AI vs Officials

Although the defender was in the lane for an extended period, video replay shows she was actively guarding an opponent who was cutting through the lane within the three-second count. According to WNBA Rulebook 10, Section VII, this is a legal guarding position. The call was likely made because the official lost sight of the offensive player cutting behind the defender.

The defender was in a legal guarding position before the offensive player began her upward shooting motion. The contact was initiated by the offensive player who leaned into the defender. Therefore, the call should have been an offensive foul or a no-call. The replay shows the defender's feet were set and she was not moving into the offensive player.

The replay shows the defensive player was actively guarding an opponent and exited and re-entered the lane multiple times, with the longest continuous time in the lane being just under 3 seconds. The call was made prematurely.

The replay shows that the Tempo player (Vanloo) made minimal contact with the Aces player (Young), who appeared to embellish the contact. The contact was not significant enough to be called a foul.

The offensive player did create contact, but the defender was not in a legal guarding position at the time of the contact. The defender was moving laterally and did not give the offensive player enough space to change direction. The call should have been a blocking foul on the defense.

Although there was contact, the replay shows that the defender, Player E, was in a legal guarding position and the contact was initiated by the offensive player, Player F, who leaned into the defender. The contact was incidental and did not justify a shooting foul.

The replay shows that the offensive player used her forearm to create space against the defender, which is an illegal act. However, the call was made on the defender. Based on the evidence, the call should have been an offensive foul.

The defender established legal guarding position before the offensive player began her upward shooting motion. The contact was initiated by the offensive player. The defender was in a legal guarding position and did not initiate the contact. Based on Rule 12, Section I, b(1), this should have been an offensive foul.

Replay review shows the screener was set and stationary for a sufficient period before contact was made. The defender, while attempting to fight over the screen, initiated the contact. Per Rule 12B, Section V-a, a screener must be stationary upon contact, which she was. The defender did not give the screener sufficient space.

Replay showed the defensive player made minimal contact with the ball-handler and the offensive player embellished the contact to draw the foul.

The offensive player's arm extension created minimal contact and did not displace the defender. The defender appeared to embellish the contact to draw the foul. Based on WNBA Rule 12B, Section VII, this should have been a no-call.

Replay shows that the offensive player's screen was legal. The defender initiated the contact and embellished the impact. The call should have been a no-call or a defensive foul.

Replay evidence shows the defender (Vandersloot) had established a legal guarding position in the lane before the offensive player (Diggins-Smith) initiated contact. Diggins-Smith initiated the contact by driving her shoulder into Vandersloot's stationary torso. The defender was not moving laterally or forward into the offensive player at the point of contact. The correct call should have been a charging foul on the offensive player.

The offensive player's screen was set legally. The defender initiated the contact by attempting to fight through the screen before it was fully set.

Upon review, the contact initiated by the offensive player was marginal and appeared to be embellished by the defensive player who was not in a legal guarding position. The defender's feet were not set and she was moving into the offensive player's path at the point of contact. A 'no-call' would have been the more appropriate ruling.

Replay evidence shows the contact made by the defender was on the ball and not on the shooter's arm or body. Per Rule 3, Section I, contact that is incidental to a normal basketball move, and which does not affect the opponent's freedom of movement, is not a foul.

Upon review, the offensive player used her forearm to create space, but the contact was minimal and did not displace the defender. The defender appeared to embellish the contact. Based on the WNBA rulebook's definition of a player control foul, this level of contact is not typically deemed a foul.

Replay evidence shows the defender, Sabrina Ionescu, had established a legal guarding position with both feet on the floor outside the restricted area before the offensive player, Satou Sabally, began her upward motion for the layup. The contact was initiated by the offensive player. The call should have been a charging foul on the offensive player.

Upon review, the Aces player set a legal screen. She was stationary upon contact and did not lean into the defender. The defender initiated the contact by trying to fight through the screen before it was fully set. The call should have been a no-call.

The offensive player's arm extension was minimal and appeared to be a natural part of her driving motion to maintain balance rather than an illegal push-off to create space. The defender was already moving backward and embellished the contact. Based on the WNBA rulebook on offensive fouls, this level of contact is typically considered incidental.

Upon review, the defender, Teaira McCowan, was actively guarding an opponent (Sabrina Ionescu) who was cutting through the lane. The rule allows for a defender to be in the lane for more than three seconds if they are in the process of actively guarding an opponent. The call was an incorrect interpretation of the defender's action.