Tim Higgins

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Because if it was a travel, say why it was a travel. But then again the public thinks that "3 steps" is illegal when it is not.

Peace

Ignoring the OOB issue and the clock -- that is if the play had been in bounds and with time on the clock -- don't you think it was a travel? Again, I only saw it once, but it looked to me as though he gathered, landed on one foot, and returned that pivot before tossing the ball into the crowd (which, in this case, occurred in 3 steps).

If all the announcers are saying is effectively, "even if it was in bounds, it looked like a travel," is that a problem?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

Ignoring the OOB issue and the clock -- that is if the play had been in bounds and with time on the clock -- don't you think it was a travel?

You cannot have a travel when the players are out of bounds. And I did see it more than once.

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

Again, I only saw it once, but it looked to me as though he gathered, landed on one foot, and returned that pivot before tossing the ball into the crowd (which, in this case, occurred in 3 steps).

The question is when did he actually have the ball? He knocked the ball down to the floor when he first had the ball.

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

If all the announcers are saying is effectively, "even if it was in bounds, it looked like a travel," is that a problem?

The commentators (Digger Phelps) said that they missed a travel and an out of bounds call. The travel they want is questionable if not there at all. And when you say he took three steps when the third step was out of bounds you cannot have it both ways. Yes, it is a problem when the public does not understand the rules and you tell everyone the incorrect ruling. So when we get to our games and I have to explain to a coach that I do not call steps, I call traveling based on the actions of the pivot foot that is what causes confusion for everyone. Kind of like the moving screen I had a coach want called last week and the screen did not cause any contact and the defender moved with the screener, but yet a coach wanted a foul called when no illegal contact took place. Yes, that is wrong. And he said that 3 officials missed it. Three officials are not looking at this play. Maybe two of them were, but more likely 1 in this specific play.

Peace

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The commentators (Digger Phelps) said that they missed a travel and an out of bounds call. The travel they want is questionable if not there at all. And when you say he took three steps when the third step was out of bounds you cannot have it both ways. Yes, it is a problem when the public does not understand the rules and you tell everyone the incorrect ruling. So when we get to our games and I have to explain to a coach that I do not call steps, I call traveling based on the actions of the pivot foot that is what causes confusion for everyone. Kind of like the moving screen I had a coach want called last week and the screen did not cause any contact and the defender moved with the screener, but yet a coach wanted a foul called when no illegal contact took place. Yes, that is wrong. And he said that 3 officials missed it. Three officials are not looking at this play. Maybe two of them were, but more likely 1 in this specific play.

Peace

Thanks for the answer. I think part of the problem with Digger or others understanding travelling is that "pivot" is a horrible word that is inaccessible to most non-officials. The concept of pivoting has a common sense meaning of rotating on a fixe point. I would guess most non-officials only understand the concept of a pivot foot in the situation where the ball is caught with both feet on the ground and then one is lifted, because that looks like what we think of as a "pivot."

I'm sure Digger and most fans would be suprised to learn of the concept of a pivot foot when, for example, a player is running forward. I think travelling is hard enough for many to understand because of the different ways to travel -- sometimes a player can move a great distance with the ball without travelling and sometimes a tiny movement can be a violation and that confuses people. Add in the word "pivot" and it's hopeless.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And he said that 3 officials missed it. Three officials are not looking at this play. Maybe two of them were, but more likely 1 in this specific play.

+1

On this one, the play was coming right at Burr on the sideline as new L on the turnover. Higgins was T at the other end on the same sideline. Earl Walton was the C across the court. There's nowayinhell Walton was involved in an OOB call on the far sideline. He shouldn't be part of the conversation imo.

Bottom line is they just missed the call. Contrary to the thinking of fans and talking heads, officials really are human and do recognize they'll screw one up every now and then. Unfortunately the circumstances make this particular call stand out. If it happens at 3:32 of the first half, no one is talking about it.

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

+1
Unfortunately the circumstances make this particular call stand out. If it happens at 3:32 of the first half, no one is talking about it.

I assume you mean that if a bad mistake happens at 3:32 of the first half, not this particular play, no one would talk about it.

Even with 3:32 left in the first half, I'm guessing that if a player with possession of the ball steps out of bounds and then launches the ball into the crowd and none of the officials call OOB, some people might talk about it.