PDA

View Full Version : Cheating



Jermaniac
01-12-2007, 09:24 PM
Game is not over yet. But I dont care. This is cheating, the refs are forcing the Mavs to win this game and are not allowing our guys to play this game. This is pathetic, I have not seen a game refed this bad in a very long time.

QuickRelease
01-12-2007, 09:33 PM
Game is not over yet. But I dont care. This is cheating, the refs are forcing the Mavs to win this game and are not allowing our guys to play this game. This is pathetic, I have not seen a game refed this bad in a very long time.

Is there any sort of action the Pacers could take. Because some of these calls haven't even been close.

Jermaniac
01-12-2007, 09:52 PM
The one when JO jumped away from Dirk and didnt even SNIFF him and got called for a shooting foul, should put one of these refs on trial for something.

Jermaniac
01-12-2007, 09:58 PM
DANNY WAS FOULED TWICE WHEN SHOOTING THE GW SHOT AFTER A OFFENSIVE BOARD. Why are they doing this to us????????????????

Fireball Kid
01-12-2007, 10:08 PM
That looked like a clean block to me.

Quis
01-12-2007, 10:10 PM
Definitely the worst officiated game of the season.

But look on the bright side - it took terrible calls, Dirk and Terry having the best nights of their seasons, Al having an off night, and an overtime for the Mavs to beat us by 2.

indypacerfan54
01-12-2007, 10:10 PM
then you cant see for s***

AesopRockOn
01-12-2007, 10:12 PM
David Stern definitely has his agenda which he relates to the refs.

JayRedd
01-12-2007, 10:12 PM
I hate Germans.

(Just kidding, German friends at PD. I just hate Dirk. And referees. And Al Harrington.)

tora tora
01-12-2007, 10:15 PM
Dirk's a bad mother, he was having his way with Danny guarding him. I kind of felt bad for Danny, he looked terrified trying to guard him. Foster should have spent most of the time defending him.

Roferr
01-12-2007, 10:17 PM
We had a couple of bad calls go our way especially Granger getting fouled on his put back but the great teams get the calls. I know that Tins missed at least 3 ft's in the last quarter....enough to win the game in regulation.

It didn't even seem like Al and Jax were even in the game in the last quarter and overtime. What the hell's with Al....4 points in how many minutes?

ajbry
01-12-2007, 10:18 PM
Tinsley's ball dominance down the stretch (combined with some 1-pass possessions where JO was apparently the only option) lost us this game. Sure, the refs were flat-out terrible, but we had so many damn opportunities.

OnlyPacersLeft
01-12-2007, 10:19 PM
we lost :(

TheDon
01-12-2007, 10:19 PM
No joke, i'm so angry right now, there aren't even words danny got gang-raped twice and they don't call anything, but if we're even within the same area code as dirk he gets a foul everytime they're jumping right into us everytime they go up? I thought there was some rule where the offensive player if he was going to get a foul called he couldn't create the contact? I'm pretty upset at the officiating but Harrington is a close second talk about worthless, Why rick didn't play marquise more is beyond me he was nailing shots and playing solid defense.:pissed: :swear:

ajbry
01-12-2007, 10:21 PM
Why rick didn't play marquise more is beyond me he was nailing shots and playing solid defense.:pissed: :swear:

Quis was 3-for-10, lol.

TheDon
01-12-2007, 10:22 PM
Quis was 3-for-10, lol.

I'll take that over whatever Al contributed...oh yeah NOTHING

ajbry
01-12-2007, 10:24 PM
I'll take that over whatever Al contributed...oh yeah NOTHING

Trust me, I completely agree. Al provides absolutely nothing when we need it (in big games), but makes sure to get his stats in the really easy ones.

Lord Helmet
01-12-2007, 10:25 PM
It was a pretty bad officiated game.

But this is the standard for NBA basketball games.

MaHa3000
01-12-2007, 10:26 PM
If Tinsley hits his free throws - we win in regulation, and the refs are not a factor.

pwee31
01-12-2007, 10:27 PM
Oh well it was an entertaining game! Can't wait for tomorrow!

GO :colts: & :hoosiers:

Fireball Kid
01-12-2007, 10:28 PM
Honestly, I thought Tinsley was the reason the Pacers lost. Sure you could say that the refs were in favor of the Mavs and blah blah blah, but Tinsley dominated the ball wayyyyyyyyy too much down the stretch.

TheDon
01-12-2007, 10:28 PM
If Tinsley hits his free throws - we win in regulation, and the refs are not a factor.

Or if Dirk and Terry didn't get like 203456891346 Free Throw Attempts in the 4th quarter we would have won in regulation. I can play that game too..

ABADays
01-12-2007, 10:29 PM
I said in the thread I hope Tins doesn't get in his "take-over" mode. Sure enough it cost us - plus his free throw shooting. Too many really bad calls but all-in-all I'm pleased with what we have done against the Mavs. It's a good measuring stick.

Lord Helmet
01-12-2007, 10:31 PM
Honestly, I thought Tinsley was the reason the Pacers lost. Sure you could say that the refs were in favor of the Mavs and blah blah blah, but Tinsley dominated the ball wayyyyyyyyy too much down the stretch.
I'd say a little bit of both, but it wasn't just Tinsley. Some of those calls were just awful.

TheDon
01-12-2007, 10:31 PM
Honestly, I thought Tinsley was the reason the Pacers lost. Sure you could say that the refs were in favor of the Mavs and blah blah blah, but Tinsley dominated the ball wayyyyyyyyy too much down the stretch.

Would you have rather him passed to Al :rolleyes:
Or maybe Jermaine on a bad foot :rolleyes:
I know how about stephen "the streak" jackson :rolleyes:

honestly granger was the only safe bet and he had a 7foot sasquatch on him all :censored: night

ABADays
01-12-2007, 10:34 PM
Would you have rather him passed to Al :rolleyes:
Or maybe Jermaine on a bad foot :rolleyes:
I know how about stephen "the streak" jackson :rolleyes:

honestly granger was the only safe bet and he had a 7foot sasquatch on him all :censored: night

No Don, Tins get in these ZONES and it usually costs us. He doesn't seem to learn from them.

PostArtestEra
01-12-2007, 10:34 PM
I agree with you guys clearly Tinsley is the reason we lost this game. No doubt about it, just look at the stats. I mean he... he uhhh... oh wait Tinsley clearly had a great game.
P.S. If Tinsley gets both free throws from the line we have a three point lead with a minute to go. To say "if Tinsley hits those free throws we win in regulation" is quite a God Damn assumption.

TheDon
01-12-2007, 10:34 PM
I said in the thread I hope Tins doesn't get in his "take-over" mode. Sure enough it cost us - plus his free throw shooting. Too many really bad calls but all-in-all I'm pleased with what we have done against the Mavs. It's a good measuring stick.

hooray for moral victories :buddies:

MaHa3000
01-12-2007, 10:36 PM
Or if Dirk and Terry didn't get like 203456891346 Free Throw Attempts in the 4th quarter we would have won in regulation. I can play that game too..

Hey, I hate the way this game was "reffed". But Players can't control the refs..... but free throws when your team needs them??? come on... Tinsley has got to Knock those down. Espeacially when Tins plays like he is the franchise player at the end of a close game.

ABADays
01-12-2007, 10:36 PM
hooray for moral victories :buddies:

With the team we have moral victories aren't so bad at this point.

ajbry
01-12-2007, 10:37 PM
Or maybe Jermaine on a bad foot :rolleyes:
I know how about stephen "the streak" jackson :rolleyes:

How you can possibly diss JO and Jack tonight is just beyond me. I am still SHOCKED that Tinsley basically forgot Stephen was on the floor for about the last 15 minutes of the damn game.

JayRedd
01-12-2007, 10:38 PM
Would you have rather him passed to Al :rolleyes:
Or maybe Jermaine on a bad foot :rolleyes:
I know how about stephen "the streak" jackson :rolleyes:

honestly granger was the only safe bet and he had a 7foot sasquatch on him all :censored: night

Dirk was guarding JO down the stretch. Tinsley was not patient enough on several occasions to let JO get position in the post. As good as Nowitzki was, there's still no D in Irk, so you have to exploit that mismatch, IMO.

