OK, I know I am only looking at one small part of this post here, but I gotta call "bullsh!t" on this part. No way did you get hired to do Varsity and JC games because you had the courage to call a freaking free throw violation. No way.

My guess would be that you were hired to work that level of ball because you not only know the letter of the rule, but also the intent of the rule. And you know how to apply those rules in the correct manner (despite what you have repeated in this thread).

Supreme Court Justice Bob Jenkins
 

"As Bob Jenkins said, the concept is hard to explain. Be that as it may, it is still well understood."

Didn't a Supreme Court Justice once say "I don't know what the definition of pornography is, but I know it when I see it".

It was Justice Potter Stewart and he was speaking about obscenity.

Just caught up on this looooong thread so I guess I can give my opinion like everybody else. Ironically, the free throw shooter foot on the line no-call is the one that caused a local jr. high coach, who is a friend of mine, to declare that I shouldn't call his games any more. In this case as the ball was bounced to the kid to shoot, he stepped up and put a toe slightly on the line, then looked down and stepped back before he shot. I personally have never called this violation at any level. But, if the shooter is touching the line when he shoots or jumps and comes down on the line, I call that at every level.
My personal thing on 3 seconds is to call it on a player that is completely in the lane with both feet, regardless of what else he is doing, or call it on a player that is actively involved in the play, no matter what small part he has in the lane, such as a player trying to post up. But my count is always generous in either instance. Only time I have ever called leaving the court for an unauthorized reason was for a player who was making a dash from one wing to the opposite corner and ran completely out of bounds even though he had plenty of room to stay in if he had chosen to do so. IOW, his leaving the court was not only unauthorized but totally unnecessary. I have heard the expression: "You call that one just for his ignorance." He was not alone, as no one on his team, including the head coach, seemed to have ever heard of the rule.

The NCAA often these days seems to treat traveling as "no big thing." Tonight in the Depaul/Vanderbilt game, with 30 seconds left in a 2 point game, a Depaul guy broke loose on a throw-in, caught the ball, took 2 long strides, and then put the ball on the floor before getting fouled on the shot. It was so obvious that the announcers noticed it, agreed on it, and laughed about it.

Yea, that's a real good indication of the NCAA attitude...:rolleyes:

That one went over my head. What do you mean by that?

The part I set off in red said that the announcers saw it as a travel and joked about it. But announcers are notoriously wrong about the rules, and so my point was that their agreement that it was a violation was not a good indication that the NCAA is lax about travelling. I tried to say it sarcastically by putting in the rolleyes icon, but I guess it didn't get the message across.

I'll try it more directly: Just because the announcers think there was a travel, doesn't mean there was one. So their pronouncements give no indication of how the NCAA wants the travelling called.

Did you read my description of the play? I didn't mean it was a travel because the announcer said so. It was a travel because I said so. The unusual part is that it was noticed and commented on by announcers.

JAR, don't worry about Juulie. She's just a bit cranky tonight. Something about a tennis bracelet.

You Arent following a rule. you are doing preventative officiating!:D

when life gets ya down and you're wearing a frown -

forget the meds - just come to the officials forum and

it will take just a short while to get you to smile!

This forum could be prescribed by physicians, psychologists etc.