BCL reviews three Season 11 Week 1 calls

Holon–Cholet: disruptive foul upheld

In the first review, Yellow #00 deflected the ball and attempted to gain control. Black #79 made illegal contact with Yellow #00’s legs, and the referee called a disruptive foul.

The BCL said the decision was correct, although the initial signal was not. Under the outcome described by the league, Yellow #00 was to take two free throws, with no players lining up, followed by a Yellow team throw-in from the frontcourt throw-in line.

Rytas–Sabah: two decisions ruled incorrect

After a successful free throw, White #13 passed to White #35. Black #7 made contact with White #35, but play continued; Black #0 later took control and scored on a lay-up. The referee then called a flagrant foul on White #3 for contact with Black #0.

The BCL said the contact by Black #7 on White #35 met the criteria for a disruptive foul. Its stated ruling was two free throws for White #35 and possession for the White team. The league also said White #3’s contact did not meet the criteria for a flagrant foul: it was a shooting foul, so Black #0’s basket should count and he should receive one additional free throw.

Igokea–Bilbao: flagrant foul upheld

After an unsuccessful three-point attempt, White #3 secured the rebound and began a jump shot. Black #18 illegally pulled down White #3’s arm, and the referee called a flagrant foul.

The BCL supported that call, stating that the contact met a flagrant-foul criterion because it was not a legitimate basketball play. The league’s explanation specified two free throws for White #3, followed by a White team throw-in from the frontcourt throw-in line.

League’s review aims to clarify calls

The Basketball Champions League says its weekly analysis of selected games is intended to improve understanding of referees’ decisions and increase transparency. The published material also sets out the relevant rule criteria and the league’s assessment of each reviewed play.