Beal releases it;
Majok gets a finger to it;
as Majok's arm comes down, his arm hits Beal's arm.
Correct no call.

I'm with Sirjump. Minor contact on the follow through. Play on.

So it's not a foul if you hit a shooters arm after he has released the ball???

Thanks for uploading!

Yeah Majok made contact with the arm.

Exactly how much contact on the arm is up for debate, but there's no doubt that by the standards of this season's NBL, it should've been called a foul.

But while we're on this topic, let's take a look at Majok's first 3 fouls, Goulding's first 2, Blanchfield's second, Holt's first.....

Or if you want to go on with the "Cheer leading refs" narrative then look at Redhage's first two fouls.

No foul on follow through? tell that to Kobe.

It's not the worst no-call I've seen. Certainly not worthy of all the crying going on.
Bad calls happen all the time in every league in the world. The carry-on is over the top.

The issue I have is that if its Goulding doing it, he would get the call after he threw himself to the floor as if he got Ervined again.

I don't think it was a foul. Yeah he got hand but he got ball first. Good block, play on. And with Holt putting both of his hands on Beal as he began the drive... I've seen plenty of those not called. Yeah call it a double hand check or whatever, but I'm okay with that not being called a foul either.

Re: Majok's block
1) It was crunch time and refs will only ever blow the whistle if it is blatant. It's just the nature of the sport

2) Let's not be hypocritical as fans. We've been campaigning for more excitement around the rim and a relaxing of calls like this. Lost count of the number of times a ref has killed an amazing defensive play by calling the shot blocker for a foul

I can see why it wasn't a foul but since when has getting arm as well, or after, getting the ball been a no call?

I'm prepared to proven wrong regarding "foul on the follow through", but let's not forget that Majok blocked the shot and *then* hits Beal on the arm.

This isn't a case of Beal being denied the opportunity to hit the game winner because he was fouled in the act of shooting.

Same thing happend to harden last season duncan blocked the shot hit him on the follow through. No call, there too.

And the case of Goulding wouldve got the call... welcome to reality Redhage been getting those calls for too long. This is a bit much, not the worst no call.

After watching a few times, I can understand why they didn't call the foul on Majok. Not as much contact on the arm as I first thought.

After watching the replay I actually think it could've been a foul on Knight defending Holt too. If you look at say, one of Charles Jacksons early fouls last night defending Burston it was almost the same.

The players are trying to learn the reffing so I hope that the refs keep it fairly consistent game to game, play to play. That's all we can really ask.

Yeah good pick up- that Duncan/Harden incident was quite similar to this actually.

While we're on the refs, I'd like to see them penalising players more *after the fact* for flopping.

boo hoo.

The only similarity between this and Duncan and Harden is there were two black players involved. Duncan got his hand right on top of the ball, and as it moved down from the ball, he eventually made contact with hardens arm. Majok just takes a massive swipes and hits arm and ball at roughly the same time. It's not a clean block at all.

This reaction is kinda sad. We all want our teams to win and get a fair go, but c'mon guys... be more concerned about the lack of consistent shooters perth have to go to. Its stuff like this that makes people love to hate the Cats so much haha

Stop being a dickhead Kobe. We're discussing a call, that's what the thread is for.

Now now no need to name call. Its just a bit much is all im saying.

Majok just takes a massive swipes and hits arm and ball at roughly the same time.

Yes, its clearly a foul. People disputing are doing so purely because they either hate Perth and/or don't want the result called into dispute.

But here's the thing. Incorrect calls happen. They happen all game in every game.
People are all focussed on this because they think Beal could have shot 2 and tied up the game, but in reality its no more or less important than any other call during the game.

When games go down to the wire like that, anything can happen. In a sense its always going to seem a little unfair when you have two great teams each plays a great game, but only one will ever get the points. But that's basketball.
Simple fact is that the Cats should never have allowed Majok to get that rebound. Cats get that board, MU have to foul them, and they probably stay in front and win. Didn't happen, MU win, end of story.

Thats a foul. Dont like Perth but in fairness of a game, they should have called it.
If the difference was 11 points, they would have.
Shonky reffing

"No foul, clean block ended the shot and then contact occurred afterwards". its still a foul even if contact happens after the release of the shot eg 3 point shooters

Watched the game on tv, saw the full speed replay at the time, thought nothing of it until seeing this thread just now.

Maybe it's a foul, maybe it's not. But I wouldn't be taking the refs to task over that one ever. Maybe you get that call 1/4 times.

Watching the game I actually assumed they had called it a foul until I saw everyone's reaction.

Usually that's a foul, although I wish it wasn't. If they consistently leave that as a no-call for the rest of the season it would be better for the game IMO.

Watch the game around the world, that's a no call pretty much everywhere. Really happy the refs didn't give a bail out against someone playing good D, same with Knight's D on Holt.

Frustration for players, coaches and fans is inconsistency. Knight was whistled for a foul on a very very similar play earlier in the game. The refs need to be on the same page because once the calls become consistent players will adapt.

Actually, watching that in slo-mo, that's a lot of body contact for a guy with zero defensive position. Should have been a foul. Unlucky.
Them's the breaks.
Was a hell of a game.

