Travel or Not?
 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/uFldIfsHaNg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Or rather would you call this or not?

Doesn't look like the left foot ever moves after he gets possession. No travel.

In regular time, it's hard to see actually which foot is the pivot. In slow motion, the right is the pivot as it's the first to come down after control is established, he picks up the right before ball is released on a dribble...yes on travel.

Travel or not
 

Close call. Not a travel. Left foot pivot. I was looking for the bunny hop on that foot. Did not see it.

Yes, I see that now.

Quite frankly, I think it's too nitpicky, regardless. Unlikely I would have a travel there.

Yes, I'm not calling here either.

I had the left foot as the pivot, but Indiana's comment made me take another look. Indeed, the right came down first, and therefore was the pivot. He hopped on his right = travel.

Still, I think the official saw the left as the pivot, which he kept down until the dribble started.

Travel or not
 

Why not call it?

I cannot see the travel at all. The left foot seems to be the pivot foot and that did not move until the ball was put on the floor for the dribble. I think the official anticipated.

Peace

If I need 5 views of a YouTube video just to tell which foot is the pivot foot, it's unlikely I see it in real time. On top of that, if I'm trying to call it this fine, one of two things happen:

(1) I'm the only person in the gym who sees the travel. What good is it for me to be the ONLY person to see it and call it? If the one team is pissed that I called it and the other team thinks they've just gotten a huge break, why did I call it in the first place?

(2) More importantly, if I set my filter this low, it means I'm much more likely to call a travel that isn't really a travel.

Travel or not
 

Thats good reason not to call a violation.

I got right foot down, left foot in air when possession is gained. Left foot is put down then right foot is lifted and re-planted before dribble is started.

The official was correct. He only needed to see it once in real time. It's a travel. Would I call it even though I needed the slow motion version, to verify, after the real-time clip? If I am able to catch it, quite likely yes I would.

It only takes 1 video. Officials are to call the game regardless of score, situation. If you are the only person in the gym who sees it, that's a good thing.

I don't agree with this in all cases. Blowout, losing team in BC travels at start of dribble. No pressure. I might conveniently miss this one.

.

Jugs is correct, but I think that is something you worry about as you rise up the chain. At the beginning of your career call what you see and hopefully you have good mentors and observers to help you start filtering.

This might be true at levels where every possession is watched on film and nitpicked.

At the high school level, at least in my experience, having too fine a filter on traveling will make you "that guy" (the traveling guy) really quickly.

That said, I don't have the view of the official on the court -- from there, I may have clearly seen a travel and called it. I can only go with the look I'm given, which is the video.

Yes, the right foot is the pivot as it touches the floor first after he catches the pass.

No, as good as I am, I would not catch that. :)

MTD, Jr., and I watched this play together. When watching it in real time W1 caught the ball while both feet were in the air and landed with both feet touching the court simultaneously. W1's momentum caused most of his weight to be on his left foot and he continued his movement by lifting his right foot to start a cross over move; this is not traveling. Even in slow motion it does not look like traveling.

MTD, Sr.

Let me guess. You've been officiating 5 years or less.


No one is served by calling over technical rules violations. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll become the best official you can be.

That's what I was going to guess -- especially given the "POI" thread.

Travel or not
 

I read it somewhere. Once I find it I will share.

Travel or not
 

As many years as you is my answer. Happy Holidays.

I am not trying to be funny by saying this, but isn't this play being shown from a regular run of the mill high school game? So whether we like it, every game is on video and someone is going to nitpick these games and calls we make or do not make. Maybe we do not have 10 angles to show this play, but we still have those that will nitpick any play they deem important. And yes, coaches do nitpick every possession, especially when they think that call cost them something or and opportunity. It might have even been a possession that changed the momentum in their mind.

I get not wanting to be "That guy" but those days of hiding are over. Everyone has a camera.

Peace

Saying that one is hiding by making a conscious choice to not call over-technical violations of the rules is completely silly.

If you remember correctly, I had a game video posted on here a few years ago that didn't put us in the best possible light. Fortunately, most of that was on my partner, not on me. I'm well aware everyone has a camera.

You're quickly getting the reputation of being the latest troll to come around these parts. I guess time will tell if you are or if you aren't.

I do not think its physically possible to come down heel-toe with both feet simultaneously(in this play there is a slight enough gap to look simultaneous at real time).

Travel or not
 

Sometimes you can't be the first one to crack open a beer. I am calling it.

On first view, I had no travel. Only upon watching the slow-mo 2-3 times was I sure there was a travel. So, yes, it is a travel, but it isn't one that I'd expect most people to see, much less call.

