Travel??? while OOB

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

I wholeheartedly agree with the use of extra signals in this manner to communicate specifics. I simply oppose the use of a signal that communicates the wrong thing...that it was traveling.

Cameron: Totally agree w/ the use of the "hook" signal in this sitch. I have used it as well in games to convey something similar. I have also opened my hip and lifted off the floor to convey the nature of a blocking foul. However let me play the devils advocate for a minute. We are now adding a signal that is clearly not in the mechanics manual. So if it is Ok to do this, then we are opening the door for a signal to describe the action that caused every foul we call. Besides the fact that reporting a foul would start to look like a mime scene, the fact of the matter is that the "hook" signal was used to convey the action that caused the foul. Is this not like using the traveling signal to convey the action of the violation that we are talking about in this thread. I'm not trying to rile you up, just trying to provide all aspects of thought in this discussion.

[Rich]

Not to be picky, but the only signal that is supposed to be given to the table on a team control foul is the team control signal (as per the CCA Women's Manual).



Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jan 22nd, 2003 at 11:23 AM]

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by rockyroad
I had a game the other night where the offensive post player was hooking the defender as she posted up, very effectively pinning the defender in place and getting an easy post entry pass...I called the team control foul (NCAA rules) and proceeded to clear the players and report to the table...in reporting, I gave the color and number, showed the proper hold signal, AND THEN added a hooking motion with my arm...absolutely NOT the proper signal, and not found in the book, but the coach - who was at the far end and standing there with the "What'd she do?" look - turned to the post player, told her to stop hooking, and sat down...sometimes the signals we use communicate quite clearly - even though we know they aren't the "correct" signal...

I am a big fan of communication, both verbal and non-verbal. If you can show me from 40 feet away in a loud gym rather than trying to yell it to me, I like it. Signal what you are required to signal and add what you need to in order to clarify your message.

[mick]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Not to be picky, but the only signal that is supposed to be given to the table is the team control signal (as per the CCA Women's Manual).



Rich

13.B.4. Personal fouls, Calling Official - Inform scorer by: b. Slowly stating the color of the jersey and the player's number who fouled. Also with a one hand signal, indicate the number of the player who fouled and the nature of the foul.

What does your book say?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
... However let me play the devils advocate for a minute. We are now adding a signal that is clearly not in the mechanics manual. So if it is Ok to do this, then we are opening the door for a signal to describe the action that caused every foul we call. Besides the fact that reporting a foul would start to look like a mime scene, the fact of the matter is that the "hook" signal was used to convey the action that caused the foul.

I beg to differ. When I add some extra signals for communication, it only follows the prescribed signal and only in infrequent cases where I feel some extra information may defuse a potential situation. If it crept into every signal and replace the prescribed signals then it would be a big problem and would lose it's effectiveness.

In these cases, the infraction is still a foul and the foul is still a block/hold/push/etc. and should be indicated as such. Only then should the extra be added...not in place of the defined signals.

Is this not like using the traveling signal to convey the action of the violation that we are talking about in this thread.

I don't think so. One is essentially adding to the description of the infraction for increased understanding. The other is indicating an entirely different infraction...a sure recipe for confusion and misunderstanding. That is what we have today.

I would suggest that calling this traveling is no better then stating/signaling a foul as "a reach" or "over-the-back". Just as there are no such infractions, there is no travelling on a throwin.

I'm not trying to rile you up, just trying to provide all aspects of thought in this discussion.

No problem. I certainly enjoy a good debate that sticks to the topic rather than targeting the participants as often is the case here.

[BktBallRef]

D@mn! Four pages of posts in 12 hours. We guys sure have been busy today.

