Poll: What do you have?
 

Okay, ignoring the OBVIOUS TRAVEL at the beginning...:D

What do you have at the other end?

And I've made the votes public - just for fun :p

]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifIOQrCA5Vk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifIOQrCA5Vk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Player Control foul.





Wait, sorry - I voted block. :D

C'mon now, you gotta be consistent.

I had a no-call on the other side of the board, gotta stick with it here.

Yabut, I change my mind at the other end of the court, too, which is why I am consistent.

(I went from block to player control. I mean, c'mon, it was a 49-51 call.)

Icing.

I have an issue that you are saying there was an obvious travel. When you do not see the ball, how do you know if there is control or there is not a bobble. It is not proper to call a travel just on the basis of someone's feet.

I think I have stated what my position on this contact was enough already. :D

Peace

Rut, to me, it "looks" like a travel before he dribbles. After he picks up the dribble, he travels again; this time we see the ball well enough for the call. Traveling was obviously not a priority for the officials here, as the white player did it on the put-back attempt.

It is probably a travel. But you cannot see the ball at all. And I would hope that people are not calling travels on what they think. The official has a clearly view of the ball than we do and he did not call anything. It is very possible he missed it, but not clear based on the angle we are shown. That is all I am saying.

Peace

I didn't know this was an NBE game! :p

I think the guy actually travels twice. When he catches the ball he obviously shuffles his feet, but you can't see the ball at this point, so who knows? But when he turns toward the camera, clearly holding the ball, he steps into the lane with his right foot followed by his left foot, which also returns to the floor before the shot.

That's what I saw.

When I think I see a travel, I do not make any call. I only call what I see clearly as a travel. That is my basic philosophy on calling travels. At least for me that works.

Peace

Well if, with the chance to look at this play repeatedly on tape, you can't clearly see a travel, then apparently you don't call many.

Geez, Rut, you're picking on words now.
JAR saying he "thinks" the guy traveled is like you saying that, "in your opinion" he traveled. Frankly, I saw enough on the video to call it on the 2nd one. The first one, with his back to the camera, I couldn't call because I can't see if he has control of the ball. In my opinion, the 2nd one is clear, though.

You would be wrong again. I have also said that to you before. ;)

Peace

I'm telling you guys: Rut needs a new video card and a monitor, or glasses.

Seriously, what part of this play is unclear? Do you not see this guy step into the lane, first one foot and then the other? How can this not be a travel?

cause jrut says so!

I did not say it was not a travel. I said it was hard to tell. And I do not call what I "think." I also know that high school officials love to call anything that looks funny whether it is a travel or a carry violation. And high school officials also like to call fouls for what looks like hard contact instead of actually calling the play.

I think the way I have called the game has worked out very well for me. Sorry if you disagree, but at some point you need to realize that what you think is really not my concern. ;)

Peace

If I recall, you are a person that is struggling to get acceptance in your area. I do not have that kind of problem. Keep that in mind when you come here asking questions about what should or should not be called.

Peace

Wow. That's just mean.

Truth sometimes hurts I guess. :)

Peace

Alright Rutledge, I'm calling you out on this one. Why do you feel the need to make this personal? Why can't we just agree to disagree instead of taking shots at guys asking them how "final four careers" are progressing. And pointing out guys that are "struggling for acceptance." Is that information really germane to this conversation?

We all are on the same team here. I think some of us on this board need to remember that officiating is a brotherhood and we need to watch each other's backs. Officiating is a craft, not a science. Which in my book means that what works for one official might not work for the other.

Beause when you make a mistake it is easier to go into attack mode than apologize? Just a guess :D

I had a fellow official deliver something to me today and aksed his opinion. Just for the record, he is not having trouble with acceptance...at least you would think not since he called the boys state finals last year. His first comment after watching the video...Travel on the move into the lane.

IMO, if that isn't traveling...they should remove it as a violation.

look, Rut's comment was in direct response to a personal shot from mwanr1. Personally, I thought the video card comment was meant in jest; but Rut apparently didn't.

Also, he's got a pretty solid history here of not second guessing officials on the court; especially for no-calls. It's not about being wrong and going on the attack, it's about a natural deference to the officials who were actually taking the heat for their calls; which none of us have to do from the safety of our office chairs.

We all have our own perception of what the truth is. My own perception is that the game today is suffering because more and more officials refuse to call more and more violations. I think that without question this started at the NBA level and trickled down. The question is why? I speculate that at least part of the problem is lower level officials with big-time ambitions: "I call just like the big dogs!"

Whether the "big dogs" and the big dog wannabes "miss" so many violations,

1. by design

2. because they are afraid to blow the whistle and be wrong

3. for some other reason

I find any of these unacceptable.


