Video: Euro step, Gasol move ? Make the call

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think you meant to say he wouldn't be able to pivot....

Yup...my mistake.

[jump stop]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Neither is a travel. The first play is classic Euro-step that is executed properly. The second play is not a travel as Gasoline DOES NOT "alight" on both feet simultaneously...he lands in a 1, 2 manner - then pivots on his 1st step.

Call it a travel if you like; but be prepared to answer questions from your supervisor after the game.

Gasol move
He had to jump off either one foot or both feet to land in a 1,2 manner. The question is did he catch/end his dribble with a)both feet on floor b) both feet off of floor 3) left foot on floor 4) right foot on floor.

This is where the debate is: 1) If you stop video on Gasol at :25 it appears that both feet are on floor and dribble is caught/controlled. Although left foot is barely touching. This happens so fast that there is no way to say for sure that left foot was touching, it would be a guess. But I think it is very easy to say ball is controlled with right foot on floor. So I would go with ending dribble with one foot on floor(right foot).
2) after ending dribble with right foot on floor he jumps off of this foot and lands non-simultaneously(1,2). Here again , this happens so fast that it is very difficult to determine and this is hardly called (I wouldn't call the 1,2 landing).
3) after the questionable landing he pivots off of left foot. Here is where I think you have to blow the whistle. I give leeway until this point.

I think the question always goes back to when the dribble ends and where the feet are. This is almost always impossible to determine exactly. I think most good officials give serious leeway here.

Just like on the Euro step here, very hard to say for sure when he gathered, only in slow motion could I tell.

[ballgame99]

First one looks clean, or clean enought that I would not call it at full speed.

Second one made me go "Woah", which means IMO it is a clear travel. I see A1 gather, establish a pivot foot by spinning, then leap off that pivot foot and take two separate steps. Travel. If those two steps had been a simultaneous landing then you have a jump stop. But they weren't, and you don't. Just my .02.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

NFHS/NCAA: This is by the book a travel. ...
NBA: Completely legal play

Herein could lie the problem.

What we don't know is how these particular FIBA officials were instructed to call the game. Knowing that the court is full of NBA players, and NBA habits die hard, was any leeway given that leaned toward the NBA rule? I can think of a few anecdotal moments during the Olympics that would suggest otherwise, but I have to wonder if much of this comes down to instructions.

BTW, my "travel radar" went off when I watched play #1 on TV. I don't recall the second travel, but that one looks more obvious to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Herein could lie the problem.

What we don't know is how these particular FIBA officials were instructed to call the game. Knowing that the court is full of NBA players, and NBA habits die hard, was any leeway given that leaned toward the NBA rule? I can think of a few anecdotal moments during the Olympics that would suggest otherwise, but I have to wonder if much of this comes down to instructions.

BTW, my "travel radar" went off when I watched play #1 on TV. I don't recall the second travel, but that one looks more obvious to me.

Officials miss travels all the time. I do not think they needed to be told anything to miss a travel. I just think it was business as usually, we are not very consistent with these situations and not because it is on purpose, these are tough plays at full speed sometimes.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Herein could lie the problem.

What we don't know is how these particular FIBA officials were instructed to call the game. Knowing that the court is full of NBA players, and NBA habits die hard, was any leeway given that leaned toward the NBA rule? I can think of a few anecdotal moments during the Olympics that would suggest otherwise, but I have to wonder if much of this comes down to instructions.

BTW, my "travel radar" went off when I watched play #1 on TV. I don't recall the second travel, but that one looks more obvious to me.

Why would one play make you think that the officials were instructed to call a play a certain way? Team USA played against other teams with plenty of NBA talent and was still called for plenty of traveling violations.

Heck, to take your thinking further, with plenty of NBA talent on the floor, then the officials should have been instructed to allow defenders to play post defense like what is allowed in the NBA (use of forearm and hand depending on where the offensive player is), but Tyson Chandler was routinely in foul trouble the whole tournament because, for whatever reason, a forearm seemed to be an automatic foul, even w/o any clear advantage gained.

[Adam]

And he didn't adjust?

[hoopguy]

APG, you don't think using a forearm is an advantage to the defender? Have you ever played basketball? Different assigners and leagues want different things called but of course it is an advantage. As an official you call what your boss tells you to call but don't ever think that using a forearm is not an advantage.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

APG, you don't think using a forearm is an advantage to the defender? Have you ever played basketball? Different assigners and leagues want different things called but of course it is an advantage. As an official you call what your boss tells you to call but don't ever think that using a forearm is not an advantage.

Yes I played basketball...no, the use of a forearm in of itself isn't an advantage nor a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Yes I played basketball...no, the use of a forearm in of itself isn't an advantage nor a foul.

Sure it is. Why else would defenders prefer to use it? The only distinction is that in some levels/leagues, it is deemed to be a legal advantage and in others it is deemed to be an illegal advantage.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure it is. Why else would defenders prefer to use it? The only distinction is that in some levels/leagues, it is deemed to be a legal advantage and in others it is deemed to be an illegal advantage.

Just going to have to disagree with you there.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Just going to have to disagree with you there.

Why do defenders want to use it if it is not an advantage?

[7IronRef]

the forearm/arm bar is not illegal unless used to guide or impede the progress of a dribbler.

use of forearm on dribbler as long as it is collapsed (not extended) is legal as it is within the frame of the body while performing normal defensive movement and is not initiating the contact

[APG]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

the forearm/arm bar is not illegal unless used to guide or impede the progress of a dribbler.

use of forearm on dribbler as long as it is collapsed (not extended) is legal as it is within the frame of the body while performing normal defensive movement and is not initiating the contact

You've worded it better than I and this is what I'd look for in trying to determine if there's been an advantage gained.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

the forearm/arm bar is not illegal unless used to guide or impede the progress of a dribbler.

use of forearm on dribbler as long as it is collapsed (not extended) is legal as it is within the frame of the body while performing normal defensive movement and is not initiating the contact

Basically, you're saying the forearm that is legal is one that is held in contact with the defender's own body...as it must be to be within their frame. In that case, they're not using the forearm. If they've extended in any other position and contact occurs, it is not in a legal position.

The whole purpose of the arm bar is to impede the progress of an opponent. It has no other purpose. To say otherwise is simply silly. You can certainly argue whether the advantage it provides should be a foul or not, but you can't honestly say it doesn't impede the opponent or give the defender an advantage.