Todd Von Sossan

[just another ref]

Is this somebody I should have heard of? We got an instructive e-mail sent out by association brass this week and he was the writer. Part of it was about traveling. Started out solid enough:

The prescribed limits described for traveling differ slightly depending on if the player who catches the ball has both feet on the playing court, one foot on the playing court, or is airborne and has no feet on the playing court.

But then, later in the same article, it says, among other things:

On a drive to the basket, when a player ends his dribble and collects the ball, he is permitted 2 steps prior to releasing the ball on a shot or a pass. Count the steps: 1-2 is legal; 1-2-3 is not. If you get to 3 and the offensive player is still holding the ball, call a traveling violation.


Anybody else got a problem with this?

[Welpe]

Per this:

Todd Von Sossan - College Basketball Referee

He's an NCAA-M Division 1 basketball official.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is this somebody I should have heard of? We got an instructive e-mail sent out by association brass this week and he was the writer. Part of it was about traveling. Started out solid enough:

The prescribed limits described for traveling differ slightly depending on if the player who catches the ball has both feet on the playing court, one foot on the playing court, or is airborne and has no feet on the playing court.

But then, later in the same article, it says, among other things:

On a drive to the basket, when a player ends his dribble and collects the ball, he is permitted 2 steps prior to releasing the ball on a shot or a pass. Count the steps: 1-2 is legal; 1-2-3 is not. If you get to 3 and the offensive player is still holding the ball, call a traveling violation.


Anybody else got a problem with this?

I also have a problem with it. rule clearly says pivot foot can be lifted but not returned to the floor before shoot or pass. others talked a few weeks ago about not counting steps just sighting this provision. if you are going to count i think the correct number is 1.5. end dribble with right foot on floor (pivot foot). step forward with left (1 step) bring right, pivot foot, up in air forward but release ball before it hits ground, the .5. if that right foot hits before i release the ball that is 2 steps and illegal. pivot foot was lifted and returned to the floor before release of ball.

[Nevadaref]

With the speed of the athletes playing the D1 men's game the officials often have a difficult time discerning the location of the player's feet when a dribble is ended on a drive to the basket. Was one foot on the floor or not?

I believe that this fellow is simply attempting to give a visual cue for officials in this circumstance. If the official counts two feet striking the floor after the end of the dribble, the movement may be legal or illegal depending upon whether the dribble was ended while the player was airborne or had one foot in contact with the court. So he seems to be advocating that only if an official is able to count three consecutive steps in such situations can one be certain that a travel has occurred and the violation should then be called.

While the step-counting method isn't part of the rule, it can be a useful tool for an official judging such situations on court, if applied properly.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

With the speed of the athletes playing the D1 men's game the officials often have a difficult time discerning the location of the player's feet when a dribble is ended on a drive to the basket. Was one foot on the floor or not?

I believe that this fellow is simply attempting to give a visual cue for officials in this circumstance. If the official counts two feet striking the floor after the end of the dribble, the movement may be legal or illegal depending upon whether the dribble was ended while the player was airborne or had one foot in contact with the court. So he seems to be advocating that only if an official is able to count three consecutive steps in such situations can one be certain that a travel has occurred and the violation should then be called.

While the step-counting method isn't part of the rule, it can be a useful tool for an official judging such situations on court, if applied properly.

It's something I use on spin moves...if I hear that 3rd step, then I have a travel.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

With the speed of the athletes playing the D1 men's game the officials often have a difficult time discerning the location of the player's feet when a dribble is ended on a drive to the basket. Was one foot on the floor or not?

That, of course, is the problem. And if you can't tell for sure, you have nothing. But to flatly state "he gets two steps" can only make matter worse. Also I find this coupled with the phrase "on a drive to the basket" to be problematic. More than a few people think the traveling rule is different when a shot is involved. "He gets two steps on a layup. Everybody knows that."

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That, of course, is the problem. And if you can't tell for sure, you have nothing. But to flatly state "he gets two steps" can only make matter worse. Also I find this coupled with the phrase "on a drive to the basket" to be problematic. More than a few people think the traveling rule is different when a shot is involved. "He gets two steps on a layup. Everybody knows that."

At the gym a few years ago, I had a similar argument with several other guys who were 100% convinced a post move was a travel (I believe it was a step and scoop shot, but not sure). I tried to analogize to a layup as it was essentialy the exact same foot sequence that makes a layup legal -- while agreeing it was essentially the same, they collectively "knew," however, that a layup was different and what I did was travelling . . . in coaching MS, I don' even bother worrying about travelling calls at all -- If ind them so hopelessly inconsistent that they aren't worth worrying about; I can just teach kids to do it right and hope for the best . . .

