For a long while, I was the guy who would call travels on spin moves, the overwhelming majority of which are illegal, a point I think we all agree on.

But I (and mayyyybeee 2 other guys) was the only one in our neck of the woods. You often couldn't even get your crewmates to agree that they were travels from a black-and-white rules perspective. I'm OK if you ignore it, but you see how that's a travel, right?
"No, that one was a good one."
"Ummm, almost none of them are actually, and that wasn't the exception."

No sense in dying on that hill by myself, so I had an epiphany earlier this season and I'm done calling them.

Had a relatively high-profile game today with one of the only other guys who would put whistles on these moves, and we both let an obvious, easy one go right in front of us. Kid makes the layup, everyone's happy, nobody says boo, and we both looked at each and laughed upcourt.

I'm OK with that....but whatever you do, don't come up with a defensive foul on a player that is trying to defend that and is late getting into position. It is patently unfair to a defender to allow the offense to travel and still be required to get LGP in time.

That's a great point and a sound philosophy I respect.

But is that the way you see the game being called -- or the way people expect it to be called -- in your area? I'm not suggesting it isn't, I'm honestly just curious.

Everything I see is a basketball "world" -- at all levels -- that wants travel spin moves to be legal, so calling a foul on a player defending one would just be a normal occurrence and not unjust at all.

Please know that I agree with you. I'm just no longer willing to be the only one putting it into practice.

"Clean" spin moves, that are travels by rule, are inconsistently called...or rather, they aren't called at all. As I've said on here before, I don't believe anyone in the game wants a clean spin to be called a travel, even though the rule clearly deems it one. It's like players traveling when catching on the run, or when going to the basket. The "2-step" philosophy, while clearly incorrect by rule, is how the game is played and officiated at the highest levels.

This play, however, is not a clean spin move. The clear hop on one-foot is easy to get.

I don't follow this. What are you saying makes one "clean?" I agree that the hop makes this one easy to see, but in my opinion it's not any easier to see than a one two move that carries the player all the way across the lane after ending his dribble. And while it seems that you are right, that most at the highest levels do not want this called, the question is why? Bob Knight made a video on traveling years ago. He wasn't actually talking about spin moves, but ignored travels in general. "If they're not gonna call it, change the rule."

I agree.

A disingenuous statement by Bobby Knight considering that he had more say in changing the rules than any official.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

This is one the reasons I'm glad that FIBA adopted the NBA travel rule so that clean spin moves are legal and we don't have to "pass" on them.

As mentioned by many, this video is a travel no matter the rule set.