The 9-step pivot
 

Kendrick Perkins of the Cavs takes 9 steps with no travel called. I know it's the NBA but at least make an effort.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6MZTh6qRgA


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z6MZTh6qRgA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He's not pressured, he's not moving from his spot on the floor. Why is anyone surprised nobody noticed the travel -- do you folks stare at the ball handler's feet when he's not pressured?

I don't stare at a players feet but I try to stay far enough away and maintain a good angle in order to be able to see the entire player. I actually think the travel here was probably easier to catch earlier rather than later. I can see your point about not staring at his feet but in the first few steps after initial catch is when the travel seems most obvious to me. You would think someone should have been watching that action.

On second thought, it was Kendrick Perkins, so the crew was probably looking for off-ball fouls against players trying to get open for a pass from Perk. I'm a Thunder fan and a FoP (Friend of Perk; his semi-unofficial fan club while he was in OKC), but everyone had to know he wasn't going to make a move to score the ball.

I'm guessing they'll regret not getting this.

Stare, no. Notice, yes. That's our job. Identify the pivot foot. Pivot foot up + pivot foot down = travel.

This guy took nine steps, because we allow these fundamentals to erode.

He took 9 steps because he has no business with the ball in his hands more than 3 feet from the rim. The refs missed it, likely because they never see him with the ball more than 3 feet from the rim and he wasn't being guarded. It happens.

It reminded me so much of the YMCA games I've done where the biggest kid on the court suddenly finds himself with the ball and no clue what to do next.

Rich, this one is a bit much even for you to defend.

Not defending, just not surprised.

Doesn't appear anyone there actually cared, either, so why should we?

man that was funny. I think HS and college refs would have seen it but NBA really teaches to watch off-ball stuff and to know the players. KP isn't going to do anything there.

I am with Rich on this one. Yeah you could have called it, but like Rich said, no one really would have cared.

Peace

No travel, no advantage.

I might buy that for 2 or 3 steps, but this is just embarrassing to miss (and I'd bet the official responsible for this would agree).

So, if a player steps OOB with no one on them and doesn't get anything out of it, it is not a violation either? (Violations are not advantage/disadvantage situations).

Sure they are, despite all the hand-wringing. I'm sure you've seen someone with a foot on the far lane line for more than 3 seconds and haven't called it.

Bad example. The 3-second rule has been clearly communicated to have a specific purpose and that isn't it.

I reiterate....OOB, how far out is tolerated and in what situations?

You want to use your example to prove a point and I want to use mine. Both are violations.

The travel - he's not using the footwork to gain any advantage whatsoever.

I agree this is one nobody wants to miss, mainly because of the press this is getting, but I find it really hard to get bent out of shape over this stuff.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not in the NBA.

Advantage Disadvantage ...
 

Disagree.

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

Agree.

Ten seconds to shoot a free throw.

Others have pointed to inbounder with foot a half-inch over the boundary on a backcourt throwin with no defensive pressure, or a slight "carry" in the backcourt with no defensive pressure; but do not include me as a proponent of the last two.

9.2.5 SITUATION A: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps onto the court inbounds. A1
immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact
with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on
the throw-in team. RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or
not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent,
it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

If a player steps out of bounds with the ball I'm calling it.

If a player off the ball has a foot in the lane and I've got other things to worry about and nothing is happening or impacting the play then no. BUT if its happening all the time and clearly allowing player/players to have better position to run offense, get deeper post ups later or get rebounding position . . . they are getting an advantage by me not calling the violation. So we're going to have lots of verbal warnings early in game so when I need to get you later in the game you aren't shocked.

Traveling is a whole different animal. You've got possesion of the ball. The on ball defender and off ball defenders are making decisions based what you can and cannot do by rule with the ball. At high levels this includes which is your pivot foot, your court position and tendencies. Unless we are talking about an unguarded take off by the dribbler 90 feet from the rim with the defense 40 feet away . . . I feel like you've got to get those travels. The fact that he isn't "doing" anything does not mean its not impacting the game. How defense aligns or reacts, what passing angles or positions he gets all change.

Soap Box Rant not specific to OP: Call the travels. Defenders don't have hand check or be as physical to defend the ball if players don't get an illegal take off. If teams and players have to spend time teaching and enforcing footwork rather then on ball screen defense, their 4th zone defense, or the 21st set play or counter. You'll get games with more flow and better basketball players eventually. If you want more skilled kids make kids and coaches need to make players with footwork and manipulative skills not live in the weight room and on defensive tactis/ball control offense. If you want the offense to get more steps change the rule (NBA) if not have the game called and taught the way the rules expect. Thank you for your time.

As if we need a reason to be annoyed by Jay Bilas.... Several years ago in the tournament there was defensive pressure in the last few seconds of a game, (I don't remember the teams) a bump caused the dribbler to step out of bounds, and a foul was called, which led to game winning free throws. Bilas made a big deal of it and said the contact and the OOB should have all been ignored. The other announcer double checked. "You're saying the official should ignore this whole sequence?"

Bilas: "The good ones would."

I don't object to Bilas as much as some here, but this one really got to me. But the other part is that I assume Bilas isn't the only one who feels this way.

So, enlighten me. Is there anyone here, who ever, for any reason, would deliberately ignore a dribbler stepping on the sideline?

