About the travel

[feldspar]

I don't have time this morning to sift through all the threads and make sure this one doesn't fit anywhere else, so mods feel free to move it.

I thought a lot about the travel call overnight. I've come to the conclusion that the rule book, IMO, justifies the no-call.

Here's the entire section on fouls by the defense.


Art. 1. A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress
of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s) or by
bending his or her own body into other than a normal position; nor use any
unreasonably rough tactics.
Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his or her hand unless
such contact is only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is
incidental to an attempt to play the ball.
Art. 3. A player shall not use his or her hand(s) on an opponent to inhibit
the freedom of movement of the opponent in any way or to aid an opponent
in starting or stopping.
Art. 4. A player shall not extend the arm(s) fully or partially other than
vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when
contact with the arm(s) occurs.
Art. 5. A player shall not use the forearm and hand to prevent an opponent
from attacking the ball during a dribble or when trying for goal.
Art. 6. A player may hold his or her hand(s) and arm(s) in front of his or
her own face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent
charge by an opponent.
Art. 7. Contact caused by a defensive player approaching the player with the
ball from behind is pushing; contact caused by the momentum of a player
who has tried for goal is charging.

Nowhere in there can I find justification for calling a foul on a player who is just lying on the floor doing nothing who happens to have a guy land on him who then travels.

On top of not being able to find concrete justification for calling a foul there, the situation makes it hard to call as well. The #1 team in the nation scratched its way back from a 13-point deficit and now you're going to put them at the line with 2.8 seconds left to shoot free throws that would give them the game just because their player fell on a guy on the floor who was doing nothing?

But, you also can't call nothing. Fouls are subjective. Violations, 99 percent of the time, are not. A travel is a travel.

Thems the breaks.

[roywhite]

Nowhere in there can I find justification for calling a foul on a player who is just lying on the floor doing nothing who happens to have a guy land on him who then travels.



Interesting post; appreciate the thought and research.

But as to the justification for the call, what rationale is there for penalizing Henderson/Duke with loss of possession? What could he possibly have done---hit the hover button until he could spot a teammate and pass the ball? He made a great play, snatched the rebound and had no place to come down.

Maybe held ball/alternate possession?

In a close game, many plays decide the outcome, not just something in the last few seconds, but I'm glad this was January, not March. That call would have joined the no call for the hack on Boozer at the end of the IU game in 2002.

[feldspar]

Interesting post; appreciate the thought and research.

But as to the justification for the call, what rationale is there for penalizing Henderson/Duke with loss of possession? What could he possibly have done---hit the hover button until he could spot a teammate and pass the ball? He made a great play, snatched the rebound and had no place to come down.

Like I said, thems the breaks. Fouls are, for the most part, subjective. The same contact in two different situations is most likely going to get called two different ways. The situation dictates the call (again, for the most part).

Violations, on the other hand, are cut and dry. You step on the line, you're out of bounds. You dribble then pick up the ball and dribble again, it's a double dribble.

If you grab the ball in the air, then land and fall on your back, that's a travel. By rule. You can't parse that. You just can't. You can parse fouls, there's this, there's that, but you can't parse violations.

Sucks that he got put in that situation, but them's the breaks.

[Cavlaw]

I'm inclined to let this stand as its own thread to give additional visability to discussion about the rule, so long as the posts stay on point and do not devolve into terping about the refs.

[CameronCrazy'11]

I'd be interested to see what the rule book has to say about what constitutes a travel.

Also, couldn't this fall under the first definition of a travel (unusual body position)? It's just very hard for me to believe that a player unintentionally landing on another and falling constitutes a travel.

[brianl]

When the offensive "Hook" was called about two plays earlier hurt even more than the travel. The guys responded well on the other end and came back down the floor on the possession that Gerald tied the game.

All in All I thought it was a good job by the guys to stay within reach in a game that could have been put away on the WF foul line.

A loss in January hurts much less than one in March. An April loss hurts the most.

[killerleft]

I expect the ref made the correct call if he didn't consider Henderson to have been fouled otherwise. It's just too bad for us. Incredibly bad luck after some gutsy play by Duke. We deserved to take that game to overtime.

[dukeENG2003]

I think a foul call is justified under section 1, in that lying on the floor is not a "normal position". He clearly impeded Henderson's progress (not allowing him to land), in something that I think we can all say isn't "normal position".

In addition, if you watch the replay, it appears to me that he is not lying STILL on the floor, he's moving, and in fact rolls over at one point.

To say that this call cost us the game is wrong. However, I think its ludicrous to claim that this was the correct no call. If you want to argue game situation, thats another thing as well (games OFTEN aren't called to the letter of the rule book, and I can buy that as an explaination for the no call even). By rule though, in a vaccuum, this was a foul.

[DUKIECB]

I'd be interested to see what the rule book has to say about what constitutes a travel.

Also, couldn't this fall under the first definition of a travel (unusual body position)? It's just very hard for me to believe that a player unintentionally landing on another and falling constitutes a travel.

I am wondering about this as well. Can someone explain by the rulebook what makes it a travel. I'm sure it probably is, but I don't know why it is.

It does seem unfair to Henderson, as another poster said, what could he have done to avoid the travel? Nothing, other than letting go of the ball before he hit the ground. This seems like a lot to ask of a player who just made a great play, just to give up the ball. Can someone please enlighten us?

[pfrduke]

I don't have time this morning to sift through all the threads and make sure this one doesn't fit anywhere else, so mods feel free to move it.

