Todd Von Sossan

[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.)

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.)

Primary difference, and without my rule books in front of me I can't tell you if its wording on interp, is regards to starting dribble. Basically the FIBA rule states that the ball has to be released before the pivot foot it lifted. THis is interpreted not as dirbbling motion started but very literally as seperation between ball and hand. So its not enough with most FIBA officials for the player to be starting to dribble but to have gotten far enough into the dribble that the ball is out of contact with the hand before the pivot foot is lifted.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Basically the FIBA rule states that the ball has to be released before the pivot foot it lifted. THis is interpreted not as dirbbling motion started but very literally as seperation between ball and hand.

NFHS 4-44-3c: The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released to start a dribble.


So how is this different?

[Pantherdreams]

FIBA 25.2.2

To start a dribble, the pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released
from the hand(s).


I think the key difference if not in the explicit of the language is how it is applied or interpreted. When I work with NFHS officials, so long as the dribble has started. IE. Hand on top of the ball making a dribbling motion, pushing the ball toward the floor. WHen the back foot comes up pretty consistently allowed to play.

When I work with FIBA official, then the ball has to be clear of the hand(s) before that back foot comes up.

When we talk about borderline. THere is a big difference between needing to see a ball being begun to be dribbled and the ball needing to free of contact with the hand.

ie.

If I'm holding the ball and let go of it with two (release) the ball and turn one hand over the top and am pushing down tostart the dribble I've met the wording requirement and ime the general application of the NFHS travel call. THe Fiba call until i've pushed it down hard enough and far enough that the ball has left all contact with my hands I can't lift that pivot foot.

[Nevadaref]

Sorry, but you have a misunderstanding of the NFHS rule and so do the NFHS officials who you work with. By rule the ball needs to be out of contact with the hand before the pivot may be lifted when starting a dribble. That is the NFHS definition of "released."
The same applies to a player releasing a try for goal before the expiration of time. I hope that your NFHS partners would not count a goal that was still in contact with the shooters hand when the horn sounded and claim that it had been "released" as the hand was pushing it towards the goal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry, but you have a misunderstanding of the NFHS rule and so do the NFHS officials who you work with. By rule the ball needs to be out of contact with the hand before the pivot may be lifted when starting a dribble. That is the NFHS definition of "released."
The same applies to a player releasing a try for goal before the expiration of time. I hope that your NFHS partners would not count a goal that was still in contact with the shooters hand when the horn sounded and claim that it had been "released" as the hand was pushing it towards the goal.

Not as far as I'm concerned.

If the player is no longer holding the ball, it is released. This is no different than any intermediate dribble. The player is not holding the ball every time it contacts his/her hand. I consider it released if the ball would fall to the floor without any other action by the dribbler.

On the shot, the ball is still at rest on the hand prior to the separation since the hand is typically under the ball....thus that release doesn't occur until it leaves the hand.