Hoops

Goulding's Abercrombie Foot Move

Well that sounds like common sense to me, and therefore is too much to expect.

"That's there to allow them to ignore things that are technically illegal but don't really affect anything"

I went to a session once by an internationally-qualified FIBA ref who gave the example that if a player travelled in the backcourt, with no defence (eg, lifted pivot foot before starting dribble, he wouldn't call it. But if there was defence, he'd call it. His rationale was that with no defence, it was something so minor that there was no impact on the game and why reward a team for not doing anything. But if they were up playing defence and the ball carrier travelled, call it.

But three wrongs don't make a right, do they?

Goulding's childish act aside, I always thought if you were on your butt with no feet grounded it was a travel (which it looks like Blanchfield was calling for)?

You were always wrong.

Without putting myself up as a person of authority in regard to rules, laws, etc

Of course not, that's my job!

Here we go:

Article 46.13

[The referee shall] Have the power to make decisions on any point not specifically covered by these rules.

The situation in question is specifically covered by the rules. 46.13 doesn't apply.

Article 47.3

When deciding on a personal contact or violation, the officials shall, in each
instance, have regard to and weigh up the following fundamental principles:
The spirit and intent of the rules and the need to uphold the integrity of the game.Consistency in application of the concept of 'advantage/disadvantage'. The officials should not seek to interrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily in order to penalise incidental personal contact which does not give the player responsible an advantage nor place his opponent at a disadvantage.Consistency in the application of common sense to each game, bearing in mind the abilities of the players concerned and their attitude and conduct during the game.Consistency in the maintenance of a balance between game control and game flow, having a 'feeling' for what the participants are trying to do and calling what is right for the game.

That's there to allow them to ignore things that are technically illegal but don't really affect anything, or just let things go a bit at younger age levels where players aren't as skilled. That's not a licence to make rules up in order to penalise people.

The IRS rules, Article 46.12 (directly above Article 46.13, which you cited) specifically say what instant replay can be used for. Outside of the last two minutes, it's the value of a made field goal, the remaining time in case of malfunction, the identity of a free-throw shooter, or the participants in a fight.

That means they weren't allowed to go to replay at all.

Even inside the last two minutes, they're only allowed to review the above, plus shot clock violations, whether a shot was released before a foul call, or to identify the player that caused the ball to go out of bounds.

At the end of each quarter, they are additionally allowed to review whether a shot got off in time, and add time to the clock if necessary.

That's it. It was an unreviewable situation, and reviewable situations don't include fouls anyway.

Goulding was in the wrong, Giersch was in the wrong, and Russell was in the wrong.

Without putting myself up as a person of authority in regard to rules, laws, etc but I would have thought Article 46.13, Article 47 and Article 47.3 of the Official Basketball Rules 2014 (as approved by the FIBA central board Feb 14) gave the game officials the appropriate platform to call the foul on Goulding.

Am I wrong?

Goulding's childish act aside, I always thought if you were on your butt with no feet grounded it was a travel (which it looks like Blanchfield was calling for)?

There was more than two minutes left, so the only things they were legally allowed to even look at a replay for were the value of a field goal, the identity of a free-throw shooter, the clock in the case of a malfunction, and the participants in a fight.

None of those is what occurred.

It'd be really nice if we got refs who knew the damn rules. These aren't heat of the moment mistakes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df2cBi9m_TE

A little over the top there old Tiger, he isn't that bad and don't forget he is a role player in that team behind the other two who get super star status.

Not easy sometimes to fit into a system and shine at the same time...

As I mentioned in the game thread at the time, given that Goulding was himself out of bounds when he did that, would that not invalidate any advantage he got from the play anyway? I have no idea what the rules say, but I would have thought that an out of bounds player can't legally interact with a player with the ball.

The problem for Goulding was that he made it look bad, if he had jumped onto the ball and in the process shoved Abercrombie out of bounds causing his foot to touch the line so to speak, different call altogether.

heads up move really.

should have just leaned on his foot, it was a bit too obvious.

not a foul to physically grab part of a player in order to gain an advantage ?

"I thought it was cheeky and amusing"

yes he's really just a very naughty little boy ( but Soooo cute).

It was a cheap shot, not only pushing his foot to the ground, then pointing it out to the ref is poor. Glad the ref made the call even if it was wrong. I would call it cheating, considering he was trying to do it to get an advantage, sums him up really.

If you think that's not a foul, there is something seriously wrong with you.

I thought it was cheeky and amusing