Bobby Knight on Traveling

[jearef]

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.

[rgncjn]

Did anybody else notice that BK never mentioned "traveling" during his segment? He wants officials to call "walking," but last I checked there was not a specific violation for "walking." If he wanted to send a message, he should have referred to the rule by its given name.

[BktBallRef]

Theres' a tremendous amount of traveling in HS and college that isn't called.

A player ends his dribbles and jump stops off both feet.

3 point shooter catches the ball and bunny hops to the arc or even steps behind it moving both feet.

A low post player with his back to the basket steps into the paint with his left foot, making his right the pivot. Then, he steps with his right and squares to the basket before his shot without a dribble.

Break away dunks and fast breaks are never called.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jearef

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have asked the question before why so many are so upset by "over the back" but never say a word about "walking."

Because one is and exact synonym for the other. Neither traveling nor walking suggests any action is an infraction that the other does not.

"Over the back", on the otherhand, is used to describe actions that may or may not be illegal and is typically used when someone thinks a foul should be called when a player from behind makes a play (with or without fouling contact.)