"Traveling out of bounds" (Video)

[so cal lurker]

While I get that it can perpetuate a myth, to those who know the rules (and believe that the official knows the rules), the signal does communicate exactly what happened . . . just guesing, but it may be that the NCAA refs who have done this believe that the players/coaches do know the rule and will know what was called (and that, for example, it wasn't an overly quick 5 second count)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

While I get that it can perpetuate a myth, to those who know the rules (and believe that the official knows the rules), the signal does communicate exactly what happened . . . just guesing, but it may be that the NCAA refs who have done this believe that the players/coaches do know the rule and will know what was called (and that, for example, it wasn't an overly quick 5 second count)

It doesn't communicate what happened. It's a traveling signal, so it communicates that the player traveled. Those who know the rules know what the official meant by the signal. It's not the worst thing ever, and it's certainly better than the Frankenstein.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Adam

It doesn't communicate what happened. It's a traveling signal, so it communicates that the player traveled. Those who know the rules know what the official meant by the signal. It's not the worst thing ever, and it's certainly better than the Frankenstein.

Uhh, exactly. If they know what the official means by the signal, that would be, uhh, communication! . . .

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Uhh, exactly. If they know what the official means by the signal, that would be, uhh, communication! . . .

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

The problem is the vastly higher number of people watching who don't read the rules and assume he called the player for traveling.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Adam

The problem is the vastly higher number of people watching who don't read the rules and assume he called the player for traveling.

I don't doubt that at all -- but I *suspect* the refs on this play care more about communicating with the players and coaches (who will understand what it means) than the AAU wannabes and HS coaches who store their rule books in the round file . . . I'm not advocating for the signal, certainly not at lower levels where people do think travelling rules apply (I saw it called (by "it" I mean travellnig rather than leaving the 3' box) in a CYO Jr High game this year, and I believe the referee who called it was also a HS coach . . .)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I don't doubt that at all -- but I *suspect* the refs on this play care more about communicating with the players and coaches (who will understand what it means) than the AAU wannabes and HS coaches who store their rule books in the round file . . . I'm not advocating for the signal, certainly not at lower levels where people do think travelling rules apply (I saw it called (by "it" I mean travellnig rather than leaving the 3' box) in a CYO Jr High game this year, and I believe the referee who called it was also a HS coach . . .)

I see what you're saying, and don't disagree with regard to their intent and their concerns. I also understand D1 guys get away with some different mechanics sometimes. That said:

The guy making this call on a D1 floor is going to be seen by more people than the guy making it in a MS game in the middle of Denver.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Adam

It doesn't communicate what happened. It's a traveling signal, so it communicates that the player traveled. Those who know the rules know what the official meant by the signal. It's not the worst thing ever, and it's certainly better than the Frankenstein.

The "Frankenstein" is an approved signal for NCAA-M.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

It doesn't communicate what happened. It's a traveling signal, so it communicates that the player traveled. Those who know the rules know what the official meant by the signal. It's not the worst thing ever, and it's certainly better than the Frankenstein.

Frankenstein? Is that the one with the arms down showing the player's not vertical?

Personally, I think this is a great signal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Is that the one with the arms down showing the player's not vertical?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

Frankenstein? Is that the one with the arms down showing the player's not vertical?

Personally, I think this is a great signal.

That one I don't mind, I'm talking about the "over the back" mechanic we see so often.

[Rich]

I call that the creeping death foul.

[APG]

Originally Posted by justacoach

APG:

Can you pull video of this infraction??

[osf777]

Thanks for the video. So now not only do you have the official signaling travel, you have an announcer telling us "he moved his feet," implying that taking steps was the infraction, perpetuating the myth further.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

I debate whether he did not have a foot over the 3-foot area...and I despise Texas.

As my name would suggest, I share your dislike for the shortbushorns, but I initially found myself wondering how far the player actually was from the designated spot. If anyone can successfully argue that he was still on designated spot (see next paragraph as to why I think it was the right call), the incorrect signal is even more egregious because it becomes more difficult to explain to the lay person the rule that the official felt was being violated. It is easy to see that he moved his "pivot" foot in excess of what would be allowed had this not been a throw-in and combined with a travel signal, why would the average fan question this?

Here's my case to support that he had left the designated spot:
1. The distance between the 3 point lines measured along the baseline is 41.5 feet (50 feet of court, 4.25 feet between sideline and 3 point line in the corner on both sides so 50ft - (4.5ft*2) = 41.5 feet).
2. The lettering along the baseline identifies the venue as the Consol Energy Center, which is 18 letters in length. As the lettering appears to start and end the same distance from the 3 point line on both sides, it is likely that a monospaced font was used (also note that it is in all caps making it easier to use a monospaced font in the absence of a lower-case L or a capital I). If we agree a monospaced font was used, then we know all of the letters are the same width.
3. The tricky step is that I don't know the exact distance from the 3 point line that the lettering starts/stops. I do feel relatively certain, however, that the word "ENERGY" falls entirely within the lane lines extended (I'm comfortable with this assumption because it would make the spacing of the word fit easier and have a better feel). Since the lane is 12 feet in width, the letters cannot measure more than 2 feet each in width. As spacing should be consistent between each character of a monospaced font, we can actually excluded calculations for spacing for the purposes of determining how far he actually moved.
4. The initial location of the player when the official handed/tossed the player the ball was at the first "E" in Center. Assuming the designated spot is located at the center point of the "E" (the player had one foot on each side of the point I would call the center of the "E") then 3 feet to either side would be the end of the adjacent letter on either side. There is 1 foot of "E" on each side of the center point and the adjacent letter is 2 feet, thus when the player was standing entirely on the "T" in center before releasing the ball, he would be more than 3 feet away from the designated spot, and thus a violation (but not a travel).

Now that I've gone at great lengths to support this being a violation, I do have a question for everybody else here that could change my opinion of this play. Do you consider the designated spot to be literally as "spot" as I did when supporting this being a violation? Is "spot" really just single point in space or is more like a player sized dot (e.g. in this case the entire area within the players frame is the designated spot and thus no violation as long as he has a foot on or over the area within 3 feet of the entire width of the "E", which in this case would extend half-way across the letter "T")?

[Adam]

Designated spot is three feet wide. Normally, the center of that spot is where the thrower is handed the ball. He only gets to go about 18 inches in either direction, but he also only needs to keep one foot on or over the spot.