20 October, 2020
09 May, 2021
30/01/2021
Tough Calls
to read

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: Limoges CSP vs Hapoel Bank Yahav Jerusalem - Special situations

White 69 is dribbling the ball in his back court when one of the referees calls a personal foul to Red 44 for his illegal defence on the dribbler. At approximately the same time another referee calls an unsportsmanlike foul to White 17 off the ball on Red 1. The referees decide to check the IRS to review this unsportsmanlike foul and, after the review, it is downgraded to personal foul. They award the ball to the White team for a throw-in from their back court and 20 seconds on the shot clock. 

According to the IRS rule, the following game situation may be reviewed:

F.3.3    During any time of the game,

  • whether a personal, unsportsmanlike or disqualifying foul met the criteria for such a foul or shall be upgraded or downgraded or shall be considered as a technical foul.

Article 35.1.1 A double foul is a situation in which 2 opponents commit personal or unsportsmanlike/disqualifying fouls on each other at approximately the same time. 

Article 42.1 In the same stopped-clock period which follows an infraction, special situations may arise when additional infraction(s) are committed. 

Article 42.2.3 All equal penalties on the teams and all double foul penalties shall be cancelled in the order in which they were called. Once the penalties have been entered on the scoresheet and cancelled they are considered as never having occurred. 

Article 42.2.8 If, after the cancellation of equal penalties on 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.

Article 50.2 The shot clock operator shall be provided with a shot clock which shall be stopped, but not reset, with the remaining time visible, when the same team that previously had control of the ball is awarded a throw-in as the result of:

  • A cancellation of equal penalties on both teams.

Outcome: Correct decision from the referees.
1. The referees were right to use the IRS.
2. White 17 foul didn’t meet any of the 5 criteria to be considered as unsportsmanlike foul so it was correctly downgraded.
3. This is not a double foul as both fouls were not committed by 2 opponents on each other.
4. This is a special situation. Both penalties were the same (throw-in for each team) so they cancel each other.
5. The ball was awarded for a throw-in from the place nearest to the first infraction to the team that had the control of the ball when the first infraction was called, the White team, with the seconds remaining in the shot clock.

 

Tough Call 2: VEF Riga vs Peristeri - UF

White 1 is about to receive a pass from the throw-in when he is pushed by Blue 24. The referees call a personal foul.

Article 37.1.1 An unsportsmanlike foul is a player contact which, in the judgement of a referee is:

  • Contact with an opponent and not legitimately attempting to directly play the ball within the spirit and intent of the rules

Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. The contact created by Blue 24 cannot be considered as committed whilst, legitimately attempting to directly play the ball. Besides, the referees can use the IRS at any time during the game to decide whether a personal, unsportsmanlike or disqualifying foul met the criteria for such a foul or shall be upgraded or downgraded or shall be considered as a technical foul. Blue 24 should have been penalized with an unsportsmanlike foul and White 1 should have been awarded two free throws, followed by a White team throw-in from the throw-in line in their frontcourt and 14 seconds on the shot clock. 

 

Tough Call 3: Rytas Vilnius vs SIG Strasbourg - Traveling & UF

White 23 steals the ball and starts a to transition, ending it with a successful lay-up. Then a time-out is granted to the Black team. 

Article 25.2.1 A player who catches the ball while he is progressing, or upon completion of a dribble, may take two steps in coming to a stop, passing or shooting the ball. After receiving the ball, a player shall release the ball to start his dribble before his second step. 

Article 37.1.1  An unsportsmanlike foul is a player contact which, in the judgement of a referee is:

  • An illegal contact caused by the player from behind or laterally on an opponent who is progressing towards the opponent’s basket and there are no other players between the progressing player, the ball and the basket. This applies until the offensive player begins his act of shooting.

Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. White 23 gest the control of the ball with his right foot on the floor. Then he puts his left foot on the floor (first step) and then his right foot again (second step) before releasing the ball to start his dribble. This is a travelling violation.

Then, the contact created by Black 22 on the dribbler was illegal and was committed before the dribbler gathered the ball to start his act of shooting. Thus, an unsportsmanlike foul should have been called to Black 22, cancel the basket and 2 free throws should have been awarded to White 23, followed by a White team throw-in from the throw-in line in their frontcourt and 14 seconds on the shot clock. This clip is a good example to insist on the importance of an active mindset of the referees, always looking for the illegal actions that could occur.

 

Tough Call 4: Türk Telekom vs Igokea - Fake being fouled & AOS

White 33 receives a pass in the post area, whilst being guarded by Blue 23. White 33 turns inside his cylinder and Blue 23 falls to the floor. The referee calls a technical foul to Blue 23 for faking being fouled and awards White 33 field goal. 

Article 16.1.1 A goal is made when a live ball enters the basket from above and remains within or passes through the basket entirely. 

Article 10.4 The ball does not become dead and the goal counts if made when:

  • The ball is in the control of a player in the act of shooting for a field goal who finishes his shot with a continuous motion which started before a foul is charged on any opponents’ player or on any person permitted to sit on the opponents’ team bench.

Article 15.1.3 The act of shooting in a continuous movement on drives to the basket or other moving shots:

  • Begins when the ball has come to rest in the player’s hand(s), upon completion of a dribble or a catch in the air and the player starts, in the judgment of the referee, the shooting motion preceding the release of the ball for a field goal.

Article 36.3.2 The opponents shall be awarded 1 free throw. The game shall be resumed as follows:

  • If a valid field goal, or a last free throw is scored, the game shall be resumed with a throw-in from any place behind the end line.

Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. When the technical foul was called, White 33 had already started his act of shooting, so the ball doesn’t become dead and the goal, if made, counts. Any White Team player shall attempt one free throw with no line-up and then the Blue team shall have a throw-in from an y place behind their end line as after any basket.