Tinsley was eating Terry alive anyway, so it wasn't that bad to keep going to that well either, I suppose. But if you're gonna penetrate like that you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT go 0 for 2 at the line in the final minute. Unacceptable and disgusting is what that was right there.

ALF68
01-12-2007, 10:38 PM
If I didn't know any better, I would think that those complaining about the officiating, don't watch many NBA games. Come on, the officials didn't lose this game for the Pacers, the Pacers just didn't finish. The game was there for the taking, they just let it slip away. Can the officials help it if players go for a simple head fake and jump into the shooter. You all sound like a bunch of grade school kids at recess.

TheDon
01-12-2007, 10:38 PM
I agree with you guys clearly Tinsley is the reason we lost this game. No doubt about it, just look at the stats. I mean he... he uhhh... oh wait Tinsley clearly had a great game.
P.S. If Tinsley gets both free throws from the line we have a three point lead with a minute to go. To say "if Tinsley hits those free throws we win in regulation" is quite a God Damn assumption.

Thank god someone else who see's the light. You people quick to point fingers at your own team for the sake of the refs!! I don't even like Tinsley but you can't put this loss on his shoulders. Look at Al's stats then look at Tinsley's...tell me who's fault it is and try to keep a straight face while you type tinsley.

TheDon
01-12-2007, 10:40 PM
How you can possibly diss JO and Jack tonight is just beyond me. I am still SHOCKED that Tinsley basically forgot Stephen was on the floor for about the last 15 minutes of the damn game.

No not a dis. Just reality jermaine wasn't 100% and please don't tell me you think Jack is consistent.

JayRedd
01-12-2007, 10:45 PM
Come on, the officials didn't lose this game for the Pacers, the Pacers just didn't finish. The game was there for the takeing, they just let it slip away. Can the officials help it if players go for a simple head fake and jump into the shooter.

Agreed. (Surprisingly.)

Accumulatively, I was not happy with the refs either. But on a case-by-case basis those were all pretty standard calls. JO did tap Dirk's elbow on that top-of-the-key jumper. And while the Jason Terry "three attempt" was completely absurd, it's hard to get to upset when A) Tinsley recklessly jumped towards him, and B) our retired Pacers legend basically invented that move. It sucks, but you can't not call that as a ref.

JO might have gotten fouled on that last jumper in regulation, but I dunno. And 2nd-year-player Danny Granger is just not gonna get a foul called after a scrum for an O-board and a hurried put-back attempt in traffic with 1 second left in the game. And the similar one in OT looked like a fairly clean block.

They all did seem to go one way, but individually, most of them weren't that bad.

MaHa3000
01-12-2007, 10:45 PM
I agree with you guys clearly Tinsley is the reason we lost this game. No doubt about it, just look at the stats. I mean he... he uhhh... oh wait Tinsley clearly had a great game.
P.S. If Tinsley gets both free throws from the line we have a three point lead with a minute to go. To say "if Tinsley hits those free throws we win in regulation" is quite a God Damn assumption.

yea its an assumption. so what
Pacers would have been up by three and Terry's tre would not have cuased us to waste a 20.( another assumption)

ALF68
01-12-2007, 10:48 PM
Agreed. (Surprisingly.)

Accumulatively, I was not happy with the refs either. But on a case-by-case basis those were all pretty standard calls. JO did tap Dirk's elbow on that top-of-the-key jumper. And while the Jason Terry "three attempt" was completely absurd, it's hard to get to upset when A) Tinsley recklessly jumped towards him, and B) our retired Pacers legend basically invented that move. It sucks, but you can't not call that as a ref.

JO might have gotten fouled on that last jumper in regulation, but I dunno. And 2nd-year-player Danny Granger is just not gonna get a foul called after a scrum for an O-board and a hurried put-back attempt in traffic with 1 second left in the game. And the similar one in OT looked like a fairly clean block.

They all did seem to go one way, but individually, most of them weren't that bad.

Good post.:)

JayRedd
01-12-2007, 10:50 PM
Also...I'm not trying to apologize for Tins missing those free throws, because that was horrible...but he did step up and make a very good defensive play on Terry to get us the ball back with the score tied for the final shot of regulation.

You can say it was his fault we were even in that situation, but that's a big play for a slow-of-foot, bad defender guarding a guy with as much quickness and ball-handling ability as Jason Terry.

Just saying.

PostArtestEra
01-12-2007, 10:51 PM
yea its an assumption. so what
Pacers would have been up by three and Terry's tre would not have cuased us to waste a 20.( another assumption)

I don't feel like getting into a semantic discussion on the butterfly effect, but suffice it to say that if Tinsley hits those free throws the rest of the game plays out differently. By your logic if Granger makes the free throw he missed we win the game in regulation.

BlueNGold
01-12-2007, 10:54 PM
Dirk was guarding JO down the stretch. Tinsley was not patient enough on several occasions to let JO get position in the post. As good as Nowitzki was, there's still no D in Irk, so you have to exploit that mismatch, IMO.

QFT



Tinsley was eating Terry alive anyway, so it wasn't that bad to keep going to that well either, I suppose. But if you're gonna penetrate like that you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT go 0 for 2 at the line in the final minute. Unacceptable and disgusting is what that was right there.

You have to be joking. Yes, you absolutely cannot go 0 for 2 from the line in the final minute, BUT THERE IS SO MUCH MORE!

Tinsley not only choked, he shot 58% from the line, 38% from the floor and allowed Terry to score 30 points! Who the f did the eating here? Seriously. Your post reads (at least to me) as if you mean it.

BBALL56HACKER
01-12-2007, 10:56 PM
J.T. bad defence on fouls at the end fouling Terry twice for 3 point chances ( just lucky he missed one freethrow) then J.T. MISSING 3 freethrows was very costly. He cost us the game in Dallas and now at home. He is one bad decision maker at the end and his butt should have been on the BENCH ! Pacers will never win big games as long as he is here.

Unclebuck
01-12-2007, 10:57 PM
I dislike JT as much as anyone, but if you are blaming him for the loss than I have to wonder if you were watching the same game I was. With a few rare exceptions Jamaal tried to create a shot when the play broke down and someone had to do something.

Yes this was a poorly officiated game - but that is not why we lost

PostArtestEra
01-12-2007, 10:59 PM
J.T. bad defence on fouls at the end fouling Terry twice for 3 point chances ( just lucky he missed one freethrow) then J.T. MISSING 3 freethrows was very costly. He cost us the game in Dallas and now at home. He is one bad decision maker at the end and his butt should have been on the BENCH ! Pacers will never win big games as long as he is here.

:-o!! That is all.

BlueNGold
01-12-2007, 11:06 PM
I dislike JT as much as anyone, but if you are blaming him for the loss than I have to wonder if you were watching the same game I was. With a few rare exceptions Jamaal tried to create a shot when the play broke down and someone had to do something.

Yes this was a poorly officiated game - but that is not why we lost

"Someone had to do something" is a very common explanation for Tinsley taking the game into his hands. One thing is certain. We are in real trouble if he is our go-to guy going forward. His effectiveness in this role is questionable at best.

I think if you just handed the ball to Jack or Granger and have them force a shot, you might have better results. 26% from 3 is better than 38% from 2. I think we could force more 3's and do better.

Unclebuck
01-12-2007, 11:10 PM
"Someone had to do something" is a very common explanation for Tinsley taking the game into his hands. One thing is certain. We are in real trouble if he is our go-to guy going forward. His effectiveness in this role is questionable at best.

I think if you just handed the ball to Jack or Granger and have them force a shot, you might have better results. 26% from 3 is better than 38% from 2. I think we could force more 3's and do better.



But that is what a point guard is supposed to do when a play breaks down - drive to the basket.

