Traveling
 

My partner was lead. Out of bounds play on the baseline partner showed a spot for the player to stand and inbound the ball. Partner gives ball to the player and starts his count, within 2 seconds blows whistle and signals traveling call on the kid he gave the ball too. Coach is on my side is telling me in my ear that traveling cannot be called in the spot designation. I told the coach I realize that, he probably stepped over the line, play continnued. When I convered with my partner he said the kid was moving on the spot. Augh:confused: , I told him that you can take a step either way when inbounding the ball. The question a)should have I corrected it right away with me running to see what went on? b) leave alone until I can talk to him?

a) Are you going to run over to your partner any time you are not sure what he/she called to see if they are getting it right? No. But if you have definite knowledge that they made an incorrect call, it can be OK to confer and present information to them so he/she can overturn the call on their own.

b) If you don't confer with them, wait until the next quarter break or time-out and say, "What did you see over there?" Give them a chance to explain. Maybe it was something else that they called.

Much of the time, I don't know what my partner saw when the whistle was blown because I'm watching my own territory.

Giving a travelling signal and calling a travelling violation on a throw-in is not a judgment call. It is a rule interpretation....and a wrong one at that.

NFHS Basketball fundamental #5. Neither the dribble nor traveling rule operates during the jump ball, throw-in or free throw.

Mistakes in judgment happen. But there is NEVER a reason to get a rule wrong, or to allow a rule to be blown.

If my partner thought I was "blowing" a rule, I'd want him/her to come to me immediately and clarify what I had called (either I had not clearly communicated my call OR I was blowing the rule....in either case I need to do better).

If I had not clearly communicated my call, then I should clarify it (for him and others who probably were confused by my initial call).

If I was blowing the rule, he/she should offer me what is "correct," and then it's my decision whether or not to step up to the plate and do what is right and, as necessary, communicate the decision appropriately. If I choose not to "correct it," then at the very least my partner is on record with me having put in his/her 2 cents worth.

Unfortunately, some officials do call the <b>right</b> violation properly but use the <b>wrong</b> signal after making the call. They call the thrower for illegally leaving the spot, but they then use the "traveling" signal instead of NFHS signal #25, for instance. I've seen this not only in high school games, but also several times in the last few years on televised NCAA D1 games.

It's all about communicating clearly!

Whenever I am "confused" or "perplexed" on the court, I can usually assume that others (coaches, players, fans, etc.) feel similarly.

People who are paying attention to the game should not have questions lingering like "what was that call?"

We should be clear and accurate in what we call and in our communication of the call.

Just happened last night in a game I was scorekeeper for in the . . . wait for it . . . Atlantic 10 Conference

Yeah, I've seen it it already this year too. Right call--wrong signal.

Since I'm old, I'd cast a vote for the traveling signal to become re-approved (I believe that was the case in the 60's) for moving off a designated spot. When I see it (albeit incorrectly) used now, at least I damn well know what the call is. Using the correct signal leaves question as to whether the whistle is for moving off the spot, or an offensive player leaving the court going around a screen.

Maybe the time has come for a new signal for this violation. Any suggestions? How about the ending stanza for arm movements while doing the macarena?

But not only was the signal WRONG on this play but so was the CALL!

So where does that leave you? You don't know "damn well" what the call was when the call is WRONG!

Whistle and point to the spot. Doesn't that tell you what the call is? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/doh2.gif

Nope, it never was the approved signal in the '60's either. We used the exact same signal then as we use now--NFHS signal 25.

Guess you've been wrong for about 40 years now, eh?:)

No it doesn't.

Whistle and point could mean:
a) moving off a designated spot
b) inbounder w/possession stepping over the line
c) offensive player close to the inbounder leaving the court


If you'd rather leave the approved signal ambiguous as to the specific violation, fine. I wouldn't.

May well not have been. But it was sure used pretty extensively when I played in the 60's. Not sure how the signal ever gained legs then, but you don't really care that much when you're playing. When I started officiating in the 70's, it certainly was not an approved signal, nor did I hardly ever see the 'travel' signal used. Assumed it lost approval somewhere along the way.

I don't see the signal as ambiguous. It's for a designated spot violation. That's what the official's manual says, I believe (don't have it with me).

Not to be argumentative, but by your logic, then, there should be separate and distinct signals for each of the above listed violations, as well as all other violations. The signal discussed is for a throw-in/designated spot violation. You're suggesting that there be separate and different signals for different kinds of said violations. By that logic, there should be separate and different signals for different ways of violating any rule - i.e. different signals for travelling in every possible travelling violation: travelling by raising a knee after being on the ground, rolling over with the ball on the ground, dragging the pivot foot, taking an extra step after picking up the dribble, etc., etc. The same for all of the possible, different ways of violating out of bounds, illegal dribble, etc., etc.

It may have been used "extensively" in your area but, if so, it was also used <b>wrongly"</b>. It never was an approved signal.