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: Peristeri winmasters vs Brose Bamberg – Screening 

Grey 20 passes the ball to Grey 11 for an open shot. Defender Yellow 2 runs to try to defend the shot and a contact with Grey 55 occurs. The referee calls a personal foul to Yellow 2 and awards a throw-in for the Grey team.

The Article 33.7 states that an "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."

Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. A team control foul for illegal screening should have been called and the ball awarded for a throw-in to the Yellow team from the place closest to where the infraction occurred with 24 seconds on the shot clock.

Tough Call 2: Iberostar Tenerife vs VEF Riga – Screening 

Black 20 finishes his dribble and waits his team mate Black 8 to pass him the ball. Black 8 is being closely guarded by defender Yellow 9. To secure the pass, Black 20 takes one step into Yellow 9’s path and a contact occurs. The referee considers that Yellow 9 faked being fouled and gives him a warning for faking a foul.

The Article 33.7 states that an "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."

Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. Black 20 set an illegal screen on Yellow 9 for not respecting the elements of time and distance of Yellow 9, who was in motion when contact occurred. A team control foul for illegal screening should have been called and the ball awarded for a throw-in to the Yellow team from the place closest to where the infraction occurred with 24 seconds on the shot clock.

Tough Call 3: Telekom Baskets Bonn vs JDA Dijon – IRS and UF

White 41 commits a traveling violation. After the referee’s call, White 41 and Blue 21 push each other.

The Article 46.12 states that "The crew chief is authorised to use the IRS during any time of the game to identify the involvement of team members (…) during any act of violence."

The crew chief decided to use the IRS and found conclusive evidence to call one Unsportsmanlike Foul to White 41 and one Unsportsmanlike Foul to Blue 21.

The Article 42.2.3 states that "All equal penalties against the teams and all double foul penalties shall be cancelled in the order in which they were called." And the Article 42.2.8 specifies that "If, after the cancellation of equal penalties against both teams, there are no other penalties remaining for administration, the game shall be resumed as follows. If at approximately the same time as the first infraction a team had control of the ball or was entitled to the ball, the ball shall be awarded to this team for a throw-in from the place nearest to the first infraction." 

Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. The penalties of both Unsportsmanlike Fouls cancel each other. As the Blue team was entitled to the possession of the ball as a result of the traveling violation committed by the White team, the Blue team will be awarded a throw-in from the place nearest to where the infraction occurred with 24 seconds on the shot clock.

Tough Call 4: Lietkabelis vs SIG Strasbourg – Act of shooting

Blue 32 receives a pass and jumps to attempt a 3-point shot. While airborne, there is a contact with White 66 and the referee doesn’t call any infraction. On his way to his back court, Blue 32 complains about the decision and receives a technical foul.

The Article 33.2 states that "This principle protects the space on the floor which he occupies and the space above him when he jumps vertically within that space. As soon as the player leaves his vertical position (cylinder) and body contact occurs with an opponent who had already established his own vertical position (cylinder), the player who left his vertical position (cylinder) is responsible for the contact."

Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. Blue 32 jumped vertically inside his cylinder. It was White 66 who leaves his cylinder and creates an illegal contact. A personal foul should have been called on White 66 and Blue 32 should have been awarded 3 free throws.

Tough Call 5: Hapoel Bank Yahav Jerusalem vs San Pablo Burgos – UF 

The Grey team secure a rebound and start the transition to their front court. There is a contact between Black 17, who is on the floor, and Grey 14. The referee calls an Unsportsmanlike Foul to Black 17.

The Article 37.1.1 mentions that "An unsportsmanlike foul is a player contact foul which, in the judgement of an official is:

• Not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball within the spirit and intent of the rules."

Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. Black 17 tripped up Grey 14 when he was trying to jump over him. This is an Unsportsmanlike Foul. Grey 14 shall attempt 2 free throws and the ball will be awarded to the Grey team for a throw-in at the throw-in line in their front court with 14 seconds on the shot clock.