MIES (Switzerland) - Each week, experts are analyzing 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.

Tough Call 1: JDA Bourgogne Dijon vs Peristeri bwin - Blocking Foul

Blue 2 sets a pick and rolls to the basket. He receives the ball from Blue 6, after which a contact occurs against White 24. The referee calls an offensive foul to Blue 2 for charging.

Article 33.6: A player who has jumped into the air from a place on the court has the right to land on another place on the court provided that the landing place and the direct path between the take-off and landing place is not already occupied by an opponent at the time of take-off

Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. When Blue 2 took-off, White 24 had not occupied the landing place by establishing a legal guarding position. Therefore, White 24 committed a blocking foul.

 

 

Tough Call 2: UCAM Murcia vs Pinar Karsiyaka - Disqualifying Foul

While fighting for a possible rebound situation, the referees call a personal foul to White 18 for creating an illegal contact against Red 27. The referees become uncertain if the foul should be upgraded to unsportsmanlike or disqualifying foul and decide to check the IRS.

F.3.3: The following game situations may be reviewed at 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 38.1.1    A disqualifying foul is any flagrant unsportsmanlike action by players, substitutes, head coaches, assistant coaches, excluded players and accompanying delegation members.

Article 38.2.3    Any of the above persons who are guilty of flagrant acts of aggression on opponents or referees shall be disqualified.

Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. The contact created by White 18 fulfilled the criteria to be considered a disqualifying foul.

 

 

Tough Call 3: Hapoel Atsmon Holon vs Igokea m:tel - Eventual Act of Violence

Blue 8 receives the ball from a throw-in whilst guarded by White 11. The referee calls a personal foul to White 11. Then, the referees become uncertain if Blue 8 committed an act of violence after the foul and decide to review the IRS. After the review, the referees call an unsportsmanlike foul to Blue 8.

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.
• Excessive, hard contact caused by a player in an effort to play the ball or an
opponent.

F.3.3: The following game situations may be reviewed at any time of the game:

• to identify the involvement of players and persons permitted to sit on the team benches during any act of violence or potential act of violence.

OBRI F-3.3.21: An act of violence is an act of force that causes or is intended to cause harm, or an act that results or could result in a risk of injury. An act that does not meet the criteria of a disqualifying foul or an unsportsmanlike foul, a technical foul, or does not meet the criteria for a threatened violence is not an act of violence.

Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. First, White 11 committed a blocking foul with his foot. Then, the contact created by Blue 8 met the criteria to be considered as an unsportsmanlike foul, so the referees are authorised to call an unsportsmanlike foul. The game shall be resumed with 2 free throws for White 11, followed by a White team throw-in from the throw-in line in their frontcourt and 14 seconds in the shot clock. The possession of the ball (throw-in) for the Blue team as a consequence of White 11’s foul shall be cancelled according to Article 42.2.5: The right to possession of the ball as part of the last penalty to be administered shall cancel any prior rights to possession of the ball.

 

 

Tough Call 4: MHP RIESEN Ludwigsburg vs Limoges CSP - Eventual Act of Violence

Red 23 catches the ball during a rebound and attempts a field goal. During the shot, the referees call a personal foul in the act of shooting to Yellow 5. Then, the referees become uncertain if Red 23 committed an act of violence after the foul and decide to review the IRS. After the review, the referees decide that no act of violence had occurred, and the game continues with the free throws for Red 23.

Article 33.1: The boundaries of the cylinder of the offensive player with the ball are:
• The front by the feet, bent knees and arms, holding the ball above the hips,
• The rear by the buttocks, and
• The sides by the outer edge of elbows and legs.

The offensive player with the ball must be allowed enough space for a normal basketball play within his/her cylinder. The normal basketball play includes starting a dribble, pivoting, shooting, and passing.

F.3.3: The following game situations may be reviewed at any time of the game:

• to identify the involvement of players and persons permitted to sit on the team benches during any act of violence or potential act of violence.

OBRI F-3.3.21: An act of violence is an act of force that causes or is intended to cause harm, or an act that results or could result in a risk of injury. An act that does not meet the criteria of a disqualifying foul or an unsportsmanlike foul, a technical foul, or does not meet the criteria for a threatened violence is not an act of violence.

Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. Red 23 did not commit any act of violence, as he was inside his cylinder while attempting his field goal. Yellow 5 committed a foul in the act of shooting so Red 23 shall attempt two free throws and the game shall be resumed as after any last free throw.

 

Tough Call 5: AEK vs Tofas Bursa - Goaltending

In the last minute of the 4th quarter, Yellow 2 makes a lay-up and Blue 21 blocks the shot. The referees call a goaltending violation and then decide to check the IRS.

Article 31.2.1: goaltending occurs during a shot for goal when a player touches the ball while it is completely above the level of the ring and:

• It is on its downward flight to the basket, or
• After it has touched the backboard

F.3.2: The following game situations may be reviewed when the game clock shows 2:00 minutes or less in the fourth quarter and in each overtime:

• whether a goaltending or basket interference violation was called correctly.

 

Outcome: Regarding the decision, correct decision from the referees. Blue 21 touched the ball before the ball touched the backboard, so no goaltending violation occurred.

How shall the game be resumed then?

OBRI F-3.2.7       Statement: The IRS review can be used to decide, when the game clock shows 2:00 or less in the fourth quarter and in each overtime, whether a goaltending or interference was called correctly. If the review provides a goaltending or an interference was called incorrectly the game shall be resumed as follows, if after the call:

• a player of either team has gained an immediate and clear control of the ball, that team shall be entitled to a throw-in from the place nearest to where the ball was located when the call was made.

Immediate and clear control of the ball occurs when, after the call is made, a player directly gains possession of the ball on the court. The immediate and clear control of the ball must be the first action after the whistle. Any illegal contact to gain possession of the ball or the ball touching or being touched by multiple players is not an immediate and clear control of the ball.
When the ball goes out-of-bounds without a player of either team having gained possession of the ball, the opponent of the team that causes the ball to go out-of-bounds is considered as having gained an immediate and clear control of the ball.

Outcome: After the whistle, the Blue team gained an immediate and clear control of the ball and a throw-in should have been awarded to them.