Shade
01-12-2007, 11:11 PM
Thank goodness I had to work and missed this game. If it's so bad that there's a 2-page thread on it already, I can't even imagine the rage I would be feeling right now. Gotta save some of that for the Colts tomorrow. ;)

Btw, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the officiating was as bad as people are saying. There are some nights that are quite obviously rigged, nights where calls are so obvious and continuously one-sided that you'd have to be beyond naive to not think there's something behind it. But it's been this way for years and years and years, and your guess is as good as mine of how to put a stop to it. :shrug:

Unclebuck
01-12-2007, 11:13 PM
Thank goodness I had to work and missed this game. If it's so bad that there's a 2-page thread on it already, I can't even imagine the rage I would be feeling right now. Gotta save some of that for the Colts tomorrow. ;)

Btw, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the officiating was as bad as people are saying. There are some nights that are quite obviously rigged, nights where calls are so obvious and continuously one-sided that you'd have to be beyong naive to not think there's something behind it. But it's been this way for years and years and years, and your guess is as good as mine of how to put a stop to it. :shrug:



Shade it was a great game though - best regular season game I'm been to in about two years.

Jermaniac
01-12-2007, 11:15 PM
That looked like a clean block to me.Says the guy who pretends to be a Pacers fan, admit you cheered when the Mavs won. Dont bring this sideways crap in here.

Jermaniac
01-12-2007, 11:18 PM
Ohh and Jamaal Tinsley did not lose this game for the Pacers. He missed FT's okay, so are we gonna blame it on all the other guys that missed FT's.

Fireball Kid
01-12-2007, 11:18 PM
Says the guy who pretends to be a Pacers fan, admit you cheered when the Mavs won. Dont bring this sideways crap in here.

I like the Mavericks more than I like the Pacers. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Shade
01-12-2007, 11:19 PM
Says the guy who pretends to be a Pacers fan, admit you cheered when the Mavs won. Dont bring this sideways crap in here.

I always thought the Mavs were his #1 team, and the Pacers his #2. There are quite a few fans in here like that. No shame in it.

I don't really have a #2 team. :shrug:

JayRedd
01-12-2007, 11:19 PM
You have to be joking. Yes, you absolutely cannot go 0 for 2 from the line in the final minute, BUT THERE IS SO MUCH MORE!

Tinsley not only choked, he shot 58% from the line, 38% from the floor and allowed Terry to score 30 points! Who the f did the eating here? Seriously. Your post reads (at least to me) as if you mean it.

Look, I'm not trying to say Tinsley played great in the Fourth. As I said, we probably would have been better off feeding JO in the post until Avery was forced to get someone besides Dirk to guard Jermaine. And if Tinsley had passed the ball around and worked the offense better, we probably could have also gotten some good shots for the other guys---maybe even an open look for a three.

But...Tinsley was able to penetrate by Terry pretty easily. That's all I meant by eating him alive. Terry was an even worse defender than Jamaal was tonight. Late in the fourth, and in the OT Jamaal was able to get into the lane at will basically. It led to a stagnant brand of offense, but he was still able to go by Terry and get to the line or finish or find an open guy for the dish. Many of them were good possesions.

But, that was all for not because Tinsley ****ed the dog from the foul line. And Al threw the ball off the back of the backboard. And we fouled a bunch of jumpshooters. And we couldn't finish our putbacks. And JO barely missed a four-foot jumper after a good baseline move on Dirk.

BlueNGold
01-12-2007, 11:20 PM
But that is what a point guard is supposed to do when a play breaks down - drive to the basket.

Typically, but if you can hit a forced 3 at a clip higher than 26%, having Tinsley drive to the bucket is not the best decision. Certainly we could move the ball from side to side and get a halfway decent look.

...or I would think Quis, Granger or Jack could drive to the bucket more effectively...maybe drawing more fouls.

It might also be a better idea to post-up JO even more. Why not have Granger play Reggie's role of passing it back and forth to JO.

...or post up Jack and bring JO to the high post. Jack has some moves down low...and usually has a size or quickness advantage.

There just has to be a better plan than the Tinsley drive.

AesopRockOn
01-12-2007, 11:24 PM
The # of free throws war definitely ridicoulous; they shot 45 and we shot 46; that is just wrong.

Jermaniac
01-12-2007, 11:25 PM
I always thought the Mavs were his #1 team, and the Pacers his #2. There are quite a few fans in here like that. No shame in it.

I don't really have a #2 team. :shrug:I dont care if he has a #2 team, The guy is coming in here woofin about a CLEAR foul just because he is a Mavs fan. There is no damn reason to lie I dont care who his team is, he isnt on some basketball trial where he has to lie to support his team.

Clean block, yeah? Let me borrow those Mavs glasses.

Fireball Kid
01-12-2007, 11:28 PM
I dont care if he has a #2 team, The guy is coming in here woofin about a CLEAR foul just because he is a Mavs fan. There is no damn reason to lie I dont care who his team is, he isnt on some basketball trial where he has to lie to support his team.

Clean block, yeah? Let me borrow those Mavs glasses.

I said it looked like a clean block. I didn't say it was a sure clean block, doggy.

Jermaniac
01-12-2007, 11:30 PM
I said it looked like a clean block. I didn't say it was a sure clean block, doggy.Then you need to take a trip to the eye doctor and do the little eye test thingy, since you cant see a man 6'8 getting fouled, not once but twice, then something is wrong with your eyes.

Shade
01-12-2007, 11:37 PM
The # of free throws war definitely ridicoulous; they shot 45 and we shot 46; that is just wrong.

Holy lord, 91 free throws? That's insane.

Cherokee
01-12-2007, 11:56 PM
!

speakout4
01-13-2007, 12:21 AM
If I didn't know any better, I would think that those complaining about the officiating, don't watch many NBA games. Come on, the officials didn't lose this game for the Pacers, the Pacers just didn't finish. The game was there for the taking, they just let it slip away. Can the officials help it if players go for a simple head fake and jump into the shooter. You all sound like a bunch of grade school kids at recess.

You are right that the pacers didn't help themselves but why did the refs help the Mavs? Sure the game was there for the taking especially tinsley's missed free throws but the purposeful fouling on the part of the mavs was pathetic and they got away with it.

It just doesn't matter how widespread the bad officiating it. What matters is that nba officiating universally sucks.

Trader Joe
01-13-2007, 12:35 AM
I can't believe some are pinning the loss on a guy with 17 points, 11 assists, 7 boards, 2 steals, 2 blocks and here is the KEY only ONE turnover. What more could you possibly want out of your PG? Even if you say he went one on one too much at the end. Which I disagree with BTW considering he is still our best one on one perimeter option, without Tins we aren't in this game in OT. The man was three board from a trip dub and its his fault we loss to some of you? Thats laughable at best. If we want to point fingers at any one Pacer player for this loss, he wears number 32 and doesn't know what the phrase blocking out means.

Pitons
01-13-2007, 04:22 AM
I can't believe some are pinning the loss on a guy with 17 points, 11 assists, 7 boards, 2 steals, 2 blocks and here is the KEY only ONE turnover. What more could you possibly want out of your PG? Even if you say he went one on one too much at the end. Which I disagree with BTW considering he is still our best one on one perimeter option, without Tins we aren't in this game in OT. The man was three board from a trip dub and its his fault we loss to some of you? Thats laughable at best. If we want to point fingers at any one Pacer player for this loss, he wears number 32 and doesn't know what the phrase blocking out means.

The dude is talking the truth. Yes, Tins made 5 FG from 13 , 7 FT from 12 , but other stats are very - very good - 11 assists, 7 boards, 2 steals, 2 blocks and only 1 turnover. That's 18 eff points in 38 min comparing to Al, who had 5 eff points in what - 46 min? And as I read the threads, Al wasn't the best defender on the team.

Can somebody answer me why Al played freakin 46 min?

Roferr
01-13-2007, 07:53 AM
Would you have rather him passed to Al :rolleyes:
Or maybe Jermaine on a bad foot :rolleyes:
I know how about stephen "the streak" jackson :rolleyes:

honestly granger was the only safe bet and he had a 7foot sasquatch on him all :censored: night

Or how about RC having enough nads to sit Al and let someone else have a try at it?

Roferr
01-13-2007, 07:55 AM
I agree with you guys clearly Tinsley is the reason we lost this game. No doubt about it, just look at the stats. I mean he... he uhhh... oh wait Tinsley clearly had a great game.
P.S. If Tinsley gets both free throws from the line we have a three point lead with a minute to go. To say "if Tinsley hits those free throws we win in regulation" is quite a God Damn assumption.