I thought a lot about the travel call overnight. I've come to the conclusion that the rule book, IMO, justifies the no-call.

Here's the entire section on fouls by the defense.



Nowhere in there can I find justification for calling a foul on a player who is just lying on the floor doing nothing who happens to have a guy land on him who then travels.

On top of not being able to find concrete justification for calling a foul there, the situation makes it hard to call as well. The #1 team in the nation scratched its way back from a 13-point deficit and now you're going to put them at the line with 2.8 seconds left to shoot free throws that would give them the game just because their player fell on a guy on the floor who was doing nothing?

But, you also can't call nothing. Fouls are subjective. Violations, 99 percent of the time, are not. A travel is a travel.

Thems the breaks.

Question for you separate from whether or not a foul should have been called:

Was traveling a correct call? The actual sequence of the play is not 100% clear in my head, but as I recall, Henderson jumped, caught the ball in mid-air, sort-of landed on one foot/on Teague, and then fell down. Is that sequence of events traveling? I know you can't roll around on the ground, or get up from the ground without dribbling, but is it always a travel if you just fall to the ground while in possession of the basketball?

[feldspar]

Falling to the floor while holding the ball is a travel.


A.R. 110. Is it traveling when a player (a) falls to the playing court while holding the
ball
RULING: In (a), yes, because it is virtually impossible not to move
the pivot foot when falling to the playing floor.

G's foot did hit the floor before he fell to the floor.

[ACCBBallFan]

Does anybody know who had the possession arrow when Henderson was called for the travel? No way a refs calls a foul and G shoots FT's but if it a held ball, Wake might have gotten the out of bounds play anyway.

On a no call, G probbaly gets tied up anyway and back to the arrow question.

I have not confirmed it on TIVO yet but one poster said arrow was Wake's but ball would be placed into play from sideline rather than under the basket.

I do think that after the call and after Dino's timeout since K had none left, coach K should have inserted Zoubek or Miles to obstruct inbounder's view or Elliott/Olek for athleticism hounding all angles directly in front of inbounder.

I do not agree with posters who Monday morning QB and say don't guard the inbounder. Too much time for inbounder to get open or to do the old hit defender in back with ball and get a shot off the inbounds.

With regard to OP, I think others are saying Amino IIRC fouled G causing him to fall onto Teague. Regardless no way a ref gives the visiting team FTs at other end in that situation.

[pfrduke]

Falling to the floor while holding the ball is a travel.



G's foot did hit the floor before he fell to the floor.

thanks.

[SilkyJ]

If anybody knows the playcaller (mods, julio, bos) let's get him to chime in here, b/c this is now the third time something like this has happened to G, and he hasn't gotten the call ANY of the three times.

I already posted about the earlier two times (vs. GA Tech and Georgetown, see below) in the last playcaller thread, but he did not respond to any of the posts in there.



He DID take the foul, and the refs should have called it. What the playcaller didn't say was that the reason gerald threw the ball away (IMHO) was because of a play that occurred in the PREVIOUS game, which I almost posted about asking the PLAYCALLER why no foul was called (I think I know the answer). Given the play in the georgetown game, and on the off chance our referee-in-residence is reading this, here goes:

Late in the GA Tech game, GT was shooting FTs and they missed the last one (big surprise). Gerald rebounded the ball and as he did so he got way up (another surprise) and was bumped on the way down by the GT player and also a little by McClure, who was being pushed from behind by the GT player. Nothing crazy, but it was enough to throw him off-balance and he ended up falling as he landed, prompting the ref to call a TRAVEL and not a foul (Note: by the book he did travel, but only because he was fouled).

SO, when G got fouled against georgetown, and started to fall, he threw the ball away b/c last time he didn't receive the call.

I was incensed at the play in the GaTech game and wanted to know if I was wrong. The only argument I could understand for the Ref was that his view of Gerald being bumped was obscured by McClure who was in the ref's line of sight as he was looking at Gerald, so he may have thought McClure bumped him, but even then mcclure was being shoved by the GT player...

What should happen, imo, is that the ref in both scenarios would be waiting to be FORCED to call a foul. I.e. if Gerald has a little contact, but absorbs it and doesn't fall down, then there is no need to make a call there. Let 'em play. But since in the GaTech game he fell down and in the Georgetown game he fell AND turned it over, it should have been called a foul in both instances and you will have a VERY tough time convincing me otherwise.

[geraldsneighbor]

My gripe is that the officials need to know the stage of the game. Let the clock run out and let this go to overtime. A no-call would be all I am asking for and I don't think thats ridiculous considering G never had any position on the ground. When the whistle did blow in real time I thought they were calling a foul. Talk about going from excited to distraught in about 1 second.

[JStuart]

My only comment is that for the past several seasons, many situations like this -when a player holding the ball ends up with his feet in the air and his body on the floor- have not been called as traveling. When I was a kid, anytime a player had both feet off the floor, and some part of him was lying on the floor, it was an automatic travelling call. Now if G had passed the ball as soon as he hit the ground, and there had been no whistle, that would have been consistent with many of the calls I've seen over the past 2-3 seasons. Interestingly the same situation (UNC player grabs rebound, falls flat) happened under FSU's basket near the end of the UNC game last PM, and there was a foul called -of course- on FSU.
Onward!

[CDu]

Like I said, thems the breaks. Fouls are, for the most part, subjective. The same contact in two different situations is most likely going to get called two different ways. The situation dictates the call (again, for the most part).

Violations, on the other hand, are cut and dry. You step on the line, you're out of bounds. You dribble then pick up the ball and dribble again, it's a double dribble.

