call themselves. This is not one of those times.

Peace

Last March, I rewound and reviewed every "spin" like this I saw....and all but 1 or 2 were travels. It's almost impossible for a player to delay his gather long enough to make these plays legal.

I was very, very surprised at the results of my unofficial survey, fwiw.