Tough Calls - Gameday 12
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: Hapoel Bank Yavah Jerusalem vs EB Pau-Lacq-Orthez – Team control foul
Blue 3 drives to the basket and leaves the floor for a lay-up. Defender White 17 has a legal guarding position in front of him (two feet on the floor and facing the offensive player) with his left foot in contact with the no-charge semi-circle, therefore he is inside the no-charge semi-circle area. Then, he jumps vertically and a contact occurs. The referee calls a team control foul and cancels the basket.
The Article 33.2 states that "The defensive player must not be penalized for leaving the floor vertically (within his cylinder)."
And the Article 33.10 mentions that "On any penetration play into the no-charge semi-circle area, any contact caused by an airborne offensive player with a defensive player inside the no-charge semi-circle shall not be called as an offensive foul, unless the offensive player is illegally using his hands, arms, legs or body. This rule applies when:
- The offensive player is in control of the ball whilst airborne, and
- He attempts a shot for a field goal or passes off the ball, and
- The defensive player has one foot or both feet in contact with the no-charge semi-circle area."
Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. The contact created by Blue 3 against White 17 with his right knee (outside his cylinder) is not a normal body contact during a lay-up and it is considered illegal. When the contact occurred, Blue 3 still had the ball in his hands, so it becomes dead at that moment and the basket is not valid. The game will be resumed with a throw in for the White team at the free-throw line extended in their backcourt with 24 seconds on the shot clock.
Tough Call 2: Hapoel Bank Yavah Jerusalem vs EB Pau-Lacq-Orthez – 8 second violation
Blue 25 receives the ball from a throw-in and starts a dribble to his front court. When he is close to the centre line he slips and falls to the floor, sliding while holding the ball. Then, one defender grabs the ball and the referee calls a held ball. However, the referees realize that the shot clock was displaying 14 seconds and meet to discuss the situation. In the end, they decide that the Blue team had committed an 8 seconds violation.
The Article 25.2.2 specifies that "It is legal when a player falls and slides on the floor while holding the ball."
And the Article 28.1.2 states that "The team has caused the ball to go into its frontcourt whenever:
- The ball touches or is legally touched by an offensive player who has both feet completely in contact with his frontcourt."
Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. The ball was never on the front court as Blue 25 never had both feet completely in contact with his frontcourt. The 8 second period ended before the held ball was called. The White team will be awarded a throw-in from the side-line in their frontcourt, close to the centre line, with 14 seconds on the shot clock.
Tough Call 3: Happy Casa Brindisi vs PAOK – Team control foul
Near to the end of the game, the Blue team is in offence. Blue 33 receives the ball for an open shot near the corner but before he releases the ball, the referee calls a foul to Blue 00 and cancels the basket.
The Article 33.7 specifies that "Illegal screening is when the player who is screening an opponent was moving when contact occurred."
Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. Blue 00 was moving when setting the screen on Black 11. This is a personal foul. When the foul occurred, the shooter still had the ball in his hands, so it becomes dead at that moment and the basket is not valid. The game shall be resumed with a throw in for the White team at the free-throw line extended in their backcourt with 24 seconds on the shot clock.
Tough Call 4: JDA Dijon vs Casademont Zaragoza – Backcourt violation
The Red team is in control of a live ball in their frontcourt, being dribbled by Red 12. Defender White 11 taps the ball, which still bounces on the Red team’s frontcourt. Before touching the backcourt, the ball is touched again by Red 12, still in his frontcourt, and then both Red 12 and the ball are in the Red team’s backcourt.
The Article 30.1.2 mentions that "A team in control of a live ball in the frontcourt has caused the ball to be illegally returned to its backcourt if a player of that team is the last to touch the ball in his frontcourt and the ball is then first touched by a player of that team:
- who has part of his body in contact with the backcourt, or
- after the ball has touched the backcourt of that team."
Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. The Red team was in control of the ball in their frontcourt, Red 12 was the last player to touch the ball in his frontcourt and then, the ball touched the backcourt and was again touched by Red 12. All the conditions for a backcourt violation were fulfilled.
Tough Call 5: SIG Strasbourg vs Dinamo Sassari – 8 second violation
Blue 24 secures a rebound and the Blue team start a new possession. Blue 24 makes a pass that is deflected by White 21, but the ball is regained by Blue 24, who continues the dribble and then passes the ball to a team mate. When the shot clock shows 15 seconds, the referee calls an 8 second violation.
The Article 28.1.2 states that the "The team has caused the ball to go into its frontcourt whenever:
- During a dribble from the backcourt to the frontcourt, the ball and both feet of the dribbler are completely in contact with the frontcourt."
The Article 14.1.2 specifies that the "Team control continues when the ball is being passed between team-mates."
And the Article 14.1.3 adds that the "Team control ends when:
- An opponent gains control."
The Article 14.1.1 says that the "Team control starts when a player of that team is in control of a live ball by holding or dribbling it."
And the Article 50.1 explains that "The mere touching of the ball by an opponent does not start a new shot clock period if the same remains in control of the ball."
Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. The pass being deflected by White 21 didn’t mean that the control of the ball changed to the White team, so the Blue team still had the control of the ball. When the 8 second period ended, the Blue team had not caused the ball to go into their frontcourt. This is an 8 second violation. The White team will be awarded a throw-in from the side-line in their frontcourt, from the place nearest to the infraction, with 14 seconds on the shot clock.
Tough Call 6: ERA Nymburk vs Nizhny Novgorod – IRS
During the last 2 minutes of the fourth quarter, the ball goes out-of-bounds and the lead referee considers that White 17 was the last player to touch it before going out-of-bounds. After discussing the decision, the crew chief confirms the initial decision and decides to use the IRS.
The Article 46.12 specifies that "The crew chief is authorised to use the IRS to decide when the game clock shows 2:00 minutes or less in the fourth quarter and in each overtime to identify the player who has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds."
Outcome: After reviewing the IRS, the referees found conclusive evidence that the last player to touch the ball was Black 1, so the initial decision was changed. The White team will be awarded a throw-in from the end-line in their frontcourt, from the place nearest to where the ball went out-of-bounds, with 14 seconds on the shot clock as the ball had touched the opponents’ ring before going out-of-bounds.