Jason Kidd travel?
 

In 4th game between the Mavs and Thunder, during the OT, Jason Kidd sank a three-pointer to go up 3. During the replay the announcers were talking about his feet being behind the line, but I saw a clear travel. On the play, Kidd caught the pass with both feet planted. He faked a shot, kept both feet planted, but as the defender flew by Kidd stepped to the right with his right foot (one step), then with his left (two steps), then took the shot.

Am I missing something here? When he stepped to the right with his right foot, didn't that make his left foot the pivot?

Welcome to the board.
 

If I am thinking of the same play (the one the announcers were saying might be a two) that looked clean to me. I think his left foot was the pivot foot and he stepped forward with his right foot (that got close to the line). Now maybe if you have video I can know for sure but I remember that play being legal.

Peace

I couldn't find any video, but he definitely was set, both feet planted, then stepped with his right, then his left, and shot with both feet planted. Why is that not a travel?

Because it's the NBE and they just don't call that stuff.

Mr. Plywood - welcome to the club !!!!!!!
 

Assuming that you are right (I remember the play, but am not sure about it being a travel), JKidd doesn't really gain an AD, as he doesn't go past / beat / gain an advantage, whatever you want to say as he sets his feet to shoot the ball....

Just IMO .......


BTW - As a first time poster you got J Rut and Padg to reply to your post, take the time to absorb over 20, 000 posts of knowledge !!!!!!!!!!

I vaguely remember the play but don't remember if there was a travel or not. If it happened as you say, it would be a travel. This isn't a reviewable matter either.

Could have simply been a missed call. Happens all the time at all levels.

Yes, he traveled.

No, they're not going to make that call in the NBA.

Yes, I've called it and will again.

None of that is relevant. If it's big enough to see, you call it. If you need 7 replays to see it, you don't call it regardless of the magnitude of the game.

Here's where we are:

1. This is the rule.

2. This is how we're going to call it.

The two seem to be getting farther apart to me.

In the NBA and the NCAA a travel immediately followed by a shot attempted is often ignored, apparently by design. I see too many to believe otherwise.

I have not seen the play at hand. Apparently it is a given that Kidd did indeed move the pivot foot. (minutely?)

Unwritten rule: If the violation is minute, it could/should/must be ignored?

This sucks. Now we must decide what is minute.

The argument that it was not seen in real time is often valid, but not the point. If I miss it, it's just missed. Sometimes the miss is justified, sometimes not. But if I see it, and I call it, and any replay does confirm it, nobody can complain.

If making a technically correct call, no matter how minute, keeps me from returning anywhere, I don't care to be there.

So, I'm a liar, eh?

I really don't care what you believe.

Kidd squared up. The defender ran out at him, jumped, and forced him to change his shot. He stepped with both feet, took and made the shot, there by gaining an advantage by traveling.

Yes, I've called it and will again.

Call It When You See It ...
 

I don't get a chance to work too many state championship games, but when I observe a travel, and I'm certain it's a travel, I'm calling it, whether it's in the first minute of a Catholic middle school game in December, or it's in the final minute of a high school varsity league playoff game in March.

On the other hand, if I'm not sure it's a travel, I'm not sounding my whistle, at any level, at any time.

With few exceptions (three seconds, ten second free throw) I don't pick and choose the calls, or noncalls, that I make, or don't make, in a game when I'm certain that a violation has occurred.

John Adams would disagree
 

OK so maybe the pro game you can get away with a no-call, but this is exactly the opposite of what John Adams has been preaching. Look at the end of the But / Pitt game. You could argue that the foul call was cheap because the foul occured with little time. Why are you refereeing a state championship game any differently. If this is a travel and you don't call it, then that is regarded as a missed call.......

Advantage/disadvantage and intent to draw/avoid contact: Neither is a part of the traveling rule.




Very true. But at this juncture it can.




And this is a concern to us because......??

And This Is News ???
 

This is why basketball officials everywhere find what we do so challenging. This is why we get paid the big bucks, whether it's in a Catholic middle school game, a high school varsity game, an NCAA game, or an NBA game. If one can't multi-task, then one should not become a basketball official. If one wants to officiate a less challenging sport, then become a linesman at the French open, where one can concentrate on just one thing, and if one has a question, then one can look for a mark in the clay.

By that argument, we should leave our whistles in our pockets and pull them out only in the event of a fight.

If many/most referees can see the wiggle of the foot, then it should be called. And yes, it can be seen. It is simply lazy to not call it if you see it.

Even though this is not possible, it should be our goal to see it all, not just the blatantly obvious.



The call is justified if it is confirmed by the replay, which apparently it was in this case. As for "passing on" 8 other calls, the solution is simple.
Don't do that, either.

Closer Is Not Always Better ...
 

Which can often be accomplished by an official backing up a few steps to open up his field of view.

I'm enjoying the debate guys. Thanks for the replies. For my part, I'm not a ref. That said, I noticed the second step in the long shot, then it was confirmed in the replay. I was struck by the way the announcers were discussing whether Kidd was behind the line and not the fact that he took steps to get the shot off.

As far as the "2-inch wiggle", had the the replay shown that his foot was 1/4" over the three point line, that shot would have been a two. Inches count.

Lesson Learned ...
 

According to your Forum name, I'm sure that you already know something that my junior high school shop teacher, Mr. Klimkowski, taught us about 45 years ago, "Measure twice. Cut once".

