NCAA should adapt NBA travel: rule 2 steps after dribble ends, DivIII championship

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

I think it's pretty evident what the Op is referencing. The OP is referencing the NBA rule book, which specifically uses steps to determine the pivot foot. The play in question wouldn't even be an issue under NBA rules.

He needs some NBA quality video for me to know what he is talking about.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

Even if it's technically a travel (I'm saying that for discussion purposes only) I just don't see it picked up and I don't see it called in real time in the floor. Not at this level, not at the D1 level. Why would it get called at a lower level?

A better philosophical discussion would be whether it makes sense for anyone to call something that not a single participant, coach, media person, or fan expects to be called. Can anyone find a single comment on this play other than on the officiating forum?

First of all, (I've seen this term here before) I don't really get what you mean by "technically" a travel. Traveling has no gray area. It is a travel or it isn't. Certainly some are easier to see than others, and, like most, I am in the camp of being certain. (If it might have been a travel, it ain't a travel.) Having said that, one can be certain and still be wrong. Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that recently in the NCAA we see roughly one wrongly called for every one hundred which are fairly obvious that are not called. This leads me to believe that, to some degree at least, the officials have been directed to let things slide, perhaps in the name of boosting the offense and producing a better product for the fans.

So, if a huge number of violations, some obvious, others not so much, are not called, this is what leads to the expectations mentioned above. It's not that they don't expect this violation to be called, but rather that they've seen it so many times without a call that they don't believe it to be a violation.

"They need to call it or change the rule."***

**Bob Knight, several years ago (paraphrased)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

First of all, (I've seen this term here before) I don't really get what you mean by "technically" a travel. Traveling has no gray area. It is a travel or it isn't. Certainly some are easier to see than others, and, like most, I am in the camp of being certain. (If it might have been a travel, it ain't a travel.) Having said that, one can be certain and still be wrong. Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that recently in the NCAA we see roughly one wrongly called for every one hundred which are fairly obvious that are not called. This leads me to believe that, to some degree at least, the officials have been directed to let things slide, perhaps in the name of boosting the offense and producing a better product for the fans.

So, if a huge number of violations, some obvious, others not so much, are not called, this is what leads to the expectations mentioned above. It's not that they don't expect this violation to be called, but rather that they've seen it so many times without a call that they don't believe it to be a violation.

"They need to call it or change the rule."***

**Bob Knight, several years ago (paraphrased)

I'd rather miss one every time than EVER call one that isn't. I am someone who doesn't feel that there's a problem at all with traveling, however.

By rule, a player with one foot on a lane line is subject to being called for a three-second violation. Do we get such angina over this rule not being called strictly to the letter? Is there a cry to "change the rule?"

So the OP sees this play on SportsCenter and says, "That's a travel." Posts video here for everyone to see.

Serious question: Did he come here and post the video without looking at it a second or a third time (or in slow motion or stop-action)?

Again, I don't think there's a problem. The play in the video up top is consistently not called a travel. I wouldn't call it in a HS game. Matter of fact, I'm still not convinced there *is* a travel there. Surely I can't be the only one.

[bob jenkins]

The move at the start of the play was just as egregious (which is to say, not very)-- the pivot foot was lifted before the ball was released

Originally Posted by Rob1968

1998 D1 Men summer tournament, I called an obvious travel near the end of a Bronze medal game, on a breakaway dunk . . . it nearly cost me my contract. Our Supervisor was there, and let me know that although the call might be correct, by the rule, nobody wanted it called and in such a case, I should let it go . . .

Thanks for sharing.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Guys:

I know many of you have impeccable credentials and I'm not trying to undermine them.

I would never question anyone's integrity. Even if it's technically a travel (I'm saying that for discussion purposes only) I just don't see it picked up and I don't see it called in real time in the floor. Not at this level, not at the D1 level. Why would it get called at a lower level?

That is fine. If it is too close to tell at full speed, live, I'm fine with it not being called. That doesn't make it not a travel, it just means it is too close to tell. That really isn't the question, however. The real question is what you say next.

Originally Posted by Rich

A better philosophical discussion would be whether it makes sense for anyone to call something that not a single participant, coach, media person, or fan expects to be called. Can anyone find a single comment on this play other than on the officiating forum?

If you can see it and do see it and can tell it was a travel, are you upholding the integrity of the game by turning a blind eye to it? Do we normally make calls based on who we think might have seen it? I hope not.

Originally Posted by Rob1968

1998 D1 Men summer tournament, I called an obvious travel near the end of a Bronze medal game, on a breakaway dunk . . . it nearly cost me my contract. Our Supervisor was there, and let me know that although the call might be correct, by the rule, nobody wanted it called and in such a case, I should let it go . . .

