Traveling philosophies....
 

So I'm working a men's college summer league. Mostly D-2 and D-3 teams. Some D-1 refs observe the games and give some input to the officials after the game (the games are being reffed by men's CC and D-3 officials).

I'm watching the game before mine. A player does the "replant" move before shooting a 3-pointer in transition (the replant was supposed to be a big point of emphasis around here in college games last season - meaning the player catches the ball with both feet on the ground and then does the little hop and lands on both feet again before shooting). Of course, the 3-pointer goes in and the official has to wave off the basket because of the travel violation. At halftime, I listen in to the D-1 ref/observer as he tells the official that he is "ruining the game" and to only call travels that are obvious to everyone in the gym. OK, point taken. I don't guess on travels anyway, but I will adjust and not call one unless it's obvious to even a novice fan. The D-1 ref/observer who made the comment is an absolute stud with more than one men's final four game on his resume.

In my game, I am at the C position right before the end of the half. A drive comes out of the T's area and goes at the hoop right down the middle of the key. A1 loses control of the ball and bobbles it as he takes about 3 steps before throwing up an off-balance shot. The T has no call. I don't have a call either and the horn sounds to end the half. Of course, there were about 10 fans who were whining because no travel was called but what do they know? So our D-1 ref/observer comes out (another guy that I have huge respect for) and looks at the T and says, "why didn't you call a travel?" He says, "the player was bobbling the ball and did not have control." The observer says, "call the travel." "Just make it easy on yourself and call the travel in that case. Nobody will say a word if you do."

Now I totally understand where those philosophies come from. They come from the assignors that those two refs work for. If you are going to stick around, you darn well better call what your assignor wants. No problem, I can do that. Those two D-1 refs are at the highest levels and can adjust to call the game anyway they are asked.

However, when I look at the "big picture" of basketball, I really think these kinds of philosophies hurt the game overall. Just my two cents. Interested in hearing other thoughts.

The first travel you described pains me to see. I have to admit letting it go a lot more times than I've called it. Of course when I do call it, it always come with grief from coaches and fans. An explanation of what I saw never is satisfying. Why? Because it is not called very often.

The "no control" travel is one that I understand the logic, but it isn't right either. If we want to stay out of trouble when entering a gym we should buy a ticket instead officiating. If I'm in front of the coach and he wants travel I just give a quick football mechanic (I know...it isn't really a football mechanic either) with my hands that says no control.

However, if someone higher up is telling me how to call such plays, I will try to abide by their wishes.

Are they hurting the game? What exactly IS the game? Padgett is asking in another thread whether HS and NCAA rules be the same The practical answer is, it wouldn't matter. The rules aren't what are in the book. The rules are whatever the assigner and the big dogs say they are. As much as we'd all like to think that what's in the book is absolute, this little anecdote reminds us that it just isn't.

Are they hurting the game? That's a great philosophical question. But the reality is they are defining the game.

The reality is that they're turning the game into the NBA, which sureashell isn't a good thing. Coaches, players, fans and even us officials don't know what's going to be called on any particular play. There's no uniformity in rules-calling because they aren't calling by the rules. It's just plain wrong imo.

What constantly amazes me is that some big dawgs refuse to follow some very explicit NCAA directives and POE's. The sad part is that they do so while other big dawgs are.

Whether we like it or not, officiating is a very subjective thing. All we have here are two officials that disagree on what needs to be called or how to navigate the game. Welcome to the real world because that happens on a daily basis at every camp I have ever attended. You can show a single play only to have different opinions as to what a call should have been or how the rule should be applied. This is just another example of how officials see different things. I do not think their comments are representative of anything other than their opinions. And without seeing the plays, it is hard to tell if there really is any merit to what was told. After all traveling is a judgment call. This is why this is the most inconsistent rule applied at all levels.

BTW JR, I see a lot of travel calls made at the NBA level. I have watched five minutes of some games and seen 3 straight trips with a travel call. It is just a call that is not called very consistently at all levels.

Peace

1) A good example supporting what you're saying might be Tim Donaghy. From what I've read, the great majority of his calls were subjectively judged by NBA observers as being correct and proper. He was rated above average in calling accuracy. Now, they're re-reviewing all of his calls--again supposedly subjectively.

