question from a national instructor and member of the european

QUESTION FROM A NATIONAL INSTRUCTOR AND MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN TECHNICAL
COMMISSION
PLAY SITUATIONS TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW FOR THE FUTURE
Play 1
After the ball has touched the ring in the last free throw, a defensive player tries to prevent the ball
from entering into the basket. On this effort to legally play the ball, he touches the ring
unintentionally, making the basket to vibrate and preventing the ball from entering into it when it still
had an opportunity to enter. This in an interference during a last free throw and one (1) point is
awarded to the offensive team. Must the official also penalize a technical foul to the defensive player
as stated in article 31.3.3, even if this player was trying to play the ball legally?
FIBA OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION
Even if he tries to play the ball legally, as he is not successful, this is a technical foul (one point is
awarded for the interference and two free throws and possession as a result of the technical foul)
PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW
I think this is an unfair situation which only happens during a last free throw. I don’t understand how a
technical foul can be penalized in a basketball situation where the player makes a legitimate effort to
play the ball. I believe that this action would already be penalized awarding one (1) point. Besides, I
don’t understand why this action would be penalized in a different way if committed by an offensive
player, cancelling the point and no technical foul being called. The Rules state that defensive and
offensive players have the same rights and duties and this situation doesn’t show this.
I think that the rule should be modified and made clear that, once the ball has touched the ring after
the last free throw, this is a rebound situation (article 31.1.1 – the free throw has ended) and that any
action in which an interference was committed should be penalized as a normal game situation, but
awarding just one (1) point.
I also believe that it is much more serious that the goal tending or interference was committed in the
first free throw and, on the other hand, just a violation is called in these cases.
I think that the rule should state that any goal tending or interference committed in a series of free
throws, before the last one has ended (art. 31.1.1), should be penalized awarding one (1) point in
case of a defensive infraction and none (0) if offensive. In both cases, a technical foul should be called
either to the defensive or the offensive player.
The FIBA Official Interpretation is correct. Interference has occurred.
PLAY 2
A4, in his backcourt, tries to make a fast break pass to A5, in his frontcourt. B3, which is in his
frontcourt (or Team A’s back court) jumps and establishes control of the ball in the air, and then he:
a) touches the floor with both feet on Team B’s backcourt.
b) touches the floor with one foot in each part of the court, front and back.
FIBA OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION
There is no violation. When B3 establishes a new control of the ball for his team while being in the
air, his position on the court is not established until both feet touch the floor. In both cases, B3 is
considered to be in his back court legally.
PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW
I think that it would be positive to change the concept in this situation, when a player who jumps and
touches the floor with one foot in each part of the court is considered to be in his back court.
When a player establishes a new control for his team while being in the air, his position is not
established until both feet touch the floor. As a consequence, I think that it would be easier to
consider this situation in the same way as we do when a player dribbles from his back court and stops
bouncing the ball with one foot on each side of the centre line. In this last case, he cannot move back
or pass the ball to his back court. Why does a player who establishes a new team possession in the
air have the opportunity to move to his backcourt or make a pass to a team mate in that position?
It can also happen a paradox such as this: a player jumps from his backcourt, establishes a new
control of the ball for his team while being in the air, and touches the floor with one foot at each side
of the centre line. According to the Official Interpretation, he will be in his backcourt so he can move
to his backcourt or make a pass to a player in that position.
Perhaps a player in the air cannot avoid returning to the floor with one foot at each side of the centre
line but he can avoid dribbling to his backcourt or making a pass towards his backcourt.
I insist that the intention of the rule would not be changed and the consistency of the article would be
kept, in relation to article 28.1.3 (“the ball goes into a team’s front court when: … it touches a player
or an official who has part of his body in contact with the frontcourt…”).
I think that the rule should state that a player who jumps from his frontcourt and establishes a new
control for his team in the air, will not commit a ball returned to the back court violation no matter his
final position. The Official Interpretation should state that this final position will be determined
according to what is said in all the rules, thus keeping their harmony.
For the time being, the FIBA Official Interpretation is correct in both cases. There is no violation.
Note: The b) case Interpretation will be re-studied by the FIBA Technical Commission at next meeting.
PLAY 3
B7 makes a pass from his frontcourt, but the ball touches the ring and moves away from the basket.
B4 jumps from his frontcourt and gains control of the ball in the air, then landing with both feet on his
backcourt. Ball returned illegally to backcourt or legal play?
The 24 second device is reset because the ball touches the ring, as stated in the modification of article
50.2.
But article 14.3 (Control of the ball) still says: “Team control ends when: … the ball has left the player
hand(s) on a shot for a field goal or a free throw.”
And article 29.1.1 still says: “To constitute a shot for a field goal within twenty-four seconds:
- the ball must leave the player hand(s) before the 24 device signal sounds and,
- after the ball has left the player’s hand(s), the ball must touch the ring or enter the basket.
PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW
I think that the change of the rule, which states that the 24 second operator must restart a new 24
second period when the ball touches the ring, except if it is lodged on the basket support (article 50.2
– bullet 3), can create confusion with articles 14.3 and 29.1.1.
Article 29.1.1 should be modified, where it says that whenever a player gains control of a live ball on
the playing court, his team must attempt a shot for a field goal within 24 seconds. The new rule (50.2
– bullet 3) states that it is not necessary to be a shot for a field goal, because the simple touch of the
ring during a pass or an involuntary action, makes a new 24 second period start.
I think that article 29.1.1 should state something like this:
“Whenever a player gains control of a live ball on the playing court, his team must attempt a shot for a
field goal or the ball must touch the ring within 24 seconds.”
On the same way, article 14.3 should be modified in relation to when a team control ends: “The ball
has left the player hand(s) on a shot for a field goal or a free throw.”
I think that this article 14.3 should have an addition which stated something like this:
“Team control ends when: … the ball touches the opponent’s ring.”
This proposal of amendment for these articles, 14.3 (end of team control) and 29.1.1 (24 second rule),
would help to maintain the consistency of the Rules. The mere change of article 50.2 (how the 24
second device is operated) questions the final harmony and consistency of the Rules and may lead to
confusion.
Legal play.
Play situation which I cannot find a correct interpretation in the Rules.
A player of Team A takes a throw-in from the side line and:
a) he makes a pass above the ring level for a team mate to dunk the ball. A player of Team B
prevents it reaching the ball through the basket. It is a defensive violation but which is the
penalty? Basket valid.
b) the ball touches directly the ring, after which a player of Team B reaches the ball through the
basket, moving it away from the basket. It is a defensive violation but which is the penalty?
Basket valid.
FROM A REGIONAL REFEREE GROUP
1) A5, who is in his frontcourt, passes the ball over the basket for a dunk. Nobody
touches the ball, which hits the ring and during its fly down, without
contacting any other player, A6 makes a foul on B5. Is this foul committed
by a player of the team in control of the ball? Yes
2) A5, who is in his frontcourt, passes the ball over the basket for a dunk. Nobody
touches the ball, which hits the ring and goes close to the centre line. A7
jumps from his frontcourt, takes the ball in the air and lands in his
backcourt. Is this a backcourt violation? The same question as play 3.
FROM A NATIONAL INSTRUCTOR/NATIONAL REFEREE COMMISSION
The interpretation for "Unsportsmanlike Fouls in a dead ball situation" is concentrating solely on the
defensive action.
We do understand that the primary intent of this rule is to clean up the play during the crucial
moments before the ball is released by the thrower-in. Still, we have received questions from coaches
around the leagues asking that there should be equal penalties for actions by the offensive team, as
both are occurring when the clock is not running, and because both teams should have equal rights.
So, on behalf of the German Rules Committee and the Leagues, I´m requesting your help in forwarding
this issue to the FIBA World Technical Committee for re-evaluation.
The issue has been discussed also at the Technical Commission meeting recently. Once the offensive
foul is called in the above mentioned situation, the result is the loss of the ball (ball goes to the
opponent) and that is what the team does not want. To rule the offensive foul to be UF would
compound the penalty of losing the ball and adding one more additional penalty of 2FT. The rules
should balance offense and defense and in this case it will be very unbalanced.
QUESTION FROM A NATIONAL INSTRUCTOR
Maybe the addition in 14.3 should be "when the ball accidentally touches the ring, even during a pass"
in order to avoid the situation of the player that, on purpose, throws the ball to the ring and catchs it
again...
Rui Valente
The suggested wording will be placed on the agenda of the next FIBA Technical Commission meeting.
QUESTION FROM THE FIBA EUROPE REFEREE WEBSITE:
1). When the ball has been released from the hands of the shooter A4 and it is still in the air, a 24second signal sounds. After the signal but when the A4 is still airborne, B5 fouls the A4. The ball has
missed the ring. Should the foul of B5 shall be disregarded?
Yes unless unsportsmanlike or disqualifying.
QUESTION FROM THE FIBA EUROPE REFEREE DEPARTMENT
This relates to the ball thrown from out of bounds that is touched by a player putting his hand through
the basket.
We would like to suggest that in every other situation (field goal attempt or FT) the shot has a value
or 1, 2, or 3 points.
Although it is unlikely that his situation will happen, if the ball enters the basket from out of bounds, it
is normally a violation and so the shot can have no value
Surely the logic in this suggests that this cannot be changed to HAVING a value, just because
defender also commits a violation by putting his hand through the basket and touching the ball.
We agree that this is a violation, but also as the ball is dead, possession of the ball should be returned
to the throwing in team as a result?
The proposal for reaching through the basket on the pass to be the interference has been accepted
upon the proposal of FIBA Europe.
The FIBA Europe proposal has been worded as follows:
If this action is by offensive player, it is a violation and throw-in for the opponent.
If this action is by the defensive player, 2 or 3 points shall be awarded.