Travel much?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Being 'just a high school ref' If I see a travel, I call it. I can grasp possibly that a minor travel that is neither an advantage or disadvantage would be passed on at this level. I thinks it's fair to say that they are not missing these, but philosophically chose not to call them, which is a whole other topic.

To my point, the first travel is pretty egregious, yet no advantage is gained.

It seems there is an advantage gained on the first one. Rivers gets a chance to gain space from his defender and set himself up in a triple-threat position without dribbling the ball.

We say it - and hear it - a lot: if we make the calls, the kids will adjust. If they don't, their coaches will find someone who can adjust.

[ballgame99]

The only ones that need to be called IMO are the ones where the defender is engaged with him and he fakes right while lifting his pivot (usually left) foot. That is a travel that gives him a very definite advantage.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

The only ones that need to be called IMO are the ones where the defender is engaged with him and he fakes right while lifting his pivot (usually left) foot. That is a travel that gives him a very definite advantage.

Couple of things:

Violations, by rule, do not take advantage/disadvantage into account.

If he's not gaining an advantage, all the more reason he could stop doing it.

But if it's not called, he will never stop doing it, and neither will the multitudes of great high school players who see it on tv.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Violations, by rule, do not take advantage/disadvantage into account.

If he's not gaining an advantage, all the more reason he could stop doing it.

Doesn't mean it isn't used...easiest example is a three second violation. Almost no one here calls a three second violation the instant a player is in the lane for three seconds with team control and ball having frontcourt status....and you know what, they aren't expected to either.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Doesn't mean it isn't used...easiest example is a three second violation. Almost no one here calls a three second violation the instant a player is in the lane for three seconds with team control and ball having frontcourt status....and you know what, they aren't expected to either.

I love watching JV games where the officials call 5-6 3-second violations, all of which were technically correct by rule and yet not quality calls.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I love watching JV games where the officials call 5-6 3-second violations, all of which were technically correct by rule and yet not quality calls.

I'm not advocating that, but, when it happens, the players can adjust. I would rather see those 3 second violations called than see these travels not called.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Violations, by rule, do not take advantage/disadvantage into account.

just another ref; If this is a rule ("by rule") then please show me where it states that "Violations, by rule, do not take advantage/disadvantage into account."

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES
The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

Where does the NFHS say that advantage/disadvantage is to only to be utilized for fouls, and that advantage/disadvantage is not to be utilized for violations? The intent and purpose of the rules refers to "rules" and does not break it down into those rules involving fouls, and those rules involving violations. I will agree that advantage/disadvantage is usually applied to fouls, i.e inadvertent contact, however if we didn't use advantage/disadvantage for some violations, like three seconds, and ten seconds on free throws, then we'd be calling these violations a lot more than we actually do.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

just another ref; If this is a rule ("by rule") then please show me where it states that "Violations, by rule, do not take advantage/disadvantage into account."

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES
The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

Where does the NFHS say that advantage/disadvantage is to only to be utilized for fouls, and that advantage/disadvantage is not to be utilized for violations? The intent and purpose of the rules refers to "rules" and does not break it down into those rules involving fouls, and those rules involving violations. I will agree that advantage/disadvantage is usually applied to fouls, i.e inadvertent contact, however if we didn't use advantage/disadvantage for some violations, like three seconds, and ten seconds on free throws, then we'd be calling these violations a lot more than we actually do.

Advantage/Disadvantage as we typically use it is the method of determining incidental contact which is a factor in determining fouls, not violations (So 4-27 is your rule reference). Permitting a player to violate is practically the definition of allowing an advantage not intended by rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Advantage/Disadvantage as we typically use it is the method of determining incidental contact which is a factor in determining fouls, not violations (So 4-27 is your rule reference). Permitting a player to violate is practically the definition of allowing an advantage not intended by rule.

So, what advantage/disadvantage are they talking about in the "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES"? If they are referring to fouls, then shouldn't this section be in rule 10?

Once again, please show me something, in writing, from the NFHS, that states that advantage/disadvantage only refers so fouls. I will admit that I can't show you a statement that says that advantage/disadvantage refers to both fouls and violations, so you don't have to believe me, as I don't have to believe you. We should all believe thae NFHS, so let's see a NFHS citation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I will agree that advantage/disadvantage is usually applied to fouls, i.e inadvertent contact.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Advantage/Disadvantage as we typically use it is the method of determining incidental contact which is a factor in determining fouls.

Are we saying the same thing here?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are we saying the same thing here?

Maybe. I think of violations in two categories: those with grace zones and those without. Those without grace zones are called immediately every time. Chief among these is out-of-bounds but also illegal dribbles and travelling (provided I'm certain travelling occurred), 5 and 10 seconds. Those with grace zones are 3 seconds and carrying etc.

I think this is fundamentally different than advantage/disadvantage though. I will call 3 seconds even if there is no apparent advantage to the offensive team, but I will likely give more than 3 seconds provided the offense isn't taken advantage of the violation.

So, you tell me: are we saying the same thing?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

just another ref; If this is a rule ("by rule") then please show me where it states that "Violations, by rule, do not take advantage/disadvantage into account."

Where does the NFHS say that advantage/disadvantage is to only to be utilized for fouls, and that advantage/disadvantage is not to be utilized for violations?

Advantage/disadvantage is written into the definition of a foul.

".........illegal contact which hinders the opponent from performing normal offfensive or defensive maneuvers......"

(paraphrased from memory)

A lot of things, in practice, vary from the written rule.

A blarge must be called, because it's written, sorta.

A multiple foul should be avoided if at all possible, even though the rule and the case play are quite specific.

Violations, overall, do not consider advantage/disadvantage, and I can think of at least one example where this is specified, I think.

Wasn't there an NCAA case play about the thrower in stepping inbounds with and without pressure?

Ruling: violation in both

If a travel is to be called strictly by advantage/disadvantage, a player could simply put the ball under his arm and walk it up when there is no pressure.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Advantage/disadvantage is written into the definition of a foul.

Agree 100%. I never said that advantage/disadvantage didn't apply to fouls.

Now please give me a citation that states that advantage/disadvantage only applies to fouls.

The opening statement of the rulebook talks about advantage/disadvantage, and never mentions fouls. Not even once. Look at it carefully. Read it carefully. Where is the word "foul" mentioned? This statement must be pretty important to be the first thing in the rulebook.

[Raymond]

These are pretty obvious travels and they do have affects on the play as it is impossible to defend.

Guess the best test to see if these were addressed is to watch Duke's games in the ACC tournament and see if Rivers gets called for travels out on the perimeter.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree 100%. I never said that advantage/disadvantage didn't apply to fouls.

Now please give me a citation that states that advantage/disadvantage only applies to fouls.

It is not specified in defining the individual violation.

"A player shall not..............."


as opposed to



"A player shall not................if doing so hinders the opponent."