traveling

[just another ref]

Skimming through some of the Olympics on DVR, Spain's semifinal I think. A guy drove the lane and I had the thought: "Not sure exactly what he just did, but no way was it legal." Would I have blown the whistle with the look I had? Yes.
Could I have exactly described the illegal foot movement before I saw the replay? No. I knew, as much as you can know in a case like this, that he had moved both feet after picking up his dribble. (DVR confirmed the call) We have had many discussions recently, regarding traveling among other things, about being certain, being able to explain what you saw to a coach or an assignor, etc. My question is would some refuse to make this call if they were unable to tell exactly how each foot moved? Still trying to find the reason why so many violations are not called. The Olympics was no exception.

[JRutledge]

As a general rule if I am not sure, I will pass on a violation. I would rather miss a violation that took place then call something that clearly was not a violation.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As a general rule if I am not sure, I will pass on a violation. I would rather miss a violation that took place then call something that clearly was not a violation.

Peace

I agree with your general rule and this philosophy. BUT, here is the question:
In this case the guy picked up his dribble and came down, left foot first. He then did a little triple jump action. A short hop on the left foot, followed by a long stride where the left foot actually left the floor and he came down on his right before releasing the ball on the pass. Would you make the call just saying
"I'm sure he moved both feet, or would you have to know every little detail? He shuffled the left foot, etc.

[BillyMac]

(I copied this from an earlier post of mine)

In 2001, my daughter's U15 AAU team participated in the Eurobaskeight International Basketball Tournament, in Lloret De Mar, Spain, involving teams from fourteen countries. I went along as a parent chaperon.

As I watched her six games, I was wearing three hats, that of a high school varsity official, that of a middle school basketball coach, and that of a team supporter, in other words, I wasn't observing the game entirely as an official, as I would today.

I don't know a thing about FIBA rules, but I did notice one thing right away in the first game, that carried over into the last five games, with many different officials: Traveling was called differently, depending on where the ball handler was, and where she was going with the ball. If a ball handler was simply dribbling around the perimeter, passing the ball to teammates, or catching the ball to start a dribble, traveling was called early and often, very strictly, no gray areas, and in many cases I disagreed with the call. On the other hand, when the ball handler was making a move to the basket that ended in a shot, it seemed like there was a lot of leeway given to that player, it almost seemed that they were allowed a little extra before traveling was called, and again, I disagreed with some of the calls.

I know that a lot of Forum members will tell me that the travel rule is the same for FIBA as it is for NFHS, but the above mentioned situations occurred over and over again. Maybe it's not a matter of the written rule, maybe it a matter of local interpretations.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I agree with your general rule and this philosophy. BUT, here is the question:
In this case the guy picked up his dribble and came down, left foot first. He then did a little triple jump action. A short hop on the left foot, followed by a long stride where the left foot actually left the floor and he came down on his right before releasing the ball on the pass. Would you make the call just saying
"I'm sure he moved both feet, or would you have to know every little detail? He shuffled the left foot, etc.

If you know the ball handler moved both feet and one was the pivot foot, then you have a travel. Why is that hard to come to a conclusion? Understand that the official might not have been so clear that saw the play live.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you know the ball handler moved both feet and one was the pivot foot, then you have a travel. Why is that hard to come to a conclusion? Understand that the official might not have been so clear that saw the play live.

Peace

It's hard to come to a conclusion because so many are not called. I had no trouble seeing the violation live, yet there was no whistle. In the final there were several as well. Saw Lebron James travel on both ends of his drive. So what else is new? I was asking if anybody here says to himself something to the effect "I'm sure he moved both feet, BUT I couldn't see exactly what happened so I was not comfortable making the call."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It's hard to come to a conclusion because so many are not called. I had no trouble seeing the violation live, yet there was no whistle. In the final there were several as well. Saw Lebron James travel on both ends of his drive. So what else is new? I was asking if anybody here says to himself something to the effect "I'm sure he moved both feet, BUT I couldn't see exactly what happened so I was not comfortable making the call."

