Tim Higgins

[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.