If you grab the ball in the air, then land and fall on your back, that's a travel. By rule. You can't parse that. You just can't. You can parse fouls, there's this, there's that, but you can't parse violations.

Sucks that he got put in that situation, but them's the breaks.

Where is this rule that if you catch the ball in the air and land on your back it's a travel REGARDLESS OF PIVOT FOOT? I fully understand the point that if you catch the ball in the air and your feet hit the ground and THEN you land on your back it's a travel, as you've established a pivot foot and then changed the pivot "foot." But if the first thing to touch the ground is your back, then your back is the pivot foot. It's the same situation when you collect a loose ball on the floor. Your body/back becomes the pivot foot, and thus you can't get up with the ball without dribbling.

No, I'm pretty sure the call should have been a no call both ways (not a travel). That said, the no-call would have resulted in a tie-up, which I think gave the arrow to Wake anyway. Who knows what happens then, but I think the call was wrong. HOWEVER, I'm not distraught about the call because it was a tough call, and I don't think it decided the game. It was a borderline call (visibly speaking), and we could have kept them from scoring anyway. I would NOT have called a foul on Teague either, as he had established his spot on the floor and did nothing to actively affect Henderson (his lying on the floor doing nothing is why Henderson fell, and that's not Teague's fault).

Now, if I'm wrong and Henderson's foot DID hit the ground first, then I agree that it's a travel.

[CDu]

Falling to the floor while holding the ball is a travel.



G's foot did hit the floor before he fell to the floor.

Did it really? If that's the case, then I agree with the travel call. However, I'm not convinced that that's the case.

[CameronCrazy'11]

Did it really? If that's the case, then I agree with the travel call. However, I'm not convinced that that's the case.

Even if that were the case, Teague was in an illegal guarding position when he caused Henderson to fall.

[OldSchool]

I would NOT have called a foul on Teague either, as he had established his spot on the floor and did nothing to actively affect Henderson (his lying on the floor doing nothing is why Henderson fell, and that's not Teague's fault).


I don't see how Teague's lying on the floor and thereby preventing Henderson from having a place to land is any different, in principle, from Teague undercutting Henderson. If Henderson had gone up for a rebound and Teague had undercut him while Henderson was coming down, causing G to fall down, that would have been a foul on Teague. Teague lying on the floor is not a legitimate basketball guarding position, and thereby preventing G from having a place to land is in my mind no different from an undercut.

The topic of undercutting brings back memories of the famous Kenny Dennard/Buck Williams encounter, which, as Dennard has maintained, was not an undercut at all but simply two strong men battling for a rebound, but Maryland fans nursed that grievance for years....

[CDu]

I don't see how Teague's lying on the floor and thereby preventing Henderson from having a place to land is any different, in principle, from Teague undercutting Henderson. If Henderson had gone up for a rebound and Teague had undercut him while Henderson was coming down, causing G to fall down, that would have been a foul on Teague. Teague lying on the floor is not a legitimate basketball guarding position, and thereby preventing G from having a place to land is in my mind no different from an undercut.

The topic of undercutting brings back memories of the famous Kenny Dennard/Buck Williams encounter, which, as Dennard has maintained, was not an undercut at all but simply two strong men battling for a rebound, but Maryland fans nursed that grievance for years....

Does Teague have any less right to that spot on the floor than Henderson?

Did Henderson jump straight up and come straight down, or did he jump towards the ball?

It's a tough call, I think, but I definitely think travelling was the wrong call.

Though again - if we make the stop defensively as we should have, it wouldn't have mattered.

[Kfanarmy]

A no call is exactly what was appropriate...both for a foul and for a travel.

I've seen multiple games this season where the exact same thing happened that occurred on Henderson's rebound. player catches the ball slips on a downed player and lands on the court...in almost every case, the play has continued, with the guy on the ground getting the ball to a team mate or being tied up by the opposition. Even heard one announcer say that it was a point of emphasis to officials this year that unless the player tried to stand up after falling, no call was to be made (don't know the validity of that statement, but seems to make sense from what I've seen in several games, including those that Duke has played) With 2.6 seconds remaining, the clock probably simply would have run out if the official doesn't call anything. after all, it didn't appear that he moved once he fell and I'm not sure he ever had feet on the court prior to the fall....has anyone any knowledge that this was a point of reference to officials? It was a huge call and impacted the potential for Wake to win the game in regulation...they made the play, I'm just not sure they should have been in position to.

[BigDuke6]

Well, here is how I see it:

Let's ignore the player (I believe the jersey number was 1) from Wake pulling Henderson down from the standing position. Let's also ignore what I thought was Teague (who was on the floor) pulling Henderson down. (I believe this is what I saw although I may be completely wrong on this.)

However, a foul would be called if a player undercuts a member of the opposite team that is going for a rebound or a jumpshot. This is called a foul as to protect a player that is exposed in the air and would allow the player to reestablish position on the floor whether the other player had the position standing on the court underneath him.

How is this any different for Teague if he is laying on the court? He does not allow the player to "safely" establish position and the resulting contact should be ruled a foul. (His actions, falling to the ground, led to the situation where the contact was created. He definately wasn't under Henderson's feet before he jumped for the rebound.)

I believe we are missing out on an effective strategy for our interior defense. We should have Z roll around the paint when opponents attack us inside as this seems to be more effective than him fouling.

The bad news is that two officials made the same call. From the position of both officials I cannot see how both of them clearly identified Henderson's single foot on the court. The official on the baseline had the best view at both feet. Maybe Henderson didn't land on Teague feet first but was pulled on top of him?

