Syracuse-Indiana clips(s)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

I have never used distanced cover and never heard anyone use that as any criteria. And it think it's an even sillier piece of evidence to use when you consider even the caliber of athletes in some high school games.

I have never used it to make the call either, but physics plays a part in most things. Show me a video and I may say, "Gee, you're right. That's easier than I thought."

But the play at hand is still a travel.

Period

Anybody that can look at this is slow motion and argue it? I don't get it.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have never used it to make the call either, but physics plays a part in most things. Show me a video and I may say, "Gee, you're right. That's easier than I thought."

Then why bring it up...first it's stupid to complain about a player going 17 feet (according to you) without a dribble. The guy is 6'6! If you really want to go down this line of thinking it's very conceivable that a player could cover this ground without a dribble...especially with momentum (like the player had here). And no physics don't play a part in adjudicating this play. This line of thinking (distance covered) is the crap that gets officials to call legal plays travels because they looked funny.

Now do I think the player traveled here? I do, but he was pretty damn close to gathering the ball with both feet in the air. This no where near as obvious as you made it out to be. You also exaggerated this play saying he ended his dribble at the 3 point line. The guy is a good foot or two inside the 3 point line.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

Then why bring it up...first it's stupid to complain about a player going 17 feet (according to you) without a dribble. The guy is 6'6! If you really want to go down this line of thinking it's very conceivable that a player could cover this ground without a dribble...especially with momentum (like the player had here). And no physics don't play a part in adjudicating this play. This line of thinking (distance covered) is the crap that gets officials to call legal plays travels because they looked funny.

Now do I think the player traveled here? I do, but he was pretty damn close to gathering the ball with both feet in the air. This no where near as obvious as you made it out to be. You also exaggerated this play saying he ended his dribble at the 3 point line. The guy is a good foot or two inside the 3 point line.

+1000

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

Then why bring it up...

I was asked why I thought it was obvious. This was a part of my description. Sorry if that offends you. The last dribble was very close to the 3 point line. The pivot was on the floor in the circle well above the free throw line. He jumped off that same foot and laid the ball in. This was a travel that was easy enough to see in real time, and yes, blatant and very obvious is slow motion. The reasonable people now pretty much agree that is was a travel, now we must discuss further what constitutes blatant and obvious.

I'll tell you what does. ALL THREE of the plays from the Duke game.