I really do not know why it is so hard to understand. Traveling is the most inconsistently called violation in all of basketball. It is also the most misunderstood by fans, coaches, players and officials. A lot of times people want a call and we call things that look funny. As a general rule I try my best not to call something that did not happen. I know I miss calls or think to myself that did not look right. But I would rather call the obvious travel, then the technical travel that no one saw. Maybe these officials had a similar take on these calls. I would also suspect that many of these officials have not seen players all over the place with this kind of speed and quickness. I know I have gotten much better at being consistent, but even sometimes I miss travels. It happens and not all misses are contentious or based on a philosophy. Sometimes we just miss them. The biggest problem is we buy into missed calls at the NBA level, and we forget to look at other levels and see if we miss the same things.

Peace

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It's hard to come to a conclusion because so many are not called. I had no trouble seeing the violation live, yet there was no whistle. In the final there were several as well. Saw Lebron James travel on both ends of his drive. So what else is new? I was asking if anybody here says to himself something to the effect "I'm sure he moved both feet, BUT I couldn't see exactly what happened so I was not comfortable making the call."

If you KNOW he moved his pivot foot then call the violation. But like someone said I would rather miss a not so obvious travel than call one that was never there.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

If you KNOW he moved his pivot foot then call the violation.

Since when is it a violation to move the pivot foot? The pivot foot moves on every jump shot, lay-up, etc. . .

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Scrapper
1

Since when is it a violation to move the pivot foot? The pivot foot moves on every jump shot, lay-up, etc. . .

Am I missing something? Moving of the pivot prior to the ball being thrown to the floor is a travel. I don't really get what you are trying to correct me on?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Am I missing something? Moving of the pivot prior to the ball being thrown to the floor is a travel. I don't really get what you are trying to correct me on?

He's just being anal about the specifics...we all know what you're saying.

"Moving of the pivot foot" is not actually a violation because you can move it into the air as long as it doesn't touch the floor again. Moving of the pivot foot to a new spot on the floor is implied in your statement but some people just insist that you spell out every little obvious detail.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Am I missing something? Moving of the pivot prior to the ball being thrown to the floor is a travel. I don't really get what you are trying to correct me on?

But that is the ONLY time that moving the pivot foot is traveling.

Any other time, the pivot must be lifted AND put back down on the floor or the player must fall to the floor for it to be traveling.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He's just being anal about the specifics...we all know what you're saying.

Moving of the pivot foot to a new spot on the floor is implied in your statement

1) I don't think I was being anal.
2) His statement did not imply what you say it did.
3) He meant something (lifting the pivot before a dribble) totally different from what you thought he meant (lifting the pivot and re-touching the floor); so obviously we all don't know what he was saying.

He made a blanket statement -- if you know the pivot moved, call the violation -- that is simply not true. Those of us with experience (including btaylor) know when you can and can't move your pivot foot, but there might be new officials reading that who don't know.

I was simply trying to make the point that a player can move the pivot foot in lots of legal ways. I guess I could've made it in a better manner.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He's just being anal about the specifics...we all know what you're saying.

"Moving of the pivot foot" is not actually a violation because you can move it into the air as long as it doesn't touch the floor again. Moving of the pivot foot to a new spot on the floor is implied in your statement but some people just insist that you spell out every little obvious detail.

I should have never opened my big mouth!

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

1) I don't think I was being anal.
2) His statement did not imply what you say it did.
3) He meant something (lifting the pivot before a dribble) totally different from what
you thought he meant (lifting the pivot and re-touching the floor); so obviously we all don't know what he was saying.

He made a blanket statement -- if you know the pivot moved, call the violation -- that is simply not true. Those of us with experience (including btaylor) know when you can and can't move your pivot foot, but there might be new officials reading that who don't know.

I was simply trying to make the point that a player can move the pivot foot in lots of legal ways. I guess I could've made it in a better manner.

How about this (I know everyone will get a kick out of this), I ref pro ball I don't know what a travel is!