Tough Calls - Week 3
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 last week's "tough calls":
Tough Call 1: Hapoel Jerusalem vs MHP RIESEN - Goaltending
White 14 attempts a field goal and the shot is blocked by Black 27. The referees decide that the block is legal.
Article 31.2.1 Goaltending occurs during a shot for a 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.
Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees. Black 27 committed a goaltending violation. The ball was already on its downward flight to the basket. 2 points should have been awarded to White 14.
Tough Call 2: Bnei Ofek Dist Herzliya vs Rytas Vilnius - Charge
White 9 receives a pass, bounces the ball, and makes a lay-up. A contact occurs and the referee calls a blocking foul to Red 12.
Article 33.6 A player who has jumped into the air from a place on the court has the right to land again at the same place. He also 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(s) at the time of take-off.
Article 33.4 When judging a charge/block situation involving a player with the ball, a referee shall use the following principles:
• The defensive player must establish an initial legal guarding position by facing the player with the ball and having both feet on the court.
• The defensive player may remain stationary, jump vertically, move laterally or backwards in order to maintain the initial legal guarding position.
• When moving to maintain the initial legal guarding position, one foot or both feet may be off the court for an instant, as long as the movement is lateral or backwards, but not towards the player with the ball.
• Contact must occur on the torso, in which case the defensive player would be considered as having been at the place of contact first.
• Having established a legal guarding position, the defensive player may turn within his/her cylinder to avoid injury.
Outcome: Incorrect decision from the referees, based on 2 of the above bullet points. 1. Red 12 established an initial legal guarding position (facing his opponent and having both feet on the floor) at the time of White 9’s take-off. 2. Red 12 remained stationary and the contact occurred on his torso. A personal foul should have been called to White 9 for charging.
Tough Call 3: Igokea m:tel vs ERA Nymburk - Head Coach's Challenge
In the third quarter of the game, White 23 and Black 23 fight for a loose ball. The ball goes out-of-bounds, and the referee decides that the last player to touch the ball before it went out-of-bounds was White 23.
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:
* To identify the player who has caused the ball to go out-of-bounds
F.4 The time restrictions within Appendix F.3 do not apply. The head coach’s challenge may be requested at any time in the game.
Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. A head coach can request a head coach’s challenge in one of the reviewable play situations stated in Appendix F.3 without any time restriction, that is, only the reviewable situations can be challenged but they can be challenged from the start until the end of the game.
After the review, the referees found conclusive evidence that it was White 23 the last to touch the ball and confirmed their initial decision.
Tough Call 4: Unicaja vs JDA Dijon - Head Coach's Challenge
White 15 drives to the basket and makes a lay-up and scores. The referees call a personal foul to Green 3 during the act of shooting. The White team head coach requests a head coach’s challenge making the conventional signal to the referee as he understands that the foul should be an unsportsmanlike foul.
F.4 The head coach requesting a challenge shall establish visual contact with the nearest referee and ask clearly for his/her head coach`s challenge. He/she shall say loudly in English “challenge” and at the same time show the head coach’s challenge signal (drawing a rectangular with the hands). The request shall be final and irreversible.
F.3.2 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.
Outcome: Correct decision from the referees. A head coach can request a head coach’s challenge in one of the reviewable play situations stated in Appendix F.3. To do so, he/she shall establish visual contact with the nearest referee and ask clearly for his/her head coach`s challenge. He/she shall say in English “challenge” and at the same time show the head coach’s challenge signal (drawing a rectangular with the hands).
During the review, the referees did not see any conclusive evidence to upgrade the personal foul to unsportsmanlike foul and confirmed their initial decision. Valid basket and 1 free throw for White 15.