Video: Euro step, Gasol move ? Make the call
 

Using high school or NCAA rule book, would you blow the whistle??

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wR8P-oyMXxE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VrrkOFvXx0E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Both would be travels for replanted pivot foot.

1+. The tough part in the first video is when one determines when he has ended his dribble/gathered the ball. I agree that they are both travels by rule

-Josh

Euro Step synonym for travel. Euro Step is end dribble on left foot change direction on right foot leap off left foot.

The clip is definitely a travel. The problem is, this is very hard to pick up in live action as the lead official. As the lead, I tend to be watching for hack and positioning for potential block or PC. I call when I see but it is easier to see from non lead position because as lead my focus is more on the fouling potential than the travel potential. Also, easier to see from the stands:).

You pretty much know the player has traveled when he changes direction on his right foot and then leaps off his left foot. When this happens he has ended his dribble on his left foot.

No it is not. All a Euro Step is in the first place is a move where with your pivot foot in one direction and change direction on the next step. It is often performed legally and sometimes not like any other move. There is nothing in the move that suggest it is illegal. It is a move to make the defender think you are going one way and then dart in the other direction. Now since the term has no rulebook basis but the attempt of the move in itself is not illegal, it is the execution that matters. Players try all kinds of things and do not necessarily do them legally.

Peace

I am not convinced the first play is a travel. For one the issue is when did the player gather the ball to stop his dribble. I think the first one is possibly legal. The second one is obviously a travel as the move is a hop step after establishing the ball and pivot foot while in control of the ball.

Peace

Negative.

Most Euro steps are legal in high school games. Too many officials call them "travels" because it looks "funny." All the Euro step is a your typical lay-up except the "steps" are not in a straight line.

As far as the videos, none of those plays are going to be called a travel in real time, and I would not have called them myself.

Of the 2 I would have detected the 1st one easier than Gasol's.

Reverse that for me. I think in real time the second is easier to call then the first, mainly because of the factor JRut mentioned: determining when A1 ended his dribble. It's one of those that looks bad but most likely is legal.

In the second, Gasol gathers, lands on his right foot and then moves both feet in the process of pivoting. That's one we see more than a few times per game at the H.S./NCAA level.

I think I would have caught the second one if I was a C or probably T if no one was in my area. But then again I would not guess either.

Peace

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.

I am not worried about the supervisor part, the second one is a travel for sure. Gasol dribbles and picks up his dribble then picks up the ball with the left foot on the floor. Then hops off both his feet lands both feet in that one two movement then pivots off his left foot that was off the floor to shoot. That is a travel because you cannot jump off your feet after you stopped your dribble.

Peace

NFHS/NCAA: This is by the book a travel. Gasol ends his dribble with his right foot on the floor. At this point, he can do one of two things. He can alight off that foot and land simultaneously on both feet. He would not be able to pivot at this point. He can also step with his left foot which would make his right foot the pivot foot.

In the play above, Gasol gathers the ball with his right foot on the floor, steps with his left foot (making the right foot the pivot foot), picks up his right foot (the pivot) and steps with it.

NBA: Completely legal play

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

If I let a play like this go under NFHS rules, I'll have more to answer for. Mainly because my assigners know the rule.

Yup...my mistake.

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.

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.

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

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.

And he didn't adjust?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

That might be the purpose, but not always is the purpose mean there is proper execution. It is just why you do not call a foul for touching. When it causes an advantage, then it is a foul and I agree with APG totally on this issue.

Peace

I agree, but I also think there is no legitimate reason for a defender to "measure up" a ball handler. No one on the court is blind, so there's no need to use the hands to determine distance.

Frankly, I think some leagues prefer a zero-tolerance policy on the arm bar for the same reason they ask for it on a hand-check; it's difficult to tell whether the contact impedes the offensive player or merely discourages him to try.

Okay, I finally got my computer back up (wiped and restored), so I could watch the video.

Play 1. I can't tell from my angle when he gathers, but it looks from my view that it'sl close. I can't see making that call in live play.

Play 2. I would have got that on a pivot after a jump stop.

The forearm that is collapsed is legal. Therefore in many situations the arm bar is considered incidental.

Both offense and defense utilize the arm bar at various times. Therefore we have to determine if the contact is illegal. Your statement implies that the defense only uses the arm bar.

simply touching a player to measure up is not illegal

if you cannot tell if the contact impedes play, you cannot call it. it would be considered incidental contact.

sometimes the defense uses the arm bar to cushion against contact created by the offense. we all know that the offense doesn't always try to avoid contact and the defense is allowed to protect against contact.

I'm aware of the first sentence, but the second is simply not true. Most levels that I'm aware of want the hand check called if contact is prolonged, not just if the advantage is obvious. It's pretty dammed easy for a defender, if he's allowed to keep his hand on the dribbler, to subtly change his direction in ways that drastically and negatively affect the offense.

My point with regard to "measuring up" is that it's stupid and not necessary. Why in the world would you need to use your hands to figure out how far you are from a player you an see? Yet I know it's allowed, so I don't call it unless the hand stays on the dribbler.

This is why we get paid the big bucks. I am at least recognizing that this might be used and I may not call a foul the insistence this happens. Does that mean that I will not likely end up calling a foul? Of course it is probably going to be a foul, but I see times when this takes place and I try to wait for some advantage to stand out. I am much more likely to call a foul with the ball handler than I would be a post player as often players at least try to put hands on each other at some point during post play.

Peace

I agree with this. I just think it's silly to want a zero-tolerance on them (hand check and arm bar) but still allow the "measure up" touch.

And I also think that failure to adjust to this lies with the players. Not just Chandler, either, as Marc Gasol had a major issue with this in the final game.

Same here...not conviced first move is illegal. Dribble ends and left foot is pivot, then steps through and jumps off right foot. This is an awkward movement since it sets up a left handed try. Yet, the shooter ends up releasing a right handed try. Awkward looking for sure. Illegal? Not so sure. We have awkward looking plays in youth ball all the time that cause fans to scream "travel" or "foul". We often know better. This may be one of those awkward movements that is, in fact legal.

The second is obvious - both feet initially land with ball in hands, then both feet move before the dribble (ball is pushed to ground) begins. Traveling.

I think most people are talking about the move at the end of the dribble rather than to begin the dribble. In real time speed, I'd venture to guess it wouldn't be called 95/100 times.

Agreed. I saw the first move, but it was so slight, I'm not sure that gets called regularly at any level.

simply touching a player to measure up is not illegal

if you cannot tell if the contact impedes play, you cannot call it. it would be considered incidental contact.

Sounds like you are guessing on whether or not contact is impeding a players progress. If the defense is not impeding the progress of the dribbler, then what is the foul?

When the offense initiates contact most defenders will place a forearm between the two bodies to absorb contact. You are saying that the defense is now responsible for the contact? It is part of the normal movement of players during the game.

I know this. I've said this. Why do you need to repeat it?


Sounds like you're completely misreading what I'm writing. I can live with that.