Todd Von Sossan
 

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?

Per this:

Todd Von Sossan - College Basketball Referee

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

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.

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.

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 . . .

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

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

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.

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, :eek:! 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, :eek:!

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

Time to take my pre-breakfast nap now, :D.

MTD, Sr.

Is this different than any other potential call?

Peace

Yes.

PLease ignore my soap box if it bothers you . .
 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

On the contrary, typically the last things to touch the ball on the shot are the fingertips. The ball is certainly not at rest immediately prior to the release.

What about for a dunk?

I'm with Nevada on this. Most of the NFHS refs I work with are considering not holding ball as (release) on the dribble. So even though the hand is on top and pushing the ball to the ground most NFHS officials are considering that player to have released the ball to dribble so on a takeoff they may lift their pivot foot.

Most FIBA officials I work with are calling the release from contact with the hands. So when that player takes off if they are leaning forward and trying to accelerate and pound the ball, that ball is in contact with their hands for much longer. Its not until we can see that ball released from the hands that the back foot can come up.

Release ???
 

Not me. That not what the rule states. If the player lifts his pivot foot from the floor before releasing the ball from contact with his hands, I'm calling it a travel violation. I'm comparing when the ball leaves his hand (is released from) to when his foot leaves (is released from) the floor. I've been doing it that way for more than thirty years and I haven't heard any complaints about my calls in this situation. Any other definition of "release" in regard to this situation is news to me.

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

Use this new-fangled definition of "release" on a shot at the buzzer, and get ready for a whole nine yards of manure, especially when every grandmother, and the horse she rode in on, has a cell phone video camera.

Let us review the Dribbling Rule and the Traveling Rule as they apply to the subject of this thread. I will reference the NFHS Rules but the NCAA Men's/Women's and FIBA Rules are the same as the NFHS Rules.


R4-S15-A3: "The dribble begins by pushing, throwing or batting the ball to the floor before the pivot foot is lifted."


R4-S44-A3c: "Traveling is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball. The limits on foot movements are as follows: After coming to a stop and establishing a pivot foot: The pivot foot may not be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble."


R4-S44-A4b: "Traveling is moving a foot or feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits while holding the ball. The limits on foot movements are as follows: After coming to a stop when neither foot can be a pivot: Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble."


Let me refer to a discussion about the same subject as this thread that took place at an IAABO Fall Rules Interpreters' Conference in the late 90's (Billy and Padgett, I mean 1990's not the 1890's, LOL.) when Dick Schindler was still the NFHS Basketball Rules Editor and Hank Nichols was still the NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Editor. Dick passed away a while back and Hank is still alive. Hank was one of the top NCAA men's basketball officials in the country in his time and he was also a FIBA Basketball Official who officiated
in the Pan-American Games and the FIBA World University Games. Peter Webb was chairing the session where Dick discussed the NFHS Rules Changes and POEs for the coming season, and Hank was in attendance and took part in the discussion.

The discussion centered around the following three points: (1) When does the Dribble Start? (2) How do we know that A1's release of the Ball is the Start of his/her Dribble? And (3) When does the Traveling Violation Occur?

Everybody in the discussion agreed that the Pivot Foot could not be lifted before the was released and that "release" meant no longer in contact with the Player's hand. The discussion centered around Point (2) and how does it apply to Points (1) and (3).

There were two theories with regard to Point (2): A) The Dribble starts the instant the Ball is no longer in contact wtih the Player's hand; which is what the Rules, Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings tell us. Or B) The Game Official cannot determine if the A1's release of the ball is the start of a Dribble unless A1 continues to Dribble by batting the Ball after it has made contact with the Court after A1's initial release of the Ball.

Theory "B" is a logical application of the Rules, but Theory "A" was defended by Dick and Hank because of existing Rules, Casebook Plays, and Approved Rulings. Therefore, Theory "A" is how we are to apply the Rules.

MTD, Sr.