I was tired after reading just the first page!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Peter Devana
I Have read most of the replies to this post and have to agree that the ref did a great job in having the strength to make the call and communicating it clearly to everyone in question. Obviously he is a good communicator and has rthe strength to make the tough call. These are 2 attributes that evaluators look for when considering officials for that high level.
I'm really curtous as to how the poster, Navedaref would have handled the same situation?????
Pistol

Since you asked, I would have called a violation for a teammate of the thrower being OOB during a designated-spot throw-in. I would have pointed at that teammate and then given a direction signal the opposite way. If I remember correctly that teammate was almost under the basket OOB, so I would probably have given the throw-in on the same side as the original. However, if the teammate were OOB on the other side of the basket, then I would have administered the throw-in over on that side.
Now I also don't think that this was a tough call, it was an obvious violation. Was it an intense situation? Yes. But I don't believe that it took any great intestinal fortitude to make this call. Just blow the little whistle. This official did that. That's great, but isn't that what he gets $500 to do? Even if he did know the rule, I have a problem with him not setting a good example for other officials, and for furthering confusion such as this: http://www.officialforum.com/thread/7090
Lastly, a big thanks to Camron, who has wonderfully captured my original purpose for this post in his points throughout this thread.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by zebraman

I did a varsity 4A boys game with a guy who does D-1 ball about a month ago. I'm trail coming out of backcourt. Player with ball picks up dribble, loses balance a little and touches the ball to the floor without moving either foot. At halftime, this official asks me why I didn't call it a travel. I explain that it's legal. D-1 official says, "we've been calling that a travel for 15 years - it's not legal." I get out my book and prove him wrong. He apologizes and tells me that he doesn't read the rules books anymore because he pretty much has the rules memorized from all his years of experience. I no longer assume that all D-1 officials have great rule knowledge.

Z

hmmm...I gotta believe either

a) you have sh1t D1 referees in your area
b) he was pulling your leg
c) he doesn't really do D1 (or D2, or D3).

IMO.

[Rich]

Originally posted by mick

13.B.4. Personal fouls, Calling Official - Inform scorer by: b. Slowly stating the color of the jersey and the player's number who fouled. Also with a one hand signal, indicate the number of the player who fouled and the nature of the foul.

What does your book say?

Page 61, 2002-03 CCA Women's Manual.

D. Team Control Foul Signal

1. Blow the whistle and raise fist in the air to stop the clock.
2. Follow with punch signal at the spot of the foul.
3. Punch signal should be in the direction the ball will be awarded (signal #21).
4. When reporting, give punch at table.

13.B is different than you say, too. Says nothing about a preliminary signal, unless the foul is a team control, intentional, or double foul. You have the 2002-03 manual? We are talking CCA women's, right?

Rich

[mick]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Page 61, 2002-03 CCA Women's Manual.

D. Team Control Foul Signal

1. Blow the whistle and raise fist in the air to stop the clock.
2. Follow with punch signal at the spot of the foul.
3. Punch signal should be in the direction the ball will be awarded (signal #21).
4. When reporting, give punch at table.

13.B is different than you say, too. Says nothing about a preliminary signal, unless the foul is a team control, intentional, or double foul. You have the 2002-03 manual? We are talking CCA women's, right?

Rich

Rich,
13.B.4(b) is on page 35.
mick

[Rich]

I'll look there when I get home.

I think that by adding the new signal this season they may have introduced an inconsistency in the manual. I do know the D-I women's games I worked I've only seen that signal on all team control fouls.

I like the signal, but don't think it really conveys any information other than "we're going the other way and not shooting free throws."

Rich

[mick]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
I'll look there when I get home.

I think that by adding the new signal this season they may have introduced an inconsistency in the manual. I do know the D-I women's games I worked I've only seen that signal on all team control fouls.

I like the signal, but don't think it really conveys any information other than "we're going the other way and not shooting free throws."

Rich

"...the only signal that is supposed to be given to the table."

Rich, I am beginning to understand your above statement.
And, yes, I agree that is the only signal to give when only a Team Control foul is reported.
I did not understand that you were writing to the specifica case of "Team Control".
mick

[Rich]

Corrected my original post to make it clearer.

Thanks.

Rich