1:42 in the 3rd Aaliyah Foul

[TCC Kid]

These refs often see the aftermath and not what actually happened. Which makes sense when they need to look at a replay for 5 minutes for far less. I think prior to next season...they need to review flopping, the little incident contact, ad offensive players invading the vertical space of the defender. As far as I'm concerned, if you jump straight up, then you are in legal guarding position and should have a right to that vertical space. I'm not crazy about the charge circle either. It's too big.

 

[TCC Kid]

We need reviews. Referees are not God, some are even crooked.

Reviews for potential serious fouls/intentional fouls ok. General play or common fouls are getting to be reviewed much much too often. IN ONE game recently the opposing coach had way too many common fouls reviewed. The refs should have rejected them or reviewed ALL fouls on both teams--creating a 4 hour game. Reviews should help not hurt the game being played. That game it hurt the flow, it hurt viewing the game, it delayed it too long. Bad. If this becomes common practice Basketball will lose fans and viewers.

 

[TCC Kid]

Refs since the orange baskets Neismiths time have been reported having called fouls not on the foul but the reaction to that foul. That leaves a foul taste in ones mouth, if true.

 

[JoePgh]

Reviews for potential serious fouls/intentional fouls ok. General play or common fouls are getting to be reviewed much much too often. IN ONE game recently the opposing coach had way too many common fouls reviewed. The refs should have rejected them or reviewed ALL fouls on both teams--creating a 4 hour game. Reviews should help not hurt the game being played. That game it hurt the flow, it hurt viewing the game, it delayed it too long. Bad. If this becomes common practice Basketball will lose fans and viewers.

I don't know the basis for your statement that "... general play or common fouls are getting to be reviewed much too often". The present limitations on what is reviewable mostly preclude this.

Common foul calls are generally not reviewable. The only exception is when there is some reason to think that they are not common fouls, but are intentional or flagrant fouls. If there is contact above the shoulders, that is a basis to review whether the foul may be flagrant. But a referee cannot review whether a charge should have been a block, or vice versa (for example). The famous non-call at the end of last year's UConn-Baylor game was not reviewable and (IMHO) should not have been reviewable, even though it was probably wrong and may have decided the game.

But even in the case where there is a review because of a possible flagrant foul, the referees cannot decide that a foul was called incorrectly, and should be "cancelled" or assigned to a different player or to the other team. Officials may, but rarely do, determine that a flagrant foul occurred that was not called in real time -- this is reviewed at the next dead ball.

A made basket may be reviewed to determine whether it was a 2-point or a 3-point basket, or whether it was out of the shooter's hand before the shot clock or the game clock expired. Or a called foul may be reviewed to determine whether it occurred before or after the clock expired. These reviews are straightforward and generally do not consume much time.

Three second calls and out-of-bounds possession calls are generally not reviewable (although possession after an out-of-bounds play may be reviewed in the last 2 minutes of each half).

All in all, this is a pretty limited list of reviewable situations in most games.

 

[HuskyNan]

Refs since the orange baskets Neismiths time have been reported having called fouls not on the foul but the reaction to that foul. That leaves a foul taste in ones mouth, if true.

Orange? ORANGE?

Peach basket, my friend. We don’t do no oranges