2) True dat, but what's sad is that the supposedly top level, the NBA, probably is leading in inconsistency on travel calls imo.

Replant vs Jump Stop Question
 

Is there a possibility that a replant can be interpretted as a "jump stop"?

I have also seen this travel, called it, and been told that it's not "one that we have to have". I don't call it anymore. But I really hate the "replant".

This is where I personally draw the line and if it hurts me, so be it. (Your judgment on travels is not what is going to make or break your officiating career, anyway -- I hope.) I'm not going to intentionally make a call that I know is not supported by rule. No control, no travel. Period. If the coach complains, I have two or three quick phrases to tell him why I didn't call it. "No control, coach"; "Fumble, coach"; "He never had it, coach". If I'm too far from the coach to talk, I give the "bobble" signal that somebody else mentioned.

I once had a guy with a lot more experience than me at the D3 level once give me the same advice that you got, except it was about goaltending. Defender hit the backboard while trying to block the shot. Coach complained, but I couldn't respond because I was away from the bench. In the locker room, my partner says, "I think if you just score that basket, nobody would even say a word." Well, fine; but it would be completely incorrect by rule!

Just my thoughts. If somebody else feels like they have to do things a certain way to survive, then you do what you have to do.

The replant is usually a catch with two feet on the floor and then a little hop to a different spot. Also, very commonly, the player catches the ball with one foot on the floor then steps with the other foot (legal so far), but then lifts and replants the first foot to "square up" to the basket. Both pretty obviously are travels.

Not correctly.

Also known as Larry Bird's step-back and shoot move over the 3-point line without dribbling.....:D

Often emulated to this day.

In one game last year, I called the replant travel, and not 2 minutes later, at the other end, a shooter did a perfect jump stop on the catch (caught in the air, jumped off one foot and landed perfectly on both) before shooting. I let it go, and the first coach went ballistic for a moment. I wasn't in a position to discuss it with him, but it seemed to be forgotten about pretty quickly.

Often we make calls/no calls based on advantange/disadvantage.

Are these two situations under the same umbrella?

I would say that a replant often does cause an advantage more times than not. There are times where there is no advantage. By rule, still a travel.

The no control fumble probably is not a play where advantage is gained as much, although it can occur. By rule, not a travel.

Good topic to bring up in my opinion. Tends to be very subjective.

It is a bad sign when a violation has been committed so much it has its own name. I have made this call many times, and I am aware that others do not call it. I see this much more often at the varsity level than at lower levels, which, to me, means it is conscious, not careless. Also, while it is sometimes a step back to create space from a defender, many times it is done with no defender in the picture. This says to me that it was done either a. for show
or b. for no reason at all. (same thing really) This makes me even less inclined to be "tolerant."

So basically, when catching the ball (on the move) it's legal to take two steps w/out a dribble & then pass or shoot?

But catching the ball (while stationary) one needs to make a dribble before taking those two steps to be considered legal?

The travel is one tricky call because of the speed of the game. But the inconsisitency of partners contribute to the bad/good travel calls as well.




I've worked with highly respected HS playoff/championship vets who never make the "replant or step back" travel call, but will use the travel signal for a designated spot violation.... go figure.

I think I'm starting to figure this officiating game out as the off-season progresses though. Basically, the more "trusted & respected" an official is the less his/her calls are scutinized. It seems as though once a certain level is atained, an official can be wrong as two left shoes & get by better than a not so respected official who is completely right.

Example:
I gotta double personal foul in the post, reported it & tried to go POI, w/no shots. The R who I was working with (highly respected by coaches/players/fans/assignors) says no POI & went with a jump ball (ummm yes there was indeed team possession when I blew the whistle).

Later in the SAME game A1 laying on the ground tries to pass to A2 (standing near the Team B bench) the ball goes over A2s head, out of bounds & is caught by a B team member sitting on the bench. I hit the 40, give a verbal & directional signal favoring Team B.
Mr. Championship tells me at halftime that I should've given the ball back to Team A because Team B bench caught the ball. HUH?????

Amen. I do HS varsity and down, and if I see a replant, I call it. Most of the time I get a relieving/sighing 'thank you' from the opposing coach, which tells me they aren't seeing that move getting called very often. And when the offending player's coach asks (if he asks) what the player did wrong, I explain and they have 99.9% of the time been good with it.