Actually, he misses 3 ft's in the last few minutes, but who's counting.

What a splendid adjective for assumption.

Roferr
01-13-2007, 08:01 AM
Also...I'm not trying to apologize for Tins missing those free throws, because that was horrible...but he did step up and make a very good defensive play on Terry to get us the ball back with the score tied for the final shot of regulation.

You can say it was his fault we were even in that situation, but that's a big play for a slow-of-foot, bad defender guarding a guy with as much quickness and ball-handling ability as Jason Terry.

Just saying.

Seems to me that Terry just dribbled the ball of his leg. I might have missed it but even on the replay that's what it looked like, nothing that Tins did at all.

QuickRelease
01-13-2007, 09:11 AM
Actually, he misses 3 ft's in the last few minutes, but who's counting.

What a splendid adjective for assumption.

If I'm not mistaken, JT came right back and hit 2 clutch free throws to tie the game and send it into overtime. If we want to talk about who didn't show up tonight, it was Al. Can someone plz tell me how, exactly, he's any different than what he was when we FedExd him to the ATL? Danny most definitely should be starting over him!

BlueNGold
01-13-2007, 09:32 AM
If I'm not mistaken, JT came right back and hit 2 clutch free throws to tie the game and send it into overtime. If we want to talk about who didn't show up tonight, it was Al. Can someone plz tell me how, exactly, he's any different than what he was when we FedExd him to the ATL? Danny most definitely should be starting over him!

50% free throws at the end of the game is nothing to write home about. Also, Tinsley was outplayed by Terry the whole game. He might have scored a few points, but he was inefficient once again and gave up 30 pts to Terry with poor defense on the other end.

But, you're right. Al was a huge drain on this game, just like Tinsley was the last time we lost to Dallas. Those two are the biggest problems on this team. Until we change guards at SF and PG, we will have these types of performances the majority of games.

ALF68
01-13-2007, 10:39 AM
You are right that the pacers didn't help themselves but why did the refs help the Mavs? Sure the game was there for the taking especially tinsley's missed free throws but the purposeful fouling on the part of the mavs was pathetic and they got away with it.

It just doesn't matter how widespread the bad officiating it. What matters is that nba officiating universally sucks.

__________


If I didn't know any better, I would think that those complaining about the officiating, don't watch many NBA games

That is what I said in the above statement, every NBA game has many bad calls and to expect anything different is delusional.

odeez
01-13-2007, 11:11 AM
CHEATING

That was a hard loss to take. I had to wait till the following day to address it. Cheating by the refs seems to be what some are saying here. In fact there was probably a few bad calls by the refs. But that is how it goes when you play the best teams and players. The refs in this league will always make the calls for them. Also the Pacers get no respect from the officials, they probably still views us as the brawl team that complains alot.

When you play a team like the Mavs, you have to go for the kill, and we had them near the end of regulation. When you give them a chance, even on the road, they will take it. They are confident team and Dirk and Terry hit big shots down the stretch. THe Refs did help them and that burns us fans badly. You hate to see that, but it happens all the time, especially when you play the best teams.

I am happy that we played them well, but as you can see not well enough. I really have to say I don't know what the h*** Al Harrington is doing on this team, trade him. He did nothing and when you are playing against the best teams, everyone must contribute. Especially someone who wanted 60 million in a deal this past summer. He didn't get it of course and now he is really stinking up the joint. He is far too passive and is wasting our time on this team. I was always an Al fan, but the way he is playing is making me think twice.

JayRedd
01-13-2007, 11:19 AM
Seems to me that Terry just dribbled the ball of his leg. I might have missed it but even on the replay that's what it looked like, nothing that Tins did at all.

I only saw the replay once, but I thought Tinsley slapped it out his hands and off Terry's leg. I could be wrong, and apologies if I am, but I know Quinn was also saying Jamaal got a hand on the ball.

ALF68
01-13-2007, 11:35 AM
CHEATING

That was a hard loss to take. I had to wait till the following day to address it. Cheating by the refs seems to be what some are saying here. In fact there was probably a few bad calls by the refs. But that is how it goes when you play the best teams and players. The refs in this league will always make the calls for them. Also the Pacers get no respect from the officials, they probably still views us as the brawl team that complains alot.

When you play a team like the Mavs, you have to go for the kill, and we had them near the end of regulation. When you give them a chance, even on the road, they will take it. They are confident team and Dirk and Terry hit big shots down the stretch. THe Refs did help them and that burns us fans badly. You hate to see that, but it happens all the time, especially when you play the best teams.

I am happy that we played them well, but as you can see not well enough. I really have to say best teamsonI don't know what the h*** Al Harrington is doing this team, trade him. He did nothing and when you are playing against the , everyone must contribute. Especially someone who wanted 60 million in a deal this past summer. He didn't get it of course and now he is really stinking up the joint. He is far too passive and is wasting our time on this team. I was always an Al fan, but the way he is playing is making me think twice.




onI don't know what the h*** Al Harrington is doing this team, trade him. He did nothing and when you are playing against the

________.

Al seems to save his best games for ATL, but that is a lot of money to pay for a player who disappears in the big games.

ABADays
01-13-2007, 11:41 AM
Holy lord, 91 free throws? That's insane.

I was at a Pacers game in the old ABA days where there were 130 free throws - final score 171-145 Pacers win.

Roferr
01-13-2007, 12:17 PM
Holy lord, 91 free throws? That's insane.

That is a lot of ft's. Remember the second game in the 2000 finals? There were 96 ft's taken, Lakers took 57 and the Pacers 39. Shaq himself went 18-39 from the ft line. That was the day of the hack-a-Shaq, but the refs were blowing the whistle a lot in anticipation of fouls on Shaq that never materialized.

We lost by seven, so the ft's were the difference. Rik only played 16 minutes because of foul trouble and DD and Big Smooth both fouled out.

Wow, shouldn't have brought it up....thinking about how we got screwed in the finals just pisssssssses me off!

Of course, if stats weren't kept, we wouldn't know this. :laugh:

Jermaniac
01-13-2007, 12:55 PM
"I didn't touch him; didn't even touch him," O'Neal said. "It just kind of looked like (the referees) wanted them to win. I'd just appreciate it if they'd look at it both ways. We play hard, too. That's the most frustrating thing about it. We don't get any calls.

"Sometimes we get treated like we're not even a basketball team," he said. "It's absolutely ridiculous. We're basketball players, too."

WORD

Trader Joe
01-13-2007, 01:47 PM
"I didn't touch him; didn't even touch him," O'Neal said. "It just kind of looked like (the referees) wanted them to win. I'd just appreciate it if they'd look at it both ways. We play hard, too. That's the most frustrating thing about it. We don't get any calls.

"Sometimes we get treated like we're not even a basketball team," he said. "It's absolutely ridiculous. We're basketball players, too."

WORD

This is gonna cost JO some money...

mboyle1313
01-13-2007, 02:08 PM
Dude (and others),

I'm always amused by the outrage directed at the officiating in a game like the one we saw last night. I've seen over 1,600 games since I've been with the Pacers, and I've yet to see the first one where the outcome was determined by officiating.

Was the officiating below average last night? Yes. Did it cost the Pacers the game? No. The Pacers shot more free throws than Dallas did, and the Mavs lost two players via DQ to Indiana's one (and that came with :02 left in OT). There's no question that some cricial calls that went against the Pacers were incorrect, but officiating was down the list as far as criteria for determing the outcome of this one was concerned.

And, Dude, for what it's worth, I wouldn't have called a foul on Granger's put back at the end of regulation, either. To suggest that only a die hard Mavs fan would see it any other way than the way you saw it is, it seems to me, a tad myopic.

MJB

Los Angeles
01-13-2007, 02:16 PM
I'll back up mboyle1313 in one primary area: The loss was not primarily due to officiating.

Top reasons we lost:

1) a certain unnamed Pacer misses 2 free throws and is legitimately called for a foul on a Dallas 3pt attempt - both are inexcusable in my book.

2) Dirk had the best night of his season so far, including fantastic clutch play.

3) Pacers failed to execute down the stretch.

4) Officials made questionable calls.

