koberulz
Years ago

Clear Path USF Rule

Is this rule even necessary with the new USF rule in place? The call against Steindl today was correct, but entirely stupid.

Topic #42653 | Report this topic


Anonymous  
Years ago

Does anyone even know what the F is going on anymore? So many rule changes on top of bad refs has created a farce.

Reply #670944 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Thus rule in its current form appears highly exploitable.

Reply #670952 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

*this

Reply #670953 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

The correct terminology is breakaway foul - USF Criteria 4

Reply #670954 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

So be it. Everyone knew the rule existed.

Reply #670957 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

How come sobey chase down attempted block or any chase down block an usf?

Reply #670958 | Report this post


KET  
Years ago

Given the way they were calling USFs, Sobeys should have been.

OfCourse it's ridiculous and neither sobey nor steindl should be considered USF
If the rules were reasonable

Reply #670959 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

The USF rule being discussed finishes when someone starts the act of shooting.

Reply #670960 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

Also, there is no clear path foul in FIBA. I know what the OP is saying but it isnt called a clear path foul. The rules are freely available through Google to go read for yourself

Reply #670961 | Report this post


Udog  
Years ago

This year would be the worst year of officiating confusion and frustration in the NBL that I can remember.

Reply #670963 | Report this post


Rabbit70  
Years ago

Stupid USF on Steindel. He was going for the ball. The USF is suppose to be used when a person deliberatly holds a hand or jersey of the fast break player.

What is a player to do? Just let the opposition go to the basket alone?

Steindel deserved a normal foul but not an USF like.

Reply #670966 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

Anyone got footage of the Steindl foul?

Reply #670973 | Report this post


FM  
Years ago

If the rules were 3 years ago, Lyons would ha e held his whistle and waited till Childress started his layup to call the foul.

Now the rule is there, you blow the whistle and if you think they have fouled in order to foul and prevent the basket in a breakaway situation, then it is USF.

Reply #670974 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

Rabbit 70 that doesn't make any difference, you can't touch a player from the behind or side who is on a fast break

Reply #670975 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

But Steindl was between Childress and the basket, which is also part of the rule. Does that mean Steindl could have fouled him straight away (and it been a normal foul) instead of fouling when Childress was driving past him, resulting in an USF?

Reply #670985 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

Happy to be corrected but my recollection was the Stiendl was always behind and got along side Chilldress but never in front

Reply #670987 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Nope, he was between Childress and the basket the whole time.

Reply #670992 | Report this post


PlaymakerMo  
Years ago

Just watched the replay: Childress gathered the ball and dribbled towards the wing before he began his act of shooting, and Stiendl was between Childress and the basket.

Furthermore, Stiendl clearly attempted to play legal defense and within the spirit of the game.

Not an USF.

Reply #670997 | Report this post


Luuuc  
Years ago

Reply #670998 | Report this post


Brunson  
Years ago

"Stupid USF on Steindel. He was going for the ball."

At what point is he going for the ball? His hands are in the air and he bumps Childress to deliberately foul him to stop the play. Correct call

Reply #671000 | Report this post


Go read the rule book, assuming Perth fans can read

Reply #671001 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I posted the complete rule in the other thread. Seems you can't read the rules Chaz.

Reply #671005 | Report this post


Lol anon

If you want people to read your trash at least put a name to it

Also you didn't post the entire rule, just part of it.

Reply #671009 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I posted the relevant rule in its entirety. What is wrong with you?

And you posted a snippet of the rule yesterday (ignoring a key part) and decided you were right and everyone else was wrong. Are you a ref, Chaz? Because you are as retarded as one.

Reply #671011 | Report this post


Uncle Phil  
Years ago

Personally I don't really care about arguing the specifics of the rule but I hate that foul being called an unsportsmanlike. Maybe by the letter of the law it was - but most people who have watched basketball ever can see in the spirit of the game that it is not an unsportsmanlike foul - he is just trying to play defence but is out of position.

The interesting thing is that Mayberry asked the ref who made the call if they should review the replay. The ref said no and that is was obviously an unsportsmanlike. From the amount of discussion seen on here from basketball fans, it seemed to be far from obvious.

Reply #671014 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

And just a reminder to the knobs like Chaz, people from all over the country including current players dont agree that is was USF.

Reply #671015 | Report this post


snooch  
Years ago

There is no way, shape or form that's an USF.

Reply #671016 | Report this post


FM  
Years ago

Mayberry was asking in relation to the foul and where he picked up the ball.

Reply #671017 | Report this post


Lol

No you didn't post the entire rule

I’ve actually posted I don’t agree with it but it’s the rule. Suck it up buttercup your team got pantsed. Your coach got found out and your imports didn’t turn up. When Kenny was your best player you are in trouble

Reply #671024 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

"No you didn't post the entire rule"

What parts of the rule did I miss? You posted a snippet of the relevant part, left out another key part, and claimed "its the rule, suck it."

I posted the full version of the same rule you referenced but all you can say is LOL ur team sucks. You are quite simply a meathead.

Reply #671029 | Report this post


Lol

Classic Perth Fan

Reply #671031 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

and with that, Chaz confirms he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. what an embarrassment.

Reply #671032 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

The important part is fouling to stop the break. Steindl was playing straight up D. The call was wrong

Reply #671033 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

Here is the rule used by the ref in the call for those playing at home. It is a portion of article 37

"An unnecessary contact caused by the defensive player in order to stop the progress of the offensive team in transition.
This applies until the offensive player begins his act of shooting.

Contact by the defensive player from behind or laterally on an opponent in an attempt to stop the fast break and there is no defensive player between the
offensive player and the opponent's basket.
This applies until the offensive player begins his act of shooting."

