Given the way they were calling USFs, Sobeys should have been.

OfCourse it's ridiculous and neither sobey nor steindl should be considered USF
If the rules were reasonable

The USF rule being discussed finishes when someone starts the act of shooting.

Also, there is no clear path foul in FIBA. I know what the OP is saying but it isnt called a clear path foul. The rules are freely available through Google to go read for yourself

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

Stupid USF on Steindel. He was going for the ball. The USF is suppose to be used when a person deliberatly holds a hand or jersey of the fast break player.

What is a player to do? Just let the opposition go to the basket alone?

Steindel deserved a normal foul but not an USF like.

Anyone got footage of the Steindl foul?

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.

Rabbit 70 that doesn't make any difference, you can't touch a player from the behind or side who is on a fast break

Happy to be corrected but my recollection was the Stiendl was always behind and got along side Chilldress but never in front

Just watched the replay: Childress gathered the ball and dribbled towards the wing before he began his act of shooting, and Stiendl was between Childress and the basket.

Furthermore, Stiendl clearly attempted to play legal defense and within the spirit of the game.

Not an USF.

"Stupid USF on Steindel. He was going for the ball."

At what point is he going for the ball? His hands are in the air and he bumps Childress to deliberately foul him to stop the play. Correct call

Go read the rule book, assuming Perth fans can read

Lol anon

If you want people to read your trash at least put a name to it

Also you didn't post the entire rule, just part of it.

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.

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

Mayberry was asking in relation to the foul and where he picked up the ball.

Lol

No you didn't post the entire rule

I’ve actually posted I don’t agree with it but it’s the rule. Suck it up buttercup your team got pantsed. Your coach got found out and your imports didn’t turn up. When Kenny was your best player you are in trouble

Lol

Classic Perth Fan

Here is the rule used by the ref in the call for those playing at home. It is a portion of article 37

"An unnecessary contact caused by the defensive player in order to stop the progress of the offensive team in transition.
This applies until the offensive player begins his act of shooting.

Contact by the defensive player from behind or laterally on an opponent in an attempt to stop the fast break and there is no defensive player between the
offensive player and the opponent's basket.
This applies until the offensive player begins his act of shooting."

The ref made the call that Steindl broke one if not both of these sections of the rules. The NBL has done a very poor job at conveying this point of emphasis to the players and coaches. On more than one occasion this season players and coaches have been caught out by this new definition.

BA have circulated a video on the definitions of this rule and by that video the ref was right to call Steindl.

The call didn't impact the result which is the main thing here. I think almost 100% of players and fans don't agree with it or like it.

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.

Stiendl doesn't count as a defender in this situation. I get no one likes it but that is the rule and that was the call as it has been called all season. Simply you cant touch an offensive player on a fast break until they commence shooting.

37-8 Statement. 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 only until the
offensive player begins his act of shooting.

Contact was laterally, correct me i am wrong?

Because there needs to be another defender between the ball to eliminate the USF rule. See the wording " with no other defensive player between..."

Dragon , the wording to focus on is "unnecessary contact" there is no contact that is necessary on a basketball court. Hence any contact engages the rule.

I would also say that yes Stenidl did create contact laterally so that also engages the rule.

ANON - I copied and pasted the rule direct from FIBA that is the wording.

"...with NO OTHER defensive player between the offensive
player and the opponents' basket" Caps included to help you out.

Dome Rat i am actually agreeing with you here.
Anon - http://www.fiba.basketball/OBR2017/interpretations.pdf

Anon I am trying to help you here. FIBA produce the rule book then supply secondary definitions or expansion explanations of the rules that may have changed or amended. The definitions are considered rules as they are the expansion of the rule in question.

Steindl was a USF under the rule and certainly under the definition document as well as the BA circulated video.

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

Do we agree that the rule says there has to be an "other defender" between the ball and the basket?

E.g. If there was another defender between Steindl and the basket it wouldn't have been called USF

Agreed Dome Rat!

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