That's the run-down as I see it.

imawhat
01-13-2007, 02:24 PM
Still, with all things considered, the outcome would have been different if the foul against Jermaine with 6 seconds to go would've been called, or Granger's subsequent putback.


What I'm saying is this:


Top reasons we lost:

1) a certain unnamed Pacer misses 2 free throws and is legitimately called for a foul on a Dallas 3pt attempt - both are inexcusable in my book.

2) Dirk had the best night of his season so far, including fantastic clutch play.

3) Pacers failed to execute down the stretch.

4) Officials made questionable calls.



With one tiny call and a subsequent different outcome, those things still happen. But we can't use those as criteria.

efx
01-13-2007, 02:31 PM
The question is whether it was missed calls or if it was blatantly biased. I really, really, really can't see any reason for the latter.

imawhat
01-13-2007, 02:37 PM
I can't either, but I'm trying to imagine Dirk in Granger's position at the end of regulation after the calls he'd had all game. The only way the whistle doesn't blow is if the official swallows it.

Shade
01-13-2007, 02:55 PM
A big part of the problem is anticipation calls. You're not supposed to call a foul unless you actually see it, but too many refs these days are whistle-happy and make phantom calls. Those are the calls that typically infuriate me. Most other bad calls just annoy me.

The NBA either needs to get more refs, or better ones. Because, human or not, a decent chunk of the refs that collect paychecks right now do a bad job. I would be fired in a heartbeat if I was as continuously inept as some of these zebras.

Shade
01-13-2007, 02:57 PM
The question is whether it was missed calls or if it was blatantly biased. I really, really, really can't see any reason for the latter.

I used to think it was just the former, but when you see blatant debacles like the Kings/Lakers series a few years ago, you have to admit that something ain't right. Where there's smoke...

Players have rigged games through the years, so I don't see why it's inconceivable to think that a referee would never do the same.

Roferr
01-13-2007, 03:03 PM
Dude (and others),

I'm always amused by the outrage directed at the officiating in a game like the one we saw last night. I've seen over 1,600 games since I've been with the Pacers, and I've yet to see the first one where the outcome was determined by officiating.

Was the officiating below average last night? Yes. Did it cost the Pacers the game? No. The Pacers shot more free throws than Dallas did, and the Mavs lost two players via DQ to Indiana's one (and that came with :02 left in OT). There's no question that some cricial calls that went against the Pacers were incorrect, but officiating was down the list as far as criteria for determing the outcome of this one was concerned.

And, Dude, for what it's worth, I wouldn't have called a foul on Granger's put back at the end of regulation, either. To suggest that only a die hard Mavs fan would see it any other way than the way you saw it is, it seems to me, a tad myopic.

MJB

I've been a Pacer's fan since their inception into the ABA in 1967. I don't normally harp about the zebras but I've seen more than 1 game determined by the refs, actually a helluva lot more.

I can remember some of the playoffs against the Bulls and Knicks where we got hosed in a few games. Also, during the 2000 finals against the Lakers, we certainly didn't get any breaks.

Shaq would continually lower his shoulder and displace his defender and very few offensive fouls would be called. If the charging or offensive foul rules were enforced, Shaq would have fouled out of most games.

Granted, it's not as bad as a lot of fans and posters let on, but you're going to the opposite extreme in stating that you've never seen an outcome determined by officiating. No offense, but too me, that is just too much of a naive outlook.

Naptown_Seth
01-13-2007, 03:18 PM
Or how about RC having enough nads to sit Al and let someone else have a try at it?
Have the nads? Um, was it Rick who chased down Al? He's the second highest paid player and one of the bigger front line guys.

How about Al stop forcing his own crap shots and work the system better instead...especially instead of just moaning about it. If he or anyone thinks Rick doesn't want more out of him and wouldn't love to see him involved better they are crazy. He absolutely must put up. My guess also is that too many more nights like this and RC is going to consider it a trend rather than just a rough night.

Obviously Armstrong has played his way behind Quis I think. It just takes time with RC because he usually doesn't knee-jerk on the main players. Testing weaker bench guys he will pull the trigger after 2-3 games, but not on guys that have played a lot of good ones in the past.


Tins did dominate (again) and it hurt them down the stretch badly. Tins numbers are so great because he spent most of the game keeping the team in it. So I credit him for that totally, but I also know that this is a clear pattern. Tins shoots well the first half, then tanks in the 2nd half and primarily in the final 6 minutes of games.

But if perhaps Al got his rear involved more they wouldn't need Tins to be there. We all know that the main problem the team faces right now (and the last couple of years) is clutch scoring. Even Reggie sucked at it in his last year, blowing that shot vs the Bulls in his final regular game and then getting punked out by Ben Wallace in his final playoff game (and the infamous block the year before).

JO gets a hard double, so he's out. This is mostly because teams refuse to let him beat them. It's got to come from somewhere else, and it can't be Tinsley it seems.

My vote is 100% behind GRANGER, the #2 offensive threat on the team. Seriously. He's reached that point, at least in broken play iso situations of late games, dude can make shots.



Of course before someone dismisses the impact of foul calls, let's ask the Mavericks on their way out of town what they think of the Miami Heat and Wade...DOH! Guess bail out foul calls can make a difference, and they can even go against good teams.

Here's my anecdote on refs though. When I coached rundown tagouts in baseball I go against the norm a bit and tell the players to play AWAY from the bag and to only go for the tag out in the middle. Why? Because an ump can't make a bad call and say the guy beat the tag if he's nowhere near the base at the time of the play. That also fits right with swinging at anything close when you have 2 strikes. Same reason, if you take something close you might not get the call you want.

The point is that the best solution to questionable calls is to make them a moot point. Don't count on the calls because humans are making them and they will screw up against you every time if you rely on them.

mboyle1313
01-13-2007, 03:51 PM
Roferr,

No offense taken. I didn't mean to imply that I hadn't seen any games that weren't impacted by officiating. Every game has that element to it, but I stand by my statement that I've never seen a game decided by the officials.

Ever. And I've seen the majority of those 1600+ games from courtside, which offers a pretty clear observation point.

MJB

Naptown_Seth
01-13-2007, 03:59 PM
Roferr,

No offense taken. I didn't mean to imply that I hadn't seen any games that weren't impacted by officiating. Every game has that element to it, but I stand by my statement that I've never seen a game decided by the officials.

Ever. And I've seen the majority of those 1600+ games from courtside, which offers a pretty clear observation point.

MJB
Careful, I once hurt MagicRat's feelings by talking up how much better you could see the game down close. ;) :laugh:


I'm not sure if we talked about it in that thread or not, but whenever I do sit close I'm amazed by how many people around me disagree with calls I think are pretty obvious. I've seen some bad calls, but more likely is to see a TONE to how the game is going to be called. Letting teams play rough or not effects the game much more than the 2-3 missed calls per game you get.

Shade
01-13-2007, 04:01 PM
Roferr,

No offense taken. I didn't mean to imply that I hadn't seen any games that weren't impacted by officiating. Every game has that element to it, but I stand by my statement that I've never seen a game decided by the officials.

Ever. And I've seen the majority of those 1600+ games from courtside, which offers a pretty clear observation point.

MJB

Well, it's kind of hard to say that any one element of the game, including the officiating, can decide a game by itself. No matter how well a team plays, they could always play better, but when I see a close, hard-fought game between two teams, but one of them has gotten obvious preferential treatment over the other over the course of a game, and the team that has received those aforementioned benefits wins a nail-biter, I tend to put more weight on the faulty officiating. (That is one hell of a run-on sentence. :laugh:) In that case, I would consider the game decided by the officials.

The same holds true for the same scenario, but instead of one-sided officiating we have a player that beceomes a detriment to his team on the floor (consistently missed shots, blown defensive assignments, and turnovers). In that instance, I put more blame on the player and determine that if his team loses, that player decided the game.

I think the primary issue some of us have with the officials is blatantly one-sided officiating, where one team for whatever reason gets the vast majority of the questionable calls in their favor. If the officials are that bad, they probably have no business doing this job for a living.

Btw Mark, I greatly appreciate you sharing your viewpoint with us on issues such as these, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. It's nice to have a completely unbiased opinion to discuss in a world of homers. ;)

BlueNGold
01-13-2007, 04:01 PM
Dude (and others),

I'm always amused by the outrage directed at the officiating in a game like the one we saw last night. I've seen over 1,600 games since I've been with the Pacers, and I've yet to see the first one where the outcome was determined by officiating.

