DVBOA...Phantom travels
 

The interesting thing about these plays is, unless my eyes are going, they really aren't phantoms. They're close and I'll admit a lot of us wouldn't necessarily catch them but they're all travels.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/29D6izbHGFM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

1st one was a travel. 2nd one I can't tell where he gathered. 3rd was not a travel.

On #2 the call was on the spin. In the slow-mo I can see A1's pivot come off the floor as he turns.

On #3 A1 catches the ball then his right foot hits the floor, followed by the left then the right again. Again, you really need the slo-mo to tell.

1) Travel RF was pivot, then he stepped forward with it. Official seemed to call travel for lifting and replacing left foot -- I'm not sure left foot left the ground.

2) Probably not a travel. I think left foot was pivot and didn't come off ground on the spin move.

3) Depends on whether official thinks it was a jump stop. Right foot land just before left, and then there's a step with the right. BY a strict interpretation of the book, it's a travel. If you make some small allowance, it's a jump stop and a legal pivot.

NONE of these plays were travels. Classic cases of officials not finding the pivot on the catch/gather.

I am not convinced that any of these are travels. Certainly not obvious by any means.

Peace

Oh, believe me, I know they're not obvious in any way. Heck, on at least one of them I had to watch it full screen twice to see it (I think it was #3). I just wish the "phantom-ness" was a little more apparent.

Be Sure ...
 

Agree. If we're not sure, don't call it.

Different situation. Yesterday. Boys prep school. Second half. I'm the trail in a free throw situation. Black is shooting in front of their bench. I look at the table for substitutes. My next look is at the shooter to make sure that he's in his proper place, and then across the lane to make sure that everyone there is in their proper place. My partner, the lead, then bounces the ball to the shooter. In my peripheral vision, I spot a White player "sneaking" back, away from the three point arc. I was pretty sure that he was originally inside the arc, maybe on the far side of the lane, with me getting straight lined by the shooter, but I passed on it because I wasn't sure. Black misses and the Black coach goes nuts. "That's a violation. You have to call it". I yell back to him, "I didn't see it, so I can't call it", thinking, in my mind, that I blew the call. Coach continues to go nuts and I have to T him up, so now I'm doubly pissed at myself that not only did I blow the call, but it led to a technical foul.

After the game, I discus the call with my partner, ready to fall on my sword. My partner tells me that he spotted the White player heading into the lane from behind the three point arc and gave him the stop sign to prevent a violation, and I just saw the aftermath of that, White moving back away from the arc. I didn't blow the call, because I wasn't sure that there was a violation. I thought that there was a violation, but I was never sure.

I think the title was for affect only.

Peace

All I Ask Of You ...
 

... and then it wouldn't be a phantom (something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality).

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.45918...95877&pid=15.1

(I love it when the chandelier crashes.)

All three are travels. The only one that is hard to see with the given video angle is the post move.

#1. Ball caught with right foot down and left foot up. The left foot immediately comes down making the right foot the pivot. The right foot is lifted and moved to a new spot. Not a big travel, but a travel.

#2. Ball is caught with his right foot on the floor in the top lane space. He steps forward with his left foot making the right the pivot. The right is the lifted and he steps forward again on the right (the travel) before spinning back to the left.

#3. Ball caught in the air and landed right-left-right. Travel. The landing was close to being simultaneous but it wasn't.

I can see #1 and #3 not being called frequently and I may very well have several of those in my games that go uncalled but that doesn't mean they were not travels, just that they were missed.

I'm pitching my tent in this camp... I've got travel in all three. I may not catch them in my games but in this video analysis, yep. I'm working real hard on my travel call accuracy and like the direction I'm going. Find the pivot, find the pivot, find the pivot. In my mind I say "Gather, pivot..."

First one travel.

2nd can't tell as hard to see when control of the ball is gained but the angle on the video no travel.

3rd travel. Easier to see in slow mo then real time but its the right call.

All three are travels, clearly #2. Would I catch these in a game? I dunno. #3 would be toughest.

Of course, some people would say that after you catch the ball to end a dribble you haven't really caught it.