The ref made the call that Steindl broke one if not both of these sections of the rules. The NBL has done a very poor job at conveying this point of emphasis to the players and coaches. On more than one occasion this season players and coaches have been caught out by this new definition.

BA have circulated a video on the definitions of this rule and by that video the ref was right to call Steindl.

The call didn't impact the result which is the main thing here. I think almost 100% of players and fans don't agree with it or like it.

Reply #671037 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Steindl didn't make unnecessary contact. He was playing defence. Its a very slippery slope if that is the correct interpretation.

The second section cannot apply because there was a player between the offensive player and the basket. It was Steindl.

Reply #671038 | Report this post


Luuuc  
Years ago

IMO that call went against the intent of the rule - that being to rid the game of "professional fouls" committed for the purpose of stopping a certain basket by a defender with little hope of doing so with legit defence.

In this case Steindl is ahead of Childress and therefore to me should be entitled to play normal defence against him just as he would in the half court. There was no clear intent to foul on Steindl's part, no hint of "make sure he doesn't even get a shot up" that is allowed and often encouraged in any other time of the game.

To me an and-1 would have been the perfect outcome of that sequence.

Reply #671041 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

Stiendl doesn't count as a defender in this situation. I get no one likes it but that is the rule and that was the call as it has been called all season. Simply you cant touch an offensive player on a fast break until they commence shooting.

Reply #671042 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

"Stiendl doesn't count as a defender in this situation."

Why not?

Reply #671044 | Report this post


Dragon  
Years ago

37-8 Statement. Contact by the defensive player from behind or laterally on an opponent in an
attempt to stop the fast break and with no other defensive player between the offensive
player and the opponents' basket shall be called as an unsportsmanlike foul only until the
offensive player begins his act of shooting.

Contact was laterally, correct me i am wrong?

Reply #671045 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

Because there needs to be another defender between the ball to eliminate the USF rule. See the wording " with no other defensive player between..."

Reply #671047 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

What? The rule doesn't say " no other"

Reply #671048 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

Dragon , the wording to focus on is "unnecessary contact" there is no contact that is necessary on a basketball court. Hence any contact engages the rule.

I would also say that yes Stenidl did create contact laterally so that also engages the rule.

Reply #671049 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

ANON - I copied and pasted the rule direct from FIBA that is the wording.

"...with NO OTHER defensive player between the offensive
player and the opponents' basket" Caps included to help you out.

Reply #671052 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Which version of the rulebook? Because the one from October 2017 taken from the FIBA website does not have the words "no other" in it.

Reply #671054 | Report this post


Dragon  
Years ago

Dome Rat i am actually agreeing with you here.
Anon - http://www.fiba.basketball/OBR2017/interpretations.pdf

Reply #671058 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Dragon, that document was valid as of the 1st Feb this year, and the wording contradicts the rules (the one that Dome Rat pasted in above).

Reply #671060 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

Anon I am trying to help you here. FIBA produce the rule book then supply secondary definitions or expansion explanations of the rules that may have changed or amended. The definitions are considered rules as they are the expansion of the rule in question.

Steindl was a USF under the rule and certainly under the definition document as well as the BA circulated video.

Reply #671071 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

those examples in that video are all obvious USF to me and all very different to the Childress one.

Reply #671076 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Anon, just look at the jersey and you can see why it was called. Case closed.

Reply #671077 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

that's really not relevant to my post or the discussion.

even if somehow that was a correct call to the wording of the rule, is it what we want in basketball? I don't think so. The players don't seem to think so. Nearly all fans don't see to think so. Steindl got back as a defender so what should he be allowed to do? Nothing whatsoever?

Reply #671078 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

"those examples in that video are all obvious USF to me and all very different to the Childress one."

Exactly. All of those examples were players committing "professional" fouls to stop a fast break. Steindl was defending a guy one on one, and was between Childress and the basket the whole time. It is not the intent of the rule and the refs got it completely wrong.

Reply #671080 | Report this post


koberulz  
Years ago

The interpretation:

Contact by the defensive player from behind or laterally on an opponent in an
attempt to stop the fast break and with no other defensive player between the offensive
player and the opponents' basket shall be called as an unsportsmanlike foul


The "no other defender" bit doesn't mean Steindl doesn't count as a defender. If the contact is from behind or laterally then by definition Stiendl isn't between the ball and the basket. If he were in front, the contact wouldn't have been from behind or laterally.

Reply #671083 | Report this post


Dome Rat  
Years ago

Do we agree that the rule says there has to be an "other defender" between the ball and the basket?

E.g. If there was another defender between Steindl and the basket it wouldn't have been called USF

Reply #671114 | Report this post


Dragon  
Years ago

Agreed Dome Rat!

Reply #671116 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

The rule doesn't say that, the interpretation (released two days prior to the game) does. It's misleading at best and I doubt the refs would have been on to the new interpretation on a couple of days notice AND conveniently got a chance to apply it. They stuffed up.

Reply #671125 | Report this post


koberulz  
Years ago

The interpretation hasn't changed from the last set of interpretations and doesn't disagree with the rule in any way.

Reply #671126 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

"If the contact is from behind or laterally then by definition Stiendl isn't between the ball and the basket."

There is a point where the offensive player gets so deep to the baseline that the defender must be on his hip to be between him and the ring.

Reply #671141 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

"Your coach [Wildcats] got found out"

According to most on here the consensus was that he wasn't. Which is scary. and I know you only said it in reply to a Cats fan but at least it's something.

Reply #671148 | Report this post




You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.



Close ads
Little Streaks - The fun and interactive good-habits app designed especially for kids.
Serio: Tourism photography and videography

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 10:05 pm, Thu 28 Mar 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754