I'll stop rambling. It was tough call. I think it should have been rulled an incindental whistle and Duke awarded the basketball with 2.8 under the Wake baseline. There was no doubt that Henderson had possession of the basketball but then people would argue why not use the possession arrow. That's probably the rule for that situation anyway.

[dukeENG2003]

Does Teague have any less right to that spot on the floor than Henderson?

There are positions you can be in and legally hold your ground, and there are others where you cannot. Think of the standing straight up with your arms above your head (legal) vs. Standing with your arms out horizontal while a shooter jumps into you (this is a foul, regardless of how long you've been standing there like that).

Then there is the question of was he REALLY just laying there (I say watch it again, he was not stationary, even IF laying down in the lane is technically a legal guarding position.

[throatybeard]

Basketball sure has a lot of weird rules, if you think about it.

[Acymetric]

Falling to the floor while holding the ball is a travel.



G's foot did hit the floor before he fell to the floor.

I never noticed that during the game or subsequent replays, but I can't imagine you're lying, and if his foot hit the floor then a travel was reasonable. Is there anything in the rulebook regarding a player unintentionally tripping another player or tripping over a downed player? If there is, that would be what to look at, and if there isn't then by the rules it was probably a travel, though I think an argument could still be made that the "appropriate" call is to let play continue, likely resulting in a jump ball. His fall was caused by contact with another player, it just seems like that should be accounted for.

I don't blame the game on that though, if we had erased one of our many mistakes that would have made just as much of a difference. Thanks for the input/clarifications.

[geraldsneighbor]

I never noticed that during the game or subsequent replays, but I can't imagine you're lying, and if his foot hit the floor then a travel was reasonable. Is there anything in the rulebook regarding a player unintentionally tripping another player or tripping over a downed player? If there is, that would be what to look at, and if there isn't then by the rules it was probably a travel, though I think an argument could still be made that the "appropriate" call is to let play continue, likely resulting in a jump ball. His fall was caused by contact with another player, it just seems like that should be accounted for.

I don't blame the game on that though, if we had erased one of our many mistakes that would have made just as much of a difference. Thanks for the input/clarifications.


If you trip over a player it is a travel. The fact is G never established he was on the floor. That's where my disagreement comes in. As I said before, what would have been wrong with a no-call? Then the teams settle it in OT.

[CameronCrazy'11]

I never noticed that during the game or subsequent replays, but I can't imagine you're lying, and if his foot hit the floor then a travel was reasonable. Is there anything in the rulebook regarding a player unintentionally tripping another player or tripping over a downed player? If there is, that would be what to look at, and if there isn't then by the rules it was probably a travel, though I think an argument could still be made that the "appropriate" call is to let play continue, likely resulting in a jump ball. His fall was caused by contact with another player, it just seems like that should be accounted for.

I don't blame the game on that though, if we had erased one of our many mistakes that would have made just as much of a difference. Thanks for the input/clarifications.

From the official NCAA casebook


A.R. 97. B1 slips to the floor in the free throw lane. A1 (with his/her
back to B1, who is prone) receives a pass, turns and, in his or
her attempt to drive to the basket, trips and falls over B1.
RULING: Foul on B1, who has taken an illegal defensive position.
(Rule 4-35.4.a)


While not exactly the same, last night's situation seems very similar in principle. Teague was on the floor in an illegal defensive position. While in the illegal defensive position, Teague caused Henderson to fall.

[CDu]

From the official NCAA casebook



While not exactly the same, last night's situation seems very similar in principle. Teague was on the floor in an illegal defensive position. While in the illegal defensive position, Teague caused Henderson to fall.

Interesting. At first, I believe that the call should have been a no-call. I'm pretty sure Henderson's foot did not hit the ground. However, upon reading this, perhaps I'm rethinking my view. Based on that, I'd be more inclined to buy the foul argument.

That said, it was a vague enough situation, and given the "let'em play" nature of the officiating at that point in the game (not saying that's right, just saying that's the reality both ways), I'd have been okay with a no-call there.

[SilkyJ]

Does Teague have any less right to that spot on the floor than Henderson?


Once a player is in the air, he must be given space to come down. So if Teague was there before Henderson left the floor than he Teague wins, but if he falls there after Henderson is in the air, then I see it as no different than undercutting.

PLAYCALLER, will you get in here and clear this up?!?!

[JG Nothing]

See this video at around 3:10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOi2kelADoY&eurl=http://ballhype.com/video/jan_28_duke_v_wake_forest_last_2_minutes/
It looks to me like Teague falls to the ground after missing his shot and does not move as he tries to protect himself. Henderson goes up to block the shot, lands, and bounces next to Teague. With his feet squarely on the ground, Henderson goes up again for the rebound and ends up almost straddling Teague as his foot slips on the far side of Teague's torso. Teague never moves except after Henderson trips. I'm not sure if it matters, but Henderson did not jump and land vertically. Two of the referees simultaneously call traveling without hesitation.

[_Gary]

Two of the referees simultaneously call traveling without hesitation.

Are you kidding me? The ref under the basket most assuredly hesitated. In fact he looked to the other official before making the call. No way was that call "without hesitation."

