Hoops

Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

That's what I thought it was, but Ward had it confirmed differently.

They said it was a USF purely because of the dead ball. Most of the discussion they had was trying to figure out how not to call it as a USF, before eventually concluding they had no choice.

The interpretation of calling a shot-block attempt from behind as a USF on the fast break is correct. Roy Ward had that one confirmed when it happened to Vukona in the Oceania series.

One more thing: sometimes it comes down to how referees interpret and apply the rules. I'm sure they know what the rules are but the application lets them down.

For example, it was my understanding that when they brought in the USF for contact from behind/laterally on a fast break, that was to stop the cheap fouls that weren't excessively hard but did deprive the offensive team of a certain basket. And in many cases simply resulted in a sideball.

But it seemed that some referees (at least for a while) interpreted this rule as ALL fouls from behind on a shot and were USF. So, they were calling genuine shot-block attempts as USF.

This showed me that they knew there was a rule for contact from behind on a fast break, but didn't apply it within the intention.

In a legal sense, they were taking a strict legal approach and could probably justify their decision by doing a line-by-line analysis (as they seem to have done in reaching their decision in the Melbourne-NZ game). But they should take the "Golden" rule or "mischief" approach and get to the right decision as intended by the lawmakers.

or not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball?

Does anyone know the exact basis the referees determined that it was an USF?

That is, did they say it was excessively hard, or did they apply the foul before the inbound rule?

41.2.2 defines an offensive foul as a foul by the team either in possession of, or entitled to possession of, the ball. The ball being dead doesn't change anything.

The Webster foul was an offensive foul, and thus no team penalty, so there was no canceling out even if they'd called it correctly.

Per 34.1.1 and 37.1.1, it shouldn't have been a USF. Per 41.2.2 the team penalty didn't apply.

Therefore, per 42.2.6 the penalties would have been NZ's free throws first, for the first infraction, then Melbourne ball second, for the second infraction.

Does anyone have info the fi a rules on how refs determine a flop? That was the piece missing from that statement.

Even assuming nothing else changes, the game still goes to overtime.

(Right click and select 'view image' to get full size)

Two refs stood down, instant replay expanded.

The press release also states what should have happened...and gets it wrong. Again. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.

Raoul Kirsten has refereed half of United's games and made "Kirsten Calls", unexplained or phantom calls in all of them>

And what happens with bets placed on said game when an incorrect call costs $$$$

Just out of curiosity, is there anything in the rules which can call for a match to be replayed if it was deemed the result was determined by an unfair or incorrect call?

The Webster foul was an offensive foul, and thus no team penalty, so there was no canceling out even if they'd called it correctly.

Per 34.1.1 and 37.1.1, it shouldn't have been a USF. Per 41.2.2 the team penalty didn't apply.

Therefore, per 42.2.6 the penalties would have been NZ's free throws first, for the first infraction, then Melbourne ball second, for the second infraction.

I've read literally every section of the rulebook that could possibly apply to this situation, and it is 100% clear that should have been the result. It's not even ambiguous.

Okay, looks like I got the team control thing wrong. Under 41.2.2, the penalty doesn't apply if the team that committed the foul was entitled to the ball, so whether the ball was live or dead is irrelevant. Therefore, there are different penalties (two FTs to NZ, possession to Melbourne) to sort out. If only there were a rule covering this exact situation...

Would have to be two shots to new Zealand then two shots to goulding followed by possession

can't give two shots no possession to UTD then shots to NZ, you can't cancel out fouls as one has a heavier penalty than the other.

have to end with possession to UTD

Acceptable outcome:
Two shots pledger then NZ ball from the point nearest to the foul called on Webster.

If they called a regular foul on Webster and a regular foul on Majok, it would've been NZ side ball, no free-throws.

One ref actually made that call at the time, and was quickly overruled.

The correct decision should have been to deem that both whistles sounded simulatneously and apply the penaties as such. The result from that would have had pledger shoot his 2 free throws with possession then given to utd from the side line.

The above is tongue in cheek by the way. I don't actually think they fixed the game, I just think they are incompetent.

Head Ref: Guys I have $1000.00 on United to win, how do we get them the ball?

Ref 2: Unsportsmanlike sounds like something we can do? What's in it for me?

Ref 3: Can we get a cut?

Ref 4 (on the bench): (Scratching head) I think I read somewhere that it can be unsportsmanlike in a dead ball situation? Just go with that.

It didn't even sit right with Demopoulos:

"As much as I love coming out on top I don't like it like that – I feel bad. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, I have no idea.
It's not the way I would like it. If I was on the other side I wouldn't have liked it."

Kudos to him for those comments.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/melbourne-united-star-chris-goulding-says-he-will-do-anything-to-win-after-flopping-calls-20151108-gktkyl.html

agreed, the Refs kooked it and it almost cost NZ the game so on the next play they made another poor call in awarding the foul on Pledger to ice the game for Melbourne.

One week Perth gets a no call on an obvious foul when Beal takes it to the rim that would have swung the game against United, then this week United get a 50/50 foul call on Holt who does a similar thing and they again get the win.

I don't know why, but right now United and the officials smell pretty damned horrible to me...