A Way to Look at "Travelling"
 

Ran across this today. Got me to thinking. Have you heard of this before? Is this a valid perspective? Is there any merit to looking at it like this?

"Look at TRAVELLING not so much an error made by a weak athlete, as a mistake forced by a strong defense."

Seems to open up, for discussion purposes at least, a topic or two that might be worth exploring.

Anybody currently use this manner of thinking on the subject?

A Step or Two Further on the Topic . . .
 

If accepted as valid . . .
A. Might this prompt us to pass on the "ticky-tac" travelling calls that really don't impact play in any significant way?
B. Might this way of thinking be more in according with"officiating the defense"?
C. Might this especially reward the defense for good, pressure play?
D. Would this prompt us to, for sure, catch those travelling violations that would otherwise result in a real advantage over the defense?
E. Could this manner of thinking cause us to miss calls we really should be getting?

Your comment/input/critique invited as I ruminate over this concept.

I think I speak for us all when I say: "What the hell?"

I have never heard this statement before and honestly not sure what the point of this statement is in the first place. I just want to call the obvious ones, not the ones were I have to look at slow motion replay to tell if it actually was a travel.

Peace

I agree with Jeff. It seems like some grand philosophical point that means nothing. It could be used to justify any number of poor officiating philosophies.

Sounds like a point that belongs at a coaching clinic.

I have one way of looking at traveling...which foot is the pivot?

Nolo Contendere
 

I appreciate and agree with the responses, except maybe the first one. :rolleyes:
This concept is not really valid. Too complex an idea :confused: to be of any real, practical use.
Thanx for the reactions.

AND did the player have possession during that time.

So many times guys call a travel based on the excess movement of the feet, with no look (backs & butts) at the status of the ball.

My philosophy: Look at TRAVELLING as occurring when a player holding the ball moves a foot or both feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits described in Rule 4-72 of the 2011-13 NCAA rulebook.

This is a good point, and I'll add that so many coaches start screaming based on the same thing; especially when a player doesn't catch the ball upon first contact while he's running.

Travellin' Man ...
 

They confuse a catch with a touch.

Definitions
 

And sometimes a touch with a catch. Ie; tapping an offensive rebound into the b/c.

If he isn't holding the ball, there is no pivot foot.

You know that, I know that, BillyMac knows that, but there are some new officials out there too. Your reply could've been misinterpreted by a lesser experienced official.

The point (and not directed to you) was, don't call travels based soley on the movement of the feet when you can't see the ball.