It appears to me in the video (I acknowledge we have the benefit of slow motion and the refs didn't), that Ruth gives up his pivot foot before he starts the upward motion of his "shot". Answer me this, if Pangallo wasn't there and Ruthsatz takes the step in while moving the pivot foot prior to the shot attempt, would that not be a travel? He had stopped his dribble, established his pivot foot, took a step with the non-pivot foot while lifting the pivot then "shoots".

 

I don't believe it is traveling till he lands on the ground.

It's only a travel if his left foot comes back down with the ball in his hands. You can pick up your pivot foot, and it's not a travel. It's not until you put your pivot foot back down that it becomes a travel.

 

Learn something new everyday. Thanks nees! :thumb:

 

(For the record I'm a baseball guy that just enjoys watching basketball.)

It appears to me in the video (I acknowledge we have the benefit of slow motion and the refs didn't), that Ruth gives up his pivot foot before he starts the upward motion of his "shot". Answer me this, if Pangallo wasn't there and Ruthsatz takes the step in while moving the pivot foot prior to the shot attempt, would that not be a travel? He had stopped his dribble, established his pivot foot, took a step with the non-pivot foot while lifting the pivot then "shoots".

 

 

He did not travel and it would not have been a travel had he performed that same move without Pangallo being there.

 

Why? In order to have a travel the pivot foot has to be lifted and THEN returned to the ground BEFORE the ball is released. It's the simple. Doesn't matter what the non-pivot foot does. When you hear fans/coaches screaming "travel" it is often when they see the non-pivot foot moving. Refs miss it as well. It happened yesterday on a call against Schult. His non-pivot foot took some funky steps but his pivot never moved. Still got banged for a travel.

I do not call a foul on Pangallo there. It definitely was not traveling on Ruthsatz. With that much contact, I don't know how it could be a no call. I am calling the foul on Ruthsatz. Any time you purposely jump that far directly into a defender and create the contact, I think you have to call it a charge.

I agree with this. I think because of the speed of the game, it's a difficult call. However, players with a reputation get calls like that. Smart by him. Now, I've always contended that you won't get that at the next level, ever. But smart players change and adapt their games. I'd have called offensive foul or no call and let it go. I'd totally disagree with a defensive foul call there. And I assume that was the call, correct?

I agree with this. I think because of the speed of the game, it's a difficult call. However, players with a reputation get calls like that. Smart by him. Now, I've always contended that you won't get that at the next level, ever. But smart players change and adapt their games. I'd have called offensive foul or no call and let it go. I'd totally disagree with a defensive foul call there. And I assume that was the call, correct?

 

Correct. A defensive foul was called on Pangallo.

It appears to me in the video (I acknowledge we have the benefit of slow motion and the refs didn't), that Ruth gives up his pivot foot before he starts the upward motion of his "shot". Answer me this, if Pangallo wasn't there and Ruthsatz takes the step in while moving the pivot foot prior to the shot attempt, would that not be a travel? He had stopped his dribble, established his pivot foot, took a step with the non-pivot foot while lifting the pivot then "shoots".

 

Nope, not a travel. Lifting it to shoot...it is somewhat awkward though, but think of it as him doing an "up and under" post move, but from 20 feet...would be similar footwork.

I think this is one of those situations when you see it at real speed it easily could be a foul. BUT I would venture to guess that IF the officials saw this in slow motion that they would agree a no call might have been best.......OR one of those "phantom travel" calls we get sometimes rather than calling an offensive foul.

I will say that I have seen this called a travel many times. I used this type of move often when I played. If down low around the basket, I would pivot a couple or three times, then would jump left or right when I saw an opening to get an open shot or go to the rim. More than a few times a ref called me for traveling.

He did not travel and it would not have been a travel had he performed that same move without Pangallo being there.

 

Why? In order to have a travel the pivot foot has to be lifted and THEN returned to the ground BEFORE the ball is released. It's the simple. Doesn't matter what the non-pivot foot does. When you hear fans/coaches screaming "travel" it is often when they see the non-pivot foot moving. Refs miss it as well. It happened yesterday on a call against Schult. His non-pivot foot took some funky steps but his pivot never moved. Still got banged for a travel.

 

I did not know that about the foot having to return to the ground hence why I asked. I know that it doesn't matter about the non-pivot foot. Thanks for the clarification!

As most of you know I am not a basketball guy but watching that video, especially the slomo at the end, it is no question an offensive foul and in my book it should be an intentional foul on Ruthsatz.

I did not know that about the foot having to return to the ground hence why I asked. I know that it doesn't matter about the non-pivot foot. Thanks for the clarification!

 

I only brought up the non-pivot foot to say that it can create the illusion of a non-existent travel call.

As most of you know I am not a basketball guy but watching that video, especially the slomo at the end, it is no question an offensive foul and in my book it should be an intentional foul on Ruthsatz.

 

 

 

It doesn't come close to meeting the definition of an intentional foul.

As most of you know I am not a basketball guy but watching that video, especially the slomo at the end, it is no question an offensive foul and in my book it should be an intentional foul on Ruthsatz.

You football guy, not an intentional foul. If that had been the call, it would have become a football game in the stands.:thumb:

As most of you know I am not a basketball guy but watching that video, especially the slomo at the end, it is no question an offensive foul and in my book it should be an intentional foul on Ruthsatz.

 

The intentional foul angle is interesting. There is zero doubt in my mind that Ruthsatz did intentionally create the contact. I have never seen that called an intentional foul, but that clearly was intentional by Ruthsatz.

It doesn't come close to meeting the definition of an intentional foul.

 

Give us the rule please.

 

By the way, big thank you to Walter for getting the video on this.