[CDu]

See this video at around 3:10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOi2kelADoY&eurl=http://ballhype.com/video/jan_28_duke_v_wake_forest_last_2_minutes/
It looks to me like Teague falls to the ground after missing his shot and does not move as he tries to protect himself. Henderson goes up to block the shot, lands, and bounces next to Teague. With his feet squarely on the ground, Henderson goes up again for the rebound and ends up almost straddling Teague as his foot slips on the far side of Teague's torso. Teague never moves except after Henderson trips. I'm not sure if it matters, but Henderson did not jump and land vertically. Two of the referees simultaneously call traveling without hesitation.

If that's the case, it seems more reasonable to have a travel (if his fut hit the floor first) or a no-call (if his foot didn't hit the floor). However, the "illegal guarding position" question does make an interesting discussion. That would be an odd quirk of the rulebook.

If I were to make the call, I'd say "no call," as I don't think it should be Teague's job to get out of the way, nor do I think Henderson should be penalized for Teague being helpless below him. That may not be the letter of the law, but that should be the intent of the rule. A foul should be saved for actively gaining an advantage through contact, in my opinion. And a player shouldn't be called for a travel if he didn't actually travel.

[DukeDevilDeb]

I think a foul call is justified under section 1, in that lying on the floor is not a "normal position". He clearly impeded Henderson's progress (not allowing him to land), in something that I think we can all say isn't "normal position".

In addition, if you watch the replay, it appears to me that he is not lying STILL on the floor, he's moving, and in fact rolls over at one point.

To say that this call cost us the game is wrong. However, I think its ludicrous to claim that this was the correct no call. If you want to argue game situation, thats another thing as well (games OFTEN aren't called to the letter of the rule book, and I can buy that as an explaination for the no call even). By rule though, in a vaccuum, this was a foul.

It seems to me that "impeding usual play or progress" is the issue. It is hard to conceive of that being a foul... after all, he didn't deliberately lie on the floor and rock and roll just to get Gerald. On the other hand, the positioning of his body prevented G from coming down and NOT traveling.

It is a really tough position. I firmly believe that the refs shouldn't decide the game and, truth be told, we shouldn't have been in a position to lose on that call. However, it would be nice if there were a clean way to define why that went the way it did. If violations are cut and dried, I would like a clearer explanation than we've had thus far.

[JG Nothing]

Are you kidding me? The ref under the basket most assuredly hesitated. In fact he looked to the other official before making the call. No way was that call "without hesitation."

The referee under the basket immediately raises his hand to stop the clock after Henderson falls and then immediately signals traveling without ever looking at the referee coming up from the bottom left who also signals traveling. No I'm not kidding.

[_Gary]

The referee under the basket immediately raises his hand to stop the clock after Henderson falls and then immediately signals traveling without ever looking at the referee coming up from the bottom left who also signals traveling. No I'm not kidding.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I do NOT see the call as being "without hesitation".

[mehmattski]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I do NOT see the call as being "without hesitation".

Please specifically state where you see hesitation. In the video posted, all of the following happens within the 3:09 mark of the video (meaning, within one whole second):

1) Aminu's shot glances off the side of the rim.
2) Henderson jumps and grabs the rebound with Aminu at his back and Teague below his feet.
3) Henderson's right foot hits the ground to the right of the fallen Teague. Henderson's left leg is high in the air, almost parallel to the ground.
4) As Henderson's left leg is falling towards the ground, the baseline referee is already moving towards the play.
5) Henderson's right foot comes off the ground as his body lands to Teague's left. As the video ticks to 3:10, the baseline ref already has his hand in the air.

By 3:11, the near-side official runs in with his hand already raised, so I'm assuming he also blew his whistle at the same time. If there is any hesitation at all, it is between the whistle and the actual call, which both officials simultaneously make: travel.

I too am unclear on the ruling of whether Teague's seemingly innocent position (he doesn't appear to grab Henderson at all) on the floor should have constituted a foul. If it does not, it's a pretty clear travel. Henderon's left foot is on the ground, and then his right foot is, but his left foot is not. He changed pivot feet even before his back hit the ground. I was taught in middle school that if i had the ball and was on the ground, any movement of my feet would be considered a travel. In the absence of a foul, I believe that applies here as well.

[_Gary]

First of all, you are benefiting from slow-mo replay to determine that Henderson's feet touched the floor then left the floor for your diagnosis of the situation. The official under the basket most assuredly could not have seen all of that to make his decision. His view would have been blocked to have caught whether or not his right foot actually touched the ground first, then his left, then he picked up his right foot to technically create a travel. On top of that split second action, we have the fact that the so-called technical travel was created specifically because a player was directly underneath Henderson and did not allow him to freely establish himself. You can call a toe tap an establishment of a pivot if you want to, but when you are knocked off your balance by an opposing team's player that's a bit of a stretch. Now, if it were our own man causing that to happen, it's different. That's like two guys on the same team fighting over the rebound. But this is different.

On top of all that, the official underneath the basket clearly looked toward to the other official before he made the traveling call. He knew something had happened and blew his whistle. But he hesitated and looked over before making the traveling call.

[rsvman]

The baseline official decided to make a call immediately. Exactly what he was going to call appeared to take a fraction of a second.

The ref coming in from the top did not signal travelling until AFTER the baseline ref began his signal. My impression is that he blew the whistle and then looked to the baseline ref to see what would be called. They most certainly do not both signal travelling at the same time.