Case in point is the video on this thread. The foul has proven to be 15 pages of debatable, block, pc, or no-call, none of which seems to be totally out of the question to most. The travel(s), on the other hand, one of which is undeniable, are there and so often uncalled, they seem to be less and less worthy of mention at all levels. I find this disturbing.

I also did not think my comments were that out of bounds. When you are complaining about how you do not get shots at much varsity and college, it is appropriate to take a stab back at you about your ability to make judgments when you are question my judgment. For what it is worth, I work almost only high school varsity and college ball and I have been doing so for years. And in my opinion this was a common spin move that you see all the time and I do not see definitively when the dribble stopped (which is why it is hard to judge what should be called) and if the right foot was the pivot foot. Now I have not read anywhere of someone saying which was the pivot foot or what they thought was the pivot foot on the tape. All I hear is, "That has to be a travel" rather than the specifics of why the play was illegal. I ask campers why they call things so they understand they are not making calls because it looked like something, but they know it was something. Because when a college supervisor (and I work for some at the high school level) they want very specific answers, not, "I thought it was a travel." And if you are going to be critical of what kind of video player I have (cable modem running at the highest speed) then be prepared for the same comment to come back to you. Ask John McCain that question.

Peace

How about, not every official knows how to recognize a violation properly. Why does it have to be a conspiracy to not make a call? And being afraid is one of the funniest comments of all. We get yelled at when we make the right call, when the participants do not know the basic rules. If fear was a driving factor, I do not see why anyone would want to put on the whistle and stripped shirt in the first place.

The reason there is debate and there will always be debate on most videos of plays, is because not everyone has the same judgment, the angles are not perfect and none of us saw what the official saw. If we were to be that far away from a play and called a travel or foul, not only would you be vilified, it would be justified. The officials on the tape had much better angles than any of us had and on the travels, you cannot even see the ball and what the player was doing with the ball to say one way or another that the play was clearly missed. If that disturbs you, then I would like to watch your games and constantly point out what you call on tape, and not consider any of your positioning or angles you had and evaluate you as an official in total. I bet you would think that was not fair, and you probably would disagree with my assessment and other's assessment about your ability as well. That is why when tape comes into play with supervisors, they usually talk to the calling official about what they saw and consider where they are as it relates to the play.

Peace

You must did not read these comments.

And if you have not accomplished some things and you have openly talked about how you got your “first shot at.......” then you are open for criticism if you want to constantly call someone names for disagreeing with you. If you do not want people to call you out, then at the very least understand you do not know everything just because you share your opinion. I have always stated that this is my opinion based on what I see and based on the fact the officials were in decent position for at least one of the plays.

Actually some of the most back stabbing people in officiating are fellow officials. And I am not talking about what I read on this board. I can sit in the stands with them and have the very people that are in this profession, saying all kinds of negative things about officials because they are "sitting in the stands" instead of officiating. You have a fantasy world view about this if you like, but in my opinion I am at the very least saying the officials had a better view. I am not saying what should or should not be called without that as a consideration.

Peace

OK, leave technology alone and stick with officiating... you obvious do nothing all day and night but watch video of yourself officiating.

What does your video player have to do with your cable modem speed?

Seriously, it was just a joke. Chill out Rut: it's only the forum. Don't be so defensive about everything Mr. Sensitive!

you are only 35 yrs old and you're having trouble with your memory. When did I ever talk to you about acceptance in my area?

The truth is that most of us here agree that there's a blocking foul (and probably a traveling) except for you and a few others.

I can't speak for others, but I truthfully care less about the level that you work in and the experience that you have accomplished. Most of us here share one thing in common and that is to utilize this forum as a learning tool among each other. Don't throw the "I'm a veteran official and my experience of seeing see bang/bang plays and I'm RIGHT ALL THE TIME " crap at us and expect we'll learn from it.

The fact that you spend countless hours on this forum doesn't make you any better or more knowledgeable than any one of us here. You are arrogant and I'm sure it's not just me that seems to think so.

I have to say I'm surprised at how many feel it's a block. Should have added a 4th option: Unable to tell by video.

My concern is that too many think it's a block for the wrong reasons; "He wasn't set," "he hadn't stopped," etc.

If you don't think he established LGP in time, or that he broke LGP by moving into the shooter, fair enough.

And I'd say the travel call is probably 99% agreed upon here.

I'll add that the white rebounder travelled before his shot as well.

Afraid might be too strong a word, but most officials, when in doubt, will lean in varying degrees toward a no-call on a violation, and rightfully so.