And I can agree with that. I put traveling in two categories....those that put the defense at a disadvantage (or give the offense an advantage) and those that are meaningless.

A travel out at the top with the ball handler going nowhere is easy to ignore. Likewise on a travel on an undefended breakaway.

A travel that makes the job of a defender so much more difficult that it leads to a foul or allows the offensive player to get to a spot they otherwise couldn't have reached is one that shouldn't be ignored. It is fundamentally unfair to allow a play to result in a foul on the defense (as is often the case) because the travel wasn't that bad and many wouldn't have seen it when it allows the offense the extra advantage that the defender couldn't defend.

It is also fundamentally unfair to require the defender to obtain a position by some point in time (upward motion) if you're allow the offense extra steps to get around it.

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd rather miss one every time than EVER call one that isn't.

Agree.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jump stop

So why not adapt the NBA rule and make it easy to call and catch up to the way its called anyway.
Not trying to ruffle feathers but the NBA has figured it out.

Unless you want HS and college to change the NBA rule, please stop writing "adapt" when the proper word is "adopt."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

By rule, a player with one foot on a lane line is subject to being called for a three-second violation. Do we get such angina over this rule not being called strictly to the letter? Is there a cry to "change the rule?"

This is not a good comparison. There is no advantage gained by the player touching the lane line. The player who scores after a spin move which we knew was going to be a travel before he ever started the move is gaining a huge advantage.

Lack of traveling calls in the NCAA apparently is not a problem. They are consistent in their non-calls and those involved seem to be adjusted. The problem is when the spin move happens in my high school game and I do call it.

"He's been doing that all year without it being called."

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not a good comparison. There is no advantage gained by the player touching the lane line. The player who scores after a spin move which we knew was going to be a travel before he ever started the move is gaining a huge advantage.

Lack of traveling calls in the NCAA apparently is not a problem. They are consistent in their non-calls and those involved seem to be adjusted. The problem is when the spin move happens in my high school game and I do call it.

"He's been doing that all year without it being called."

I hear that, too. I called one in a regional final. Coach said, "I know that's a travel, but you're the first person who's called it." I shrugged. The player didn't do it again.

I'm not sure this one is in that category.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

I hear that, too. I called one in a regional final. Coach said, "I know that's a travel, but you're the first person who's called it." I shrugged. The player didn't do it again.

I'm not sure this one is in that category.

The one in the OP? I agree. Not close to this category.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

I"I know that's a travel, but you're the first person who's called it."

Yep, and this makes me cringe. You can't blame them for doing something if it's never called. It turns things into a guessing game. What are they going to call tonight?

[Johnny Ringo]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The move at the start of the play was just as egregious (which is to say, not very)-- the pivot foot was lifted before the ball was released

Great observation Bob!

Yes, this is a violation in slow motion replay, but in real time very difficult to determine when the player gathered the ball. Like the previous post said: I would rather miss one this close than put air in the whistle when there is nothing.

[JetMetFan]

As has been mentioned, what happened at the start and the end were close in real-time and weren't called. Yes, they were violations. I'm not going to use the term "technically." As I said on another site - where Camron was the "victim" - "technically" just means it is but we don't want to call it.

Sometimes stuff just happens too fast to pick it up. The kids are fast, there are bodies around them and we just miss the play because we're not sure or we want to make sure the kid doesn't get hammered by a defender. It's not perfect but we're also not robots that can pick up everything. To echo what was said earlier in the thread, I'd rather miss one that's there than call one that isn't. And that comes from someone who has been trying like crazy to get better on calling travels every year for the past decade.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

As has been mentioned, what happened at the start and the end were close in real-time and weren't called. Yes, they were violations. I'm not going to use the term "technically." As I said on another site - where Camron was the "victim" - "technically" just means it is but we don't want to call it.

Sometimes stuff just happens too fast to pick it up. The kids are fast, there are bodies around them and we just miss the play because we're not sure or we want to make sure the kid doesn't get hammered by a defender. It's not perfect but we're also not robots that can pick up everything. To echo what was said earlier in the thread, I'd rather miss one that's there than call one that isn't. And that comes from someone who has been trying like crazy to get better on calling travels every year for the past decade.

That's a good point -- I'm sure some interpret some of the posts here as "ignore the travels". It's not that, at all. I've worked hard as JetMetFan to better identify pivot feet and recognize traveling. It's just I will not call it when I have even 5% doubt -- most times when I have that doubt, the film shows I was right to pass on it. Sometimes the kids are just too fast.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yep, and this makes me cringe. You can't blame them for doing something if it's never called. It turns things into a guessing game. What are they going to call tonight?

Not being caught previously doesn't give them the right to break the rules. If I speed on the way to work everyday and don't get caught till Friday I bet I am still getting a ticket. I gambled and lost just like they do when preforming an illegal move.