VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Mon March 28, 2005 09:49:30
Author: Dan-O'Girth93
Subject: Villanova travel call

I feel the referee made a gutsy call but we may never know if a traveling violation was his first intention here for blowing his whistle.

Why do I think it was a good call? Because you are not allowed to replant your pivot foot once lifted, after it has been established. I would argue that it therefore was a travel because his left foot was the established pivot foot when he picked up his last dribble. He took a step with his right, lifted his left, and then replanted the left foot near the lane.

One thing I do want to mention though is that the traveling violation is not a matter of how many steps. The rule book does not accord any stipulation to the number of steps. Never has. It is all about what you do with your pivot foot. It is the same reason why that Kevin McHale duck under move is NOT a travel, although generally looks like one. You could make the reverse argument here in that it did not look like a travel but if you look at the rule book it clearly was.

Let's break down the play:

Ray picks up his dribble while he is making his move to the basket (may I add, near the 3 point arc). His left foot is on the floor, his right foot is in the air taking that big step to the lane, blowing past his UNC defender Melvin Scott. He does not dribble again. His left foot (just inside the 3 point arc) is therefore his pivot foot, even though momentum is driving toward the lane and for all it looks like he might dribble once more. But he does not dribble again.

His right foot hits the ground and his left foot comes off the ground. Nothing wrong there. But then his left foot hits the ground and you have your traveling violation. There is contact, he shoots, he scores but he traveled before there was contact and before he took his shot. Yes, there was some contact but none worthy of a foul call, especially since he travelled first.

This was not one of those hop step deals where you are seemingly allowed to take off from mid-court and do a triple jump on your way to the basket and, as long as you land on both feet simultaneous, you are allowed to elevate for a shot...

I expect people to disagree with this assessment but these are the rules, which are often forgotten about when it comes to traveling and carrying (which is really a double dribble because you have let the ball come to rest in your hand and therefore have stopped one dribble and begun a new one).

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.