Travel much?
 

Austin Rivers


Maybe APG can embed it. I couldn't get it to work.</EMBED>

A lot of interesting comments with the clip. I only saw one I liked.

+1

Objectivity Notice- I grew up a UNC fan, then went to the Univ. of Maryland SO I've hated Dook for at least 23 of the 33 years I've been alive.

On the other side of the coin. I am an official who does not like to guess on travels and would much rather err on the side of not calling what might be a travel instead of calling one that isnt.

All that said, you HAVE to call at least 2 or 3 of those. You simply CANNOT defend a guy when he's allowed to reposition his pivot foot like that before he puts the ball down.

Must be something in the water...or the Men's D-I meetings
 

I'm a Big East guy so I don't like any of 'em ;)

Over the past few years I've come to the conclusion D-I men's coaches must have told their conference supervisors they don't want travel calls on the perimeter when offensive players aren't under heavy pressure (i.e., facing a double team). That's the only way I can explain it.

It drives me nuts because H.S. kids see this and then look at you like you've lost your mind when you call them for doing it. My travel moments of the season:

*A1 catches ball at the FT line with his back to the basket. He turns to face the basket by jumping...and complains when I call him for a travel
*A1 on three straight possessions catches the ball on the perimeter and then moves both feet without dribbling to get a better passing angle...then complains when the whistle blows
*A1 catches ball in rhythm to shoot a jumper on back-to-back possessions but takes four steps to set himself...and almost gets a T when I tell him that's not legal

But again, we're our own worst enemies. In the last example the coach approached me at halftime and said he knew the calls were correct but I was one of the few officials who called the kid for doing it. Normally I wouldn't believe a coach but given what we've all seen I had no reason not to.

At least he's consistent! ;)

Should have specified...those were three different games!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wi9fMxwglqU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Answer from the top...
 

So I e-mailed John Adams and told him I'm trying to figure out how the plays weren't called traveling violations since it makes it tough for me to enforce at the lower levels and also to explain to my own kids.

Here's the response: So much for that.

But again, we're our own worst enemies. In the last example the coach approached me at halftime and said he knew the calls were correct but I was one of the few officials who called the kid for doing it. Normally I wouldn't believe a coach but given what we've all seen I had no reason not to.[/QUOTE]



This happens to me more often on calling a carry. It almost seems as if every HS PG thinks it is ok to carry the ball on his crossover move. And how many times have I heard that he has been "getting away" with it all season after I call it.
I almost feel guilty for being that ref.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are You Sure ???
 

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.

Rule 10 - Fouls ...
 

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.

Disagree, he gains space only because defenders stays put, he's set up regardless for triple threat if he doesn't travel. Not worth discussing because both agree it's a travel. But, I'll bet you a shiny new quarter official shares my thinking(a bet that will never be settled).

Let's Agree To Agree ...
 

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?

Never Say Never, Never Say Always ...
 

Sure sounds like it partner.

If half of a player's foot is in the lane on the weak side of the floor, would you *ever* blow the whistle?

Misty Water Colored Memories ...
 

Man. This was way too easy, and way too civil. A few years ago I debated this same topic with Jurassic Referee. The thread lasted a few days, with several posts by both of us, and one of us, guess who, would make posts that bordered on being ever so slightly impolite. I was able to eventually win him over, but only on ten second free throws, and three seconds in the lane. I never could get him to side with me on carrying the ball, which was fine with me because I at least got him to agree with me on the other two situations where advantage/disadvantage mattered on a violation. That was the only time, ever, that I was able to win a debate with Jurassic Referee, even if it was only a partial victory. Man. I really miss that old codger.

Regarding 3 seconds: I think many of us would say we avoid it if we can but what do we do instead of calling it? We tell the players to get out of the lane so they don't get to use the advantage. On the flip side, if they start having mail delivered to them in the lane we'll call it.

I sincerely doubt any of us tells a player "don't travel" or "keep your pivot foot."

"He's Camping In There" ...
 

I wait until they start a campfire.

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.

What do you want him to say? It's obvious that the decisions are not correct. You know it, I know it, and he knows it.

