Hoops

Clear Path USF Rule

The interpretation hasn't changed from the last set of interpretations and doesn't disagree with the rule in any way.

The interpretation:

Contact by the defensive player from behind or laterally on an opponent in an
attempt to stop the fast break and with no other defensive player between the offensive
player and the opponents’ basket shall be called as an unsportsmanlike foul

that's really not relevant to my post or the discussion.

even if somehow that was a correct call to the wording of the rule, is it what we want in basketball? I don't think so. The players don't seem to think so. Nearly all fans don't see to think so. Steindl got back as a defender so what should he be allowed to do? Nothing whatsoever?

those examples in that video are all obvious USF to me and all very different to the Childress one.

IMO that call went against the intent of the rule - that being to rid the game of "professional fouls" committed for the purpose of stopping a certain basket by a defender with little hope of doing so with legit defence.

In this case Steindl is ahead of Childress and therefore to me should be entitled to play normal defence against him just as he would in the half court. There was no clear intent to foul on Steindl's part, no hint of "make sure he doesn't even get a shot up" that is allowed and often encouraged in any other time of the game.

To me an and-1 would have been the perfect outcome of that sequence.

There is no way, shape or form that's an USF.

Personally I don’t really care about arguing the specifics of the rule but I hate that foul being called an unsportsmanlike. Maybe by the letter of the law it was - but most people who have watched basketball ever can see in the spirit of the game that it is not an unsportsmanlike foul - he is just trying to play defence but is out of position.

The interesting thing is that Mayberry asked the ref who made the call if they should review the replay. The ref said no and that is was obviously an unsportsmanlike. From the amount of discussion seen on here from basketball fans, it seemed to be far from obvious.

If the rules were 3 years ago, Lyons would ha e held his whistle and waited till Childress started his layup to call the foul.

Now the rule is there, you blow the whistle and if you think they have fouled in order to foul and prevent the basket in a breakaway situation, then it is USF.

Anyone got footage of the Steindl foul?

This year would be the worst year of officiating confusion and frustration in the NBL that I can remember.

So be it. Everyone knew the rule existed.

The correct terminology is breakaway foul - USF Criteria 4

*this

Thus rule in its current form appears highly exploitable.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/basketball/5741110/Penney-less-Breakers-will-be-strong-Corletto/

Interesting article with Corletto saying he was about to sign with Cairns until the Breakers called and then it was a no brainer to head over here after talking to the Bear and Rillie.

'Speaking to players who've been here in the past like Tony Ronaldson and John Rillie, they love the club and the way they treat the players on and off the court.

'I noticed that from being here five minutes. It's real professional, something I'm not used to back in Melbourne, it wasn't like this. I'm just loving it.'

lol @ Melbourne