Traveling Rules Simplified

[bbcof83]

Can anyone simply explain some of the more complex points to remember about traveling? Specifically I have troubles with two plays: the jump stop and what is allowed to follow it; and the beginning of a dribble, I often miss violations where the pivot is picked up before the dribble begins. Maybe someone has some simple sayings or one liners that can help me visualize traveling and enforce the rules better.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

Can anyone simply explain some of the more complex points to remember about traveling? Specifically I have troubles with two plays: the jump stop and what is allowed follow it when; and the beginning of a dribble, I often miss violations where the pivot is picked up before the dribble begins. Maybe someone has some simple sayings or one liners that can help me visualize traveling and enforce the rules better.

Without quoting the rule there are not a lot of shortcuts. If you commit a Jump Stop which by definition is something that you can only do after ending a dribble, you have no pivot foot and can only lift either foot, but cannot put them back down to the floor.

At the beginning of the dribble is easy. You cannot move your pivot foot until you have started a dribble.

The only way you are going to really learn the rule is to see plays and read and understand the rule. There are a lot of variables to this rule and why I think it is not called accurately all the time. There is no easy way to figure it out but understand what the rule says and put this into action.

Peace

No sayings or one liners to offer but...

After the 'jump stop" there is no pivoting, the player can shoot, pass or request time out.

Due to my early misconceptions about "referee the defense" I also have experienced trouble with missing the lift of the pivot foot before begining the dribble, because I was so locked in on the defender. Now I try to see the whole play WHILE refereeing the defense. I have seen some progression in this category since trying to see the whole play!

Remember if you have to guess, then it didn't happen. Call obvious travels that matter, not the ones that you have to rewind several times to validate.

I still have trouble getting the travels while I'm L, maybe I'm too close to the play? I tell my partners to feel free to come get it in that situation, just give me an opportunity to make the call & make sure you're right

Since we're talking travels, one of my biggest pet peeves is, to call it & the only thing the calling official sees is that the feet moved in excess of the prescribed limits. There is another criteria to it called possession of the ball. So many times the ball may be bobbled, thus travelling should not be called.
Hope this helps!

[wanja]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you commit a Jump Stop which by definition is something that you can only do after ending a dribble

It ain't so Rut. You can also commit a Jump Stop before a dribble by receiving the ball airborne, landing on one foot and then jumping to land on 2 feet.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by wanja

It ain't so Rut. You can also commit a Jump Stop before a dribble by receiving the ball airborne, landing on one foot and then jumping to land on 2 feet.

Receiving the ball while airborne is not considered a jump stop. That is just receiving the ball while airborne. You have not committed a jump stop until you attempt to jump off of one foot.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Receiving the ball while airborne is not considered a jump stop. That is just receiving the ball while airborne. You have not committed a jump stop until you attempt to jump off of one foot.

Peace

There is no rule book definition for the term jump stop. It is most commonly considered to be when a player chooses to "jump of that (one) foot and simultaneously land on both. Neither foot can be a pivot in this case." This quote is a part of 4-44-2, which also says this action may be performed by a player "who catches the ball while moving or dribbling...."

A jump stop is not necessarily preceded by a dribble.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is no rule book definition for the term jump stop. It is most commonly considered to be when a player chooses to "jump of that (one) foot and simultaneously land on both. Neither foot can be a pivot in this case." This quote is a part of 4-44-2, which also says this action may be performed by a player "who catches the ball while moving or dribbling...."

A jump stop is not necessarily preceded by a dribble.

I agree there is no "technical" term for a jump stop. But it certainly does not apply to what is considered a jump stop if you are still airborne. You have to have feet on the floor to start a jump stop. The most common move is done while ending a dribble.

Moving and being airborne are two different things in my opinion.

Peace

[wanja]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you commit a Jump Stop which by definition is something that you can only do after ending a dribble,

Originally Posted by wanja

It ain't so Rut. You can also commit a Jump Stop before a dribble by receiving the ball airborne, landing on one foot and then jumping to land on 2 feet.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Receiving the ball while airborne is not considered a jump stop. That is just receiving the ball while airborne. You have not committed a jump stop until you attempt to jump off of one foot.

Agreed. So a jump stop has been comitted and there is no violation after receiving the ball while airborne, landing on one foot and then jumping to land on 2 feet. A preceding dribble is not required.

[wanja]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree there is no "technical" term for a jump stop. But it certainly does not apply to what is considered a jump stop if you are still airborne. You have to have feet on the floor to start a jump stop. The most common move is done while ending a dribble.

Moving and being airborne are two different things in my opinion.