[JDev]

I think this play, whether the call was correct or not, is indicative of a larger problem that has existed about as long as I can remember. In the closing stretch of close games, refs typically try very hard to not make a deciding call. It is a product of the idea that players should decide the outcome, not the refs. In theory that is a good plan, but on some occassions it leads to fouls being basically permissable in late game situations (and I am not necessarily saying this play falls in that category). I wish that refs kept the same philosophy throughout, and the same thing that is a foul at the 18 minute mark, is still a foul in the final seconds. Refs don't want a hand in the game decision, but when a player is allowed to get away with something that is otherwise illegal, then they are having a hand. It is a really tough thing to do, and it seems that in some instances refs would just rather avoid being in that position.
I don't mean for this to sound like I am ragging on officials, because overall they do an amazing job at a very difficult duty. You take into account all the things they must be aware of and all the things they must be watching simultaneously, and in real-time in a fast-paced game, and the fact is the vast majority of the time they get the call right. That is amazing to me.

[sagegrouse]

I think this play, whether the call was correct or not, is indicative of a larger problem that has existed about as long as I can remember. In the closing stretch of close games, refs typically try very hard to not make a deciding call. It is a product of the idea that players should decide the outcome, not the refs. In theory that is a good plan, but on some occasions it leads to fouls being basically permissable in late game situations

You mean as in JJ's mugging by Okafor and UConn in the last minute in the San Antonio FF? You gotta make that call -- he was thrown to the floor.

Gerald's play was a travel and IMHO is always called that way.

Basketball is not a morality play. Duke lost two NC's where great defensive plays were punished by what happened next. There were partially blocked jump shots by Louisville and Arkansas in the NC games that fell into enemies hands resulting in dunks or lay-ups (against Arkansas, by Corliss Williamson and against UL by (?) Pervis Ellison). Scotty Thurman's game winner for Arkansas came after Antonio Lang went for a ball that was tipped by Duke; otherwise, Thurman would never had had a shot against Tony.

sagegrouse

[JDev]

You mean as in JJ's mugging by Okafor and UConn in the last minute in the San Antonio FF? You gotta make that call -- he was thrown to the floor.

sagegrouse

Unpleasant memory. Another that comes to mind was in 2002 in the Sweet Sixteen against Indiana. Jason Williams missed a late free throw, Boozer rebounded it and was hammered on his put-back attempt as the horn sounded. If I am not mistaken Matt Christianson had to be held back from attacking the refs. It is tough to do, but sometimes you need to make a late foul call. It is your job.

[roywhite]

For those who seem certain that Henderson traveled on that play, if you interpret the rules that way...what possible chance did he have not to travel?

How was he supposed to come back to earth? Where was he allowed to step? Was he supposed to just throw the ball out of his hands before coming down on another player or the floor? Or he made a mistake jumping because the floor was littered with players?

Come on...what is he supposed to do there?

[rsvman]

I'm not sure it matters whether he had another option besides traveling.

I'm not sure it was the right call, either, but I don't think the rule book gives an "out" because there was no other option.

In real time I thought the call was terrible, of course, but I was watching the game from a Duke fan's perspective. In retrospect, I'm not sure the call was wrong.

[chadlee989]

It should have been a no call. I see both sides and do not disagree with either one. However, when i watched the play on my dvr just a min ago it looks to me when G comes down i can not tell if his foot lands on the floor or if it lands on the Wake player. If you watch it again do not watch for his foot watch the WF players right leg. It is in a somewhat still position then all of a sudden his leg moves very fast appearing that G had landed on his leg causing it to move. Even if he did land on the WF player it should not have been a foul.

[MChambers]

I think this play, whether the call was correct or not, is indicative of a larger problem that has existed about as long as I can remember. In the closing stretch of close games, refs typically try very hard to not make a deciding call. It is a product of the idea that players should decide the outcome, not the refs. In theory that is a good plan, but on some occassions it leads to fouls being basically permissable in late game situations (and I am not necessarily saying this play falls in that category). I wish that refs kept the same philosophy throughout, and the same thing that is a foul at the 18 minute mark, is still a foul in the final seconds. Refs don't want a hand in the game decision, but when a player is allowed to get away with something that is otherwise illegal, then they are having a hand. It is a really tough thing to do, and it seems that in some instances refs would just rather avoid being in that position.
I don't mean for this to sound like I am ragging on officials, because overall they do an amazing job at a very difficult duty. You take into account all the things they must be aware of and all the things they must be watching simultaneously, and in real-time in a fast-paced game, and the fact is the vast majority of the time they get the call right. That is amazing to me.

I agree with you, and strongly disagree with the philosophy that you try not to call a foul in the final seconds. Remember the 1994 semi-finals, when Tony Lang realized the Florida guard was rushing, and drew a charge. Jerk in my office (ethical relativist, BTW) told me the next day that "You don't call that in the last minute." Ridiculous position to take.

[WojoSay?]

An earlier poster pointed to the casebook and he is correct.

I called a friend of mine today that played collegiately (Div. I) and now officiates to discuss the call. He advised that if Henderson landed on Teague on his way down, then it is a foul on the player laying on the floor---IF you blow the whistle. He indicated that he would have let the clock run out, considering the game was tied and the time left in the game. He told me you would not find a rule in the rulebook that outlines last night's play, but the casebook assists with

Oddly enough, my friend is pretty good friends with one of last night's officials.

We have the benefit of DVR, the refs don't so...NEXT PLAY.

[calltheobvious]

...could we let go of the no-call at the end of 2002? Not because Boozer wasn't fouled, but because this was a one-in-a-hundred situation in which all three officials were well-positioned and yet not a one had a clear look at the block/strip attempt.

Officials are rightly taken to task when they miss plays because they're out of position. But any time there's an issue, the first question should be Where was everyone relative to where they should have been?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQzAliZf54M

[feldspar]

I'm gonna say this one more time, then I'm washing my hands of this thread.