I'm not calling plays 1 or 2 travels. And I think it's be just fine with my supervisors.

Saw all three of these in today's Ohio State/Michigan State game.

None were called.

The point of the discussion is not whether an official should generally be expected to call them but weather they were technically travels or not.

It is not unusual for some plays to be too close to be sure when viewed live but that doesn't meant they are not travels. It just means the typical officials just can't tell at full speed. That is OK, but, again, it still doesn't mean they are not travels.

If an official is, however, able to tell, call it, and gets it right, that doesn't make them wrong just because others are incapable of discerning what is is not a travel when it is close. That just means the others couldn't tell.

It should be the goal of all officials to call travels that are travels and not call travels that are not travels....and err on the side of calling nothing if they are unsure. To not call travels because they were not big enough travels or because some others can't tell is a slippery slope...how much is big enough. It is a lot easier to have a black and white line on travels, just like out of bounds....it either is or it isn't (whether we call it right nor not).

I don't think it's like discerning and calling OB violations. I'd offer that there a plenty of things that are technically travels that go uncalled (and I'm not talking NCAA-M vs. NCAA-W traveling emphases/lack thereof), and likely unrecognized, especially in games where players are very fast, and that those who are able to discern what should be called versus what shouldn't - much like about 75% of the rest of the game, are setting themselves apart from the herd, so to speak.

A prime example of what I'm talking about is play 1 in the OP. The basics of that play - albeit at at least 2 to 4 times the speed of the OP play - happens probably 20-30 times in almost every college game, when guards pop or weave out in a front court set and receive a pass on the top side of the perimeter. Never called a travel, nor should it be, IMO.

I'd say my stance is that some types of travels (as well as all OB violations) should be judged with a black and white line of demarcation, but not others.

By rule, they're all technical violations of the traveling rule.

#1, When the ball is caught, the players R foot is on the floor, making it the pivot. He puts his left foot down, then steps with his right foot. Traveling.

#2, When the player sticks his pivot foot, the toe of the shoe is basically at the midpoint of the FT space. After he spins, the toe is almost on the block. IOW, he slides his foot. Traveling.

#3, Airborne player catches the ball, lands with his R foot first, then L, then steps with his R. Traveling.

I wouldn't call any of them at full speed as I think it would be guessing.

I am with you on this. Technically all three of them are travels if you go straight by the book.

I would notice #1 but probably not call it in a varsity game. I would see #2 (Or hope I would) and I would call it. #3 wouldn't register on my travel radar.

This would be the slippery slope Camron is talking about. If, in all three plays, we didn't judge them as travels that's one thing. We all miss violations because we may not have a good look at them. But if we decide not to call them for other reasons, that's where problems can develop.

Case in point, these plays we discussed last season:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wi9fMxwglqU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Most of the plays in that clip are examples of black and white travels, IMO. The last play, for example, IMO, is not something that should be called (but it's close).

You may never legally pivot out of a 'jump stop'.

It depends on your what your definition of a jump stop. There are two types of plays referred to as a jump stop.

If you gather (sorry, end the dribble for some of y'all) with a foot on the floor, jump off that foot, and land simultaneously on both feet, then no, you can't pivot. Same would apply if he gathered the ball with both feet in the air, landed on one foot, jumped off that foot and landed on both feet simultaneously.

The other type of jump stop is the one where a player gathers their dribble with both feet in the air and lands simultaneously...he may pivot with either foot in this case.

Sure you can. Dribbling, end your dribble with both feet off the floor, land simultaneously land with both feet. Either can be the pivot.

I think Camron nailed all three of these. I did have a problem with the first play, though, because he didn't seem to be calling the illegal move, but a legal move that followed. If you come that late with a whistle and show as little conviction as the calling official did, I'm going to look extra hard at the play.
Also, if you're going to have a whistle on that play you're setting an extremely difficult standard to measure up to consistently.

I thought the other two were obvious gets.

Regardless, if you're going to produce a video entitled "Phantom Travels," they damn sure need to be clear phantom travels.

and, the play in question was the latter.

The Rivers play is a travel. In my opinion.