Purdue v Michigan - Travel Missed?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Never ignore. Never pass. Never consider advantage/disadvantage on a travel.

I know what you mean BM but at the same time want to mention:

I can think of several times in my career where I, along with my partners, passed on players traveling all over the court.

Some players have severe mental/physical impairments that are quickly recognized by everyone. The situation was such that everyone, specifically the player, was just happy to be part of the game. Of course, the players traveling resulted in zero advantage. Those are some of my fondest memories. Everyone instantly recognized the true spirit of the game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

I can think of several times in my career where I, along with my partners, passed on players traveling all over the court. Some players have severe mental/physical impairments that are quickly recognized by everyone.

I've been involved with Special Olympics for over forty-five years and with Special Olympics Unified Sports for about twenty years, so I fully understand the concept. Each level (I believe that there are four levels) of Special Olympics Unified Basketball has its own rules appropriate for that group, and allowing travels, illegal dribbles, etc., is one of rules in some levels.

[Pantherdreams]

I think in any rule set this is a travel.

If he catches on 1 he can hope to 2. (For us in Fiba he could 1-2 and hop to 2 and shoot it because its really 0-1 - Hop)

Lets stay focused though. It is illegal to catch with both feet down and then hop to both feet again and hop up to shoot it. The tricky elements here are from the first few i thought it looked bad but wasn't sure, from the 2nd view I was definitely sure. There are no officials with either of those views the official with the best look at it may be a little screened out by the shooters body in terms of when the ball hits/hands vs when its actually caught and what his feet are doing when . . . I think in real time its a missed but not a terrible one.

On this forum and IRL we are routinely told if the travel is your best call your not a great official, Most coaches/players/AD's/ and even some assignors do not want games where tons of travels are called (whether its the right call or not) and want you 100% certain when you call one. The NCAA and NFHS are the only two major rule sets to not adopt the 0 step rule used by the pros and internationally to allow more athletic and dynamic movements (see: call less travels on athletes making exciting plays). As a result more of these type of plays at all levels and rule sets show up and get let go . . .

So to be clear:

- Upon review its a travel.
- It should be a travel but is one that can be easily missed or overlooked take it up with your particular embassy of Rome to see how you should be responding locally.

[Kansas Ref]

My partner and I recently officiated a varsity girls game; in our pre-game we in fact did mention the "bunny-hop" "gather-step" / "micro-hop step" that female players frequently do prior to releasing their jump-shot/set-shot. I recall that we adamantly vowed to each other that we would call these ''travels" bcz we felt we were doing the players' skill development a dis-service if we kicked these predictable calls. Imagine that! [viz: "caring about the kids"].

Well so, the game tips off and we both nail both teams for travel calls after about 3 or 4 possessions--maybe twice on each team for doing the bunny-hop; however, neither team seemed to adjust their foot actions and the players continued to do the "mini bunny hop" when shooting set shots. Then a funny thing happened, as the 1st half progressed we noticed that we "passed" on calling this violation. Even when it was noticeably a bunny-hop violation.

At half-time we spoke about the fact that we had "let slide" a few travels; moreover, neither coach complained. We agreed to enforce the bunny hop travel in second half; however, we noticed that after one or two times of calling it, then we still let it slide on subsequent possessions.

I say all of this to propose that "sensory overload" coupled to our "prejudiced expectation that female players will do this action and it should be excused or else you'll have a very, very choppy game flow" contributed to our reluctance to keep calling this violation---we had seen it sooo much that our eyes became sensitized to it. Additionally, since neither coach seemed to mind if we called it or not--then there was no real "impetus" to put a whistle on it.