WEEKLY LETTER - GD2
Dear Referees.
Thank you for your very good performances during the games BCL GD 2. Your officiating was accurate, with a good focus on our POE, and the received feedback from the video observes, and my delivery through the previous weekly letter.
On the other side, in one game, we had a significant mistake by the Table Officials and Technical Delegate. The mistake was followed by the Team's Protest, BCL Office Statement, and BCL Technical Commission meeting. Overall, a bad image for our competition. More details later in my text.
Below you can find feedback received from the Video Observers:
Points to keep/ positive.
- Criteria – contacts (overall)
- Criteria - screen – legal vs. illegal
- AOS control
Points for improvement
- Out of bounds situations – accuracy
- Avoid:
- Double whistle
- Quick whistle
- Marginal calls
UF criteria
In this round, we had 3 UF situations, with one wrong final decision. Again, a positive in this area, is that we are looking at the big picture and not using the microscope approach in possible UF situations.
Below you can find 3 play situations from GD 1 and GD 2.
In the first one, referees called UF C2. However, the contact was not hard, excessive and there was no follow through, so it cannot be considered an UF.
In the second one, being straight-lined did not help the referee to process the play properly, in an action when the best call regarding a contact is a no call, and just an OOB.
In the third one, the defender is facing his opponent, he reaches towards the ball. There is contact on the body, but this is because of the changing of hands by the dribbler and the running through.
Head Coach Challenge
As you can see, in the area of out of bounds, the Coaches were successful with their requests in 75% of requested situations (GD 1 and GD 2). For sure that the corrections are good for the game, the HCC is a supportive tool. On the other side, corrections are showing our need to be more precise, and concentrated in 'money time' part of the game, with better cooperation and communication amongst our crews.
IRS usage by Referees
In 7 games, we had 7 IRS usages by the Referees.
The most significant correction here was the score correction.
My comments
Again, I would like to express my satisfaction with your performances in games BCL – GD 2. Also, during the last week, BCL Referees generally did a very good job in other FIBA Europe Competitions. Unfortunately we had some performances, from BCL Referees, which didn't meet our highest standard levels or expectations. Please remember, officiating in other FIBA Club Competitions is a tool to be in better shape, a ticket for the upcoming better ranking BCL officiating structure.
As I mentioned in the first part of my weekly letter, I'd like to share with you the situation from the game CHOLET vs. VEF Riga.
A mistake of the TOs, and not recognition from TD, the scoresheet was incorrect by one additional point for the guest team. Close to the end of the 4th quarter, the BCL Office informed the TD regarding a possible mistake on the scoresheet. Upon receiving information from the TD after the end of the 4th quarter, our CC reviewed the situation, using the IRS, and corrected the scoresheet in accordance to the OBR. Of course, we received a protest from team VTF Riga, which the Referee Committee BCL decided to reject. The protest, referees' decision and Referee Committee BCL decisions were all correct and valid according to the OBR.
The Referee Department BCL reacted quickly, and are now finalising a new protocol on how to minimise the chance of similar mistakes happening again. Once completed you will, of course, receive the protocol regarding improved cooperation between REFEREES – TABLE OFFICIALS – TECHNICAL DELEGATE.
I wish you a great week of officiating in all our competitions.
Davorin