Indiana/Michigan block/charge

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Rich

If only there was a travel there.

Left foot looked like it was lifted prior to the dribble ... by the book, a travel.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BLydic

Left foot looked like it was lifted prior to the dribble ... by the book, a travel.

I really think the book needs to be changed.

This would never be called a travel at this level and it doesn't serve the game well to even think of it as so.

(If you can't tell, I'm never overly impressed with those who can find nitpicky travels in videos like this.)

[Raymond]

BTW, on the last PC, the way Mike Eades signalled is how I do most of my PC fouls.

[JeroenB]

10:13: No call
9:14: Easy PC
7:06: Hard to see, may be a PC, but I think I'd pass, no call.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I'm trying to gather the video now. Is the second half blocking foul among the three mentioned in the OP?

Does anyone have a time on the 2nd half call that Nevadaref, twocents and Jay R were talking about?

[Jay R]

The one that I referenced was in the first half, probably 12:00 to 14:00 minute mark. Indiana player drove from C's area and Michigan defender tried to draw charge. The C called a block and the basket was good. The L also had a whistle and looked like he wanted to call a charge but he held his signal.

The 2nd half play was probably around the 5 minute mark. It happened right in front of Michigan's bench. The Indiana defender tried to draw a charge but did not have great position, however the Michigan player also pushed off around the same time.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

This would never be called a travel at this level and it doesn't serve the game well to even think of it as so.

What does this even mean? Especially the second part. He either moved the foot early or he didn't. You're almost quoting Bob Knight now.

"If they're not gonna call it, they should change the rule.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What does this even mean? Especially the second part. He either moved the foot early or he didn't. You're almost quoting Bob Knight now.

"If they're not gonna call it, they should change the rule.

If we're going to stop the game 15 times to "catch" a minuscule infraction of the rule that we can't even agree about watching video after the fact, IMO it doesn't serve the game well to even look for it.

YMMV, but I wouldn't even be seeing this travel (if it indeed exists) -- it would simply never enter my mind.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

If we're going to stop the game 15 times to "catch" a minuscule infraction of the rule that we can't even agree about watching video after the fact, IMO it doesn't serve the game well to even look for it.

YMMV, but I wouldn't even be seeing this travel (if it indeed exists) -- it would simply never enter my mind.

I didn't think it was that controversial. I might not see it live but once he said it was a travel, I watched it one more time and decided he was right. It wasn't really that close either.

If we're not to stop the game for infractions of the rule, why are they rules?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rich

I really think the book needs to be changed.

This would never be called a travel at this level and it doesn't serve the game well to even think of it as so.

(If you can't tell, I'm never overly impressed with those who can find nitpicky travels in videos like this.)

+1

Originally Posted by Rich

If we're going to stop the game 15 times to "catch" a minuscule infraction of the rule that we can't even agree about watching video after the fact, IMO it doesn't serve the game well to even look for it.

YMMV, but I wouldn't even be seeing this travel (if it indeed exists) -- it would simply never enter my mind.

Got to agree here also.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

If we're going to stop the game 15 times to "catch" a minuscule infraction of the rule that we can't even agree about watching video after the fact, IMO it doesn't serve the game well to even look for it.

YMMV, but I wouldn't even be seeing this travel (if it indeed exists) -- it would simply never enter my mind.

So when you say this travel, still not sure what you mean. What it he had lifted the pivot 6" off the floor before the dribble, rather than 1/2" ?
Where do you draw the line?

Is traveling headed in the direction of 3 seconds?

[ODog]

Sorry guys, I wasn't HOPING to find a travel and therefore watched the video 5 times to do so.

It's the classic "drop-step travel." The first time I watched the play, "travel" was the only thing that entered my mind. The slo-mo just made it that much more obvious.

You can debate whether it should/would be called. But you can't debate it's a travel. As CRust said, it's not even close, either. Pretending it is just to back up your personal philosophy on rules you choose to overlook (and we all have some, me included) is lame.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

(If you can't tell, I'm never overly impressed with those who can find nitpicky travels in videos like this.)

Preach.

Peace

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BLydic

Left foot looked like it was lifted prior to the dribble ... by the book, a travel.

Even by the book it is super nit-picky. If you call this a travel at the men's D1 level you are going to get weird looks from both of your partners and both coaches.

Originally Posted by just another ref

So when you say this travel, still not sure what you mean. What it he had lifted the pivot 6" off the floor before the dribble, rather than 1/2" ?
Where do you draw the line?

The "travel" had zero impact on the play. He's putting the ball on the floor and maybe lifted his pivot foot a half second before releasing the ball. Super, super nit-picky. Don't be a detective!

Originally Posted by ODog

It's the classic "drop-step travel."

No it's not ... it's not even a drop-step!

Originally Posted by ODog

You can debate whether it should/would be called. But you can't debate it's a travel. As CRust said, it's not even close, either. Pretending it is just to back up your personal philosophy on rules you choose to overlook (and we all have some, me included) is lame.

I think that's exactly what you are debating.

This "travel" had zero impact on the play. ZERO. It is barely noticeable. If you blow your whistle on this play at this level (really, any level, but especially men's D1), everyone is going to pause and wonder what the hell you called —*because no one will know.

It's super nit-picky ... it's like finding 3-seconds on the post player who has half a foot on the lane line, but the ball is nowhere near him. "By the book"? Yes. Something you should call? No.

In this game if you call this a travel you are going to be the only one calling it ... and you won't be around to call it very long.

The player-control foul is the obvious, super obvious correct call on this play.

[MD Longhorn]

Seems to me a bunch here are stuck officiating BY the book, instead of officiating WITH the book.