I don't think they ever say they "can't" move... but they frequently give the "up and down the baseline" hand gesture when they "can" move.
Traveling Call
- Thread starter colbert17
- Start date
I don't think they ever say they "can't" move... but they frequently give the "up and down the baseline" hand gesture when they "can" move.
you had better make sure that it hits him.....if Edy is smart enough, he jumps out of the way and the ball goes mid court, and the clock does not start till touched by someone else....with that, you can have a last second shot.
I ref HS basketball, called it in my living room as soon as it happened
Right call
The 4th foul on McConnell however was one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen.
That was a travel on Purdue
You don't need to be in one spot when inbounding the ball nor do you have to have a pivot foot like a regular traveling call. You have a three foot area to operate in. Here's an explanation of the rule:
Traveling Out of Bounds: A. Any out of bounds play other than after a made basket – The person taking the ball out of bounds must stay within a three foot area of the place where the referee administers them the ball. The person inbounding the ball may move both feet, however, if they step beyond the three feet area, it is a violation.
Traveling Out of Bounds: A. Any out of bounds play other than after a made basket – The person taking the ball out of bounds must stay within a three foot area of the place where the referee administers them the ball. The person inbounding the ball may move both feet, however, if they step beyond the three feet area, it is a violation.
All he had to do was bounce the ball off Edey and game over
And right at the opponent's bench? He had defenders on both sides of him, none 3 feet away. Ref screwed that up then penalized Rutgers for it.
A good official will do that because they usually don't want to make that call. Also one of our assistants should have reminded caleb.
that part I agree with, they have to give the in-bounder some room...... but even with no room, Caleb could have thrown the ball down towards the RU basket where it could be run down by either team, or as some mentioned, bounced off the big center guarding him...
he just could not move his feet.....even if he was crowded, he didn't have to move his feet at all, and still get it done.
Ref in a bind there. Inadvertent trip. Technically not a foul but when two players go down they always call something. Blocking call was the easiest out.
It was probably one of the officials from the Ohio State game that made tonight’s last second call on Caleb.
I would like to know if the official warned that your feet can’t move (travel). Every good official gave that pre-emptive warning to remind the inbounder.
Guy elbows Simpson in face - foul on Rutgers
Guys steps on Caleb’s foot and falls down (traveling) - block on Caleb (late call too fwiw)
Just absurdly bad
I stand corrected (along with many others here). Along with many others, including coaches, players and announcers, I always thought there was a "pivot foot" when inbounding a ball not after a made shot/FT, but clearly there is not. Having said that, Caleb probably did move outside the 3 foot wide lane the ref had established.
https://sites.google.com/site/stcharlescycrefs/-traveling-out-of-bounds
The bottom line is, there is no such thing as traveling out of bounds. There is NO pivot foot out of bounds. However, it IS possible for the thrower to be whistled for a violation for leaving the designated spot. Every throw-in, other than a throw-in following a made field goal or free throw, is a designated spot throw-in.
The DESIGNATED SPOT is defined as a lane 3-feet wide with unlimited depth. As long as the thrower keeps one foot on or over the designated spot, he/she is legal.
Here are the specific rule book and case book citations.
Under Rule 4 (Definitions), section 42, article 6
The designated throw-in spot is 3 feet wide with no depth limitation and is established by the official prior to putting the ball at the thrower's disposal.
NOTE: The thrower must keep one foot on or over the spot until the ball is released. The traveling and dribbling rules are not in effect for a throw-in.
so weird when a blatant violation is called at the end of the game
That was a foul on Simpson, not Smith - his elbow wasn't "thrown" at Derek, but was in a "natural" position in raising up to shoot and Simpson was so close it hit him in the chin. The foul was with the body. The Caleb one was wrong and the one on Spencer charging was way wrong, but the first foul on Edey wasn't a foul (was a travel by Cliff).
Ok - fair enough no elbow was thrown. Agree. But I didn’t see a foul to the body. Watch the play again. The only contact I saw was to Simpson chin. I can honestly say I have never seen a defender get called for a foul for getting elbowed in the face - only RU (and it’s happened a number of times over last few years)
I think most everyone thinks you need to keep a pivot foot. That's what I was always told. That's how everyone I have ever heard talks about the rule too
Even when we think the ref made the right call they still actually tried to screw Rutgers 🤣
3 ft would be 1 step left or right. Caleb took at least three steps right. Would be interesting if he backed up an stood on a chair though (unlimited depth)
He actually could have moved the chairs back to give himself more depth
That's fair - I didn't rewatch that play to assess the contact.
You simply can’t move, it is up to the referee to make sure the defender stays far enough away.
Are you talking about the play where Smith drove the lane and elbowed Caleb (not simpson) in the face on his shot ? The play that resulted in the double technical ?
It was a legit foul on Caleb because Smith’s arm was in a natural shooting motion during contact.
Smith's elbow hit Simpson, not Caleb and the foul was on Simpson - clearly wasn't a foul on Smith as I have already said I thought he was in a shooting motion, but it's really unusual to call a foul for leading with one's chin, which is why I thought Simpson fouled him with the body (looks like that on the replay). The T's were on Caleb and Newman, who got in a bit of an argument after the play.
It is not a traveling violation. It is a throw-in violation. The player must keep at least one foot within the throw-in spot. Caleb moved his trailing foot out of the spot. Quite frequently, I tell the players: "It's on the spot" or "You can run the baseline". Then, there's the times when I tell the defender crowding the line: "Don't reach over the line". Preventative officiating can smooth things out in chaotic situations.
I just watched the play again. It is a very close call that Caleb moved both feet out of the three foot area. What makes it even more sketchy for me is that the official initially doesn't call it and only blows the whistle after the Purdue bench starts pointing at the spot. Matter of fact he doesn't blow the whistle until after the play was over.
For me it's a no call.
For me it's a no call.
Last edited:
That reminds me, when they went to the monitor did they wave off that technical on Caleb? Because Purdue didn’t get additional free throws. It was just the two shots for the shooting foul on Simpson if I recall correctly.
Only on a Rutgers board will Rutgers fans argue with a guy who's been officiating for decades, goes on to explain the rule that 99% of the people in the thread got wrong to begin with, yet CONTINUE to say that the bad call against us was correct.
It's unreal...
If someone on the Purdue bench had “accidentally” tripped him, would that potentially be a common foul that sent us to the line for 1 and 1?
If a player on the court reached over and fouled him it would be an intentional foul so Caleb would shoot and we would retain possession. If someone on the bench did it, it woud be considered a technical foul.
Either way we would shoot two and keep the ball.
They need to change teh rule and allow a team to refuse foul shots to keep the ball and maybe even tick off a full second. That would stop a lot of nonsense at the end of games... including your hypothetical (which, I think, would be a technical.. shots AND the ball). - I see Colbert beat me to this.
so that everyone understands, he can move his feet. Just not outside the 3 ft area. That was the argument. Did he move outside of 3 ft?
Last edited:
