So just making enforcement of the traveling rule more subjective. Should work out well...I'm OK with narrowing it to "blatant," which I interpret as "won't be called unless it's a significant advantage for the ball-carrier." Consistent application of it won't be any better/worse than any other rule, I s'pose.
In the Big 12 statement, this amuses me. It might like a violation -- but it isn't!
“You’re going to see plays this year that you’re going to say, ‘That’s a travel.’ And technically, by rule, it is. But they’re going to allow them to happen.”
"“There’s certain moves that have filtered down over the years and we really wanted the rules committee to address it,” Shaw said. “The rules committee didn’t want to undertake everything, but they did come up with some approved rulings of a travel. Three plays in the past that have been semi-controversial — the Eurostep, the step-back and the spin move — have now got an approved ruling written that basically says they’re legal. You’re going to see plays this year that you’re going to say, ‘That’s a travel.’ And technically, by rule, it is. But they’re going to allow them to happen. The theory being this is the way these kids have played, it’s the way it’s filtered down over the years and we have to adjust to how they play the game.”"
I think they should be allowed to travel for away games.For some reason I thought this was going to be about the teams Traveling to away games, etc.