Two More "Pet Peeve" Travels

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

The feet end up in the same place and it is a 100% judgment call as to whether the feet are landing "simultaneously" or not. I can accept the fact that a player COULD gain an advantage by stepping around an opponent by landing on one foot and then stepping with the other in front of the first foot to land. But, this play is specifically declared legal in the case book if the feet land "simultaneously." The truth is, the feet are NOT landing at exactly the same time (you may need a high speed camera to prove it, but they are not landing at the same time -- kind of like a tie between the baserunner and the ball in baseball). Therefore, we are literally asking the referee to evaluate the length of the da-dump when making this call.

You're splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I think CoachNRef is trying to say this is called inconsistantly, both because of a lack of understanding of the rules, as well as a difference in judgement between officials. I can understand it, because the jump stop is still an area I'm weak in. I think I understand the rule, but I don't think I have it down in practice yet.

How about the call is not made because officials would rather miss a possible travel than call a legal jump stop, illegal?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How about the call is not made because officials would rather miss a possible travel than call a legal jump stop, illegal?

And that is a good point as well. I would rather make the call I'm sure of, then guess at a call and probably be wrong.