So how does he respond to your email without appearing to support the guys working that D1 game? He really has to hedge his response and he did.

As Far As I Know, Rules Include Both Fouls and Violations ...
 

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.

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.

Plus, what can John Adams do about it? John Clougherty is the one these officials have to answer to concerning these plays.

I wasn't looking for him to do anything about it. It's obvious he won't/hasn't. I just wanted him to comment on it given that he's the officiating coordinator. It would've been nice if he addressed the situation directly but I'm not shocked at the response.

Well if they haven't been calling them all season the ACC Tournament is a pretty bad time to start :)

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."

Oversight ???
 

Good point. Now talk to me about this statement:

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.

Why is the word "rule" mentioned four times, whereas the word "foul" isn't even mentioned once? Do you think that the NFHS forgot to put in the word "foul"? They have been known to screw up in the past.

Let's Go To The Rulebook ...
 

It is also written into a few other parts of the rulebook:

3-5-1: The referee shall not permit any team member to wear equipment
or apparel which, in his/her judgment, is dangerous or confusing to other players
or is not appropriate.

3-5-5: Equipment which is unnatural and/or designed to increase a
player's height or vertical reach or to gain a competitive advantage shall not be
permitted.

Granted, these are not violations, but they're not fouls either. So maybe the Intent and Purpose of the Rules, in regard to advantage/disadvantage, deals with fouls, a few other things that aren't fouls, but never in regard to violations? Is that the intent of the NFHS? I would think that they would have spelled that out more clearly, especially with the "Intent" statement being at the beginning of the rulebook, in such a prominent place.

I will concede that I do not have a NFHS citation that states that violations, specifically, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle. However, I challenge anyone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle, or that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Your move.

9.2.5 SITUATION A:

Thrower A1 inadvertently steps onto the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team.

RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b).

COMMENT: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

Probably not, but I will feel bad about not calling it.

Really? When I have one (the joke I use is that I have about one a month) it pretty much calls itself. It's not something that I actively look to call.

Yeah, it grates on me when I see the ticky-tac violations that don't warrant a call. I don't actively look to call it, but I mainly do Frosh and JV so there's frequently nothing better to look at as lead.

Oh, well those levels will yield more of these. By the time players hit varsity they pretty much know to keep moving, in my experience.

Intent And Purpose Of All The Rules Except Rule Nine ???
 

I have never considered using the concept of advantage/disadvantage in this situation. Now tell me about your call when a free throw shooter holds the ball for eleven seconds before shooting the ball. Wait. You probably never got to eleven because you sounded your whistle when you got to ten, that's the rule, or in this case, the violation? Right? Can't consider advantage/disadvantage here? Right? Just blow the whistle when you get to ten seconds? Right?

I still concede that I do not have a NFHS citation that states that violations, specifically, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle. However, I still challenge anyone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle, or that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Next move?

Three Seconds ...
 

Maybe it grates on you because you are considering the concept of advantage/disadvantage? I'm probably wrong. It's just a wild guess.

Why not? Where specifically do you draw your line in determining which violations you use A/D, and which ones you don't?

Advantage Disadvantage ...
 

Off the top of my head: Three seconds, and ten seconds (free throws). I have heard that others consider advantage/disadvantage when calling carrying, but I'm on the fence on that one.

How about you M&M Guy? Where's your line in the sand? How many ten second free throw violations have you called? Have you never passed on a three second violation? Ever?

I still challenge anyone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle, or that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

I'm still waiting.

What rule, casebook play, or interp can you cite that allows you to use A/D on *only* these violations? What about the rule that requires B to occupy the 1st spot along the lane during a FT? What possible advantage is there if B isn't there during the first of 2 FT's? Since you consider A/D on the 10-sec. count on FT's, do you do the same on the 10-sec. backcourt count? What's the difference?

The reason I'm asking you these questions, and not answering yours, is you seem to be most emphatic about your stance, even in the face of certain case plays that might suggest otherwise. The Comment in 9.2.5 Sit A seems especially telling: "Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call." Your stance seems to be based on something *not* being mentioned.

