Tough Calls: Round of 16 Week 3
MIES (Switzerland) - Experts analyze all BCL games each week. In order to improve the understanding of referees' decisions and to increase transparency, we publish some of those Tough Calls, along with an explanation.
TC1: AEK Betsson vs. UCAM Murcia -- Goaltending
Yellow 3 steals the ball and starts a fastbreak, which he ends by making a lay-up. Red 31 blocked the shot and the referees called a goaltending violation.
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 by the referees. The ball was blocked on its upward flight before it touched the backboard, so the play should have continued.
TC2: AEK Betsson vs. UCAM Murcia -- Foul in the act of shooting
Yellow 3 is attempting a 3-point shot. While he is airborne, Red 31 tries to block the shot. The referees call a foul to Red 31 and award 3 free throws to Yellow 3.
Article 34.1.1: A personal foul is a player’s illegal contact with an opponent, whether the ball is live or dead.
Article 33.11: The touching of an opponent with the hand(s) is, in itself, not necessarily a foul. The referees shall decide whether the player who caused the contact has gained an advantage.
Outcome: Correct decision by the referees. Red 31 hit Yellow 3’s right elbow with his left arm. This contact influenced the shot, which was missed. Yellow 3 shall attempt 3 free throws.
TC3: Hapoel Holon vs. Promitheas Patras -- Offensive Foul
Blue 44 is dribbling the ball being guarded by White 1. A contact occurs and the referees call an offensive foul to Blue 44.
Article 33.11: It is a foul by an offensive player with the ball to:
• 'Hook' or wrap an arm or an elbow around a defensive player to obtain an advantage.
• 'Push off' the defensive player to prevent him/her from playing or attempting to play the ball, or to create more space for himself.
• Use an extended forearm or hand, while dribbling, to prevent an opponent from gaining control of the ball
Outcome: Correct decision by the referees. White 1 was playing legal defence, without creating any contact with his opponent. It was Blue 44 who created the contact by raising his left arm and moving away the defender’s arm. The White team shall be awarded a throw-in from the place nearest to where the foul occurred.
TC4: JDA Dijon vs. Telekom Baskets Bonn -- Faking being fouled
White 22 ends his dribble and pivots before passing the ball. Defender, Red 15, falls on to the court. The referees called a technical foul to Red 15 for faking being fouled since that team had already received a warning for a similar action earlier in the game.
Article 33.16: Fake is any action by a player to simulate that he/she has been fouled or to make theatrical exaggerated movements to create an opinion of being fouled and therefore gaining an advantage.
OBRI 36-12: Whenever a player fakes a foul, the following procedure shall apply:
• Without stopping the game, the referee signals the fake by showing twice the ‘raise-the-lower-arm’ signal.
• When the game is stopped, a warning shall be communicated to the player and the head coach of the team. Each team is entitled to 1 ‘fake being fouled’ warning.
• The next time any player of this team fakes a foul, a technical foul shall be called. This also applies when the game was not stopped to communicate the earlier warning to any player or head coach of that team.
• If an excessive fake without any contact occurs, a technical foul may be called immediately without a warning being given.
Outcome: Correct decision by the referees. As the Red team had already received a warning for faking being fouled, the player who faked being fouled again, Red 15, shall receive a technical foul. The White team shall attempt 1 free throw with no line-up and the game shall be resumed with a throw-in by the team who had the control of the ball, in this case the White team, from the place closest to where the ball was located when the game was stopped and 14 seconds on the shot clock.
TC5: JDA Dijon vs. Telekom Baskets Bonn -- Shot-clock violation
White 2 attempts a shot for a field goal, the ball misses the ring and the shot clock period ends. Afterwards, Red 10 catches the ball in the air and steps out of bounds. The referees call an out-of-bounds violation and award a throw-in to the White team.
Article 29.1.1: Whenever:
• A player gains control of a live ball on the court,
• On a throw-in, the ball touches or is legally touched by any player on the court and the team of that player taking the throw-in remains in control of the ball, that team must attempt a shot for a goal within 24 seconds.
To constitute a shot for a goal within 24 seconds:
• The ball must leave the player's hand(s) before the shot clock signal sounds, and
• After the ball has left the player's hand(s), the ball must touch the ring or enter the basket.
Outcome: Incorrect decision by the referees. This is a shot clock violation. Red 10 caught the ball while airborne and went out-of-bounds directly without any actual option to play the ball. According to the spirit of the rule this cannot be considered an immediate and clear control of the ball as the Red team had no option whatsoever to continue playing after the shot clock violation.