Travel much?

[M&M Guy]

Billy - the difference between our arguments boils down to this: We've given you a specific case play that directly addresses our position, and you seem to want to find hidden meaning in the fact that a specific word wasn't used in a paragraph describing general principles. Isn't that a little like saying since no one has actually seen the fleet of black helicopters, that must mean they really exist?

Ok, now I'll give you my opinion on this topic. I don't think anyone here has advocated not calling 3 seconds. I believe Rich said it best - if you do make the call technically "by the book", it won't be your best call. That's because, in my opinion, if you are watching a player's feet that carefully and concentrating on counting, you have probably missed more important things like holding, a knee in the back, forearm push, elbow into the cutter, and many other issues. We have more important things to watch for first.

As far as 10 seconds on a FT, I don't remember ever calling it because I can't remember a player ever getting to 10. If I ever got to that point, I would call it, because the tape would show 10 flicks of the wrist. How could I justify *not* calling it at that point?

Going back to the video in the OP, my opinion is the reason the officials didn't call the travels is not due to A/D, but because they were concentrating on other things (defense, when was the ball gathered, etc.) and missed the call to the speed of the players. I still have yet to see any case play, memo, interp, or e-mail from a supervisor saying that plays that are "technically" a travel could be let go because there was no defensive pressure. I have, however, seen statements that say it is better to miss a possible travel if you're not 100% sure, rather than making an incorrect call.

Some may give A/D as a reason for not calling certain violations, but I don't think that's entriely correct. I can thing of other reasons why those calls would not be made.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We've given you a specific case play that directly addresses our position. Some may give A/D as a reason for not calling certain violations, but I don't think that's entirely correct.

The specific case play deals with a specific situation. I'm not 100% sure because I don't have my old rulebooks with me at work, but this case play has not always been in the casebook. I believe that it was a response to this play not being called a violation because many officials back then, if I can recall this properly, called it with advantage/disadvantage in mind, something that the NFHS must have decided was not they way that they wanted this specific play called.

You can expand this interpretation to all violations if you want to, and I can pretty much agree with you, but I just can't get past the way the "Intent" statement is written. It's just a mental block for me. I'm a chemist, actually an analytical chemist, and I often require more proof than most people require.

I can agree with you about "not entirely correct". I believe that there are very, very few violations, if any at all, that should be interpreted according to advantage/disadvantage.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.