Travel much?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

With regard to your repeated reference to intent and purpose of the rules, the main thing I get from that is that a team/player is not allowed to commit a violation which gives his team a benefit which was not intended by that rule. Best example was the player intentionally trying to miss a free throw and the defense commits violations trying to force a make.

Can "gives his team a benefit" be, in any way, similar (thought not exactly the same) as gives his team an advantage?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Some of the off topic catch phrases, pictures, and other miscellaneous that you post make us clench our collective teeth.

Some? Why are you being so kind to me? Am I dying, and nobody told me?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Can "gives his team a benefit" be, in any way, similar (thought not exactly the same) as gives his team an advantage?

Yes, what's your point?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yes, what's your point?

Just trying to get some closure.

[JetMetFan]

I just wanted to give a visual example as to why traveling isn't something we can/should officiate with advantage/disadvantage in mind.

This is a clip from Friday's N.C. State/UVA game in the ACC Tournament. It's a pretty benign play which no one will remember but it struck a nerve.


Original Video - More videos at TinyPic

UVA #23 receives a pass and lands on his right foot, making it his pivot foot. Then he resets himself due to pressure from NCSU #0 and makes his left foot the pivot without dribbling the ball. Then he starts his drive...and NCSU #0 is called for a block. By not calling that travel, NCSU #0 was not only put at a disadvantage, he ended up one foul closer to a DQ.

If there was heavy pressure on UVA #23 I'd more than understand if the travel was missed since I know I'm not the only one who was ever told "if there's a choice between missing a foul or a violation, miss the foul." But both the L and the T were watching the play. If they both missed it that's life but if either of them thought that no one gained an advantage in that situation I'd have to disagree.

[APG]

Number 0 was called for a handcheck...two hands on the dribbler...rather than a blocking foul.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I just wanted to give a visual example as to why traveling isn't something we can/should officiate with advantage/disadvantage in mind.

This is a clip from Friday's N.C. State/UVA game in the ACC Tournament. It's a pretty benign play which no one will remember but it struck a nerve.

UVA #23 receives a pass and lands on his right foot, making it his pivot foot. Then he resets himself due to pressure from NCSU #0 and makes his left foot the pivot without dribbling the ball. Then he starts his drive...and NCSU #0 is called for a block. By not calling that travel, NCSU #0 was not only put at a disadvantage, he ended up one foul closer to a DQ.

If there was heavy pressure on UVA #23 I'd more than understand if the travel was missed since I know I'm not the only one who was ever told "if there's a choice between missing a foul or a violation, miss the foul." But both the L and the T were watching the play. If they both missed it that's life but if either of them thought that no one gained an advantage in that situation I'd have to disagree.

On the other hand, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around...

These travels are all over the place, nobody complains, and life goes on.

I get what you're saying, but this stuff is *never* called at this level.

[Pantherdreams]

I'm willing to admit that I'm more strict on travels and we are in the area I officiate then otehr regions or persons I've worked with.

That being said I can't control what doesn't get called by other people. I'm not trying to be a martyr or trend setter, but I also refuse to not call the rulebook. My big concern is as someone responsible for the growth and development of the game.

If a coach is taking the time to teach footwork or how to defend to take away an angle or a pivot foot and we don't call the travel what incentive is there to teach/ develop players properly they are more likely to just spend time strength training and implementing tactics. IF I don't call it and someone else does later because a kid/coach/team doesn't correct it I'm the guy that said it was ok. What ever we don't enforce we allow and encourage, officials as stakeholders should not be encouraging a deterioration in fundamentals or expectations for player development.

If I'm an official who is dependant on my officiating as my sole source of income and my conference/ league says they want less called then that would be different (you are the boss and this is my families life too) but in situations where that is not the case we have the opportunity to do whats right for the game and kids.

[SWMOzebra]

For me, the difference in the two positions being debated comes down to this: if I call violations as written, then I'm supported by the rules if/when a supervisor calls me to question a play he has seen on film (sent to him by a coach who disagreed with the call or the no-call).