Peace

While the most common occurrence of what is commonly referred to as a jump stop occurs at the end of a dribble, there is no requirement for a dribble. Furthermore the player in control can be either moving or stationary, airborne or touching the court before the jump stop. Case 4.44.2A provides clarification.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

Can anyone simply explain some of the more complex points to remember about traveling? Specifically I have troubles with two plays: the jump stop and what is allowed to follow it; and the beginning of a dribble, I often miss violations where the pivot is picked up before the dribble begins. Maybe someone has some simple sayings or one liners that can help me visualize traveling and enforce the rules better.

1 -When a player is holding the ball, determine which foot is being used as the pivot.

If a dribble is started, that foot better be on the ground.

If the that is lifted, the player had better pass or shoot before it returns to the floor.

2- A player with the ball can jump off one foot and land simultaneously on both feet.

If he doesn't land simulataneously, it's traveling.

If he steps after landing, it's traveling.

If he jumps off both feet and lands with the ball, it's traveling. (This is the most missed jumpstop travel in my opinion)

If he gathers the ball while airborne, none of the 3 points above applies.

[tballump]

In the games I have watched, I knew good and well "both officials knew the traveling rule inside and out". However, the official that called all the obvious travels and the travels that 'looked funny' even though they were 'not' really travels by the book, came out smelling like a rose. All the coaches loved this official (because it makes their team look like they have committed a turnover due to their good defense), and as long as the official calls the 'funny looking' (but not true travels) travels both ways, they love him and want him for all their games.
Meanwhile the partner that called the regular travels, (but would not call the 'funny looking' travels that were not travels by the book), ends up calling the technical fouls on both coaches, both of whom want the ones that are not really travels, and has both coaches complaining to his superiors about what a horrible official he is and that he doesn't know the traveling rule. And guess who gets the better schedule. Oh darn, it ain't the guy that had to call the technicals and called the travels correctly, its the guy who knows they aren't travels either but calls them because they look funny and doesn't have to take the heat for a no call.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by tballump

In the games I have watched, I knew good and well "both officials knew the traveling rule inside and out". However, the official that called all the obvious travels and the travels that 'looked funny' even though they were 'not' really travels by the book, came out smelling like a rose. All the coaches loved this official (because it makes their team look like they have committed a turnover due to their good defense), and as long as the official calls the 'funny looking' (but not true travels) travels both ways, they love him and want him for all their games.
Meanwhile the partner that called the regular travels, (but would not call the 'funny looking' travels that were not travels by the book), ends up calling the technical fouls on both coaches, both of whom want the ones that are not really travels, and has both coaches complaining to his superiors about what a horrible official he is and that he doesn't know the traveling rule. And guess who gets the better schedule. Oh darn, it ain't the guy that had to call the technicals and called the travels correctly, its the guy who knows they aren't travels either but calls them because they look funny and doesn't have to take the heat for a no call.

Unfortunately stuff like this is true a large percentage of the time. Coaches don't know the rules. Coaches love officials who will let them walk all over them. Officials who have never given a T love to talk about it like it's some accomplishment, and would rather have a coach walk all over them and then "like them" rather than take care of business and not give a damn what the coach thinks.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tballump

In the games I have watched, I knew good and well "both officials knew the traveling rule inside and out". However, the official that called all the obvious travels and the travels that 'looked funny' even though they were 'not' really travels by the book, came out smelling like a rose. All the coaches loved this official (because it makes their team look like they have committed a turnover due to their good defense), and as long as the official calls the 'funny looking' (but not true travels) travels both ways, they love him and want him for all their games.
Meanwhile the partner that called the regular travels, (but would not call the 'funny looking' travels that were not travels by the book), ends up calling the technical fouls on both coaches, both of whom want the ones that are not really travels, and has both coaches complaining to his superiors about what a horrible official he is and that he doesn't know the traveling rule. And guess who gets the better schedule. Oh darn, it ain't the guy that had to call the technicals and called the travels correctly, its the guy who knows they aren't travels either but calls them because they look funny and doesn't have to take the heat for a no call.

Originally Posted by zm1283

Unfortunately stuff like this is true a large percentage of the time. Coaches don't know the rules. Coaches love officials who will let them walk all over them. Officials who have never given a T love to talk about it like it's some accomplishment, and would rather have a coach walk all over them and then "like them" rather than take care of business and not give a damn what the coach thinks.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

Now let's see how long this post lasts because I'm going to call the described behavior cowardly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Unfortunately stuff like this is true a large percentage of the time. Coaches don't know the rules. Coaches love officials who will let them walk all over them. Officials who have never given a T love to talk about it like it's some accomplishment, and would rather have a coach walk all over them and then "like them" rather than take care of business and not give a damn what the coach thinks.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

I really disagree with this. I think coaches try certain officials to see if they can get away with stuff or see how you will react. Once coaches realize that you are not a push over, they will adjust if they know better.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Now let's see how long this post lasts because I'm going to call the described behavior cowardly.

Wrong forum, chuckle-head.