Sometime around the middle of the third quarter. :)

Attached to the legs. :D


One, then the other. :eek:

He's OK as long as it wasn't one, then the other, then the other!

Oh no! That actually was a Larry Craig reference! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ges/toetap.gif

To me, this is what makes traveling the hardest call to make. The definitions are very easy to figure out and memorize. But when the move happens in real time, it is often (especially with very athletic kids) VERY difficult to determine exactly when the dribble ended and where the foot/feet were when the dribble ended. JMHO.

Right Scrapper, that's all I was saying...

It's especially tough in 2 person (thank goodness I only have 6 of those assignments this season) it's close to impossible to rule correctly if you get blocked out on where the feet were when the dribble ended. I guess that's when the "no-call" is the best call.

Then stop calling it during warm-ups in Kansas! :D

If it looks ugly then there is probably a reason & most probably the reason is that it was a travel.

Disagree. Many plays "look ugly" and that will have many fans / coaches / players politely asking for a travel, but many of those plays are legal.

Far better (imo) to miss something that happens than to call something that didn't

I agree with Bob. If you think it was ugly, look at the replay later and see if you missed something. But never call a travel because you think it "looked ugly." More often than not, "ugly" isn't a travel.

We're not style police.

I don't mean to pile on, but this is the worst way to think about traveling. Lots of things that look ugly are perfectly legal. I know that there are a lot of refs who call travels based on how they looked, but that is a disservice to the ballhandler. As officials, we need to learn the rule, find the pivot foot and see the foot movement.

I'm not suggesting that one call an ugly play a violation. I'm saying that if it looks ugly it bears watching to determine if there is a violation. I would never blow a play I thought was a violation. I only call what I am sure is a violation and even then sometimes make mistakes. :o

I believe the legality of the "one two" stop depends on when the dribble was picked up. If the dribble is picked up with one foot still on the ground and that foot is used for the hop leading to the jump stop, pivoting is not allowed, and the sloppy "one two" landing would be considered a pivot. If the dribble is picked up with zero feet on the ground, the "one two" stop is allowed and the first foot that touches the floor is the pivot foot.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I would use a rules reference but I am at work and don't have my book with me.

I teach my kids to be deliberate and purposeful with their moves. The move they call a "pro hop" is the jump stop initiated with a foot on the ground, so they must land on two feet similtaneously and are not allowed to pivot upon landing. Good move, with restrictions upon landing. A more concerted effort to pick up the dribble while already in the air might not look as nice and takes a little more practice, but you have options to do other things upon landing.

I also teach that disregard for the difference, or being sloppy with their moves, allows for an officials interpretation of what really happened versus what they thought they were trying to do. I have found that over the past few years, I have been yelling more at my players for being sloppy on their jump stops and rarely address officials over travelling calls other than to occasionally ask which type of travel has been committed. In turn, my teams travelling violations have gone done drastically. I've actually been warned by a ref for yelling at my player "you're being sloppy, you just travelled" on a play where they scored a layup and the ref didn't call the travel (not on a jumpstop, but on a first step extend dribble where the player did not release the ball til 3 steps were taken).

just a coaches perspective on travelling. but coaches are worthless scumbags around these parts, so my 2 cents is probably more like a wooden peso.

Y2KCoach, well put. Except for that last worthless sentence. ;)