Continuation of the collaboration between the LNB and the High-Level Refereeing Directorate with the "The Referee Deciphers" format, which reviews several whistle calls with pedagogy and numerous explanations.
Description
Player No. 23 of Cholet, C. Agbo, attacks the basket and grabs the ball with the intention of shooting. As he begins his upward motion toward the basket, ASVEL defender No. 11, E. Jackson, manages to touch the ball. Under the effect of this contact, the ball briefly slips out of the attacker's hands. Still airborne, C. Agbo immediately recovers the ball before landing on the ground with it in his possession.
Decision
As soon as the ball leaves the attacker's hands following contact with the defender, the attacker can legally regain control of the ball before landing on the ground. The criteria for traveling are not met in this situation. The referee's decision not to stop the game is therefore correct.
Regulation
Article 25: Walk
Description
Player No. 44, T.J. Campbell, advances with the ball down the center of the court. His teammate, J. McNeace (No. 8), then sets a screen on the defender. However, he does not stop early enough and makes contact with the defender while setting up the screen.
When a screen is set on a moving opponent, the player setting the screen must allow enough distance and time for the opponent to avoid it. In practice, this generally corresponds to a distance of about one meter as well as the time needed to change one's trajectory or speed.
In this situation, these criteria are not met. The contact being caused by an illegal screen, player No. 8 is responsible for the contact. The screen foul must therefore be penalized, even if the screener is stationary at the moment of impact and maintains both feet on the ground.
Decision
This is a moving screen. The referee was right to penalize the attacking player for an illegal screen.
Regulation
Article 33 : Contact : principes généraux / Art. 33.7 : Les écrans
Description
The referees gather in front of the screen to conduct a video review. This involves verifying the value of the basket scored by Paris's No. 2, N. HIFI. The basket was awarded 3 points during the game.
Decision
To determine the value of a successful shot, referees are allowed to use video in certain cases defined by FIBA. Here, the goal is to verify if an image clearly shows that the shooter had a foot on the three-point line at the moment of the shot.
After reviewing the various available camera angles, no footage provides clear and conclusive visual evidence to overturn the decision made on the field. In the absence of clear and irrefutable evidence, the initial decision must stand.
The referees therefore correctly applied the IRS protocol by maintaining the value of the shot as it had been assigned on the field.
Regulation
Appendix F: video arbitrage.
Description
Player No. 34 from PARIS, HOLMES, makes a lob pass to his teammate, E. SHARVIN, who catches the ball in the air with both hands to attempt a dunk. The defender, No. 93 from Cholet, M. DIARRA, jumps and blocks the dunk attempt.
Decision
The defender defends legally and hits the ball. The referee should have let play continue and not penalized the defender who made a legal move and did not commit any contact requiring a whistle.
Regulation
Article 32: Offenses
Description
Paris player number 5, J. ROBINSON, is caught by 2 defenders, he grabs and pulls the arm of Cholet player J. McNeace. The Paris player should have been penalized with an offensive foul. After the referee's decision to call the foul on the Cholet player, the latter tries to explain the action to him. He then proceeds to mimic the actions and makes physical contact with the referee. As a result, he receives a technical foul.
Decision
The referee should have penalized the attacker for an offensive foul and not the defender. The player is not allowed to touch the referee, even to mimic a situation, under penalty of being sanctioned with a justified technical foul.
Regulation
Articles 32-33-34: Offenses
Article 36: Technical foul
30 Jun 2026
