The Hoops Official - March 2023
This is a monthly newsletter that showcases a selection of captivating plays and calls, accompanied by insightful reflections on the corresponding FIBA rules and interpretations.
1. The True Opinion Divider: Landing Foul on the 3-point shooter…or is it?
In the postponed game of Euroleague Round 24, Anadolu Efes and Real Madrid met in Istanbul. As the game reached the end of the third quarter, Efes set up an offensive play to create a shot for their star player, Shane Larkin, behind the three-point line. With the help of screens set by Singleton and Pleiss, Larkin managed to get a somewhat open shot after being freed from his defender, Sergio "Chacho" Rodrigues.
Chacho, who was delayed by the screens, rushed to the spot and made contact with Larkin during the act of shooting. The referee awarded Larkin three free throws after ruling it a defensive foul.
The rules regulating the act of shooting are one of the most important ones in the game of basketball and are frequently used during a game. We will start with defining the act of shooting using the rulebook:
According to 15.1.1 a tap, dunk, and shot for a goal or free throw all fall under the act of shooting. The act of shooting starts when the player begins to move the ball upwards toward the basket, as judged by a referee. The act of shooting ends when the ball has left the player's hand(s) and, in the case of an airborne shooter, both feet have returned to the floor. Article 15.1.3 also regulates the act of shooting in a continuous movement on a drive to the basket or other moving shot which is analyzed below chapter.
At the 0:02 mark of the video, Shane Larkin starts his act of shooting. At the 0:03 mark when contact happens we can see that Larkin still has at least one foot in the air.
Now that we have established that the contact happened during the act of shooting we need to look at the rules that govern the issues surrounding the player who is in the air.
FIBA 33.6 says that a player who has jumped into the air has the right to land again at the same place. They also have the right to land on another place on the court as long as the landing place and the direct path between the take-off and landing place are not already occupied by an opponent(s) at the time of take-off.
At the time Larkin starts taking off the place in front of him wide open, therefore, he has the right to jump forward and/or extend his legs to land on that spot. Even if he did not extend his right leg (which causes controversy), the contact on his left leg shown in the first image would be enough to constitute a foul.
Furthermore, 33.6 elaborates that an opponent may not move into the path of a player after that player has jumped into the air - which is exactly what Chaco is doing. Overall there is enough evidence that the call was right. Real Madrid lost the game by one point and in this sequence, they gave Efes 4 free throws, (3 shooting fouls + 1 technical). This highlights the importance of understanding the rules in detail from the coach/player side and going by the book even when the emotions run high.
2. Foul and the Penalty - Can both be wrong?
In Euroleague round 26, the league leader Olympiacos faces off against EA7 Milano. At the beginning of the second period, Alec Peters of Olympiacos drives to the basket but runs into Brandon Davies, who is called for a blocking defensive foul by the referee. The game proceeds with free throws. Important to note that this is the first foul committed by either of the teams in the 2nd period.
In this play, we will analyze both the blocking foul call and the free throws administered by the referees as the penalty. FIBA Rules Article 33.3 on legal guarding position, 33.4, guarding a player who controls the ball 33.8 charging and 33.9 Blocking will help us interpret block/charge situations.
Charging is defined as an illegal personal contact, with or without the ball, by pushing or moving into an opponent’s torso. Blocking is defined as illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent with or without the ball. If the player shifts his/her position as the opponent shifts, he/she is primarily responsible for any contact that occurs. 33.3 and 33.4 will elaborate on legal and illegal contact that is applicable here.
FIBA rules elaborate that the player with the ball - in this case Alec Peters of Olympiacos - must expect to be guarded and must be prepared to stop or change his/her direction whenever an opponent takes an initial legal guarding position in front of him, even if this is done within a fraction of a second. The guarding (defensive) player - in this case, Brandon Davies of EA7 Milano - must establish an initial legal guarding position without causing contact before taking his/her position.
According to FIBA, a defensive player has established an initial legal guarding position when:
• He is facing his/her opponent, and
• He has both feet on the court
From the footage, we can observe that Brandon Davies was on the spot at the 00:15 mark of the video. Hard to judge if he moved after that from the footage. The contact happened on the torso. While from this point of view, it checks the boxes for a charge call for Alec Peters, there is one more rule we need to look at. The No-Charge Semi Circle.
The no-charge semi-circle area is drawn on the court specifically for the interpretation of charge/block situations under the basket. FIBA Rulebook dictates that on a penetration play, any contact caused by an airborne offensive player with a defensive player inside the no-charge semi-circle shall not be called a team control foul (i.e. charge or offensive foul) unless the offensive player is illegally using his/her hands, arms, legs or body. There are 3 criteria that need to be met:
The offensive player is in control of the ball whilst airborne,
They attempt a shot for a goal or passes the ball, and
The defensive player has one foot or both feet in contact with the no-charge semi-circle area.
At the 0:04 mark, we can see the exact moment of contact. While it can be said that Brandon Davies had his feet in contact with the semi-circle (his right foot seem to be on the line), it should be also noted that Alec Peters is in fact not airborne as his left foot is still in contact with the floor. Therefore the No-Charge Semi Circle is not applicable and an offensive foul should have been called if the referees believed Brandon Davies was in a legal guarding position.
