Well that certainly seems to be a game-changer, so to speak....

It doesn't even matter if the rule applies to that scenario as the "foul" on Webster occurred virtually simultaneously with Majok's. The ball was neither an out-of-bounds or dead at the time of the call.

I'm not certain this is why the refs even decided it was an USF. Why did they need to clarify with the ref that made the call against Webster that he called it an USF, and whether or not they could change the call?

They just completely bungled the call.

One week Perth gets a no call on an obvious foul when Beal takes it to the rim that would have swung the game against United, then this week United get a 50/50 foul call on Holt who does a similar thing and they again get the win.

I don't know why, but right now United and the officials smell pretty damned horrible to me...

agreed, the Refs kooked it and it almost cost NZ the game so on the next play they made another poor call in awarding the foul on Pledger to ice the game for Melbourne.

The ball was in play, pledger was holding it when Majok fouled him.

The offense can not get a USF in a dead ball situation

So the errors made were;

- Calling the offensive foul when it was minimal contact and a massive flop.
- They potentially could have called teched Goulding for the flop
- Reviewing the plays and incorrectly deciding it was a foul in a dead ball situation.
- Not sensibly deciding that the fraction of a second between the Majok foul and the Webster foul meant that calling it a dead ball foul was against the spirit of the rule.
- Calling the automatic USF when it can't go to an offensive player, as per the rules.

Thats a pretty big series of stuff ups to make in the dying seconds of a game. I can't believe between all three of them they could get it so wrong.

I am both a United supporter and a (domestic) referee but I have to say the refs got the USF decision horribly wrong and it cost Breakers the game.

The OP is spot on - it wasn't an USF because it wasn't unduly rough, it was by a defensive player, and it wasn't when the inbounded had the ball at his disposal.

You can hear on the replay that the ref who called the foul did not want it to be an unsportsmanlike foul but, after consulting with the game commissioner/4th official, they managed to convince themselves otherwise. I'd like to see the NBL put out an official statement, maybe from Albert Joseph as the Senior Referee Manager, stating that the officials got it wrong, and why it was wrong.

Even better would be to do the same thing as the NBA and put out an official NBL report/critique on all referee decisions in the last few minutes of close matches.

For all that, can't wait for (at least) 3 more United/Breakers matches this season!

It didn't even sit right with Demopoulos:

"As much as I love coming out on top I don't like it like that - I feel bad. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, I have no idea.
It's not the way I would like it. If I was on the other side I wouldn't have liked it."

Kudos to him for those comments.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/melbourne-united-star-chris-goulding-says-he-will-do-anything-to-win-after-flopping-calls-20151108-gktkyl.html

"If you can remember a few years back, Brian Conklin was assessed an USF after he fouled a Wildcats player on the way to the basket and when they tried to finish of the play as an And One, he fouled them again.

In any situation, it is a bad call."

But that is the situation where an USF is needed - to stop defenders taking a free cheap shot at the offensive player after the whistle. If there was no punishment it would give defenders the green light to smash someone to stop a continuation play.

It's particularly concerning that they stuffed it up despite having close to two minutes to consider, discuss and review.

And a shame that such a good contest will forever be marred in our memories because of it.

Head Ref: Guys I have $1000.00 on United to win, how do we get them the ball?

Ref 2: Unsportsmanlike sounds like something we can do? What's in it for me?

Ref 3: Can we get a cut?

Ref 4 (on the bench): (Scratching head) I think I read somewhere that it can be unsportsmanlike in a dead ball situation? Just go with that.

The above is tongue in cheek by the way. I don't actually think they fixed the game, I just think they are incompetent.

The NBL Twitter account was very quiet after the game yesterday. None of the usual "if you love basketball then you must watch this" type of stuff. They posted the result then pretty much shut up shop. I think they realise it would be pretty ordinary to try and pump up the game when it ended in such farcical circumstances.

The correct decision should have been to deem that both whistles sounded simulatneously and apply the penaties as such. The result from that would have had pledger shoot his 2 free throws with possession then given to utd from the side line.

He didn't say they both get possession.

"pledger shoot his 2 free throws, with possession then given to utd from the side line."

Comma added.

If they had decided to call a regular foul on Webster (instead of a USF) what would the outcome have been in terms of shots, possession etc? Would it be dependent on timing of that foul as well?

If they called a regular foul on Webster and a regular foul on Majok, it would've been NZ side ball, no free-throws.

One ref actually made that call at the time, and was quickly overruled.

Cant be a double foul - it wasnt the same two players committing fouls on each other at exactly the same time.

The penalties are determined by the order the fouls occured.

Clearly Pledger is fouled first - Two shots
Then Foul "called" on Webster - side ball (offensive foul)

Acceptable outcome:
Two shots pledger then NZ ball from the point nearest to the foul called on Webster.

Would have to be two shots to new Zealand then two shots to goulding followed by possession

can't give two shots no possession to UTD then shots to NZ, you can't cancel out fouls as one has a heavier penalty than the other.

have to end with possession to UTD

Acceptable outcome:
Two shots pledger then NZ ball from the point nearest to the foul called on Webster.

If they decided it was a foul on Webster and after Majok's foul, I would've thought it'd be two shots to NZ and then UTD ball.

Although, they could also apply discretion and decide that for all intents and purposes, the two fouls happened on the same play and therefore at the same time (even if the replay reveals that the Majok foul was a second earlier).