But anything can be taken too far. Many officials, myself included, have said
"I would rather miss a travel than call one that wasn't." But would you rather miss ten than call one that is wrong? I wouldn't. How many?
Two? Five? Everyone must draw his own line.

A coach once told me it should be a jump ball every time the ball goes out of bounds if the official is not 100% sure who touched it last. I disagreed. There will always be a certain amount of guesses, hopefully educated guesses for the most part.

Who was upset? Did I see me use a ":mad:" or a ":(" smiley?

No you did not.

If you cannot take getting dirty, do not play in the mud. ;)

Where I live we have access to all kinds of video of all kinds of sports of all kinds of plays and situation. One of the people that is on my football crew helped start this trend in my state in football and even in basketball in my state. We review tape of all kinds of plays all the time. And right now I am teaching a football class where we use a lot of video to teach rules and philosophy. And I bought a digital video recorder and I have taped several games I have worked so I can see things I do as well as my partners. Yes, I watch tones of video of others because of the enormous amounts of high school games seen on TV. And I review games I work to see my good and bad mechanics and good and bad calls made by the crew.

So you are a full time varsity official in your area and have not talked about getting a break on this board?

Peace

I did not know there was a count. I do not want to miss any call, period. And I certainly do not want to call a travel that is not there. I would rather miss a minor or technical travel, then call a travel that clearly is not there.

OooooKaayyyyyy!!!

Peace

A minor or technical travel? Minor I guess I can figure out, but you may have to enlighten some of the rest of us to what a technical travel is. It is admirable, if unrealistic, to not want to miss any call, but if you cannot clearly see a travel in the video on this thread, good luck to you.

A technical travel would be an example of someone moving their pivot foot a couple of inches rather than a couple of feet. Or when someone calls a travel on a jump stop because one foot came down a split second before the other and we do not consider the feet to come down simultaneously.

I guess you have never heard the term, "Call the Obvious" either? :rolleyes:

And no I do not see a travel on the spin move. Sorry, I cannot see how that is so obvious half a court away. Then again, my life is not depending on it either. ;)

Peace

So it's okay to move the pivot foot a couple of inches. How many?

I have heard call the obvious, but I've also heard that if you call only the obvious you let a lot go, which I know many players and coaches like.

I find that a travel in a case like this is perhaps easier to see from this distance than close up. It allows you to see the whole picture, that the player had control of the ball, and that he moved both feet, one then the other, a couple of feet, not a couple of inches.

Well when someone pivots on their legal pivot foot, I do not think I have ever seen it stay in the same place. Maybe it is pure physics, but I do not see many travels call on a pivot of a pivot foot, even if that foot technically moves out of the original spot.

Interesting, I never said "only" in that statement. But if everyone is puzzled by the violations and fouls you are calling, no one is really going to care if you are technically right, but in the spirit of the game wrong. I am sure you will not understand that statement either. ;)

He did move both feet, but moving both feet does not make it a travel. When you move your feet makes it a travel. There was a dribble in there somewhere. Forgive me if I cannot tell when the dribble actually ended.

Peace

Maybe it was some other statement.





The ones who are puzzled probably don't know what is "technically right," and "spirit of the game wrong" sounds like a term which is uh, let's just say, open to a wide range of interpretations.

So you are taking a statement that was not associated with, "Call the obvious." Very interesting, way to take one comment and try to apply it to another statement totally unrelated to the last statement.

Personally I really do not care what you think about this single play. I did not ask you about it in the beginning and I am not really trying to convince you of anything right now. I can sleep at night about one travel call missed or made on a game far, far away, with officials I will likely never meet. This would not be the first missed travel in a game and it certainly will not be the last. Traveling is one of the most inconsistently called violations in all of basketball at all levels. Officials call them when they are not actually there, and officials do not call them when they are clearly there.

I do not recall that this was a game breaking call or that anyone really was making a big deal out of it but the people here on this discussion board. Actually the video that was submitted did not even use that as the premise for posting the video online. It sounds like it is a struggle for you to know that people do not agree with you on this. Personally I could be the only one that thinks this is not a travel and nothing in my life is going to change as a result. It is just another discussion where people like to “Monday Morning Quarterback” a play they had the opportunity to run over and over again. The official in this game did not get that opportunity. They had one shot and they made a decision. Whether it is right or not, I am sure God has other things to worry about or other things to condemn them for.

Peace

Well this thread went down the toilet pretty quick.

Maybe we should have a poll to find out whose fault it was......

(My hand is in the air)

Mr. Kettle, you might want to take your hand down.