I am not calling this a violation, I think the left foot hit first technically. I also think the ball handler did not demonstrate possession until really the left foot actually touched. Touching IMO proceeds possession. I was just stating that if this play is broken down this way, what makes you think that a lot of plays like this are not broken down? I have some assignor friends who talk about the videos they get sent to them by coaches.

Peace

I probably would have called it, but I'm not convinced I should have. Yes, it's a travel, but I agree that it happens pretty quick and it's one of those that doesn't really need to be called. I'd prefer these get called, but I have no desire to be a pioneer.

Sometime it seems that, when it comes to traveling, you're watching a different video than everyone else.

Actually I commented on what others were saying. I also do not think there was control. I do not care what others see. I just know I am not calling this play a travel. Again if you have to slow video down to make a determination, to me that is not a good call to make.

Peace

I officiate all my games now assuming that it is getting recorded. Last spring a video popped up on YouTube titled the next Jeremy Lin. I go to view it and I'm in there about 3 or 4 times :eek:

Now you did it...
 

This one?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6XJH37_IuRg?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not a travel for me.

Third year guy here and I have no travel and I'm not that good. :) Too tough to see in real time and doesn't pass the "Elephant vs. Ants" test, even in slow motion, and especially if I've got to look at it three or four times. Pasadena in my games.

Just 'cause I'm curious, what does this mean? :confused:

Camron:

I am one that has no qualms with calling traveling not matter the level or time of game and I am going with Rut on this one. Whether or not A1 had control of the ball when he landed, in real time, his foot work was just too close to call it anything but landing simultaneously.

MTD, Sr.

Travel or not
 

Sorry Mr. Administrator. It seems that you want treads to go in one direction which you control. Really don't understand this trolling thing. I wonder who made it up. I was giving my opinion. People opinions should not be censored unless of course profanity is used among other things.

My apologihies if I upset the Furor during the Holiday season. Thanks for responding. God bless and good night.

I don't care the way the threads go or what your opinions are. I'm just giving my opinion that your posts are intentionally cryptic and that's typically what our frequent trolls do.

Travel or not
 

What is an intentional cryptic post? Is it like an intentional foul? This board is diverse. People have different perspectives. All should be encouraged and welcome. Seems to me you did not like it so you call me a troll and say it is cryptic.

Cryptic posts talk about beer in a thread about traveling.

The fact that reasonable people can sometimes disagree does not imply that all opinions are equally valuable: some are wrong, dumb, ill-informed, or otherwise not worth considering.

And the word is 'Führer', not Furor.

Well, if that's true, then you've not learned much in your 24 years of officiating the game. :(

Like others, first I thought it wasn't, then, after slow motion, I'm sure it was. I'm reasonably sure I wouldn't have caught it on the court. I have no problem with making a call that nobody else in the gym saw.

I had a foul call the other night as Center opposite table on an OOB call the Lead was giving to the defense. My whistle caught everyone by surprise. Got a video of the game a couple days later with camera on my side of court and I absolutely got the call right.

Sometimes our angle is only one that can see the play clearly.

Nor do I. But if I make it, it's because I'm 110% sure of it.

+1

One thing that isn't going be tolerated around here are personal attacks.

So have a nice Christmas and come back in a few days and we'll see if you can act nicely around here.

Not saying this will get called but you usually don't deem there to be control until they've held it for 3-4 seconds.

Agree...just referencing the many travel posts in the past that were not so close but he still used the same argument. He just doesn't consider it control until they have held the ball for a long time.

Not sure what seconds have to do with my point, I just think it is like football you have to bring the ball into your body to really demonstrate some control or something similar while moving and catching the ball. I believe I showed a video on this site where a player touched the ball with one foot on the floor but most here did not consider control until that foot left the floor. Again that is why it is called judgment and we all do not share the very same level or have the same philosophies to cover these plays.

Peace

I see control when the ball hits the player in his two hands and sticks there, which is what happened in this video, followed by his landing with a 1,2,3 count. The travel actually had nothing to do with the release of the dribble.

Unfortunately, this isn't football and nowhere have I ever heard such an interpretation except from you.

I did not say what it was an interpretation. Don't read too much into a person's take on a play. Just telling you how I determine when someone clearly has possession. If you think I am the only one that tires to find things to make a judgement, then you need to talk to more officials. And I believe I showed a video on this site where people basically drew a similar conclusion.

