I wasn't attempting to say ignore the rule. I was just addressing the comment that supervisor(s) may not know.

Most of them do, they want the obvious one(s) called and the one(s) were no advantage in gained passed on. That's the point I was attempting to make.

Gotcha. Sorry, I wasn't reading clearly.

Per the old post above, we got a hint back in March that the legal NBA 2 step was coming. Despite the best of intentions, getting the borderline travel calls right is hard. I'm not surprising that the new rule reads in part, "A player who receives the ball while he is progressing or upon completion of a dribble, may take two steps in coming to a stop, passing or shooting the ball.". While it is not surprising, it is a bad move that puts the NBA rule at odds with the travel rule at every other level. An acknowledgment that when there is doubt on traveling, a no call is appropriate would have served the purpose.


Take a look at this Lebron travel video from the NBA NBA Video Rule Book. If Lebron had not taken a "3rd step" would you have called travelling for him taking "2 steps"?

I don't know when that clip was posted, but if it was prior to the rewrite of the NBA rule, then we have more information that the instruction was counter to the written rule.
From the accompanying text to the video:
"A dribbler may take two steps after gathering the ball to end a dribble."

The clip was posted after the rule change. I am posing the hypothetical to make the point that determining a travel at any level is sometimes difficult and that when there is legitimate doubt we should and often do pass on calling a violation. I would like to know if after reviewing the video, and assuming that there was no third step and that the old rule was in play, if my fellow forum members would call a violation. For me, there would be enough doubt in real time, to not call a violation.

Looking at the NBA video rulebook, I dont see much of a change. ..

If you look at the three step play, even in high school the first "two steps" were legal.

In NFHS unless I am way off base we allow two steps now.

Look at 4-44 ..

If both feet are off the floor and a player lands simultaneous on both feet (step one).. either foot can be a pivot and you can take a second step with non pivot... (step two)

if both feet are off the floor and one foot is followed by another first to hit is pivot (step one) and second foot hitting( is setp two)...

If catches with one foot on the floor (step one) and jump stops (step two) any steps after that is a third step.......

Although the NBA will allow two steps based on the video and interpretations I dont see how things will change much....

Bottom line we miss alot of travels because we dont know what the pivot foot is... In a fast moving game with a full run do we all know the moment the player catches the ball and then know which foot or feet are on the ground? If we dont I would not be criticizing the NBA way until we can get it right...

How many of us have a player standing on the ground, catches the ball, and player jumps to left or right, or forward and lands on both feet again and then shoots?

Travel by rule but when you call it everybody yells at you.... but it is still a travel...

It makes no sense why all of these people on here think they are learning NBA rules from an article which said that last year players were allowed "one step". They make fun of the media for not knowing what they are talking about all the time but then this article comes along and everyone believes every word. I mean seriously, it is obvious this guy has no idea what the rules are. It wasn't "one step" last year. I haven't seen the new NBA rule book but I doubt it will say anything about "2 steps". Traveling will still be called with the movement of the pivot foot. The NBA already had different rules (opposed to NCAA, NFHS) regarding alighting with the ball and establishing a pivot foot. I doubt a slight change to that will have a large effect on the game.

The previous NBA rule stated that the player could come to a stop with "a two-count rhythm" whatever that meant. The problem was that the phrase was not precisely defined and no one had any idea what the officials were using. Now we at least know that the standard is two steps.
That clarification alone is significant.

That's exactly why I get confused when the discussion centers around "number of steps" -- I wouldn't call any of your "step one" a step.

:eek:

This is the first I'm hearing of this! Say it ain't so, Nevada!

:rolleyes:

NBA.com: NBA clarifies update -- not change -- to traveling rule


Posted Oct 23 2009 6:00PM

NEW YORK (AP) -- The correct call: The NBA has not changed the traveling rule.

Stu Jackson, the league's executive vice president of basketball operations, said recent media reports that the rule had been changed to allow an extra step after the dribble were not true.

"We have not changed the traveling rule, nor how we enforce the rule," Jackson said Friday during the league's annual preseason conference call. "What we did change was some antiquated language in our existing rule as it related to steps."

The section of the NBA rulebook dealing with traveling used to allow players to "use a two-count rhythm in coming to a stop." It was reworded this season to say players "may take two steps in coming to a stop, passing or shooting the ball."

So do you think that my check is in the mail? ;)

It should be. You nailed it.

A New Light.
 

There was a game the other night in which a Celtic was called for a travel at the same time a foul was called on the player guarding him. the officials conferenced and I don't know if they looked at the tape, but the ruling was that the foul came first -- I reran the play over and over and was convinced that the travel happened first, therefore dead ball and no foul. Now, however, I see the rule change and it's clear that the two-step traveling rule led to the decision that he hadn't "completed" the travel before being fouled.

The announcers, who should have updated themselves on any and all rules or interpretations changes before sitting behind a microphone for a regular season game, were clueless.

The question, though, is does legalizing the two-step mean they can get away with three?

I hope there isn't a Texas gunslinger about to disagree with you! :D