Maybe we should take a poll on who is tired of polls. ;)

Peace

Since I watched the initial video probably a dozen times and still couldn't come up with a clear, obvious call, ultimately going with a block just based on experience and instinct, I would not surprised at a fairly even mix of charges vs. blocks from the video alone.

However, I am quite surprised, after the breakdown of the frame-by-frame, that any one still thinks it could be a charge. The frame-by-frame unequivocally shows that the defender was still moving into the shooter's path at least 2 frames after the shooter was airborne. Given that, it can't possibly be a charge. The only counter to it is to wish the video was HDTV quality...but it was, as grainy as it was, sufficient to see what needed to be seen.

Camron, the frame by frame may be clear to some, but it's not to others (including me). It's clear that you and I (and most others here) agree on what it would be if the variables are locked down. I've just seen (and heard during games) too many people say, "He wasn't set," or "he was moving." I've seen it on here, too.

When you lift one foot, then return it to the floor, then lift the other foot, then return it to the floor, all while holding the ball firmly in both hands, it doesn't matter which foot was the pivot.

When did the dribble end? When was the pivot foot established? All that stuff matters. And it is really hard to tell anything when a player has their back to you the camera and you cannot tell when the player shot the ball and when the other foot touched or did not touch. That was even harder to tell than whether there was contact on the other end.

Let us stop talking about this; we are not going to agree. And I am not really concerned about a travel that was not called and did not seem to matter in this game or even to the person that posted the video.

Peace

The point was that you can't tell from the video whether the ball was being fumbled because the player's back was to the camera. If it was being fumbled, there was no pivot foot and therefore no travel.

The point made was completely legitimate. It is also not germane to this stoopid poll anyway.

Now I want to know how you voted! :D

He didn't. You can see everybody's vote by clicking one of the numbers in the results.

I agreed with Scrappy's take way back in the other thread....oh, about 4/5 days ago. After that----> paralysis through analysis.

I think we've all figured out JR enough to know that he didn't vote. Even though I don't expect him to, I had to egg him on a bit to vote.

No, the point was that the travel I describe is after the dribble, as the player turns toward the camera. When he picks up his dribble, he is right on the edge of the lane. When he puts up the shot, he is close to the center of the lane. Hard to blame the guy for working on this move. You see it on tv all the time with no whistle.

It is really telling that you have to describe the play, instead of it jumping out at everyone to where they know which play you are talking about. And it is telling that you talk about what happens on TV rather than describe what actually was illegal about the play.

Peace

Well, it jumped out at me, Rut; and I have yet to see someone state why it's not an obvious (rather than a technical) travel. Lead couldn't see it due to bodies, probably, but it's a perfect example of a call trail should have in the paint.

I said it was technical at best. And if you have to run the tape over and over again to justify a call, then it is a good no call (like the officials on this game decided not to call anything) to me. And if I am the trail and I am not sure, I do not come in making a call in front of another official that saw the entire play.

Peace

As Snaq points out, the lead had reason not to see the entire play. But from the video, which is the perspective of the trail, the travel is certainly easy enough to see to make a call. I'm still a bit vague about the term "technical travel," but this play does not involve foot movement in inches, and there is no jump stop. Perhaps there are other examples.

Considering that the video is from the stands on the other side of the court, I hardly look at that as from the Trail's point of view. And if people think the video is grainy on a closer angle, not sure how the video gets clearer further away from the camera. Oh well.

Peace

The video is literally looking over the guy's shoulder. Is it possible you didn't notice him either?

The camera is on the other side of the court. The camera is not sitting right next to the Trail or within 20 feet even if you consider the zoom possibility. And if I called a travel from the Trail where he was standing, the coach is going to go ballistic when you are that far away and an official is standing right there. And I know I would be pissed with a partner that made a call I clearly was on top of. You cannot travel on a dribble or when you do not have control of the ball. Two very important things you cannot clearly see. So what his feet are doing is irrelevant to me.

I know this is going to be hard for you to understand. The officials passed on the play for a reason. I know you think you are the best official alive and you can see things that officials on the game cannot see, because you can slow down the tape and watch it over and over again. My first instinct it was suspect at best and with all my experience watching and breaking down tape I feel the same way now. I really think you are reaching when you claim this was right next to the trail's position. If I can see the official’s entire torso, the camera was not just over his shoulder. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Peace

I agree with you on the call itself....not sure I'd call it a travel...just can't see when the ball was caught. Certainly not obvious.

However, it was perfectly in line with the trail's point-of-view. Note that this was a 2-man game. Perhaps you were thinking it was the C in the foreground of the video?