You cannot "no-call" a travel. You just can't. You can't "no-call" violations. You just can't.

You can justify calling or not calling a foul based on any number of factors. Distance, angle, advantage, disadvantage, etc etc. But violations are cut and dry. A travel is a travel. And you have to call it if you see it.

Period. End of story.

[dukebluelemur]

I'm not sure it matters whether he had another option besides traveling.

I'm not sure it was the right call, either, but I don't think the rule book gives an "out" because there was no other option.

In real time I thought the call was terrible, of course, but I was watching the game from a Duke fan's perspective. In retrospect, I'm not sure the call was wrong.

All you people harping on how the rulebook doesnt give the refs an out... for gods sake, youd think every travel that happens got called. Whether or not the rules "give an out" travel calls are clearly viewed as discretionary, when they are remembered at all.

(Though if were griping about calls... how bout the no-call on the out of bounds wake guy right before the 3 to close the first half? Didnt seem a huge deal at the time, but that was the difference in the game...)

[CDu]

I'm gonna say this one more time, then I'm washing my hands of this thread.

You cannot "no-call" a travel. You just can't. You can't "no-call" violations. You just can't.

You can justify calling or not calling a foul based on any number of factors. Distance, angle, advantage, disadvantage, etc etc. But violations are cut and dry. A travel is a travel. And you have to call it if you see it.

Period. End of story.

You keep saying that so definitively, but you keep overlooking the key discussion point. No one is arguing that a travel is not a cut-and-dry call.

People are question two OTHER issues. The first is whether or not Henderson's foot actually hit the ground. If it didn't, then it's not a travel. The second is whether or not Teague was in a legal guarding position. If he wasn't, and contact with him CAUSED Henderson to travel, it's not a travel.

So it's NOT cut-and-dry, as you said. Period. End of story.

[Lulu]

Well I guess, a la Laettner, the only option Henderson really had was to just stomp that foot down on Teague's chest and use it as his pivot foot.

This should have been a no call. If you've ever watched basketball, and I thought most people here had, this is almost always called a foul on the player on the ground. The only reason the ref shouldn't have called a foul is if he really thought Henderson just hit the ground, and didn't land on anyone.

As a side question, because I don't feel like searching through the rulebook right now, is it a travel if only 1 foot hits the ground and then your back? Is a pivot established with just one foot down, or do you not get to choose after both land? I think the rule says both feet should land at the same time in that case, but in every game you ever watch players on the move are allowed to use their 2nd landing foot as the pivot.

[dukeENG2003]

Feldspar:

This discussion reminds me of a game involving Georgetown in which a player was very SLIGHTLY pushed out of bounds near the end of the game at the other end of the floor as time was basically running out. As you say, violations are clear cut, fouls are not, but when a foul CAUSES a violation, you have to call the foul. In the Georgetown game, it was a wildly unpopular call (the player had no chance of scoring), but it HAD to be made or else the ball would go back to the opposing team in a position where they might be able to win the game and benefit from the no-call foul that had caused the violation.

[roywhite]

I'm gonna say this one more time, then I'm washing my hands of this thread.

You cannot "no-call" a travel. You just can't. You can't "no-call" violations. You just can't.

You can justify calling or not calling a foul based on any number of factors. Distance, angle, advantage, disadvantage, etc etc. But violations are cut and dry. A travel is a travel. And you have to call it if you see it.

Period. End of story.

This must be news to Tyler Hansbrough. He travels a lot and doesn't get called for it.

Coach Knight has said repeatedly that many instances of traveling are not called.

[6th Man]

If this was indeed a travel then I think the coaches need to get Brian Zoubek to lay on the ground when a shot goes up. That way when an opposing player lands on him and falls down they get the traveling call and we get possession. :D

[calltheobvious]

Feldspar:

This discussion reminds me of a game involving Georgetown in which a player was very SLIGHTLY pushed out of bounds near the end of the game at the other end of the floor as time was basically running out. As you say, violations are clear cut, fouls are not, but when a foul CAUSES a violation, you have to call the foul. In the Georgetown game, it was a wildly unpopular call (the player had no chance of scoring), but it HAD to be made or else the ball would go back to the opposing team in a position where they might be able to win the game and benefit from the no-call foul that had caused the violation.

There you go again, bringing up precedent;)

Ugh. It would take a thousand words or more to tease out the differences between the Henderson play and the Wallace-Stokes play you referenced, but it is nice to read some thoughts about the play that don't focus entirely on issues that could only be known with certainty using a frame-by-frame replay.

[Wander]

You can justify calling or not calling a foul based on any number of factors. Distance, angle, advantage, disadvantage, etc etc. But violations are cut and dry. A travel is a travel. And you have to call it if you see it.


I appreciate your effort to be objective, but this just isn't true at all. Just completely off the top of my head, Georgetown against Vanderbilt in 2006 and UNC against Villanova in 2005 had travels that contributed to those two teams winning their NCAA tournament games, but it's pretty much widely accepted by all non-Georgetown and non-UNC fans that they weren't called because the violations weren't that major and it was during the final seconds.

[calltheobvious]

I appreciate your effort to be objective, but this just isn't true at all. Just completely off the top of my head, Georgetown against Vanderbilt in 2006 and UNC against Villanova in 2005 had travels that contributed to those two teams winning their NCAA tournament games, but it's pretty much widely accepted by all non-Georgetown and non-UNC fans that they weren't called because the violations weren't that major and it was during the final seconds.