Whether or not a travel occurs out in the open with no defensive pressure or in the paint where the ball handler is being double-teamed, the opposing team is being put at a disadvantage by not being awarded the ball when the other team violates.

All this being said, have I ever passed on a 3-second lane violation? Absolutely, in virtually ever game I've ever worked. Fudged on a 10-second FT count? Probably a half-dozen times. Given more than 10-seconds to reach the front court, regardless of pressure (using Fed rules)? Never. If they stop to talk to their coach while bringing the ball up in the backcourt and I get to 10? It's a turnover, pure and simple.

Throw-in violation? Lane violation during FTs? Kicked ball? Travelling? Illegal dribble? If it's in my area and doesn't require any guesswork on my part ... then the violation gets called. For me, it's all about consistency.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SWMOzebra

For me, the difference in the two positions being debated comes down to this: if I call violations as written, then I'm supported by the rules if/when a supervisor calls me to question a play he has seen on film (sent to him by a coach who disagreed with the call or the no-call).

Whether or not a travel occurs out in the open with no defensive pressure or in the paint where the ball handler is being double-teamed, the opposing team is being put at a disadvantage by not being awarded the ball when the other team violates.

All this being said, have I ever passed on a 3-second lane violation? Absolutely, in virtually ever game I've ever worked. Fudged on a 10-second FT count? Probably a half-dozen times. Given more than 10-seconds to reach the front court, regardless of pressure (using Fed rules)? Never. If they stop to talk to their coach while bringing the ball up in the backcourt and I get to 10? It's a turnover, pure and simple.

Throw-in violation? Lane violation during FTs? Kicked ball? Travelling? Illegal dribble? If it's in my area and doesn't require any guesswork on my part ... then the violation gets called. For me, it's all about consistency.

This is not what is meant by "advantage/disadvantage. It sounds too much like the coach who considers the foul count (and potential free throws) to be enough of an advantage to call a foul on incidental contact that had absolutely zero affect on his shooter or dribbler. The penalty is not a consideration when "advantage" comes into play.

This has zero bearing, by the way, on my opinion regarding using advantage/disadvantage to call traveling.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Rich

On the other hand, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around...

These travels are all over the place, nobody complains, and life goes on.

I get what you're saying, but this stuff is *never* called at this level.

Yet, it is a clear travel and the defensive player was coaxed into moving even closer to the ball handler. Advantage offensive player, especially for an offensive player that is skilled at the dribble drive to the bucket.

But, I get it. It's major college hoops. Only the NBA overlooks traveling more.

[#olderthanilook]

I've got a bit of a theory as to why many traveling violations are not called - at any level:

I start by "officiating the defense" in nearly every situation. If guys are doing this (watching for that subtle hand check and legal guarding position), official's eyes may miss some movements by the offensive player. At least, I know that I can't possibly watch the offensive player's pivot while at the same time keeping an eye on the defender's feet AND hands. It all happens so quickly. I try to catch all I can, but it's not easy. Hopefully, the C has a travel while I as the L has block/charge and hold/hand check stuff.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

I've got a bit of a theory as to why many traveling violations are not called - at any level:

I start by "officiating the defense" in nearly every situation. If guys are doing this (watching for that subtle hand check and legal guarding position), official's eyes may miss some movements by the offensive player. At least, I know that I can't possibly watch the offensive player's pivot while at the same time keeping an eye on the defender's feet AND hands. It all happens so quickly. I try to catch all I can, but it's not easy. Hopefully, the C has a travel while I as the L has block/charge and hold/hand check stuff.

I can see the problem if a player is in the post. There's a lot going on and I've had multilple assignors/supervisors tell me "I'd rather you not miss anything but if you're going to miss something, miss the violation as opposed to the foul." But in the clips of Austin Rivers at the start of this well-worn thread he was more than 20 feet from the hoop and it's not as though the defender was up in his face. There really isn't much else to look at other than the start of Rivers' move.