Regarding the two free throws administered, we need to understand the concept of the act of shooting as referees clearly deemed that Alec Peters was in the act of shooting. The FIBA definition of the act of shooting that applies here is as follows:
”..A continuous movement on drives to the basket or other moving shots is an action of a player who catches the ball while he/she is progressing or upon completion of the dribble and then continues with the shooting motion, usually upwards.”
Starts when the player gathers the ball and ends when the ball left the player’s hands or in the case of the airborne shooter when both feet return to the court. While there is a clear case for Alec Peters being in the act of shooting and therefore the administered penalty was right, there is a subsection in the FIBA rule book that governs also the actions after the foul call.
Subsection 15.1.6 indicates that when a player is in the act of shooting and after being fouled he/she passes the ball off, he/she is no longer considered to have been in the act of shooting. As Alec Peters clearly passes the ball to his teammate under the basket, he is no longer in the act of shooting, therefore game should have started with a throw-in from the baseline.
What do you think? Was the blocking call right or should have been a team-control foul? Let us know in the comments!
3. 8 Seconds Violation
In the second leg of the FIBA Europe Cup quarter-finals, Finnish champions Karhu Basket hosted FC Porto in Kauhajoki, Finland. Karhu Basket entered the game with a one-point advantage from the first leg, and by the last five minutes of the game, they had a comfortable double-digit lead over FC Porto.
After a layup attempt by FC Porto, Lee Skinner of Karhu Baskets grabbed the defensive rebound. As he started his dribble, Skinner fumbled the ball which almost resulted in a turnover. Kaukiainen’s valiant effort to carry the ball to the frontcourt came too late, and the referee called an eight-second violation.
Control of the ball is a fundamental aspect of basketball, yet it is often overlooked by players, coaches, and referees when interpreting situations on the court. To assess traveling violations, backcourt violations, and seconds violations, it is important to consider if the team or player has control of the ball, when the control has started, and if anything has happened that may change control.
To evaluate an 8-second violation, two concepts from the FIBA Rule Book are needed: Article 14 for Control of the Ball and Article 28 for 8 Seconds. Article 28 states:
”…the 8-second period begins when a player in the backcourt gains control of a live ball, or on a throw-in, the ball touches or is legally touched by any player in the backcourt and the team of that player taking the throw-in remains in control of the backcourt.”
Article 14 defines team control as a player being in control of a live ball by holding and dribbling it or having a live ball at their disposal. It also specifies the circumstances that end team control - for example when an opponent gains control. Analyzing the play, we conclude that Karhu Basket gained team control and therefore the 8 seconds started with Skinner's rebound at the 00:04 mark.
When the violation call was made, Kaukiainen of Karhu Basket had control of the ball. The only question left is whether team control changed within the sequence. FIBA Interpretations 14-3 states that a team gains control if one of their players catches the ball with both hands or the ball comes to rest in one hand of one of their players.
At the 00:10 mark of the video, FC Porto gained team control for a split second before Kaukianen tapped the ball out of their player's hand. Therefore, a new 24-second and 8-second period should have started from that moment onwards. The FIBA Broadcast resets the clock, which can be seen in the video. It should be noted that FC Porto’s control of the ball is extremely brief which makes it difficult to judge real time.
4. Correctable Errors: 6th Player on the Court wins the game
In the last few seconds of the tournament quarterfinal game between the Old Dominion University and the Troy women's basketball team, the ODU, who were seeded fifth, were leading 84-83 and had possession of the ball. Taleah Washington, who was one of six ODU on the court at the time, inbounded the ball to Amari Young, who was unguarded and made a layup to secure the win with 2.1 seconds left. The Sun Belt Conference later apologized to the Troy team for not noticing that the Monarchs had six players on the court during the scoring play. ODU won the game 86-83.
There are a set of errors that can be corrected (excluding the situations that are covered by the Instant Replay System) and they had to be realized in a timely manner. Article 44 says that referees may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently disregarded in the following situations only:
• Awarding an unmerited free throw(s).
• Failing to award a merited free throw(s).
• Erroneous awarding or canceling of a point(s).
• Permitting the wrong player to attempt a free throw(s).
As seen in the rulebook, having 6 players on the court is not a correctable error - meaning that referees can not take corrective actions on the past decisions that led to having 6 players on the floor.
However, FIBA does govern situations where the referees discover that there are more than 5 players of the same team on the court simultaneously while the game clock is running. The procedure is explained by FIBA Rule Interpretation Article 36-5:
Referees have to stop the game without placing the opponents at a disadvantage and at least 1 player shall be removed from the game.
Whatever occurred during the period between the illegal participation and the game being stopped when the illegal participation is discovered shall remain valid.
A technical foul shall be charged against the head coach of that team, entered as a ‘B1’. The head coach is responsible for ensuring that all the substitutions are applied correctly.
The game resumes with a throw-in at the disposal of the same team who had control when the game stopped.
If this incident took place at a FIBA tournament, assuming the mistake is realized after the basket, two points would have remained valid. Troy University would have been given a free throw due to a technical foul. The game would have resumed with a Troy University throw-in under the basket from their backcourt.
Thanks for reading the March Edition of the Hoops Official. You can influence the content for the future editions. What kind of content would you like to see more?