Apples, meet oranges.

You're confusing what the replay may show to be true with what the officials, making instantaneous judgments, know to be true.

[feldspar]

I appreciate your effort to be objective, but this just isn't true at all. Just completely off the top of my head, Georgetown against Vanderbilt in 2006 and UNC against Villanova in 2005 had travels that contributed to those two teams winning their NCAA tournament games, but it's pretty much widely accepted by all non-Georgetown and non-UNC fans that they weren't called because the violations weren't that major and it was during the final seconds.

Georgetown-Vanderbilt is a perfect example of why, when the masses come together and complain about a call or no-call, more often than not, mob mentality takes over rationality.

The only way to find the travel in that play is to play it in 4x slo-mo and zoom in on Green's pivot foot. It shifts maybe less than a quarter of an inch. Hardly enough to gain an advantage.

That's the problem with all of this armchair officiating. Refereeing isn't done from the comfort of a living room with a TiVo remote in your hand. It's split second decision-making with the best information you have available.

[Wander]

Hardly enough to gain an advantage.


True, but you're the one who said it doesn't matter if the player gets an advantage. A travel is a travel, remember? Doesn't matter about advantage, angle, game situation, etc....

I can appreciate that the two calls I referenced are extremely difficult to make in real time, but it's a bit naive to think the game situation wasn't a least a factor in the no-calls there.

[feldspar]

True, but you're the one who said it doesn't matter if the player gets an advantage. A travel is a travel, remember? Doesn't matter about advantage, angle, game situation, etc....

I can appreciate that the two calls I referenced are extremely difficult to make in real time, but it's a bit naive to think the game situation wasn't a least a factor in the no-calls there.

You missed the part where I said that you could only see it with slow-mo replay and zooming in.

The game situation wasn't a factor in the GTown/Vandy game because he didn't travel, at least not as far as any normal human being could have seen in real time.

[77devil]

You missed the part where I said that you could only see it with slow-mo replay and zooming in.

The game situation wasn't a factor in the GTown/Vandy game because he didn't travel, at least not as far as any normal human being could have seen in real time.

Not so in the UNC Villanova game in 2005. That was so obvious and easy to see my half blind labrador got up and barked. What's your expalnation for that no call?

[feldspar]

Not so in the UNC Villanova game in 2005. That was so obvious and easy to see my half blind labrador got up and barked. What's your expalnation for that no call?

I don't remember the play you're talking about. I'm not even sure I watched that game.

[rsvman]

There is no logical explanation for why the travel call was not made in that game, as far as I can tell. Except that the TarHeels get all the calls.;)

[phaedrus]

I appreciate your effort to be objective, but this just isn't true at all. Just completely off the top of my head, Georgetown against Vanderbilt in 2006 and UNC against Villanova in 2005 had travels that contributed to those two teams winning their NCAA tournament games, but it's pretty much widely accepted by all non-Georgetown and non-UNC fans that they weren't called because the violations weren't that major and it was during the final seconds.

In the UNC-Villanova game, wasn't a phantom travel called on Villanova rather than a real travel ignored on UNC?

[Wander]

In the UNC-Villanova game, wasn't a phantom travel called on Villanova rather than a real travel ignored on UNC?

Aw snap. I think you're right. So not only did I reference something that wasn't true, but I referenced something that completely supports feldspar's argument. I'm an idiot. I'm going to forfeit this one...

[SilkyJ]

In the UNC-Villanova game, wasn't a phantom travel called on Villanova rather than a real travel ignored on UNC?

I only vaguely remember this, but according to my dad a travel by Sean May was ignored

[Lulu]

BUMP

Where O' where is Playcaller when we need him?

[captmojo]

Unpleasant memory. Another that comes to mind was in 2002 in the Sweet Sixteen against Indiana. Jason Williams missed a late free throw, Boozer rebounded it and was hammered on his put-back attempt as the horn sounded. If I am not mistaken Matt Christianson had to be held back from attacking the refs. It is tough to do, but sometimes you need to make a late foul call. It is your job.

An in-bounds play for Indiana, earlier in this game where the passer took somewhere in the neighborhood of five or six steps along the sidelines before the pass was made, (not after a made basket - it was a sideline in-bounds following a violation whistled against Duke) made me scream. I was even more frustrated by the lack of notice from the TV announcers.

[-jk]

An in-bounds play for Indiana, earlier in this game where the passer took somewhere in the neighborhood of five or six steps along the sidelines before the pass was made, (not after a made basket - it was a sideline in-bounds following a violation whistled against Duke) made me scream. I was even more frustrated by the lack of notice from the TV announcers.

Steps are OK - it's not a "traveling" call (in the traditional sense) on a set inbounds play but a throwin violation.

The player throwing the inbounds pass must keep one foot on or above a 3' wide (I think) lane. He can move forwards or backwards and shuffle his feet to his heart's content so long as one foot remains within the lane.

I'll grant 5 or 6 full sized steps would be too much for the 3' lane. 5 or 6 shuffles wouldn't be.

-jk

[captmojo]

Steps are OK - it's not a "traveling" call (in the traditional sense) on a set inbounds play but a throwin violation.

The player throwing the inbounds pass must keep one foot on or above a 3' wide (I think) lane. He can move forwards or backwards and shuffle his feet to his heart's content so long as one foot remains within the lane.

I'll grant 5 or 6 full sized steps would be too much for the 3' lane. 5 or 6 shuffles wouldn't be.

-jk

Was this remembered by anyone other than me and Son of...?