But, but, Welmer's TERRIBLE. And Hightower's OVER THE HILL. And.....

At least that's what I read here :D

The signal is (at least approximately) the same in NCAA -- see the bottom left of page 162 (NCAAM) and 174 (NCAAW) in the rules book.

That said, the "traveling" signal makes more sense -- it really means "moving in excess of what's allowed" -- and that applies to both "travelling" and to leaving the designated spot.

Hmmm, let's see....

If signals are about communicating, and the "traveling" signal is more informative than current practice, that would make it....better communication? :eek:

The devil, you say! ;)

Well, it's only better communication if it doesn't confuse the issue. The problem is that coaches, players, and others get the wrong idea about what's acceptable and what's not during a throw-in based on using the traveling violation.

I know it's not our job to teach them that, but the NFHS and the NCAA have prescribed a mechanic for a reason - and the traveling mechanic isn't the one they have chosen.

I don't really care - it's a rarely seen violation and for the most part the message gets across either way. I just dislike using the traveling signal because it leads others to believe you must have a pivot foot during a throw-in.

True...but in a non-insignificant number of times I've seen it called with the travel signal, there was no way the player moved out of the throwin spot....they merely shuffled thier feet. There is some non-small number of D1-TV refs that actually call this wrong....forget about the mechanic.

I didn't necessarily want to add this, since I wasn't paying close attention, but when the call was made my reaction, aside from the mechanic used, was that the inbounder was still very close to the official to have moved outside the designated spot...and I thought, "surely he didn't just call him for moving his feet?!?"

I agree with your dislike of this mechanic, but my focus for dislike is that its WRONG. I disagree that it sends any other message to anyone about irrelevant rule requirements. The carrying and backcourt violation signals are the same, and in football, we use the "traveling" signal to communicate several fouls -- e.g. illegal formation, false start, and certain free kick infractions, to name a few. In none of these cases does one signal communicate false requirements for another rule.

I do, however, think that the reason some use the traveling signal on this is because they know everyone will then know what they called. If the used the correct signal, there would or might be confusion about what was called.

I disagree. It's obvious from this discussion that if you use the traveling signal, everyone won't know what you've called, because there is no way to "travel" during a throw-in.

Whether the official misinterpreted the rules or not won't be known, but the proper mechanic tells everyone it was a throw-in violation, whatever it may be.

So the traveling signal cannot possibly communicate anything other than a traveling violation? At all? Ever? To anyone? I think you're vastly overstating your opinion on this one.

And as for the proper mechanic, what does it really communicate? Referees are the only ones that know there is such a thing as the generic, but somewhat adequate Signal 26. Nobody who sees it is going to say to himself, "Self, that's an artfully executed signal denoting 'free throw, designated spot, or other violation.'" To everybody else it's just pointing in the general direction of what went wrong and hoping those you're trying to communicate to can properly infer what went wrong from seeing where you're pointing. It's not entirely useless. But it's not great either.

Let me give you something to mull over. What if the Fed changed the caption of Signal 19 to read: Traveling or designated spot violation? Hmmm, all of a sudden people here would start to say things like, "The big dogs have been doing it for years." and, "that really makes more sense." or just plain, "okay, whatever."

I looked at those signals before my last post and believe that they do NOT convey that a violation of the spot has occurred, rather the signal is used to indicate the proper location of an ensuing throw-in following a foul or violation. In other words, I don't think that what you say is an intended use.

I completely disagree. Traveling has everything to do with the pivot foot and there is no pivot foot on a throw-in.

BITS, I'm not quite sure how you came to this conclusion but I don't see how I'm vastly overstating anything. Using that mechanic to indicate a throw-in violation doesn't make sense. Please tell me when else during a game, and in what context, you would use that signal for something other than a travel?

I thought I only pointed out the obvious. You have an official signal a travel violation during a throw-in and you have a forum full of somewhat experienced officials that are arguing over what he called.
Doesn't seem real clear to me.:rolleyes:

In NCAA, we use the same signal to indicate that a time-out is only being used to make a substitution.

I know. That has nothing to do with the overall discussion. I'm just answering a direct question from PYRef.

What?!?!? That's impossible. There's no pivot foot during a timeout. You cannot travel during a timeout. It must be some unauthorized mechanic that only the big dogs can get away with. And it just burns my bottom that we're perpetuating the myth that there's a pivot foot during a timeout. Don't they know the endless trouble that's going to cause during my 4th grade travel league games? ;)

Well my signal is a little different. With the substitution time-out, I use the same motion, but I am only using my index fingers (my travel is with a closed fist). Usually the little gesture sign the coaches use to let us know that we missed a travel.. :D F