QF1Y: Travelling Violation? --- With Video Goodness

[ca_rumperee]

I had my wife videotape one of my games, so I could see things like my posture and 'presence' on the court.

End of the game situation. Team A inbounds and passes the ball up towards the division line where defensive pressure causes the ball to be rolling on the floor. Player A1 almost loses ball out-of-bounds, but brings it back under control inbounds. (this is where that player becomes visible on the video)

Player A1 is on his knees with control of the basketball. He shifts his weight onto his right knee to pass to a teammate. In doing so, his left knee lifts off of the floor. I thought that in order for there to be a travel, A1 would need to be 'attempting to get up' which I did not feel that he was doing.

Let me know your thoughts....
YouTube Link

I guess that the follow up would be could that same player have a 'pivot knee'? ... lifting a knee so that his foot could then propel them around in a circle?

ps. Nice finish by Team A player just prior to buzzer!

[rainmaker]

I wouldn't call it.

The video plays in slo-mo? Very artsy, but kinda hard to concentrate on the action.

[ca_rumperee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I wouldn't call it.

The video plays in slo-mo? Very artsy, but kinda hard to concentrate on the action.

How about this one:
link

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by ca_rumperee

How about this one:
link

Much better. I still wouldn't call it!

And you're right about the shot at the end. Very nice!

[Nevadaref]

a. The play is perfectly legal.

b. There is no such thing as a pivot knee. Per 4-33 the pivot is specifically a foot. A player who gains control of the ball while not standing is governed by the rules which dictate what a player on the floor may and may not do. (4-44-5b and case book ruling 4.44.5 Sit B)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ca_rumperee

I had my wife videotape one of my games, so I could see things like my posture and 'presence' on the court.

Use it to check your mechanics too.

1) You didn't have a ten second count going.

2) Ditch the "safe" signal.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Use it to check your mechanics too.

1) You didn't have a ten second count going.

2) Ditch the "safe" signal.

You beat me to it.

For style points, don't have your arms dragging at your sides.

[INUmp]

imo it is good officiating to not have a ten second count going here when it is impossible to have a ten second violation.

shows, to me, that you are into the game and understand the situation/what is going on.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by INUmp

imo it is good officiating to not have a ten second count going here when it is impossible to have a ten second violation.

shows, to me, that you are into the game and understand the situation/what is going on.

Disagree 100%. What if the timer fails to start the clock?
Always count. It provides definite knowledge for correcting a timing error.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by INUmp

imo it is good officiating to not have a ten second count going here when it is impossible to have a ten second violation.

shows, to me, that you are into the game and understand the situation/what is going on.

Disagree completely. It's terrible officiating. If the clock isn't started properly, what "definite information" do you now have available to fix the screw-up?

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Use it to check your mechanics too.

1) You didn't have a ten second count going.

2) Ditch the "safe" signal.

Exactly, always have 10 second count going! It's very important if there happens to be a timing issue, especially in the last few seconds of a quarter.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by INUmp

imo it is good officiating to not have a ten second count going here when it is impossible to have a ten second violation.

shows, to me, that you are into the game and understand the situation/what is going on.

The way I see it, the only argument against this approach is say there is a count started when there is less than 10 seconds on the clock. Specifically, say 9.8s is on the clock.

Let's also say that you (or said official) is very consistent in their 10-second counts. IOW, they have already called 4 this game (or even 1 or more than 4), and I'll even say that they've called 2 on each team. In each case, the actual amount of time allowed for the ball to earn FC status before a violation was called was less than 10s, and around 9.1s. IOW, the covering official actually has a fast count.

In this case, the "5th" case, if you do not continue to "chop" 10-seconds as you have been doing, and call that same violation at 9.1s, then you are not being consistent, and IMHO, doing a disservice to the game.

No, I do understand that no two times will be exact, but it's important that they be consistent. If a 10-second count occurs earlier in the game with clearly only 9 seconds coming off the clock, then when 9.9s is on the clock, and you don't have a 10s violation, IMHO, the coach has reason to wonder about your consistency.

Edit: another argument is for definite knowledge of timing errors.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

The way I see it, the only argument against this approach is say there is a count started when there is less than 10 seconds on the clock. Specifically, say 9.8s is on the clock.

Let's also say that you (or said official) is very consistent in their 10-second counts. IOW, they have already called 4 this game (or even 1 or more than 4), and I'll even say that they've called 2 on each team. In each case, the actual amount of time allowed for the ball to earn FC status before a violation was called was less than 10s, and around 9.1s. IOW, the covering official actually has a fast count.

In this case, the "5th" case, if you do not continue to "chop" 10-seconds as you have been doing, and call that same violation at 9.1s, then you are not being consistent, and IMHO, doing a disservice to the game.

No, I do understand that no two times will be exact, but it's important that they be consistent. If a 10-second count occurs earlier in the game with clearly only 9 seconds coming off the clock, then when 9.9s is on the clock, and you don't have a 10s violation, IMHO, the coach has reason to wonder about your consistency.

Edit: another argument is for definite knowledge of timing errors.

[ca_rumperee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Use it to check your mechanics too.

1) You didn't have a ten second count going.

2) Ditch the "safe" signal.

Well, there were 4.5 seconds on the clock when inbounding, so I turned my 10 second clock off.

Safe signal is going on the shelf.

[BktBallRef]

I don't count when the BC count would start with less than 10 seconds on the clock. But I always look at the clock in such a situation so that I know that it's running.