Yes, inches count, but lines are always more easily enforced (by their very nature) than pivot feet and short steps when a player is constantly moving on the feet. Traveling isn't nearly as important to the powers-that-be as monitoring the three point line; otherwise travels would be subject to replay review.

Multitasking is one thing. To make this call you're either A) expecting the referee to have at least 4 eyeballs capable of independent motion or B) be looking for the 2-inch wobble at the expense of missing a foul/no-foul call that is much more likely to be needed. You are not failing to multitask if your eyes are on the most probable call and not 78 inches lower - you are simply human and prioritizing your responsibilities.

Assuming it's a 2 inch wobble, you're right. It's easy to miss, but higher level officials should catch it fairly often.

If it's a side step that actually creates distance from a defender, then it should caught more often than missed. Otherwise, anytime there's a defender nearby, we'd miss 100% of the travels.

I was able to find the game and view it again. Kidd actually sidesteps to the right to try to create contact with the defender. The ref is to Kidd's left in what looks like perfect position to me, maybe 15 feet away, but I can see how he could have been concentrating on the potential foul. Hard to tell if he shifts his gaze to the feet, but he does raise his hand to signal a three attempt.

I can post a clip somewhere if anyone is interested...

If you could post the clip it'd be nice...if you can't, then you can give me a copy of the clip and I can post it on my YouTube account.

I'd like to see the clip, so I find it hard to comment definitively on this, but it seems to me that if you're concentrating on 2 v 3, you're watching the feet and should be able to pick up a travel.

Jason Kidd travel, Part Deux. He did it again yesterday, same scenario, this time it was much more obvious, and again it was not called. Kidd took two full steps to draw a charge on an in-flight Wade. Van Gundy actually called the travel during the replay, and said that he thought traveling (and any other potential violation) should be reviewable along with the two/three question. It does seem silly that while they were checking to see if the shot was a two or a three, the could plainly see that Kidd took steps to get there, yet they can't do anything about it...

Kinda like LeBron catching the ball outside the 3-point arc in the final minute yesterday and landing. Then, he hops with both feet, landing sort of to the side, and then travels AGAIN and finally puts the ball to the floor. Crazy.

That was wasn't obvious in real time...no one saw that in real time. On this play, Wade was going to foul Kidd whether he super technically traveled or not.

The last thing in the world we need to have is reviewable traveling calls.

I'm confident these 2 occasions aren't the first time Jason Kidd or any other player has made this move to get off a shot. I would say the NBA apparently doesn't want this to be called a travel (or maybe it isn't even a travel based on the NBA rule book).

There's a reason why I tell people to never listen to anything rules related when Jeff Van Gundy says it...

Yesterday it was completely obvious in real time. It was not a "super-technical" travel whatever that means - it was a travel as defined in the rulebook.

Nope, no one saw that in real time...none of the players saw it in real time, and I guarantee Scott Foster (the calling official either) didn't either. I said it was a super technical travel because it had to be seen on replay slowed down to be seen. It's already been mentioned that these kind of calls are to be clear and blatantly obvious in real time.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xx653YuQEd0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play in question from last night

And if they had called a technical foul after a travel then they would have suggested the official was overstepping their bounds or authority.

Peace

There is no doubt that this would have to be called a travel in NFHS and NCAA. I just believe that the NBA doesn't want this to be a travel in their game. And it's not like Lebron James or Dwayne Wade or Dominique Wilkens have done the same thing without getting called.

LOL - Kidd is hopping around like he's walking on hot coals. The NBA is turning into the And-1 Mix Tape Tour...

I agree. And I think that's bull. And the arguments that this could not be seen in real time and/or it was not "blatantly obvious enough" are.....:rolleyes:

Best quote ever from an announcer
 

".........you lose sight of the traveling violation that constantly occurs."

Mark Jackson

There is no doubt that it would be called a travel less than half the time in the NFHS and NCAA. I doubt many officials would be able to tell from the trail position (which is the official covering the play) that Kidd's left foot moved at all. And of those that could tell, the confidence in being correct would be marginal enough that many would pass on it.

I agree. Many obvious travels are passed on at those levels and we act like the NBA just passes on these by practice.

Peace

I don't see what's so hard to see in this particular play. :rolleyes:

It's not so hard in slow motion or from the perfect angle. But the official was NOT in nearly such a good position to see it and only had live action to catch it. That is not nearly as easy.

I would like to change the direction of the discussion a bit. By rule,when a player jumps he should be allowed to land on the spot that no player occupied when he left the floor. Dwayne Wade was going to fly past Kidd on this play; Kidd jumps sideways to draw the contact. Could this not be interpreted as an offensive foul? I have seen NBA officials call an offensive foul when a jump shooter sticks out his leg to contact the defender. This actually seems to be more obvious. Any comments?

I bet Mark Jackson is done being critical of any officiating (not saying he does it a lot) while on the mic. It isn't in his best interest. On the other hand, he should say what he wants now while it is still free.

I think on this play, Wade would have made contact with Kidd regardless. An offensive foul can be called on a offensive player who makes an overt movement on a defender when it's clear that the player's path would have taken him clear of the offensive player. I remember during the 2008 NBA Finals, this very call was made on Paul Pierce for jumping into the path of a defender who jumped clear to the side of him.

You see this call every now and then during the season (I've seen it a couple of times this season), but for the most part, defenders don't really contest shots where they end up going beside the shooter.

twice