It is obvious this is a 2 Person game, I never was thinking otherwise. And in a 2 Person game I am even more careful to make calls I "think" happen before I call something in my partner’s area. With the Lead standing right there and the play took place clearly in his area. The player barely spun into the lane. As a Trail I better be 1000% sure something happen in another official’s area. And without a clear look at the left foot and ball status, I really am not calling a travel based on this angle. There is a reason why we want officials closer to the lane than this official appeared to be standing and definitely closer than this camera angle. Just because we are looking from a fixed position far away (in the backcourt of this play I might add) from the Trail, does not mean that is a better angle or look than the Trail on this video had. I must make it very clear again, the officials on the game passed on this play for a reason. What that reason was we will just have to ask them. ;)

Peace

I hope you are saying that the trail in a 2 person game should not call a travel on a play in the post because such is not the case in a 3 person game.

When the ball is in the post the trail should stay engaged with the play and referee the off. Player's feet. This, as I have stated before, is good team officiating. When you can help your partners do so. On a post play it is hard for the lead to referee contact along with the player's feet and the trail is in great position to see the big picture and aid his lead.

You obviously did not read what I said.

Three person and 2 person mechanics are very different. And Trail's responsibility in 2 person is not nearly the same in 3 Person. The Trail and the lead in 2 person are not on the same side of the court. So to compare the looks is really kind of silly. And if the trail is watching this play on the other side on the lane, then we have a ball watcher and he is likely missing other actions by other players. Just because the ball goes in the post, does not stop other players from setting screens, fighting for position. I feel comfortable as a Trail to let my partner take this play.

Peace

Now how do you know the lead passed on the traveling for a reason? Is there a possibility that he missed the traveling because he's too close to the play? When working the 2 person game, the T should normally work wider and deeper to get a better angle of the play (depending on the location of the ball and players). For 3 person, the Lead are trained to officiate upper body, waist to shoulders, and let the Trail assist you with the feet (traveling).

Judging from the lead's position from the start of this play, I can guess that these two officals are not very experienced. First, the lead was working too close to the "closeline" spot when the ball is outside of the 3pt line. I would probably have my outside shoulder, the left shoulder, align with the ball so I can officiate both the ball and while using my peripheral on the second competitive matchup (post up players). When the post player receives the ball and makes a move towards the basketball, he's moving with the players in a straight line as opposed to moving away from them to get create an angle to officiate the shot.

As for the Trail (new lead) , any experience official would probably stop at about the top of the key to somewhere around the ft line extended get an angle to see between the dribbler and defender. He obviously didn't know when to stop and was straightline. So is it that they are passing on the fouls/violation, or is it that they don't have enough experience and skills like Rut to call the play???

I realize that it is hard for you to understand. But when people make calls or do not make calls, there is a reason. The reason might be as simple as they did not see the play. Or the reason could be they saw the entire play and did not think it was a violation. Or they may say I missed the play and should have called a violation. That is why the common question I ask when working a camp is, “What did you see?” Their answer tells me why they decided to make a call or not make a call.

I have no idea what is expected in your area, but where I am from we do not teach the Trail to be looking at a play on the other side of the lane away from the trail (that is not in the trouble area of course). And we do not teach the "upper body, lower body" mechanic either. You call what is in your primary, not just a part of the body. That is not even taught at the college level or at the camps I have attended in the last several years.

I do not necessarily agree with that statement either. Then again we all have differences in what we see as important.

You are making these absolutes based on one play. Two person is not even something many experienced officials I even see work. So to suggest that any experienced official would be working one way on a play deep in the Lead's primary is a stretch. But then again, what do I know. I actually am in a position to teach mechanics in my state and run clinics. So I guess I should just throw out all I know and have been told to focus on, and take you position. It sounds like you cannot understand why I feel differently than you, and try to justify it by talking about what the mechanics of the officials were. I keep saying this was one call in one game. I think I would need to view more of the game to judge someone's experience level. I do not even know what offense or defenses are being run. But then again, you are the expert. ;)

Peace

Hey, I fully agree with you on the lack of a call....all I was saying was that the camera was exactly the view the trail had....pretty much looking right through his head. The distance is irrelevant with a camera since you can zoom and post process....replay cameras used for various sports might be up to 100-500 feet from the play.

Rut you chicken-bleep - you didn't even VOTE!! :D

I gave my vote in the last thread. ;)

Peace

Party-pooper. :(

You should have added another category. ;)

Peace

I'd like to know what Diebler thinks.

What's Buck Elics' opinion?

Can we get a definitive answer? Vero Possumus!

Sure. Have a poll.

Sure.

Block.

There.

Sorry, next time I'll make sure to include "crusty old curmudgeon with a stump up his a$$"

LOL:D