Was the officiating below average last night? Yes. Did it cost the Pacers the game? No.


Generally, I don't consider officiating to be outcome determinative. However, I certainly disagree that the officiating has not decided any of those Pacer games. For example, if the officiating is below average, it is highly likely that one team drew an advantage from the calls. As close as the games can be, certainly that advantage is enough to change outcome.

As for last night, I agree that the officiating was below average. If the play calling was not below average...merely average...some of those plays may have gone the other way. In a close OT game, I consider that enough to make the difference. JMO.

Shade
01-13-2007, 04:05 PM
Generally, I don't consider officiating to be outcome determinative. However, I certainly disagree that the officiating has not decided any of those Pacer games. For example, if the officiating is below average, it is highly likely that one team drew an advantage from the calls. As close as the games can be, certainly that advantage is enough to change outcome.

As for last night, I agree that the officiating was below average. If the play calling was not below average...merely average...some of those plays may have gone the other way. In a close OT game, I consider that enough to make the difference. JMO.

You basically said what I was trying to say, but much more coherently. Thanks. :)

mboyle1313
01-13-2007, 04:26 PM
All,

It seems to me that we're dealing with semantics here. I certainly agree that officiating plays a role in every outcome, just as a variety of other factors come into play. Whie I infer that several fans believe otherwise, my position is that I've never seen officiating as the sole determining factor in an outcome.

On a related note, how come very few (if any) of you ever seem to remember the blatant calls that go in Indiana's favor?

MJB

Hicks
01-13-2007, 04:47 PM
On a related note, how come very few (if any) of you ever seem to remember the blatant calls that go in Indiana's favor?

MJB

I think that one is fairly simple to answer: The calls that get remembered are the ones that frustrate fans when they are already in an emotional state because of their emotional investment in the game. That "burns" the call into memory, whereas a bad call in favor of a fan's team or player will be quickly forgotten because there is little to no emotion associated with it.

BlueNGold
01-13-2007, 04:48 PM
All,

It seems to me that we're dealing with semantics here. I certainly agree that officiating plays a role in every outcome, just as a variety of other factors come into play. Whie I infer that several fans believe otherwise, my position is that I've never seen officiating as the sole determining factor in an outcome.

On a related note, how come very few (if any) of you ever seem to remember the blatant calls that go in Indiana's favor?

MJB

All calls that come our way are payback for the Larry Johnson incident. ;)

Actually, although I will admit the blatant calls in our favor, I'm not claiming to be objective. I will let the opposing fans take issue with those calls. I will celebrate the hand-outs just as much as wins the team earns entirely on its own. :)

vapacersfan
01-13-2007, 05:04 PM
This topic seems to come up at least once or twice a season, and I could not agree with Shade anymore.

As for your question Mr.Boyle, I think the obvious answer is because we are Pacers fans and we are not going to be frustrated by the obvious calls we get.

Now I for one have no problem admitting all the phantom calls we have gotten (Reggie Miller anyone?) but at the same time, I will NEVER forget the Larry Johnson call. I had just started following the NBA at that time.

As Shade said earlier, and I certainilly respect your opinion and the fact you probably will not come out and say "I think this league is rigged" that Kings-Lakers series was one of those series where EVERYONE was talking about the officiating.

I will admit I was rooting for the Kings at the time, and the Kings still could have won that series (has there been a choke job then game 7 of that series?) but if you can honestly look at a series like that and tell me you dont see anything "suspicious" to say the least, then I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Oh, and for the record, I say we blame all of this on David Stern ;) Of course I am kidding. Maybe.

Roferr
01-13-2007, 05:31 PM
Roferr,

No offense taken. I didn't mean to imply that I hadn't seen any games that weren't impacted by officiating. Every game has that element to it, but I stand by my statement that I've never seen a game decided by the officials.

Ever. And I've seen the majority of those 1600+ games from courtside, which offers a pretty clear observation point.

MJB

I must admit that you get an entirely different perspective watching a game live. You see things that aren't apparent on TV. On the other hand, if replays are shown (somehow they seem to be very selective, especially on a national broadcast), you can get a second or third chance at it.

Roferr
01-13-2007, 05:50 PM
[QUOTE=Naptown_Seth;527745]Have the nads? Um, was it Rick who chased down Al? He's the second highest paid player and one of the bigger front line guys.
__________________________________________________-


Regardless, RC is in control. He could have subbed for Al, especially when even the average fan could see that he just wasn't getting it done.

mboyle1313
01-13-2007, 06:38 PM
All,

The emotional investment does create a skewed viewpoint. And while I don't argue that the Kings-Lakers series to which many refer had an abundance of curious calls, how come nobody ever mentions the blatant meving pick that allowed Bibby to get off the game winning shot in Game #5?

Could it be because that doesn't fit into the theory that the NBA wanted the Lakers in the next round?

MJB

ALF68
01-13-2007, 06:41 PM
Dude (and others),

I'm always amused by the outrage directed at the officiating in a game like the one we saw last night. I've seen over 1,600 games since I've been with the Pacers, and I've yet to see the first one where the outcome was determined by officiating.

Was the officiating below average last night? Yes. Did it cost the Pacers the game? No. The Pacers shot more free throws than Dallas did, and the Mavs lost two players via DQ to Indiana's one (and that came with :02 left in OT). There's no question that some cricial calls that went against the Pacers were incorrect, but officiating was down the list as far as criteria for determing the outcome of this one was concerned.

And, Dude, for what it's worth, I wouldn't have called a foul on Granger's put back at the end of regulation, either. To suggest that only a die hard Mavs fan would see it any other way than the way you saw it is, it seems to me, a tad myopic.

MJB

I agree with you that the officials did not cause the Pacers to lose last night's game against Dallas. The Pacers just plain out didn't finish off the Mav's when they had them on the ropes. This team for some reason doesn't have that killer instinct, that the all good teams have and need to have to make it to the top. I believe that their problem is more mental than physical in letting close games get away from them, and in my mind that is a much more difficult problem to solve.

Now, I do disagree with you somewhat on your point that you have never seen a Pacer game that the officiating determined the outcome. Technically, you are correct, however how can anyone not recall the days of MJ and the Bulls? Did one call in those games cost the Pacers the game, no, however the officials set the tone of those games and it was the totality of the game calls that indeed affect the outcome of those games.
Rik Smits was effectivelly taken out of those games by the way the officals called those games with the Bulls and that did affect the outcome.

I do believe that in most games the calls average out, but that is not the whole story. Officials can by calling a game close or by letting them play, leverage a game to either help or hurt a team.

Bottom line, I believe that officals take their cues from the players, play like a winner and you usually will catch the breaks. IMO

vapacersfan
01-13-2007, 08:03 PM
All,

The emotional investment does create a skewed viewpoint. And while I don't argue that the Kings-Lakers series to which many refer had an abundance of curious calls, how come nobody ever mentions the blatant meving pick that allowed Bibby to get off the game winning shot in Game #5?

Could it be because that doesn't fit into the theory that the NBA wanted the Lakers in the next round?

MJB

I have to admit I followed that series really closely (that was the series that made me a huge Mike Bibby fan, boy did he ever pull a "Croshere") but I have to admit I do not remember that play at all. I am going to have to go see if it's on youtube.

brich
01-13-2007, 08:26 PM
All,

It seems to me that we're dealing with semantics here. I certainly agree that officiating plays a role in every outcome, just as a variety of other factors come into play. Whie I infer that several fans believe otherwise, my position is that I've never seen officiating as the sole determining factor in an outcome.

On a related note, how come very few (if any) of you ever seem to remember the blatant calls that go in Indiana's favor?

MJB

Or certain "no calls"...two of Reggie's most famous shots involve him pushing off a defender...and one of those defenders was a guy named Michael Jordan.

:)

Shade
01-13-2007, 08:51 PM
All,

It seems to me that we're dealing with semantics here. I certainly agree that officiating plays a role in every outcome, just as a variety of other factors come into play. Whie I infer that several fans believe otherwise, my position is that I've never seen officiating as the sole determining factor in an outcome.

