just another ref |
Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:15am |
Quote:
Originally Posted by jearef
(Post 570046)
This isn't the first time that ESPN has aired a segment which will end up making our jobs harder than they already are. The Hansborough play was a clear travel. The second play was clearly legal, yet Knight acted like it was an obvious travel that was missed. As another poster noted earlier, all Knight talked about was the number of steps taken by the player, and we all know that has absolutely nothing to do with traveling. The only thing that matters is the pivot foot, and that term wasn't mentioned at all in this piece.
I've emailed ESPN on multiple occasions in the past when they have aired segments like this; I have yet to receive a response of any sort. Maybe someone else from the forum will have more luck.
|
I have asked the question before why so many are so upset by "over the back" but never say a word about "walking." Also, while the number of steps is not the key to the violation, in layman's terms it is usually possible to get the point across. To most people, if you say, "He was standing flat-footed and then he took two steps," it means he moved the left and then the right, or vice-versa. With this in mind, when people argue "He gets two steps on a layup." I explain that the only way he gets two steps is if the ball is caught while both feet are off the floor, which I think is the exception, rather than the rule. As for the Hansborough play, he may have indeed taken five steps. There was a considerable amount of left right action on the play.
|