Although if that were the case what would happen? In a double foul the effects cancel each other out. But as someone says above, doesn't a "double foul" have to involve two players fouling each other, *not* two separate fouls on opposite sides of the court?

SOrry I meant to say a fraction* of a second earlier.

Okay, looks like I got the team control thing wrong. Under 41.2.2, the penalty doesn't apply if the team that committed the foul was entitled to the ball, so whether the ball was live or dead is irrelevant. Therefore, there are different penalties (two FTs to NZ, possession to Melbourne) to sort out. If only there were a rule covering this exact situation...

The Webster foul was an offensive foul, and thus no team penalty, so there was no canceling out even if they'd called it correctly.

Per 34.1.1 and 37.1.1, it shouldn't have been a USF. Per 41.2.2 the team penalty didn't apply.

Therefore, per 42.2.6 the penalties would have been NZ's free throws first, for the first infraction, then Melbourne ball second, for the second infraction.

I've read literally every section of the rulebook that could possibly apply to this situation, and it is 100% clear that should have been the result. It's not even ambiguous.

Thanks for the links and analysis Kobe

Just out of curiosity, is there anything in the rules which can call for a match to be replayed if it was deemed the result was determined by an unfair or incorrect call?

And what happens with bets placed on said game when an incorrect call costs $$$$

Raoul Kirsten has refereed half of United's games and made "Kirsten Calls", unexplained or phantom calls in all of them>

Two refs stood down, instant replay expanded.

The press release also states what should have happened...and gets it wrong. Again. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.

Has anyone seen the NBL statement on this, andthefoul reporting a rule change and 2 refs srood down..

(Right click and select 'view image' to get full size)

Surely the fairest outcome would be to give Melbourne and NZ half a win each for this debacle. In a tight comp, that could be the difference between playing finals or not, or getting home court advantage at the end of the season. NZ have been massively ripped off.

Even assuming nothing else changes, the game still goes to overtime.

Does anyone have info the fi a rules on how refs determine a flop? That was the piece missing from that statement.

Exactly. I guess the NBL is ok with flopping then?

The thing is, when they are repeatedly called charges they're not flops any more, they are legitimate defensive plays. Change the calls, you get rid of the flops.

As per the press release: if Webster's foul is deemed to have occurred immediately after (i.e. not simultaneously) Majok's foul, is it still considered an *offensive* foul?

Given that the ball is dead by definition after the Majok foul, I assume it's a regular personal foul.

That leads to 2x FTs for each team being cancelled out, but then:

"42.2.4. The right to possession of the ball as part of the last penalty shall cancel any prior rights to possession of the ball."

Doesn't United gain possession as the final penalty was against Webster?

Webster is an offensive player from the moment the referee goes to give the ball to the in bound passer until the fouls. Which were 'consecutive' in this situation. Goulding was not ever in a position to be awarded 2 shots.

Whoever made this press release needs to be sacked. They had the advantage of replays, rule books and discussion and still got it wrong. If this person can't get it right, then how are our referees ever going to improve or have faith in what this person is telling them.

Sorry, but have shown this to three different referees at game speed and they all came up with 2 shots Pledger then Melbourne side ball back court near half way. They were shocked when I showed them what the game officials did.

Additionally, on video review you can hear the bench chair saying the flop. Then The crew chief says there wasn't a flop. Remember this chairperson is provided by Melbourne, and they even were declaring it a flop.

The Webster foul was an offensive foul, and thus no team penalty, so there was no canceling out even if they'd called it correctly.

Per 34.1.1 and 37.1.1, it shouldn't have been a USF. Per 41.2.2 the team penalty didn't apply.

Therefore, per 42.2.6 the penalties would have been NZ's free throws first, for the first infraction, then Melbourne ball second, for the second infraction.

If the fouls were considered consecutive, then how is Webster an 'offensive' player -- and therefore his foul 'offensive' -- after the Majok foul? The ball is dead once Majok fouled Pledger.

Because New Zealand had possession of the ball.

41.2.2 defines an offensive foul as a foul by the team either in possession of, or entitled to possession of, the ball. The ball being dead doesn't change anything.

Yep, duh.

I'm clearly too tired.

Does anyone know the exact basis the referees determined that it was an USF?

That is, did they say it was excessively hard, or did they apply the foul before the inbound rule?

or not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball?

One more thing: sometimes it comes down to how referees interpret and apply the rules. I'm sure they know what the rules are but the application lets them down.

For example, it was my understanding that when they brought in the USF for contact from behind/laterally on a fast break, that was to stop the cheap fouls that weren't excessively hard but did deprive the offensive team of a certain basket. And in many cases simply resulted in a sideball.

But it seemed that some referees (at least for a while) interpreted this rule as ALL fouls from behind on a shot and were USF. So, they were calling genuine shot-block attempts as USF.

This showed me that they knew there was a rule for contact from behind on a fast break, but didn't apply it within the intention.

In a legal sense, they were taking a strict legal approach and could probably justify their decision by doing a line-by-line analysis (as they seem to have done in reaching their decision in the Melbourne-NZ game). But they should take the "Golden" rule or "mischief" approach and get to the right decision as intended by the lawmakers.

They said it was a USF purely because of the dead ball. Most of the discussion they had was trying to figure out how not to call it as a USF, before eventually concluding they had no choice.

The interpretation of calling a shot-block attempt from behind as a USF on the fast break is correct. Roy Ward had that one confirmed when it happened to Vukona in the Oceania series.

That's what I thought it was, but Ward had it confirmed differently.