On a related note, how come very few (if any) of you ever seem to remember the blatant calls that go in Indiana's favor?

MJB

Oh, we've gotten the benefit of some calls, no doubt.

Reggie's banked in 3-pointer over NJ after the buzzer in '02.
Reggie's push off of Jordan for the game winner in '98.
Reggie's push off of Starks for the game winner in '95.

But all those teams were evil, so it's all good. ;)

I won't deny the Pacers get some calls, but reaming a team with blatantly bad phantom/missed calls over and over and over again over the course of a game is completely unacceptable.

The refs can't give a team every call, but they can give them an unhealthy advantage/disadvantage due to a barrage of bad ones. My emphasis goes beyond simple missed calls, and is more focused on the ones that are blatantly biased.

One example would be Dwayne Wade. How many phantom calls did the Heat get in their favor during last season's playoffs due to Wade, especially in the Finals? That's completely unfair, and you can't convince me all of those were simply "missed calls." If the game is moving that fast for them, then we need more refs on the floor.

speakout4
01-13-2007, 09:06 PM
Roferr,

No offense taken. I didn't mean to imply that I hadn't seen any games that weren't impacted by officiating. Every game has that element to it, but I stand by my statement that I've never seen a game decided by the officials.

Ever. And I've seen the majority of those 1600+ games from courtside, which offers a pretty clear observation point.

MJB

I find that to be an incredible asertion from someone who has been at courtside for 1600 games. The difference between impacted and decided certainly seems very fuzzy to me. A guy getting two or three quick fouls so he sits out a half doesn't ever decide a game only impacts it? A star getting all the "fouls" only impacts a game. A rookie getting ridiculous fouls in just a few minutes only impacts? I guess impacts and decides is in the mind of the beholder.

mboyle1313
01-14-2007, 12:30 AM
Speaskout,

The examples you cite would certainly have an impact on a game. However, why do you assume (to use your example) that a player picking up 2-3 quick fouls is necessarily attributable to an officials decision? Is it not possible that the player actually committed those fouls and has, through his own actions, rendered himself unavailable?

MJB

speakout4
01-14-2007, 12:55 AM
Speaskout,

The examples you cite would certainly have an impact on a game. However, why do you assume (to use your example) that a player picking up 2-3 quick fouls is necessarily attributable to an officials decision? Is it not possible that the player actually committed those fouls and has, through his own actions, rendered himself unavailable?

MJB

Sometimes refs set a tone and call a couple of quick fouls to make a point. So the example is justified even if the offender has committed very tick-tack fouls. A foul isn't always a foul. It depends on the ref, his mood, the particular quarter, what he saw or didn't see, etc. You ever see a ref ask another ref his opinion on a call? You'll see that maybe once a year. You ever see a ref try to over rule another ref becasue he had a better view? Only in football do they really try to get it right. The umpires, linesmen, ref actually talk to each other.

Roferr
01-14-2007, 10:03 AM
Speaskout,

The examples you cite would certainly have an impact on a game. However, why do you assume (to use your example) that a player picking up 2-3 quick fouls is necessarily attributable to an officials decision? Is it not possible that the player actually committed those fouls and has, through his own actions, rendered himself unavailable?

MJB

Not in Rik Smit's case. He could get knocked into the 3rd row by Shaq and it would be a foul on Rik. He could step completely to the side when Shaq lowers his shoulder and goes to the basket, misses Smit altogether, falls on his assss and a foul is called on Rik. Two quick fouls and Rik's on the bench for 20 minutes of the first half. Rik got called for the most phantom fouls than any other player of his status.

Harrison comes close to the number and quickness of fouls but he's no where near Rik's status when it comes to elite centers.

vapacersfan
01-14-2007, 10:52 AM
Not in Rik Smit's case. He could get knocked into the 3rd row by Shaq and it would be a foul on Rik. He could step completely to the side when Shaq lowers his shoulder and goes to the basket, misses Smit altogether, falls on his assss and a foul is called on Rik. Two quick fouls and Rik's on the bench for 20 minutes of the first half. Rik got called for the most phantom fouls than any other player of his status.

Harrison comes close to the number and quickness of fouls but he's no where near Rik's status when it comes to elite centers.

I agree 100% with you about Shaq getting away with a whole lot of crap (how many times did we hear the announcers make the excuse for the refs "Shaq is one of the hardest players to officiate") but you lost all credibility when you mentioned Harrisons name ;) Harrison brings a lot of that upon himself by not keeping his mouth shut.

Mr.Boyle,

Since we are on this ever so touch topic, I have to ask you about a conversation that happened in the Nets-Lakers finals a few years back. A few people heard the head referee at the time (I cant remember his name) during a TV timeout remind his 2 other ref's that "O Neal (refering to Shaq) has 5 fouls, lets keep that in mind" or something to the effect.

I will admit when I first heard that rumor I thought it was bogus, but as several people went back on VCR's/TIVO they were able to read lips and see the same exact thing. I even seem to recall ESPN picking a story up on this topic.

Does that not conern you in the least?

Mourning
01-14-2007, 02:19 PM
No Don, Tins get in these ZONES and it usually costs us. He doesn't seem to learn from them.

Yup! Old news really. This has really started happenning about two years ago just after the brawl when he had to take leadership and more responsibility. The years before he would have a few moments completely dominating the ball, but after the brawl he had to and since he just does it a lot more regularly. The bad thing, offcourse, is that he doesn't need to do this currently, worse, it's counterproductive now :(.

I must say that Tins seemed to have a very good first half and he played quite good. It's in the 4th quarter that I am not very happy with his decision-making, one-on-ones, etc. I dunno about this game. I think the team played very good and well in two games we did give the Mavericks good to very good opposition. I'm not a fan of Tins (anymore), but to blame this loss on here is overlooking the play/contributions of others maybe and those "others" aren't the referees btw.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Robertmto
01-14-2007, 02:27 PM
Mr. Boyle

Come on you KNOW Wade was gettin phantoms in the Finals last year. And LBJ traveled against us (Wizards) for those game winners right?

Yes I'm still hung up on those calls.

vapacersfan
01-14-2007, 02:29 PM
Mr. Boyle

Come on you KNOW Wade was gettin phantoms in the Finals last year. And LBJ traveled against us (Wizards) for those game winners right?

Yes I'm still hung up on those calls.


I still do not see half of the "phanton" calls on Wade that many people here complain about.

As for Lebron, yes he did travel. Then again, if Gill would just learn to not let Bron get in his head and hit his free throws ;).............

Roferr
01-14-2007, 03:20 PM
I agree 100% with you about Shaq getting away with a whole lot of crap (how many times did we hear the announcers make the excuse for the refs "Shaq is one of the hardest players to officiate") but you lost all credibility when you mentioned Harrisons name ;) Harrison brings a lot of that upon himself by not keeping his mouth shut.

Mr.Boyle,

Since we are on this ever so touch topic, I have to ask you about a conversation that happened in the Nets-Lakers finals a few years back. A few people heard the head referee at the time (I cant remember his name) during a TV timeout remind his 2 other ref's that "O Neal (refering to Shaq) has 5 fouls, lets keep that in mind" or something to the effect.

I will admit when I first heard that rumor I thought it was bogus, but as several people went back on VCR's/TIVO they were able to read lips and see the same exact thing. I even seem to recall ESPN picking a story up on this topic.

Does that not conern you in the least?

I haven't really heard that one but I have one that I witnessed on TV. MJ picked up his 5th foul (game on national tv), and he goes to the ref and holds up five fingers and you could see him mouth "that's five". Needless to say, he didn't foul out in a very roughly played game. The type of game he and Pippen would mug players to steal the ball.

Roferr
01-14-2007, 03:25 PM
[QUOTE=vapacersfan;528188]I agree 100% with you about Shaq getting away with a whole lot of crap (how many times did we hear the announcers make the excuse for the refs "Shaq is one of the hardest players to officiate") but you lost all credibility when you mentioned Harrisons name ;) Harrison brings a lot of that upon himself by not keeping his mouth shut.
____________________________________________

Harrison does get mouthy and shows a lot of disdain in his face that the refs don't appreciate but he gets a lot of phantom calls called against him. He should realize that he is a "newbie" and that fouls aren't going his way. This was not the case with Rik. I wasn't trying to pigeon hole them, just making a note about "phantom calls".

