What some of us are saying is look for elephants, not ants. As I mentioned earlier, the play in question is very close under the NBA code. If it's that close err on the side of letting it go. We'd say the same thing if he took one fewer step and this was an NF or NCAA game. If it's that close you'd better be sure when it's a real speed since you only have one chance to get it right.

I know I've missed travels in similar situations in NF and NCAA games but I also know why: If someone is unguarded and 50 feet from the basket I'm assuming they can dribble the ball without tripping over themselves. I'll glance up court to see if there are any match-ups that need watching. The few times I've missed a "mini-travel" for that reason I've admitted as much to the affected coach. They may not have been thrilled but they also know I was still engaged in the game.

Common attitude amongst officials on this board and whom I've met, in regards to traveling and violations. Is if you are sure you make sure that you get it and clean it up, and if not you let it go. Also most officials would rather not call something then call something wrong. Finally whether most officials call it game management or advantage disadvantage they apply the same ideas we use on calling fouls to calling violations.

I agree with aspects of this viewpoint and accept that when in Rome . . .

My only concern seems to be the idea that if you call it and get it wrong that is somehow worse than no calling/missing and call and being found wrong later. Maybe in terms of game management or perception coaches/fans are more accepting of no calls/missed calls than incorrect game calls.

ie. If Johnny doesn't travel and I call it a travel. That is somehow worse than Johnny traveling but me missing it/ no calling it.

I get the in the moment one looks worse, but when analysing tape and performance aren't both mistakes? At some point getting 99% of the calls you make correct, but that tape showing you that you are no calling or missing calls that are violations, there has to be some balance. If lets say 40% of the take offs by players in a game are travels by rule, but only 5% are blatant 35% were close in real time (too close to call?). If we get all the blatant ones we all agree and everyone is happy. There are still 35% of 1 particular action that we are no calling incorrectly to avoid incorrectly calling one. Isn't that a problem too? IME it certainly doesn't get treated as a big deal.

This has been me rambling. Sorry for the length as I try to work through what I am thinking on this issue.

I agree with this. Good point on looking up court for potential matchups in this situation, and potentially missing as a result.

LeBron Travel #2
 

I also find it interesting that the trailing official probably couldn't see the status of the ball - unless he has x ray vision and can see right through LeBron's torso.

Can't (DON'T) call what you can't see.

I can live with a small travel but the illegal screens especially the ones golden state sets.

That last 3 that curry hit BOTH screeners slammed their shoulder into the defender.

NBA said Lee's screen was illegal but only because he grabbed Shumpert's leg after setting a legal screen.

Maybe officials nowadays are so worried about the price they have to pay on their careers for a few wrong calls that they rather pass a not so sure call than risk calling it.

But to me, making a bad call is as bad as not calling a bad foul, just that a bad call would be more prominent compared to an uncalled foul. Both can actually cost the other team their game.

Especially in todays world where replays can be easily accessed, & referees judged, compared to back in the 60's. Also making unsure calls on the leagues best player poses much risk to one's career.

Yes, in your example missing a 'bad (obvious) foul' is bad. Calling a foul that isn't there is also bad.

But on a marginal travel, it is worse to call one that is not there vs not calling one that is there.

No they are not.

They (especially travelling) are a LOT different. The definition of the gather is extremely different, and on this particular play, happens WAY later than you probably think it does.

This one MIGHT actually be a travel, but it took me freeze-framing it several times to even get to "Might" - at real speed, the instant the ref decided the gather started only has to be about 4-5 frames later than I thought it was (in slo mo) for this to not be a travel at all under NBA rules. And if it's THAT close, the ref should let it go.

but most of the time, the extra steps travel happens when Defensive doing a great job at stopping the offense, the offense got caught in traffic and forced to take an extra step to gain advantage over the defender & scores.

if you play basketball you'll know as a defender when the ball handler ended their dribble you can easily tell when they are going up, but you will be totally caught by surprise when the ball handler takes an illegal extra step to get past the defender for an easy layup. that's an unfair advantage over the defender, especially it's a championship deciding game like NBA Finals. And it doesn't just happen once or twice in 1 game.

There was a comparison essay written here by some guy who compares FIBA/NBA/WNBA & maybe NHSF, they look pretty similar except for WNBA, i don't know what definition is different between NBA & the rest, but i believe "Dribble ended when the ball comes to a rest on a player" is about the same?

The NBA and the WNBA rule is the same.

There are situations where what is illegal under NFHS/NCAA rules is completely legal under the pro rul set. There are also situations that are completely legal under NFHS/NCAA rules that would be illegal under pro rule sets.

are you sure NBA is the same with WNBA rules, the summary says something about if the player catches the ball in the air, lands 1 foot 1st the other later, the later foot is the pivot in WNBA.

https://www.google.com.my/url?url=ht...d3wFx39cCn1H8g

Yes I'm sure. In your scenario, the first foot would be the pivot after the second foot landed