08 October, 2019
03 May, 2020
20/12/2019
Tough Calls
to read

Tough Calls - Gameday 9

MIES (Switzerland) - Each week, experts are analysing the games. In order to improve the understanding of referees' decisions and to increase the transparency towards our fans, we publish some of those "tough calls", together with an explanation.

Please find below this week's "tough calls":

Tough Call 1: Telekom Baskets Bonn v Brindisi - UF

During the last 2 minutes of the game, White 9 receives the ball and dribbles into his frontcourt. Defender Blue 00 reads the pass and gets a legal guarding position on time, facing his opponent and with both feet on the floor. Blue 00 tries to tap the ball and a contact occurs. The referee calls a personal foul to Blue 00.

Article 46.12.3 - The crew chief can use the Instant Replay System during any time of the game to decide if the contact called as Personal Foul met the criteria to be upgraded to Unsportsmanlike.

Article 37.1.1 - C3 “an unnecessary contact caused by the defensive player in order to stop the progress of the offensive team in transition.” After the IRS check, the referee decided to upgrade to Unsportsmanlike foul.

Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. Blue 00 had a legal guarding position and tried to tap the ball. Basketball is a dynamic sport and the movement and momentum of the players can create points of contact far from the ball, which cannot be attributed directly to the player who created the contact. The referees must analyse the action itself, and in this situation, Blue 00 had a legal guarding position and played an active defense trying to touch the ball. By the momentum of the offensive player, the defender created a contact with his right hand on the dribbler’s right leg, which is a personal foul. This cannot be considered an unnecessary contact. As Blue team was already in team foul penalty situation, 2 free throws should have been awarded to White 9.

  

Tough Call 2: Teksut Bandirma v Telenet Giants Antwerp - Screening

Black 55 is dribbling the ball whilst being guarded by White 2. After Black 5 sets a screen on White 2, White 24 switches and gets closer to Black 55. The referee observes a head fake by Black 55 and gives him the warning signal for a fake. Black 5 tries to set another screen at the elbow on White 2, who is moving. After the contact, there is an over-reaction by White 2, exaggerating the contact. The referee calls a holding foul to White 2, as Black 32 was shooting the ball. The ball enters the basket.

Two referees meet to decide if the act of shooting had already started when the defensive foul was called. They decide it had started, so the basket is valid. They then award two free throws to Black 5 as White team is in team foul penalty in that quarter.

White team coach complains and is charged with a technical foul. Black team is awarded one free throw, which must be attempted immediately, before the two free throws as a consequence of the personal foul.

Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees.

Article 33.7 - “illegal screening is when the player who is screening an opponent did not respect the elements of time and distance of an opponent in motion when contact occurred”.

A team control foul for illegal screening should have been called to Black 5 and the ball awarded for a throw-in to the White team. The basket would not be valid as the ball was still in the hands of Black 32 when the foul was called, so the ball becomes dead (article 10.3).

 

Tough Call 3: PAOK v Falco Szombathely - Traveling

White 12 receives the ball with his right foot on the floor (step 0), after receiving the ball, he puts his left foot on the floor (step 1), then the right foot (step 2) and finally again his left foot (step 3) before the contact with the defender [In case he had received the ball with no foot on the floor, there would be no step 0, so the movement would also be illegal]. The referee calls a traveling violation.

After the violation, a technical foul is charged against White team bench for complaining. Afterwards, one of the assistant coaches is disqualified for flagrant unsportsmanlike behaviour.

Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. Traveling violation. Black team was awarded 1 free throw for the technical foul, 2 free throws for the disqualifying foul and ball possession for the throw-in line frontcourt, with 14 seconds on the shot clock.

  

Tough Call 4: JDA Dijon v Neptunas Klaipeda - Disqualifying Foul

During a White team offense, Blue team coach enters the court to show his disagreement with a decision from the referees. He is charged with a technical foul.

Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. A technical foul is a non-contact foul for, among other reasons, disrespectfully dealing or communicating with the referees. When a coach enters the court to show his disagreement in such an open and demonstrative way, including interfering with the play itself, he must be disqualified for the rest of the game since it is a flagrant unsportsmanlike action (article 38.1.1)

 

Tough Call 5: Iberostar Tenerife v Mornar Bar - UF

Yellow 9 starts a fast transition. Blue 41 establishes a legal guarding position in front of him, facing him and with both feet on the floor. When the dribbler attempts to beat the defender, a contact occurs, and the referee calls a personal foul to Blue 41.

Article 46.12.3 - The crew chief can use the Instant Replay System during any time of the game to decide if the contact called as Personal Foul met the criteria to be upgraded to Unsportsmanlike foul.

Article 37.1.1 – C3 “an unnecessary contact caused by the defensive player in order to stop the progress of the offensive team in transition.” After the IRS check, the referee decided to upgrade to Unsportsmanlike Foul.

Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. Blue 41 didn’t play the ball and created a contact against the body of the dribbler. This foul meets the criteria to be considered an Unsportsmanlike Foul.