Robertmto
01-14-2007, 03:26 PM
I still do not see half of the "phanton" calls on Wade that many people here complain about.

find the tapes and re-watch them. He is literally barely touched on 80% of those fouls.


As for Lebron, yes he did travel. Then again, if Gill would just learn to not let Bron get in his head and hit his free throws ;).............

Gil wouldn't have had to hit those ft's if David Stern didn;t have a man crush on LeBron.

vapacersfan
01-14-2007, 03:57 PM
find the tapes and re-watch them. He is literally barely touched on 80% of those fouls.



Gil wouldn't have had to hit those ft's if David Stern didn;t have a man crush on LeBron.

I just got a new DVR (I love comcast) so I lost all my saved stuff, but I think your 80% is quite exaderated.

As for Lebron, I wont argue with you on Stern having a man crush. Of course, Gill could have helped that by hitting those free throws and ignoring the sweet nothings Lebron whispered in his ear ;)

JayRedd
01-14-2007, 04:14 PM
All,

It seems to me that we're dealing with semantics here. I certainly agree that officiating plays a role in every outcome, just as a variety of other factors come into play. Whie I infer that several fans believe otherwise, my position is that I've never seen officiating as the sole determining factor in an outcome.

On a related note, how come very few (if any) of you ever seem to remember the blatant calls that go in Indiana's favor?

MJB

I seem to remember one of the worst offensive fouls of all time on no less than the best player of all time go uncalled as our boy Reggie iced the game winner and ran down the court to spin in circles for five minutes.

Clearly, Stern mandated that the refs keep their whistles in their pockets so that he could get the marquee Utah/Indiana Finals matchup that he so badly desired. :rolleyes:

I personally think all this conspiracy stuff is ridiculous. Everyone complains about NBA officiating. Well, I've seen very few well officiated in the NCAA, in high school, in AAU, in the YMCA, in men's league, in pick-up or in elementary school.

Basketball is just a hard game to officiate. Few can do it consistently well on any level. Add NBA speed, athleticism and physicality and it just makes a very hard thing to do a lot more difficult.

As to why they continue to use grandfatherly-looking, 65-year-old men to try and do this...Well that's a whole different debate.

Robertmto
01-14-2007, 04:22 PM
I just got a new DVR (I love comcast) so I lost all my saved stuff, but I think your 80% is quite exaderated.

you may be right - 75%


As for Lebron, I wont argue with you on Stern having a man crush. Of course, Gill could have helped that by hitting those free throws and ignoring the sweet nothings Lebron whispered in his ear ;)

see us this year!!!

vapacersfan
01-14-2007, 04:27 PM
you may be right - 75%



see us this year!!!

More like 1%, maybe 2 or 3%.....

Well see about this year.....

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2007, 05:09 PM
All,

It seems to me that we're dealing with semantics here. I certainly agree that officiating plays a role in every outcome, just as a variety of other factors come into play. Whie I infer that several fans believe otherwise, my position is that I've never seen officiating as the sole determining factor in an outcome.

On a related note, how come very few (if any) of you ever seem to remember the blatant calls that go in Indiana's favor?

MJB
I do, and I'm embarrassed when it happens. Without a doubt they do benefit from some pretty awful calls going their way. When I see bad calls either way I consider it a poorly officiated game and a disservice to me if I've paid to see the game.

But I also dislike when the Pacers beat a team playing terrible basketball if I bought a ticket. I came to see the sport played and officiated well and fairly, understanding that some mistakes are natural of course.

Most nights the officials are fine, but sometimes they do blow calls. Again, my typical concern is what type of game the refs establish rather than are the Pacers getting ripped off. Usually the breaks fall even both ways which makes that a non issue, but if they are playing a low talent team and the refs are letting EVERYONE smack and bump it removes their finesse advantage (for example).



Now if it was a competition between the official and the average courtside Pacers fan, the official would destroy them in terms of accuracy, even on a bad night.


I seem to remember one of the worst offensive fouls of all time on no less than the best player of all time go uncalled as our boy Reggie iced the game winner and ran down the court to spin in circles for five minutes.
Jay, what about a certain night in NY and a shove to the back that went uncalled as well. But then again wasn't there an intentional foul call (2 FTs and the ball) that went their way that year or the year after...Harper maybe being the guy fouled?

BTW, I don't totally buy the "star treatment/rookie" thing. Stars are more talented, quicker, smarter, etc. That's how they became stars. They tend to avoid contact better and make better choices. For all the talk of Harrison getting no calls, if you've watched him live and down close you see a bull in a china shop most of the time. He's slow and clumsy most of the time, and far too willing to defend with his hands (which ends up slapping the arm or elbow).

That's why his fouling stayed the same while Granger (a year behind him in NBA experience) saw his fouls per minute drop like a rock after a month or two. Players just get better, that's a big part of the equation. Much more than "the refs have to learn their game" and way, way more than "the refs give them preferrential treatment".

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2007, 05:14 PM
To follow up that final thought just consider this:

Magically they invent a PERFECT foul calling machine that takes over officiating NBA games. Is it not possible, even likely, that a far more talented team will kill the other team in terms of foul calls? At some point lesser players DO FOUL MORE, just like they miss shots, don't control the ball as well, run as fast, jump as high, and so on.

So when we see games that everyone is talking about all the foul calls going for one team, is it because it's bias or because that team is just outplaying the other?

Wade caught some breaks in the finals to be sure, but he also attacked the rim without mercy and was able to get by the perimeter defense with some quick dribble moves.

Sometimes that foul discrepency creates a focus on the refs when maybe it should be on the players instead.

vapacersfan
01-14-2007, 05:24 PM
I have heard many people try to explain away the whole “star treatment”

I have seen plenty of stars get away with 10X as much more stuff then any other player, and it was not just because he was more talented.

ALF68
01-14-2007, 06:52 PM
One has to allow for the entertainment aspect of the NBA in order to understand that it isn't always about the game. Fans are not going to shell out big bucks to attend these games if the star players on these teams get into foul trouble and spend half of the game sitting on the bench in warmup outfits. Once Jordan established himself as a superstar, how many times did he foul out, or even ride the pines for any extended period of time? This preferantial treatment is extended to all of the supertars of the game, and to think other wise is really the same type of thinking that people that watch pro wrestling have. People who believe that the star attractions on these teams don't receive special treatment, probably still believe in Santa Claus.

PacerPerspective
01-14-2007, 11:28 PM
The one when JO jumped away from Dirk and didnt even SNIFF him and got called for a shooting foul, should put one of these refs on trial for something.

Judging from your pic (Tom Brady) never discuss officials' being bias ever again on this board...

Jermaniac
01-15-2007, 07:13 PM
Judging from your pic (Tom Brady) never discuss officials' being bias ever again on this board...I will discuss what I want when I want.

JayRedd
01-15-2007, 11:35 PM
Judging from your pic (Tom Brady) never discuss officials' being bias ever again on this board...

The Tuck rule was called correctly...Take that mess to the Colts board.

vapacersfan
01-20-2007, 08:54 PM
I want anybody who is watching today game (NYK, 1-20-06) and tell me these refs are compotent!

How in the :censored: is Violet still a NBA ref.

I am not even kidding. She is by far the WORST ref in the NBA.

Go ahead, someone defend her missing a call that happened right in front of her. She saw a Knicks player hold the ball OUT OF BOUNDS while he is on JO's arm, and she points Pacers ball. Then she changes her mind and decides to give it to the Knicks.

I am dying to hear someone defend her?

I can cut these guys (and gals) some slack. It is a very tough job. The problem is she sucks night in and night out.

I have no problem with females refs. Hell, I think its great the NBA wants female refs. Just get COMPOTENT female refs.
_____________________

Granger gets TACKLED at the end of the 3rd. Q did not touch the rock. He got all of Dannys arm.

I cant wait to hear about how good these NBA refs are.

Trader Joe
01-20-2007, 09:26 PM
VIolet Palmer is the worst ref in the NBA.