[Nevadaref]

Video request: 17:30 of the 2nd half North Carolina at Clemson (ESPN)

This guy's tip for calling traveling is well illustrated.

[Rich]

I'd rather miss 100 borderline travels than call 1 that's not there.

Maybe that's why so many are "missed" in some people's minds.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd rather miss 100 borderline travels than call 1 that's not there.

Maybe that's why so many are "missed" in some people's minds.

The problem is that a lot of them that are missed are not even borderline.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem is that a lot of them that are missed are not even borderline.

Camron:

I agree.

Our cable system here in Toledo, has two local HD sports channels for local sports. Just after Thanksgiving I was watching a tape delay of a girls' VAR game (I know one of the officials but I didn't recognize the other two) and watched the officials in this game make three mistakes in the first 1-1/2 quarters that I would not expect veteran VAR officials to make.

1) A2 catches a pass from A1 while standing with both feet touching the court. A2 starts to dribble before moving her feet. A2 is on her fourth dribble when the C whistles her for Traveling, ! I re-played the sequence three times and still couldn't see traveling on my big HD screen.

2) B1 has been standing on her position on the court facing A1 for at least three seconds when A1 dribbles right through B1, who never moves, and the C calls B1 for Blocking. It was a Charge call that I would have expected my first year students to get correct.

3) A1 is shooting the second FT of a two shot set when B1 enters the lane too soon and both the L and T signal Delayed Dead Ball. A1 misses the FT and after the L and T conference, Team A is given the ball for a Throw-in under its own basket, !

I do not know how easy stuff is so often screwed up by veteran officials.

Time to take my pre-breakfast nap now, .

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem is that a lot of them that are missed are not even borderline.

Is this different than any other potential call?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is this different than any other potential call?

Peace

Yes.

[Pantherdreams]

Problems with missed travel calls:

1) Fouls are a judgement call (displacement, tower principle, etc).Travels are not. I understand that there technically still is some determination required as to when feet are lifted, location of the ball (gather, etc). But in an age of technology and video these are missed calls not differences of opinion when being evaluated or judged.

2) Non calling travels impacts the game in a much more difficult way for players to adjust. Players who routinely do not travel on takeoffs and finishes do so because of training and footwork. PLayers who routinely travel on takeoffs and finishes do so because of poor training or training habits. PLayers with bad footwork are clearly working on something else. Which means the coaches players who are working on footwork are not spending that time on tactics or conditioning which you as an official have now put more of a premium on. Perhaps more importantly bad footwork is quicker and more difficult to defend and players with good footwork are not going naturally or easily start using bad footwork to balance the game out. They can much more easily adjust to how much contact to create or play through.

3) Problem with only calling the borderline ones is that we know there are various levels and skills in regards to officiating games. If weaker officials are only calling the ones they are certain then borderline is now totally subjective and coaches/players are not learning and expecting the rule to be officiated diligently. We can say that kids should adjust but footwork is ingrained more so then how much contact to create or play through.

4) Often not calling travels can put kids at a disadvantage in terms of their development. We see kids in our corner of the world play in middle and school and even high school leagues where the standard for travels is not very high then suddenly compete at national tournaments or other high level high stakes events with top level officiating that is targeting footwork and suddenly they can't play because habits have been engrained. THis is not an officiating problem but as a stake holder in the game and its development it is a concern.

5) Gender bias? I'm not saying this in intentional but more a product of the speed or athleticism of the game. I would say it is much more difficult to be "certain" on a lot of plays in guys games then it would be similar plays in a females game. This is just because of the explosiveness of the player taking off. We might be fine with this and it might even be a necessary evil, but again under video scrutiny we could be calling one action a travel vs women because we are sure, and letting guys do it because we aren't as sure . . .

FYI: Please be aware that there are differences in some of the language between FIBA and NFHS in regards to calling some elements of travelling which would make a number of plays we look at travels but would not be in NFHS standards. Specifically in lifting the pivot foot to begin a dribble.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

FYI: Please be aware that there are differences in some of the language between FIBA and NFHS in regards to calling some elements of travelling which would make a number of plays we look at travels but would not be in NFHS standards. Specifically in lifting the pivot foot to begin a dribble.

Could you kindly elaborate on this? (I can't think of an example relating to the pivot on a travel that would be OK in NFHS but not other codes. I don't claim to be an expert, but I though the NBA was more generous on this call, as there is always a pivot foot in the NBA, while not necessarily so in NFHS/NCAA.)