Hey Big Ads - Hard or Unsportsmanlike is one and the same.

In other words you are saying:

1. Brad Giersh was correct in calling u/s for hard foul while the offense was air born and contact was excessive.

2. Haines was correct in calling front on contact which was a legitimate play for the ball as a personal foul. (maybe you could say hard foul but this is the Nbl)

Seems the only person confused is Steve Carfino

I was mildly amused by the fact that there was a segment on an aussie basketball show related to refereeing calls. I guess it makes basketball look more legit in the eyes of the doubters but i reckon they could've spoken about something else n got a better guest.

Gotta love a 35 yr old mo' tho'.

Ads, what did Carey say about the foul on Ervin?

It was frustrating because Ervin was rising for a nice dunk in front of his home crowd, but it did look like a legitimate play at the ball.

All that showed was Carey doesn't have enough balls to tell the refs they were wrong... That and he has a terrible Mo!

Isaac and DJ Rod the refs weren't wrong.

Both calls were applied correctly.

Taj's was unsportmanlike. Loughton's wasn't.

Seems Carfino isn't the only one confused but the refs thankfully got both calls right.

Big Ad's

For once i'd have to agree with you

McCullough foul - unsportsmanlike

Alex Loughton - hard foul (looked ugly but hard)

BTW.....
How does a bloody footy ump try and explain a basketball foul interpretation on National TV....
Hello.....
Thats where our Referee standard is????(get a real basketball ref to run the show)
Overtime is crap....
Sorry im over it and wont watch it again

Peter Carey used to be a basketball ref and also was a integral part of the ITC program in Victoria years ago..

and if they got a basketball referee to run the referees people would complain that it is jobs for the boys, you cant win

Carey, the ref and the refs say one hand got plenty of ball but then the other hand used was excessive.
JVG was saying - because Ervin was airborne - made it look worse.
The foul in perth looked like a hip and shoulder.

Who'd be a ref - they showed them 7 or 8 times and in slo mo and I'm still not sure.
Maybe Ervin airborne - was a dangerous foul - could've really got hurt in that situation.
I still need to watch them agen.

I think what is unclear is whether an unsportsmanlike foul can be called even when it was a legitimate play on the ball?

I thought he genuinely tried to block the dunk, and was therefore a bit hard done by to get called for the unsportsmanlike.

Here's a question - had it been Saville going for the dunk (a bigger, stronger player) would the refs have made the same call? Probably not.

I like the NBA system of being able to review after the game, and cancel flagrants etc. Would be good if the league reviewed and acknowledged a player's genuine play on the ball after the event. It's very difficult for the refs in real time, as this example shows.

Hydra, "legitimate" is probably the wrong word to use. I wasn't unhappy with it being called unsportsmanlike and don't claim to know the exact rule in this situation (e.g., re excessive contact by the other hand) but just wanted to say that it was probably a little contentious because he didn't flat-out mug him or grab him around the waist.

Ugliest televised foul of that round was Robbins against Cairns. Hard foul, plus pulled down on the guy's head unnecessarily. Could've been warned and ejected if he did it again.

I didn't think the Ervin foul was unsportsmanlike. Taj only had eyes for the ball and made some contact with the body whilst trying to block the shot. Nothing excessive about it.

I thought Taj made a play on the ball, got a pretty good piece of it, and was unlucky. That said, he took a huge wind up and I think that always makes such a foul look much worse than it actually is. A pretty understandable call by the ref.

Like Isaac I confess to not knowing what the actual rule is, but to be honest I don't much care. Guys need to be able to challenge dunk attempts, and Taj did so in a pretty reasonable manner IMO. But, it looked bad live, I thought it was a hard foul, so I cannot fault Giersch for calling it that way. But it doesn't look anywhere near as bad on a replay.

Ditto on the Robbins foul. You could just about find a reason to throw him out of every game he plays though.

For those that think the Ervin foul was a unsportsmanlike foul, how is that any different to an offensive player under the ring going up for a shot and getting knocked off balance by the defender trying to block the shot during regular play? The only difference is one is during a fast break and one is during regular play.

Taj made a legitimate attempt on the ball and therefore it shouldn't be called an unsportsmanlike. The only time that this should be called unsportsmanlike is if the player intentionally fouled the player like that. For example the time Larry Abney did this to Brad Hill whom subsequently broke his arm and no unsportsmanlike was called. However Taj was going for the block.

Furthermore, the reason it looked so bad is because Ervin jumped off two feet (if i remember correctly) making him more vulnerable in the air.

Should we be telling athletic players not to go for an entertaining block as it will be called an automatic unsportsmanlike here? Thats rubbish!

Taj was never going to block that shot without taking Gary out. Therefore the USF was an easy call. The foul was way to excessive on a dunk.

KJ, agreed on the Abney call. He should have been ejected and deported, and the refs involved severely fined and suspended for not dealing with the situation.

"The foul was way to excessive on a dunk" would have been ok on a finger role or layup?

I thought McCullough was an USF as he knew he would take out an airborne player. Loughton was borderline as he was in front, but did hit Knight hard, and the rule says excessive contact is a USF. I was happy with both calls, but thought Loughton's could have easily gone the other way.

The difference between a USF and a Foul for the Taj block attempt was the side that he attempted to block from.

Taj came in from behind Ervin to get the block. Considering Taj would have had to literally get his arm infront of Ervin's and then swat it sideways to block, there was a very small chance of success and a high chance of wrapping the arms, or knocking him over. Basically, too much player to get around in order to get the block.

