Traveling Violation - Coaching Points (VIDEO)

[JeffM]

From this angle, it is difficult to judge precisely when he has gathered, and therefore, whether his right foot was still on the floor when he gathered.

It would be even more difficult in a game unless you are using a three-man crew with the play coming towards the C.

During a game, I would pass on it unless I was sure that it was a travel. I woiuldn't doubt my partner if he/she called it and I wouldn't have the benefit of seeing it from their angle.

There are a lot of you tube videos on how to execute the jump stop. The keys are to (1) gather in the air and (2) land simultaneously on both feet. If either of those occurs, the move in the video is legal. If they both occur, either foot can then be the pivot foot and he can take one more step.

From a coaching standpoint, can you live with it being called 10% of the time? If not, then he shouldn't use that move until he can execute it correctly all of the time. I suspect you can live with it since you probably have to live with other turnovers and missed shots.

He could also show the move several times in warmups where the officials might be observing the players. If the officials see him perform the move correctly in warmups, they may be less inclined to call it in a game. However, this could backfire if they see him perform the move incorrectly before the game. During warmups, the officials are doing more than just watching to see if anyone dunks.

My opinion is that players "have gathered" later in the move than when many fans think it occurs. I think fans consider one hand contacting the ball after the last dribble to mean that the player has gathered it.

[ccrroo]

Thanks for the feedback on the coaching points. Certainly some things I can work with him on.

It being called about 10% is certainly manageable. This one particular game, it was probably called 80% of the time (I think 4 out 5 times) so I was looking for a way to help (and better understand myself).

This is 7th grade Catholic School league with 2 man crews.

Thanks again.

I would wager those saying the player had gathered the ball with his right foot on the floor paused the video before coming to that conclusion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I would wager those saying the player had gathered the ball with his right foot on the floor paused the video before coming to that conclusion.

Anytime you have to pause the video to figure something out, it was not obvious.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I would wager those saying the player had gathered the ball with his right foot on the floor paused the video before coming to that conclusion.

Not me. I watched it at the speed it was presented, and what I saw the first time never changed after watching a few times.

The problem is, I think there is quite a bit of judgment of what it means to "gather."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I would wager those saying the player had gathered the ball with his right foot on the floor paused the video before coming to that conclusion.

Nope.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Anytime you have to pause the video to figure something out, it was not obvious.

Peace

Not obvious is not the same thing as not happening.

If it happened, even though it may take some a slo-mo or paused video to see it, it still happened. If it is called in such a case, the call is still correct.

Officials that can see it and tell the difference shouldn't have to dumb down their calls for those who can't tell what happened.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ccrroo

...

How can I help this player understand why it's called and improve his technique?
Is it simply because he didn't land on 2 feet?
...

Simplest thing would be to teach your players to land on 2 feet.

1) If they gather with one foot on the ground, jump off that foot, and land on 2 feet, they are still legal.

2) If they gather while in the air, then land on 2 feet, then either foot can be a pivot foot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nope.



Not obvious is not the same thing as not happening.

If it happened, even though it may take some a slo-mo or paused video to see it, it still happened. If it is called in such a case, the call is still correct.

Officials that can see it and tell the difference shouldn't have to dumb down their calls for those who can't tell what happened.

There are a lot of plays in which we could split hairs with our judgment. I want to call the things that are obvious, not the ones I have to debate actually happened. And unlike what we are doing here, I do not get another shot to make that call. It has to stand out. And this does not stand out as to when he gathered the ball. And if I have to determine that by slowing down the video, I would rather pass on that call. And I call a lot of travels in games BTW.

Peace

[just another ref]

So now we have not one debate but two.

First: What is obvious?

Second: Is it proper to call only that which is obvious?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nope.



Not obvious is not the same thing as not happening.

If it happened, even though it may take some a slo-mo or paused video to see it, it still happened. If it is called in such a case, the call is still correct.

Officials that can see it and tell the difference shouldn't have to dumb down their calls for those who can't tell what happened.

I see a lot of those types of plays in real time. My eyes are trained from watching many of these plays and by quickly identifying a pivot foot.

But I'm calling the game in real time and people are watching it in real time. It just isn't that important to me to be able to say "gotcha" on one that nobody else in the building thinks is a travel.

It's rare that any of us move on our philosophy in these threads, so I wonder what the point is sometimes. There are people here (and I'm not specifically referring to the post I'm responding to) who think traveling is a major problem in hoops and it's their goal to let everyone know that. And I just don't care -- I just want to get the ones I'm expected to get (that actually are travels).

[so cal lurker]

An aside: My sense, perhaps clouded by the years, is that travelling, double driblling, and carrying [yes, I know not separately in the book...] are all called more leniently at the HS level than they were 30 years ago when I played. Any of the, um, more senior refs out there have any sense if that is true or if I'm just turning into one of those crumudgens blathering about "back in my day . . . "? (Along the same lines, it seems HS allows a lot more physical contact, especially on the perimiter, than I recall being acceptable.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

An aside: My sense, perhaps clouded by the years, is that travelling, double dribbling, and carrying [yes, I know not separately in the book...] are all called more leniently at the HS level than they were 30 years ago when I played. Any of the, um, more senior refs out there have any sense if that is true or if I'm just turning into one of those curmudgeons blathering about "back in my day . . . "? (Along the same lines, it seems HS allows a lot more physical contact, especially on the perimeter, than I recall being acceptable.)

I don't think you're wrong at all.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

I see a lot of those types of plays in real time. My eyes are trained from watching many of these plays and by quickly identifying a pivot foot.

But I'm calling the game in real time and people are watching it in real time. It just isn't that important to me to be able to say "gotcha" on one that nobody else in the building thinks is a travel.

It's rare that any of us move on our philosophy in these threads, so I wonder what the point is sometimes. There are people here (and I'm not specifically referring to the post I'm responding to) who think traveling is a major problem in hoops and it's their goal to let everyone know that. And I just don't care -- I just want to get the ones I'm expected to get (that actually are travels).

I don't think traveling is a big problem, and I don't want to call a travel that has to be reveiwed in stop motion animation replay to verify. This video, while close, seems clear enough to me that I'd call it in real time.
Certainly it's close enough I'm not going to say the guy on the floor with a better angle of the gather was wrong.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's rare that any of us move on our philosophy in these threads, so I wonder what the point is sometimes.

For those of us who post less than others, this kind of debate is VERY helpful. We benefit from your back and forth so it is far from pointless and I am glad y'all get into it. I'll go back to my seat now and finish my popcorn...

[deecee]

This is very close. I have a general rule with travels, if I'm not 100% sure I don't call it. The faster and more athletic the game gets the tougher and tougher travels get. If you need multiple replays to tell I'm perfectly fine with not having a whistle.