I'm finally starting to see coaches get on their players for attempting to make this move (after I call the violation). By definition, coaches are realizing that this is truly a travelling violation. There needs to be more stripes out there not worried about interrupting the game, or having the mentality, "Wow, everyone is yelling, so everyone must have seen something, I better call that and make it easy on myself." Just follow the d@mn rules, as written, to the best of your knowledge and capability. IMHO obviously, call me a traditionalist..........

Then why do we see legal jump stops called traveling much of the time? Not trying to get too socially contentious, but I see all the time urban kids complete a legal jump stop, only to see officials that are not used to seeing that kind of talent or officials that are used to seeing suburban and rural kids on a regular basis calling travels that were not there. I do not think that this has anything to do with people just not wanting to make a travel call. I see a lot of travel calls that just are not there, being made. Also do not get me started on the many high dribbles or when a player clearly does not have control of the ball being called.

Once again, this is the most inconsistently called rule at all levels. So I would not just say that officials are not calling something to stay out of trouble. I think many officials are not calling something because they do not have the judgment level (which is very important to get certain rules right if you ask me) to recognize a travel or some might not call something they are not really sure about.

Peace

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree. We've all had observers tell us differing philosophies at times and we just figure out which ones work best for us and move on.

However, what we have here, obviously, is assignors who are saying to completely ignore the rules (and a directive) and take the easy way out.

Don't call an obvious travel because it might "interrupt the game" and get you yelled at even if it is is a travel (and a directive). Let the players commit illegal moves to avoid taking away a basket in transition.

Do penalize a player by calling a travel, even if they haven't violated, because it's the easy way out and you won't get yelled at.

It would be nice if the NCAA would start some oversight on assignors and get rid of the ones that are encouraging games to be called in ways that conflict with what the NCAA is trying to get some consistency on.

I have attended two Division 1 camps in the past couple of years. I have never been told to not call an obvious travel. I have never been told to not call an obvious violation when they take place. I have seen critiques from clinicians that said, "Why did you not call that a travel?" As a matter of fact there was a play in transition and I did not call a travel and two clinicians were on me about missing that play. As a matter of fact I have seen officials at camps called to the carpet (and I have been on that carpet) for not calling a travel only to call a foul on the defense later or award a cheap foul, which would have never happen if we called the travel. I disagree that this is an assignor's issue. Traveling is just a hard call when often many of these plays are not obvious. How many times have you heard someone call for a travel and the play was completely legal?

Peace

Glad I'm not the only one. This is a big deal to observers, in my experience.

Agree 100%. The rule is easy to learn, but with the speed of players and the skill of the ballhandling, it is harder and harder to judge when the dribble actually ended.

I have read this entire thread. The points that were made are valid. I have observed a lot of people state that calling travel is a difficult call to make. Yes, the rule is simple; yes, the speed of the game is quicker. However, you must continue to work hard to get in better position to make the correct call.

I do not think positioning has much to do with the inconsistency of this call.

Peace

We also have options (c) player doing this to re-adjust his/her balance before shooting or (d) doing this to align him/herself behind the 3-point line. Either way, it DOES give the shooter an advantage.

That said, I don't always call this - more because it happens so quickly that it passes me by. When I'm certain it's happened, though, I have a whistle every time.

Again, agree 100%. Positioning is important because you need to be able to see which foot is the pivot foot; but even with good positioning, the moves happen so fast sometimes (and, let's be honest, a lot of officials are only calling it if it "looks funny) and that's what causes most of the inconsistency.

We also have options (c) player doing this to re-adjust his/her balance before shooting or (d) doing this to align him/herself behind the 3-point line. Either way, it DOES give the shooter an advantage.

That said, I don't always call this - more because it happens so quickly that it passes me by. When I'm certain it's happened, though, I have a whistle every time.

I agree positioning does not have anything to do with the cosistency of making the call.

Don't assume that when a travel is not called in an NBA game that it should not have been called. It's difficult to pick up a travel in the NBA because officials are busy looking for contact.

The NBA lets a lot of travels go, and I see a lot of legal moves called as travels on the high school level. Which is better? Who can say?

