LeBron Travel
 

The NBA refs didn't call it.... :eek:

https://www.facebook.com/69033983440...91878/?fref=nf

He only took 3 steps. The NBA rule allows 5. :rolleyes:

Et tu, officials?

1. Keep an eye on when he actually has control of the ball, then do a google search for "NBA Travel rule." Then decide whether what he did was illegal under the NBA code.

2. What took place is actually very close under the NBA code. If it's thatclose, leave it alone...especially if it's on an unguarded player 50 feet from the basket.

3. If that was the worst call that was made all night then the crew had a great game.

Travel? Yes. Advantage? No. Leave it alone.

When are people going to stop whining about travelling not being called in the NBA? As if those non-calls (if you can even call them that) hurt one's enjoyment of the game.

More relevant question, are you (officials here) calling a travel on that play in your highest level game?

Yes. I always called travels on plays like that in driveway games. :)

Yes, I'm calling that in everyone of my games. But my highest level game is not - and will not be - the NBA.

Forget about that travel or stroll in the park. How about the rake across Lebrons arms right in front of the lead not being called at the end of that game, a close game. Unreal miss of a blantant foul on a guy that gets more touch fouls called against his defenders than anyone in the league.

There's a scientific study that bares this out? :rolleyes:

I'm anxiously awaiting the peer-reviewed findings on this!

There it is, and this is why it frustrates us so. We little scholastic officials call it; why can't the "big guys?"

Yes, the rules are a bit different, and so is the financial incentive behind the rules. But some kids emulate these NBA players, and if they see something as legal at the "highest" level, they figure it's legal at all levels.

And you little scholastic guys also call a lot of things that are not violations. But that frustrates me too. Like the constant travel I see for a bobble of the ball. I have seen that called about 3 or 4 times already this summer. I can guarantee I will see that called several more times over the course of a summer, let alone over the course of the year.

Oh, and the NBA has different rules, just like the NFL has different rules than the lower levels. It happens, get over it. :rolleyes:

Peace

Yeah, that frustrates me, too.

I simply answered the question posed. I'm interested to hear if anyone would pass on this in a college or high school game. I think AremRed implied he would pass....

I also said that I don't work the NBA... I don't know the NBA travel rule and have no need to know it.

Note, too, that I have never been one to comment on the microscopic travels frequently posted here. I don't go looking for travels and probably call fewer than most all posters here. I can guarantee I miss more travels than calling travels that aren't there. But I'm also fairly certain I would call this one.

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

Thread brings up some premises I find interesting and think about a lot. Lets start with 2 and move on from there:

Premise 1: In relationship to the idea of marginal travels "I would rather miss one that was, then call one that wasn't."

Premise 2: Most travels happen when defense requires offense do something difficult or challenging generally on stops or finishes.

Thoughts on each:

P1 - I agree with the spirit of this premise when there are very few what we consider marginal travels in a game. As some posters have stated maybe 1-2 per game. My question becomes what is the number limit before you stop being comfortable? Is there one? If there are 5 marginal travels per game and you pass on them? If there are 20? You see where this is going . . . if we are not talking about missing/passing on 1 or 2 calls per game to avoid 1 incorrect made call, that is very different (In my mind) then missing/passing on a much larger number. What is tipping point? When is better to call 1 that might not be but make sure you get the 4 or 19 or x that were? We're not weighing 1 incorrect made call against 1 incorrect no call. What happens when the number of incorrect marginal no calls drastically outweighs what would be your 1 or small number of incorrect calls made?

P2 - I think that most travels marginal or otherwise happen on the defened take off when players are playing static 1 on 1 face up to the basket. The ball has to be released from the hand before the back foot is lifted. But i feel despite the way the rule is written and without caseplay support we as officials as a whole are much more generous with this then the language says.

There are no marginal travels. It was either a travel or it wasn't. The danger comes when you start saying it's okay to pass on a "marginal" travel, as opposed to some other kind of travel. This provokes the debate what is marginal? Call the ones you see, and pass on the ones you're not certain about. And this provokes the debate of how certain one must be, which leads some to use percentages.


Just call the game and be prepared to deal with the fallout. There generally will be some, no matter what you do or don't do.

my point was not to intentionally pass on a travel deemed "marginal." If I see a travel, I'm calling it. But if I am not certain, I'm not calling it. There are no percentages. In my judgment, it is either a travel or it is legal. That's as simple as it is during the game.

When I grade my film, it is a missed call either way. But it is easier to explain a missed travel than calling something that isnt there. This also makes it easier to improve... Perhaps my positioning was poor or I had a bad angle. I can work on these things to get better at picking travels up.

But if I am calling travels that aren't there, I'm guessing and making stuff up. Credibility goes down quickly when you guess.

I guess we can use whatever language we like but we know over the course of the game there are going to be travels we miss (watching contact, screened out, etc). There are also going to be (by letter of the rule) a number of plays that are travels but at game speed we just aren't sure enough/ too close to call. When we go back to the video we can see it or even in some cases have to slow it down enough to see it, but at game time we can't be/weren't certain enough.

I guess my feeling is this. If when you look at tape you see a number that were missed in real time because of real time there has to be an adjustment made. Now that could be a number of things:

A) Maybe the official in question just needs to get better at anticipating or looking for cues. Just make note of what they see and refine their craft.

B) Maybe the adjustment is to the rules. To eliminate guess work or plays that are difficult to the naked eye at game speed.

C) The adjustment might be to our expectation of clear and unclear. That if we are missing a volume a unsure travels, maybe officials need to be less sure and live with getting one wrong.

Lots of ways to skin a cat. I will just go on record as saying almost any high school game down to grass roots I watch from a fans perspective (NCAA and NBA are a little different animals in that they have mandates/ directives careers etc) officials are passing/ not seeing/ unsure/ mariginalizing - use whatever language you want - Travels on the take off. Unless there is a blatantly clear extra step in my experience watching games, officials will not or are at best very hesitant to make calls when the ball is still in contact with the hand when the back foot comes up to start a dribble.

I'm not saying for game management sake or what they can clearly see that this is wrong. Just that in an age where everything can be taken back and rewatched. If something illegal by rule is happening and not being called properly that is problematic and adjustments need to be made.

If you owned a buisness and you had a policy that was being ignored or couldn't be complied with you would either change the policy, change directives leading to its enforcement, or make sure it was being followed. You wouldn't maintain a policy that existed only as a written statement somewhere.

Phil Jackson on LBJ and travelling . . .

Phil Jackson: LeBron James travels every other time he catches the ball - LA Times

Because Shaq never travelled. :rolleyes:

Or that other guy. Jordan. Yeah, him....

To be honest I really haven't followed this thread because as Padgett says it is about the NBE, but I read this interview with Phil Jackson this morning and I thought it would be an interesting read for everybody: Phil Jackson, NBA's Lord of the Rings, Faces Ultimate Test: Saving the Knicks | Bleacher Report

The germane section is close to the end of the article.

MTD, Sr.

Not seeing anything at the end of the article.

It is a longer article that I expected when I clicked on it but toward the end of the article he gives his opinion of LeBron and his propensity toward traveling and how the NBA is less and less about team work than when he played.

MTD, Sr.

This

The reason we miss so many travels is probably cuz we are too busy reffing the defense.