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: SIG Strasbourg vs. Cibona - Charge
White #2 drives to the basket and contact occurs with defender Black #6. The referee calls an offensive foul on White #2 for charging.
Article 33.3: A defensive player has established an initial legal guarding position when:
facing the opponent, and
having both feet on the court.
The legal guarding position extends vertically above (within the cylinder) from the court to the ceiling. The defensive player may raise the arms and hands above the head or jump vertically but that player must maintain them in a vertical position inside the imaginary cylinder.
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 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.
Outcome: Correct decision by the referee.
Black #6 had already established a legal guarding position before White #2 took off for the lay-up.
TC2: BC Juventus Utena vs. BK KVIS Pardubice - Disruptive foul
White #7 dribbles the ball, and contact occurs with Red #7. The referee calls a disruptive foul on Red #7. After a brief discussion, the referees decide to use IRS to determine whether the foul should be downgraded to a personal foul.
Article 37.1.1: A disruptive foul is a player’s illegal contact with an opponent which does not rise to the level of a flagrant foul, and which disrupts the flow of the game and places the opponent at a disadvantage. The criteria for disruptive fouls are the following:
An unnecessary contact caused by the defensive player, not legitimately attempting to directly play the ball, to stop the progress of the offensive team in transition. This applies until the offensive player starts the act of shooting.
Outcome: Correct decision by the referees.
The contact caused by Red #7 met one of the criteria for a disruptive foul, as White #7 had not yet started the act of shooting when the contact occurred.
White #7 shall attempt 2 free throws with no line-up and the game shall resume with a White team throw-in from the throw-in line in its front court, with 14 seconds remaining on the shot clock.
TC3: FC Porto vs. Asisa Joventut - Flagrant foul
Black #10 receives the ball and starts dribbling, guarded by White #15. Black #10 attempts a field goal, but the ball misses the ring and a shot clock violation is called.
The Black team head coach requests a head coach challenge (HCC) to review a potential act of violence committed by White #15.
Following the review, a flagrant foul is called on White #15. Black #10 attempts two free throws, and the game resumes with a White team throw-in.
Article 38.1.1: A flagrant foul is a player’s illegal contact with an opponent, which violates the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play, and by its nature and/or the severity level exceeds the limits of a personal or disruptive foul. The criteria for flagrant fouls are the following:
Reckless, violent or dangerous act, which causes or may cause injury to 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.
F-3.33: An act of violence is an act of force that may cause harm or may result in a risk of injury. An act that does not meet the criteria of a flagrant or disqualifying foul or does not meet the criteria of a threatened violence, is not an act of violence.
F-3.3.37: If the IRS review provides there was an act of violence, the referees shall call the infraction and penalize all already called violations including the act of violence in the order the infractions occurred.
Outcome: The initial decision by the referees was incorrect, as they failed to call a flagrant foul on White #15, even though the contact met one of the criteria for a flagrant foul.
An accurate initial ruling is important as there is only one HCC opportunity and it cannot be recovered.
Following the HCC, the correct decision was reached. The penalties for the infractions shall be administered in the order in which they occurred.
Black #10 shall attempt 2 free throws, with no line-up, for White #15’s flagrant foul.
The right to possession as part of the flagrant foul penalty is lost as a result of the shot clock violation. The game shall resume with a White team throw-in from the place closest to where the shot-clock violation occurred.
The game clock shall continue from the point it was stopped.