Haha, no, clearly moving laterally and quite a lot

Foul or not, minor or obvious, the first 1 second of the video linked at the top of this thread makes it plain as day that he was anything but "straight up"

So exactly what I said then. Moving laterally and quite a lot.

Looked like a no-call to me. Doesn't look like he hits Beal much on the follow through, or at all. Certainly didn't seem hacked.

OP also started the other thread complaining about this call, and the "blow-out" thread. Doubt that will surprise anyone. Apparently complains if the games aren't close or if they are close. And starts a lot of posts with "LOL" - always so cheerful! Home life must be great, anon.

Watched the play via normal play mode.
Question is, if you were a fan of one or the other, what would have been your verdict.
Easy saying good no call etc, but if that was ur team, would u have felt cheated walking out the carpark.

I was watching it live too, with my son and we both thought it was a foul immediately, but so many fouls, no calls and flops in the game, so where do you draw that line?

Looks like a foul, feels like a foul, smells like a foul, probably is a foul!

#UNLESSITISAFLOP

If they were being consistent they would have called the foul on the body contact alone. Ok, they missed that. Then if they were being consistent they would have called the foul on the follow through arm contact. Ok, they missed that too.

I've no problem with the no call (or call if it were) but again it's the lack of consistency within games and across the season that is still the biggest concern with the reffing.

Don't care about the last call, Beal shouldn't have gone there, poor decision.

Get tired of people blaming refs for losses, players and coaches make just as many mistakes during a game, but all the fans want to do is focus on the refs. It's a cop out to deflect from your team.

3 offences in a row we chucked up under pressure 3 pointers in the last rather than getting to Knight or Jawai , who were killing it on the inside. And Beals D on Holt in the last play was ordinary, why was Martin not subbed in specifically for that play is beyond me

^Very true that, did you see how upset Jawai was at not getting the pill in the dying minutes, he was livid and understandably so...

Isaac the Lol gives it away. So much sadness comes out in those Lol ironically. I think its a good no call too. Hell of a block by Majok.

Again just like the explantation the NBA gave over Duncan's block on Harden.

It's a clear no call.

Majok plants his feet between Beal and the basket, elevates to maintain that defensive position between Beal and the basket, takes contact to the chest, gets ball on his blocked shot attempt. The minor contact on the arm has no bearing on the shot attempt.

What this thread does highlight though, is the tradition in Australian basketball of this sort of contact being whistled, in stark contrast with hoops around the world. People are used to this being called. Hopefully this will change.

There is nothing "clear" about the call at all, paul. Given that both players are moving and there is body and arm contact on the shooter, there are quite obviously aspects that will be up for debate.

Interesting comments paul.

What I said originally last night- above- is that it was a foul by the standards of this season's NBL (which I've been watching a lot of).

But whether or not this season's NBL standards indicate *the best way to ref professional basketball*, and *how this compares internationally* are two different discussions- and obviously far more enlightening and important ones!

also, the nbl needs to stop calling soft fouls

It goes against the tagline of the season saying "Hard ball' as its marketing catchcry

Luuuc, players are allowed to move, it's part of playing offence and defence. So long as the defence has position between his opponent and the rim he has the right to take contact.

I don't have any problem with you disagreeing, this place is all about discussion and different opinions, but to me there isn't any question of a foul on that play.

LV, I think you summed it up perfectly. Why is the NBL seen as tough on big men? One of the reasons is we have traditionally made it much harder for them to defend the basket legally than many other competitions do.

"Luuuc, players are allowed to move, it's part of playing offence and defence"

Yeah, thanks for that ;)

I never said they weren't. I was just (a) rebutting the claim made earlier that Majok was "straight up", which the video clearly disproves, and (b) objecting to your dismissing of the whole conversation with "It's a clear no call.". That's pretty flippant IMO considering there were several big conversations about the call with decent points being made on both sides.
IMO the fact that Majok was moving laterally at the time of the contact adds another layer of ref interpretation to a decision that already had other elements to consider as well, and any additional interpretation required --> increased amount of doubt --> tougher call to make.

If there is not even "any question of a foul" to you on that play then IMO you're not looking very carefully.


Like I said in my first post on the subject, if that was consistently left as a no call in this league then I'd be just fine with that. But based on the way the sport is being officiated atm, it was far from an obvious clean block.

Majok plants his feet between Beal and the basket

players are allowed to move, it's part of playing offence and defence

The minor contact on the arm has no bearing on the shot attempt.

If what you claim is true, then it's a charging foul on Beal (as Majok was outside the circle.) So why wasn't the charge called???

"No he doesn't. Go back right to the start of the video. At no point is he "planted" nor in a legal defensive position."

Yes he does. At the point he elevates he is between Beal and the basket and Beal hasn't left the ground.

"That's your interpretation only."

No, it's the interpretation employed widely around the world. The block is what I would call an NBL foul, something that has been called in our country from a long way back, but you won't find it replicated that often in other quality leagues.

"If there is not even "any question of a foul" to you on that play then IMO you're not looking very carefully."

No Luuuc, it's just that I'm looking at it from a different perspective to you.

To me, and many around the world, if a big fella (or even little fella but they usually defend it differently) is between the offensive player and the basket and they take contact to the torso then it's good defence. That's what I saw.

Can the GWB Whisperer cut it out? Apart from being wrong, its adding no value.