Indiana/Michigan block/charge

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Brad

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.



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!



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



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.

Agree 100% with everything here.

The main person I credit with my training once I decided to give up coaching and concentrate on officiating had a lot of Men's D1 and ABA experience.

He always said that officials who call ticky tack "letter of the law" violations do not last very long. He would say focus on these things on call selection:

Call the obvious, protect shooters, referee the defense, reward LGP.

Calling these ticky tack violations arent good for the game and officials who insist on calling them wont be advancing very far.

[VaTerp]

I think the play others may be referencing and the one I thought about when I saw this thread is at the 3:38 mark of the second half.

Victor Oladipo, who I had the pleasure of seeing develop over the course of 3 summers, made a layup with a block call on Tim Hardaway, Jr. I believe.

One of the other officials' body language looked like they were about to go PC, which I thought would have been the right call.

[Brad]

One other thing to add here...

You know the travel that coaches want? The one that you HAVE to get?

The one that allows the offensive player to get past their player who is playing good defense.

Get THAT one.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Brad

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!

The impact is that the player is charged with a foul that happened after the ball is dead if you call the travel. I'm not saying I would have called this travel in real time, because I probably wouldn't. What I am saying is that I don't see how any travel call which is proved right by the video, which this one is, can be considered wrong.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What I am saying is that I don't see how any travel call which is proved right by the video, which this one is, can be considered wrong.

It's not a matter of right vs wrong as much as it is accepted vs not accepted.