Pivot foot discussion

Peace

If you think it happened, it probably didn't, so hold your whistle. Unfortunately, we don't have the advantage of replay....However. even in slow motion, I don't see a need to call this one, since I don't think it happened. Just me. Others may differ.

that is a close one. real time is very hard to call. that close, any doubt goes to the player. not calling that one

If I think it happened, it probably did, but probably isn't good enough. Without a high degree of certainty I will hold the whistle. A common saying is that it is better to miss one than call one incorrectly. I agree. But there is a line to be drawn somewhere. I'd rather call one incorrectly than miss ten.

I would rather miss plays like this where I have to see slow motion replay than call one that clearly did not happen. I want to get the obvious ones. It is that simple and that is the line. And that does not apply to just traveling either. Fouls, carry, back court, 10 second and lane violations. I want everyone to basically say, "Yeah, he traveled."

Peace

We are expected to get the obvious ones. That is a given. But I expect to get some that are not obvious. If I call one correctly that most people have to look at a replay to verify, that is a good call. If we only call the obvious, we are probably not calling enough.


There is a huge problem with this. It is not uncommon for everyone to say so when it wasn't a travel.

When I say everyone, I mean everyone that has knowledge of the rules. I do not care what coaches, players or fans think are travels as they are always yelling for something that looks bad a travel. I want the most knowledgeable official in the stands to see the play live and on tape and there is no debate.

I do not want a play that was sent to the supervisor that says, "Eaaaaah, not so sure about that one."

Now that is my standard. If it is not your standard fine, but that has worked well for me in my career and fortunately not had to deal with tapes from coaches that are not backed so far.

Peace

So your philosophy is to never call anything that is not obvious on tape to knowledgeable people. Fair enough.

But do you mean to tell me that even leaning heavily on this concept you never pass on anything which is deemed to be obvious to some or are you saying when you do miss an "obvious" one you and these other knowledgeable people think this is acceptable?

My philosophy is to call the obvious. That is my officiating philosophy. That is all sports and all levels. Not sure why that is hard to understand. And I did not say that there are never things that would be close, but I do not want to make a habit of calling the game with a bunch of calls that no one can understand and tape does not verify. And tape does not verify anything when you have to constantly slow down video to see what might have taken place.

Peace

The question was whether this philosophy ever leads to you passing on calls which are said to be obvious by others, or if it happens but you don't consider that to be a problem.

Not sure why that is hard to understand.

The standard is mine. I want to call things that others can see. That does not mean that others will see every call I make as clearly. I do enough presentations with a hundred people and you will be amazed on even plays we have discussed here how much disagreement there is on what should be called. I do not expect everyone to agree with every call no matter how many ways we discuss this issue.

Peace

Your standard is also to make a strong statement on one side of an issue, usually which in and of itself is sound. But when questioned on the other side of the same issue, you are repetitive and evasive and often totally ignore the question.

But that's okay.

It is not my place to help you understand what is commonly applied by many. If you do not get the basic concept not sure what to tell you. Not being evasive, just do not understand why you are having trouble understanding that I want to call obvious fouls or violations without having to YouTube it and slow it down.

I also did not invent the concept and I have nothing to hide by stating my opinion. I am sorry I cannot figure out what you are looking for in this conversation.

Peace

It's like trying to keep cattle in the pasture.

"I checked the north fence and it's secure."

What about the south fence?

I checked the north fence from one end to the other. I tightened the wire in a couple of places. It's good now."

What about the east fence?

"I sat there for a while and watched and nothing got out of the north fence."

Half the cows are out. A tree fell on the west fence.

"The north fence is strong. Why is that so hard to understand."

:)

I'm not sure I understand what your question is or what the confusion is. Call the obvious (with the standard of "obvious" being set by those that matter). Doesn't mean one won't pass on a call that ends up being flat wrong and is obvious on tape...happens at all levels. Now if you're working at a high enough level, it shouldn't be happening often or you probably won't be working that level for too long.

Rut was stressing to call what is obvious and not make marginal/phantom calls which will be proved wrong by tape. I think we're all comfortable with that idea. I asked if he felt that he never missed obvious calls that did show up on the tape or if he just felt that this was less of a problem when it happened. As is often the case, he never answered.

I understand "calling the obvious". And I understand not making a whole bunch of calls that only one official seems to see all the time.

What I don't understand is how officials will say that a call is wrong b/c they had to slow down the tape to see it. If you slow down the tape and the call is correct, then good for that official for seeing it in real time. If you slow down the tape and the call is wrong, then the official needs to put that in his memory bank and use it as a teaching tool.