There was nothing wrong with it. Not a foul in any way. Smart play

I thought it was cheeky and amusing

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

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.

It was a smart heads up play.

In the spirit of the game? No.
Does it matter? No, this is playoffs people.

You'd think United will come out desperate on Saturday. I rate them a good chance. They can win on the road when they need to....as proven in Perth & Illawarra.

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).

heads up move really.

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

Anyone got video or able to describe what happened?

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.

Abercrombie was laying on his back next to the sideline in Uniteds half with the ball in his hands. Goulding ran over and, using his hand, pushed Abercrombies foot to touch outside the court. Goulding them pointed it out to the ref who whistled to call out of play. Refs then conferred, watched the video, and called a foul on Goulding. Possession to Breakers.

It was my understanding that a foul can't be called from watching the video...only a determination of possession or upgrading of foul call etc.

Pushing foul on Chris then. He pushed his foot. He should of went for the ball instead, all ball.

He is a cheat and an embarrassment.

United done, sweep people. United have no offence. Vukona owned Kickert from the opening tip.

Every player but Warrick were outclassed by a better "team"

Tomlinson the worst player in the history of the NBL. BY FAR

Sunday will be a massacre 20+

*Saturday

Why did the refs need to review it? Did they not see what Goulding did? Why not give him a tech and not worry about the replay?

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.

You'd think that an out of bounds player touching an inbounds player with the ball would result in the ball being out off the already out of bounds player.

"Tomlinson the worst player in the history of the NBL. BY FAR"

Funnily enough, Melbourne were +19 when he was on the court last night. There's more to the game than what you do with the ball in your hands.

It was by the rules but it was very unsportsmanlike. I think he should have been given an unsportsmanlike foul for his efforts.

+ - is for nerds who can't play the game - or understand it. Do you actually watch basketball Paul? Or read the boxscore? I've seen box scores where a player can be 1/10 from the field with 5 turnovers and still be +10 at the end of the game.

Tomlinson contributes nothing as a point guard. Has no defence, just dribbles then stops and pivots, passes out to the top again then points where the ball should go, claps to get it back then repeats the whole process. He is by far the shittest player on the court in every game he plays.

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...

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

Goulding was cheeky but that's definitely a foul and it was so blatant, I think the refs made the right decision to call the foul instead of the out of bounds, even though they can't technically do it on a replay.

It would have been too much of a cop out to call it out of bounds.

I still don't know what they needed the replay for. At least one ref would have seen it. All he had to was speak to the other refs, explain what he saw and then the three of them could have decided what to do.

"+ - is for nerds who can't play the game - or understand it. Do you actually watch basketball Paul? Or read the boxscore? I've seen box scores where a player can be 1/10 from the field with 5 turnovers and still be +10 at the end of the game."


And what were their teammates' in +-? Melbourne were +19 in Tomlinson's 18 minutes and -28 in the 22 minutes he was off court. From memory Warrick was next best with +8.

The reason for that was offensively Tomlinson got them into sets quickly, got people in the right spots and got the ball to right spots. Defensively he organised them, particularly their zone.

His direction in the zone D was a key to them holding the Breakers to 13 points in 12 minutes from late in the first quarter until half-time.

That's a good point. Usually the refs call for the replay to figure out who the ball is off of when heading out of bounds.

In this case, they saw the Breaker's foot out of bounds and there wasn't any struggle with the ball so the refs knew the breaker was out of bounds. There's no point calling a replay in that respect.

I think maybe they saw Goulding lift his legs and they simply couldnt believe what they just saw, or one of the players created a stir saying what happened and they felt compelled to look.

So I don't think they went to a replay for the purpose to see who it was out of bounds of off. It then begs the question if they are allowed to watch a replay for another purpose?

It certainly sets an interesting precedent if refs can call fouls off the review. There was an out of bounds reviewed in Perth v Melbourne where there was a foul but it wasn't called, I had assumed they couldn't ala FIBA rules (or what I understand them to be).

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.

Brad Geirsh was reffing. Say no more.

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)?

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?

Michael Aylen reffed a good game last night, but the game was different when he wasn't involved.

Interestingly, Demopoulos spoke about the reffing in the NBL for the first time anyone in the presser could remember. I'd even asked him a loaded question about it earlier in the season and he dodged it.

I wrote a bit about it here (although some has been edited out):https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/30861291/united-coach-frustrated-by-breakers-defeat/

The best quote was "every game here something inexplicable happens and I never get an explanation."

Bg Ads, my read would be it is implicitly listed in the rules what can be reviewed, meaning all other things cannot be reviewed. That's certainly how I'd seen the review system used before last night. I have never seen a foul called from a review.

"I thought it was cheeky and amusing"

This. It certainly got a good laugh from the crowd.

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)?

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

Article 46.13

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

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.

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

Melbourne certainly got the worst of it in the second half last night, certainly blew any conspiracy theories out of the water!

It was interesting that after biting his tongue all season Demopoulos finally spoke about the reffing here last night. Maybe he realised it was probably his last chance in front of the Melbourne media?

His big thing was the second half was whistled very different from the first half. He was completely right, but it's an NBL tradition to leave the whistles in the changerooms after the break!

"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.

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