Continuation of the collaboration between the LNB and the High-Level Refereeing Directorate with the format "The Referee Deciphers," which reviews several whistle calls with pedagogy and numerous explanations.
Description
After intercepting the ball, the attacker tries to launch a counterattack when he is fouled on the side by the last defender between him and the basket. Unless the attacker has already started their shooting action, this situation must be judged as an unsportsmanlike foul.
Decision
The trail official responsible for this situation is correctly positioned and penalizes the defender for an unsportsmanlike foul. Good decision by the referee.
Regulation
Article 37.1.1
Description
In this situation, the defender arrives late and causes a rough and excessive contact on the attacking player who has just received the ball. It can also be noted that the defender makes no effort to play the ball. These two criteria (roughness and no effort to play the ball) must be penalized as an unsportsmanlike foul.
Decision
The trailing referee responsible for this situation intervened correctly and penalized the defender for an unsportsmanlike foul.
Regulation
Article 37.1.1
Description
During a transition, contact occurs between two interior players, resulting in the attacking player falling. Considering the level of contact in this situation, the fall of the attacking player is disproportionate and "theatrical." This is a case of flopping.
Decision
The trail referee responsible for this situation is not "deceived" and gives a warning to the player for flopping. Any repeated action of this type will be penalized with a technical foul.
Regulation
Article 36.2.1
Description
The attacker dribbling attempts to get past his opponent, but the latter prevents him by using his legs to make him fall without playing the ball. The foul committed is unsporting in nature and must be penalized as such.
Decision
The foul is penalized as a personal foul, but it is a classification error. The situation should have been reclassified as an unsportsmanlike foul, as the defender made no legitimate attempt to play the ball.
Regulation
Article 37.1.1
Description
In this situation, the offensive team attempts a shot close to the expiration of the 24-second shot clock. After grabbing the offensive rebound, the shot clock buzzer sounds. The ball having touched the rim during the shot, the shot clock should not have sounded, and the game should have continued as after any rebound.
Decision
The referees confer on this situation and agree that the ball did indeed touch the rim after the shot and that there is no 24-second violation. Possession of the ball is returned to the team that had gained control after the offensive rebound. It is a good decision by the referees.
Regulation
Article 29.1.2
