It has been a majot POE in NCAAW for the past sevarl years. Then, this year, it was determined that officials did such a good job on getting the travels, that things that weren't travels were being called. So, now the POE is "when in doubt, it isn't". At that level, at least, I disagree with your premise.

If JRut is saying that experienced officials are sticking to just calling the obvious travels and you are saying that the travels you see being called are more likely to be incorrect, then would it be safe to conclude that something isn't quite adding up and that there may be a need to go back to the fundamentals of the travelling violation?

I agree with many officials that say that getting the pivot foot is 99% of the battle and getting the pivot truly isn't that difficult to determine....

Not that I can speak for everyone everywhere, but I know with FIBA rules the last few years in Canada the footwork issue has been a major POE. Particularly at high levels (college, high level club, etc) if the player does not cross over step, but rather blast off strong side with the dominant pivot foot its almost automatically a travel. Step across the body to add time to release the ball or be perfect on the take off or its automatic.

When players come up to play in CIS games from the states they'll get called for 7-10 travels a game until they learn how to catch and attack with the crossover step.

It is the same rule as NFHS in regards to the back foot coming up but the interpretation has become that unless it is obviously not a travel to call it as one.

This makes it sound that FIBA has a completely different idea on pivoting and traveling than was intended in the game of basketball. Makes me like FIBA even less than I already did.

I don't know about that. There are a lot of travels that go uncalled here. I see them but I don't call them because others don't call them. I'm not going to be a pioneer. They used to get called decades ago. The USA application of traveling is pretty lax.

Wow, so finally, some people are hearing what I am saying. Yes, it is exactly as you say: when a player goes strong side, instead of crosings over, it would be an automatic travel (if we are applying the rules). And yep, as you say, numerous travels per game.

No, apparently FIBA is simply enforcing the standard, proper rules, so that the game of BB can be played the way it was intended.

If you feel so strongly about it, I would suggest you call every single play that you see that you think is traveling.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes.

PS - Still curious how long you've been officiating.

My Take on It, Thus Far
 

Served as clinician at 5-1/2 hours of JV level scrimmages today with about seven officials being observed. Large-school JV, which is, around here anyway, similar to small-school varsity.
With the issue of this thread in my mind as I intently observed today, I've come to several possible conclusions:
1) I'm blind and part of the alleged problem
2) This is a regional thing and it's just not an issue around here
3) It's a problem for only varsity level and higher

I just didn't see it.
Varsity schedule kicks in this week. I'll remain alert to the issue as I launch into the season.

But as with any clarion call to be alert to something, I'll keep my eyes peeled. As much as that hurts like the dickens.

This might be true if the FIBA guidelines posted had any basis in the rules.

People hear what you're saying...just a majority of people (so far) don't agree with your premise.

I am not stupid enough to be a pioneer. It would have to be done top down--it would be foolish (and useless) to go on a crusade.

I have been officiating 6 years. I've worked everything but a state championship (have no desire to do anything above hs).

Wahr do "when a player goes strong side" and "instead of crosings over" mean as it applies to the travel rule?

If you believe this as written, then it's clear you don't understand the traveling rule.

The difference doesn't exist in the rules, just as a POE about making sure the back foot is not lifted prior to releasing the dribble.

Maybe because of the amount of contact allowed in FIBA games on the perimeter, maybe because of increasing explosiveness of athletes. When players don't cross over step the timing of the ball coming out of the hand and the back foot lifting is very close and often late.

Now traditionally, if its not clearly a travel then we haven't called it. Canada Basketball found internationally that when teams played we were being called on anything not a cross over that was close.

As a result after looking at film and consulting with officials and sport scientists they found that under review a number of no call travels were clearly travels when you slowed them down but at speed were so bang bang the officials couldn't make it out clearly. As a result the trend has become unless it is a crossover or it is not clearly ok to call it travel. They don't feel like a player can consistently step by defender, keep them on body, keep on balance, and get the ball released before the back foot comes up (biomechanic problems). So to promote the footwork Canada Basketball wanted to eliminate the the disproportionate number of no calls benifiting the offense and to prepare our athletes for the game the way it was being called at international competitions.

If you think about it like a charge/block (i know violations are different from fouls but hear me out) its not maybe a charge or maybe a block. It is a block or it is a charge. Lots of time we may have a no call because of a lack of disadvantage. Every time the offensive player takes off to beat a defender proper footwork by the offense is what allows the defense to anticipate/space/react. So the take off is either a travel or its not. So we are asked to call travel if we are not absolutely sure it wasn't. Unless you are sure the defender trying to take the charge got there in time then they weren't at its a block. Unless you are sure they didn't travel on the take off then they did.

It has caused a lot of confusion for players and coaches at all levels, since pivot foot theory has always been a personal decision of programs and coaches and not promoted top-down. The local clubs and associations feel the rule interp/ application is penalizing clubs and people that won't teach two foot stop and cross over on take off. As a part time official, part time howler monkey I've got mixed feelings. At the national and college level it has cleaned up the footwork issues and most people have adapted well. At the lower levels there is a lot of conflict between calling the game the way the rule is being interpretted and having youth games with huge numbers of travels called as most youth coaches/ school teams aren't coached by people using most current and up to date methods.