Had Taj come in from the right to cut across Ervin's driving lane he would have had a much greater chance of avoiding full contact and could have had a better attempt at the block. Granted even in this direction he would have still been going full pelt and they would have collided regardless of whether the block was made or the dunk was made. But a collision from that side would have been probably marked as a legitimate attempt with a big ending.

...of course, had Ervin made the dunk on Taj, that would have been a nice poster.

From what my understanding is, there is two questions that need to be asked in each situation; If the first is answered with a 'No', or the second with a 'Yes', then the contact should be ruled as unsportsmanlike.

1. Was the player attempting to play the ball?
No - Then Unsportsmanlike
2. Was the contact excessive?
Yes - Then Unsportsmanlike

The hard part is the second questions because everybodys definition of 'excessive' varys a bit. Personally when i saw McCullough's foul on Ervin i immediatley said, thats unsportsmanlike. Whilst it was a genuine attempt, and one could plead that the contact wasnt excessive because he was trying to block the ball rather than foul, i still think plays like that need to be called U/S.

I remember Carfino having no idea at all on commentary and explaining "oh but he played the ball, it cant be unsportsmanike". And thinking to myself, this douche has to be one of the reasons of rule confusion in basketball because on National TV he is quoting something that is incorrect, or not expained. Damn i hate Steve Carfino.

The second one i havent seen.

Anon - that doesn't mean the decision was right or wrong, just that it can't be contested. The question being asked is whether or not the uncontestable decision made by the ref was correct.

I think it's a great discussion to have and I've learnt something.

Just like we don't discuss the failings in a player or team expecting them to go back in time and hit the shot or win the game, but because it's an optional part of following the game.

Art 36.1.3 statement 2 is what we are looking at. Even if a player makes a effort at playing the ball.........


Art. 36 Unsportsmanlike foul
36.1 Definition
36.1.1 An unsportsmanlike foul is a player contact foul which, in the judgement of an
official, is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball within the spirit and intent
of the rules.
36.1.2 The official must interpret the unsportsmanlike fouls consistently throughout the
game and to judge only the action.
36.1.3 To judge whether a foul is unsportsmanlike, the officials should apply the following
principles:
?? If a player is making no effort to play the ball and contact occurs, it is an
unsportsmanlike foul.
?? If a player, in an effort to play the ball, causes excessive contact (hard foul), it is
an unsportsmanlike foul.
?? If a defensive player causes contact with an opponent from behind or laterally
in an attempt to stop a fast break and there is no opponent between the
offensive player and the opponents' basket, it is an unsportsmanlike foul.
?? If a player commits a foul while making a legitimate effort to play the ball
(normal play), it is not an unsportsmanlike foul.
36.2 Penalty
36.2.1 An unsportsmanlike foul shall be charged against the offender.
36.2.2 Free throw(s) shall be awarded to the player who was fouled, followed by:
?? A throw-in at the centre line extended, opposite the scorer’s table.
?? A jump ball in the centre circle to begin the first period.
The number of free throws shall be awarded as follows:
?? If the foul is committed on a player not in the act of shooting: two (2) free
throws.
?? If the foul is committed on a player in the act of shooting: the goal, if made, shall
count and, in addition, one (1) free throw.
?? If the foul is committed on a player in the act of shooting and the goal is not
made: two (2) or three (3) free throws.
36.2.3 A player shall be disqualified when he is charged with two (2) unsportsmanlike
fouls.
36.2.4 If a player is disqualified under Art. 36.2.3, that unsportsmanlike foul shall be the only
foul to be penalised and no additional penalty for the disqualification shall be
administered.

Sebastian, The rule book also says that if you pick up your pivot foot before dribbling it is a travel. But that is not often adhered too due to advantage/disadvantage and management of games with regards to flow and score.

Agreed Lol 47 but Unsportsmanlike isnt advantage/disadvantage is it. If the defender rips a players head off and shits down his neck your not going to call advantage!!!!!

It clearly states severe contact (hard foul) regardless of playing the ball or not is Unsportsmanlike. What we all want is just consistency so it comes down to the referees being on the same page and having the opinion of what is or isnt. Because Loughton's should have been US in my opinion as well just like Robbins was.

Solved then. It should not have been an unsportsmanlike foul because it was not excessive.

But the rule itself asks for the ref to decide excessive, which in itself means they need to make a determination which will not always be clear cut due to its nature. Same as advantage/disavantage.

I thought the Loughton one was a good call as Knight had a chance to brace himself as he was taking it hard at the defender, while Ervin was moving away from the defender and was in a more dangerous position. With the defender only able t make a play at the ball through the player.

It is rules like this one that create the whole 'grey area' debate. I know many coaches who want the game called, Black Or White. But in cases like this, it comes down to an individual judgement on a case by case scenario if the contact is excessive.

Unsportsmanlike

Just watched the replay of the segment.

The responses to Carfino's questions were horrendous.

I just cannot stand the refs in the NBL. It's not blatant, unreasonable hate - the inconsistence and incompetence just infuriates me. Really is hurting the product.

Lol 47, every rule in the book asks a referee to make a determination! Did he change his pivot foot, did he establish legal guarding position, did he step on the line etc etc Refereeing is about making decisions! Consistency with the decisions across the board is what is needed.

How does Knight being able to brace himself make the call correct? I can brace myself for you to punch me in the face, its still unsportsmanlike. Excessive or Hard foul is US. It's not a hard concept. Just get the ref's to be consistent! Thats the main issue.