Special Olympics (and only in some circumstances).

Special Olympics (and only in some circumstances).

And that is the only time I'm letting a player take 9 steps and not get a whistle either.

I was referring to "real games" but your answer speaks volumes.



"We might not even allow that in Special Olympics, bless their little hearts."

Special Olympics Unified Games ...
 

Once upon at time, the NBA had a "forced out" rule, which I believe could have been applied in this scenario instead of calling a foul. *Now* I can't believe a single ref in the league would ignore the OOB and the foul.

Georgetown vs Villanova - 2008 Maybe?
 

There is the sublime, and there is the ridiculous. This play falls in the latter.

I think I'd argue he's actually gaining an advantage. The common thought of advantage is probably position with respect to the hoop, but he was looking to pass from minute one. First off, he probably traveled initially which got him out of the key, preventing a 3 second violation or forced quicker pass, which is an advantage to him on that play. Second, he continued to back up, giving him an increasingly better view of the court to pass from.

So in this case, I think he traveled AND there was an advantage in positioning gained.

All in all, this is probably a great "Training Video" for novice NBA refs who are migrating from NFHS or NCAA into NBA or NBDL as it teaches them how to ingnore egregious travel violations---admittedly, it will take a long time for novice NBA refs to pass on making that call.

While this might constitute advantage in your mind, the NBA would probably not agree.

It's simply a missed call...no more, no less. This is a play that the league would want called regularly.

Exactly. I never said it shouldn't be called. I just said that I can see how they missed it.

About a player stepping out of bounds being a violation:

I don't get this post. Sarcasm?

Depends. Camron never specified what kind of stepping OOB the player was doing. If Camron meant to imply that the player had the ball and stepped OOB, it's obviously a violation and my comment is sarcasm. If Camron meant an off-ball player stepping OOB then that's obviously nothing and my comment can be taken literally.

And no I don't think OOB violations can be subject to advantage/disadvantage. Some violations like OOB are black and white, while some like traveling, carrying, etc. are much more gray and thus can be subject to A/D.

I think in context, it was obvious to me that he meant a player with the ball, given that's the only situation where "stepping out of bounds" is always a violation.

Player with the ball.

Sort of like this player, with the the ball, where the facts (holding the ball, feet moved several times, etc.) are not in dispute. There is no good reason to argue that it is OK to not call this play a travel anymore than the same player stepping OOB with the ball.

And I generally don't think that traveling is so much advantage/disadvantage call. There is nothing authoritative I've ever heard or read to suggest otherwise. Most of the cases where traveling (and even carrying) is disputed, unlike this one, have a definite advantage.

Advantage Disadvantage Judgment Observation ...
 

Agree. But some travels are tough to call for some officials. Even here on the Forum, when different officials view the same video, we can't always agree upon a travel call.

Out of bounds is different. A player either steps on the boundary, or doesn't. If an official sees it, it's never passed on, and is always called.

I don't think travels are difficult to see from the standpoint that we all see the same footwork and movements. What becomes problematic is ideas like gathered, released, control. There are very fine points in terms of when we feel the player has collected/controlled the ball, when we feel like then could dribble again, and when we can see the ball come out of contact with their hand. This is why I feel (that much like fouls) in an area or association you should be watching video and coming to a relative consesus on what you are going to consider things like:

- clearly released
- gather
- dribbling motion etc.

And, according to the actual dribble/travel rules, there is no such thing as "gather". When the ball comes to rest in a hand to end the dribble, it is being held. There is no mystical 3rd status between dribbling and holding unless they lose player control. It doesn't require that they squeeze it between two hands and pull it in to some magic spot. Gather may be a valid NBA term but it doesn't exist at other levels and applying it to them is not currently supported by the rules.

Yep, and just fleshing this out a bit.

The point at which you would call a double dribble if the player proceeds to dribble is the point at which you should consider the ball to be "held" for purposes of pivot foot establishment.

So, in the play being discussed, maybe the officials didn't think he was holding the ball . . . :D

That's not necessarily true. Say a player stumbles then lunges and barely touches the ball with both hands, that would end the dribble but there could be a loss of control.

Oh, I just think they missed it. Digging any deeper than that is pointless. :D

Fair point, but I'd say the guideline would only apply to determining when a player began holding the ball. If he's not holding it as he stumbles, or even if he fumbles at some point before moving, a travel wouldn't necessarily apply.

The point in my post ('unless they lose player control") to which he responded covered that possibility. Loss of control would always end any possibility of a travel. But, I think, that in most cases, control is not lost between the end of the dribble and what immediately follows.

Or a carry....since a carry is just the ending of one dribble by allowing the ball to come to rest in a hand (holding it) and the immediate start of another dribble.

Remember that double (illegal) dribble and carry were once, not all that long ago, the same violation. They only split out carry to improve the communication of what happened. They did not a change the rules of what was or was not legal.

Perhaps not, but that concept is used on courts at lower levels all across the country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've seen plenty of officials call reaching fouls, over the back, and illegal dribbles for a high dribble, too. That doesn't make it correct.

It may not be the biggest issue on the table but don't you think the rules makers would just change the rule or make even ONE statement to that effect if that is really how they wanted it called?