+1

Still Waiting ...
 

I do not have a NFHS citation that states that violations, specifically, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle. In fact, as you have pointed out, there are a few case plays that seem to state that advantage/disadvantage is not to be utilized in these specific cases.

I just don't believe that the NFHS only wants fouls to come under the advantage/disadvantage principle. I have already pointed out some rules regarding equipment that certainly come under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

However, I still challenge anyone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle, or that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Let's go back to this:

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.

Why does the NFHS only use the term "rule" rather than "foul"?

Next move.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 

C'mom. Please answer. Three seconds? Ten seconds? Let's hear how you interpret these violations. Maybe you'll prove your point, or, as I expect, maybe you'll give me a chance to ask a few followup questions. Don't be afraid. I don't bite, I don't call names, I don't use vulgar language, I try not to be offensive, and I'm polite to almost everybody on the Forum.

Try harder.

I'll try one more time, Billy. As cited earlier, a foul which doesn't hinder the opponent (create an advantage) is not a foul. A violation, by definition, is what it is. By local standards, or for whatever other reason, you may choose to ignore this violation under certain circumstances, but it is still a violation.

NFHS Standard ...
 

Agree. 100%.

This is not a local standard:

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.

Just explain why the word "foul" is not in here. That's all I ask.

I do not have any proof that violations can be interpreted under the guidelines of advantage/disadvantage. None. Period.

Why won't some admit the same thing in reverse, that they have no proof that the NFHS states that some violations (with many casebook exceptions) may not be interpreted under the guidelines of advantage/disadvantage.

The "Intent" statement is a very open ended statement. That's my point.

Still waiting for some ten second, and three second, interpretations.

Old School Doesn't Count ...
 

Give me one example, just one example, where I have disagreed with someone and posted something that was offensive? Where I have been purposely nasty to anybody? Where have I used vulgar language? Where have I called someone stupid, or an idiot, or any other name? Where have I been impolite to anyone? Give me an example where I have not been polite, or where I've been impatient. On the many, many occasions when I have been wrong, name me a time when I did not admit that I was wrong, and thank someone for straightening me out. When have I shown disrespect for anyone on this Forum?

You're move.

Still waiting for some ten second, and three second, interpretations.

Still waitng for someone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Still waitng for someone to cite anything that states that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Still waiting for someone to prove that the The "Intent" statement is not an open ended statement.

Step right up. Don't be bashful. I don't bite.

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.

Billy, I agree with you to an extent. Anyone who says they haven't overlooked a travel, 10-second B/C or free throw violation, or palming is being less than forthright.

However, I believe those violations being overlooked have more to do with game situations, as opposed to advantage/disadvantage. The thought process of determining whether or not certain contact is a foul has advantage/disadvantage built into the equation.

The only violation I see that gets advantage/disadvantage treatment is 3-seconds, but even then there comes a point where it can't be over-looked.

Thanks ...
 

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.

Thanks ...
 

A good point to agree on. Thanks for your rational response.

I got one thing out of participating in this thread. Up until today I wasn't able to respond to those who said that advantage/disadvantage only applies to fouls. I found the equipment citation earlier in the thread, so at least that put one myth to rest. I wasn't able to convince others that some violations may be interpreted according to advantage/disadvantage, but I'm having trouble convincing myself.

Anything may be interpreted any number of ways, but, specifically, advantage/disadvantage with regard to violations has no rules backing.

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.

Since you asked.

Offensive is probably too strong a word, but some of the off topic catch phrases, pictures, and other miscellaneous that you post make us clench our collective teeth.

jmo

I Know It's a Stretch, I'm Lookng for Common Ground ...
 

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

Did I Just Win The Lottery ???
 

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

Yes, what's your point?

Never Say Never, Never Say Always ...
 

Just trying to get some closure.

Just because I hate closure... :)
 

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.

<embed width="440" height="420" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://v5.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=v832mq&s=5"><br><font size="1"><a href="http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=v832mq&s=5">Original Video</a> - More videos at <a href="http://tinypic.com">TinyPic</a></font>

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.