The re-plant needs to be called. The really good players can do the move while receiving the ball, but before they fully gain control, and then just shoot. More kids need to practice this. More coaches need to pay attention to it. Where I am, they don't want us to start splitting microbes, but they definitely want the obvious "re-plants" called.

Agreed. I think too many times a travel gets called because 1) "It just looked ugly", or 2) "There's no way he could go from point A to B without travelling. And to me, neither is a good reason.

If I have a travel call, then I have a reason why. If the coach asks, I tell him specifically which foot was the pivot and what the player did illegally. If there is an 'ugly' play (no control, high dribble, etc) or if a player covers a lot of ground and I don't have a travel, then I make sure I know why I didn't have a travelling violation so that I could 'briefly' explain, if needed.

IMO, know WHY you whistle a play and make the reason rule based.....

This allows us to use NBA games as a learning tool. Watch the game, see an uncalled violation, use your dvr to back up and check the play.

advantage/disadvantage
 

I have read this phrase "Advantage/Disadvantage" in discusing violations. Advantage/Disadvantage only applies to fouls! I am on the side of the fence, If I see the Travel violation, then I call it. I see it occur often.
A1 has the ball for a throw-in. No one near him/her except A2. A1 steps into the court, then releases the ball. Advantage gained? Not really. Violation? YES!
:D

Early last year, it seemed I was calling a ton of travels. One coach complained I was calling it too much. Since it was my first year in this association, I asked the varsity level official who happened to be there since he worked for that particular school. He laughed, and said, "freshman ball is ugly. They travel, and you're calling the ones you need to call." That was all I needed to hear, allowing me to remain in my comfort level.

I stopped reading after "One coach complained..."

Not to be a picky, but NFHS does recognize "advantage/disadvantage" for violations. One example is the "delayed " violation by the opponent of the free throw shooter. If he /she makes the free throw, you ignore the violation. Also, you don't call the violation if a defender leaves the court voluntarily in an attempt to stop a fast break by the opponent.

These violations are written this way into the rules, as are all personal fouls. You can't, however, apply a/d where it's not allowed for by rule.

To be honest... I've heard college and high school clinicians ask campers "who the hell saw that besides yourself, and did you really need to interrupt the game with that call"?

Another example would be suspending the three count when the ballhandler makes a move to the basket.

But to be even pickier, the fact that these examples are coded in rules and cases makes them not advantage/disadvantage calls at all. Passing on a travel because it "didn't matter" is applying A/D on top of the traveling rule. Dropping the delayed defensive violation after the made free throw, is applying the rule as written. ;)

True, I agree with Rut in that this call is not consistent. It was a point of emphasis this past season in the NBA to call more travels. What i think brought this to light in the NBA is LeBron in the Olympic games traveling just about everytime he got the ball. He would pitty-pat his feet before putting the ball down. I saw a lot of travels this year called in the NBA as well. One agaisnt Kobie in a game deciding play with 5 seconds to go. Kobie argued the call venomously but the replay showed him talking about 5 steps before dribbling. Great call....!!!! Why don't we get more credit for the good calls made.

I know I am not going to get that detail about this violation. It needs to be obvious, if not, I agree with the DI official you're just interrupting the game. I remember one hs game I had several years ago when my parter started the game out with about 5 travels. One on a wide open layup and all on the same team. Now that coach is pissed off and guess what, game goes into toilet. It got so bad that everytime a kid did something with the ball, TRAVELING from the bench and fans. At half, I told my partner, they're hs players, let em play. I'm not calling that nitpicky travel. I'm not watching nobody's feet that hard because I'm taking the broad global view of all plays in the game. (Damn sure I'm sitting there watching somebody feet and I miss the punch in the face.) Let's just make sure we get the obvious and everyone goes home happy. With that being said, I will admit that because of this, I will miss the marginal travels. I'll take that because I get game flow on the other end and once the players settled in to the game, they usually quit doing that anyway.

Did you reply, "why don't you ask the player why he really needed to interrupt the game with that violation?" ;)

You're exactly right. Throw all the philosophies out the window and call the travel, just be 100+% when you make them. You don't want to have any "gotcha" travels, you want the real thing every time.:cool:

Anybody got anything to add to this?

Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

The legend continues.

So you are watching somebody's feet? What else aren't you not watching?

I don't not get what you don't not mean here. :confused:

Yea, I always want to add, "Consider the source."