PDA

View Full Version : NBA: Foul should have been called in last seconds of Lakers-Spurs



idioteque
05-29-2008, 10:29 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_sp_bk_ne/bkn_nba_no_foul

NEW YORK - The NBA acknowledged Wednesday that a foul should have been called on the final possession of Game 4 in the Western Conference finals, which would have given the San Antonio Spurs a chance to even the series.
<!-- SpaceID=2022695972 loc=RMP noad --><SCRIPT language=javascript>if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();window.yzq_d['mIKqZkLEYrI-']='&U=12b4fa927%2fN%3dmIKqZkLEYrI-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dRMP%2fB%3d-1%2fV%3d0';</SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><!-- SpaceID=2022695972 loc=SIPR noad --><SCRIPT language=javascript>if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();window.yzq_d['mYKqZkLEYrI-']='&U=12cn017e9%2fN%3dmYKqZkLEYrI-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dSIPR%2fB%3d-1%2fV%3d0';</SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript>if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();window.yzq_d['lIKqZkLEYrI-']='&U=13fh47577%2fN%3dlIKqZkLEYrI-%2fC%3d619213.12513772.12865467.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4919452%2fV%3d1';</SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>
Trailing 93-91 on Tuesday night, the Spurs inbounded the ball with 2.1 seconds left to Brent Barry, who was bumped by Los Angeles Lakers guard Derek Fisher on the floor. No foul was called, and Barry missed badly on a 3-pointer before time expired.
Spurs players and coach Gregg Popovich said a foul should not have been called, but the NBA disagreed with them after reviewing the play.
"With the benefit of instant replay, it appears a foul should have been called," NBA spokesman Tim Frank said.
Had that happened, Barry would have gone to the line for two free throws and a chance to tie the game. Instead, the defending champion Spurs trail the series 3-1 and face elimination Thursday in Los Angeles.


Wow, talk about leaving your own officials hanging out to dry. Look, I think NBA refs are terrible, but it's awful that the league is in effect blaming the officials for not making the call when the league offers no real directive to how calls should be administered at the end of the game compared to the beginning.

That's what I don't like about basketball. There is never a consistent manner in which calls are made. In the MLB, no one is going to call a ball foul in the 1st but fair in the 9th. It makes no sense.

JayRedd
05-29-2008, 10:36 AM
That's what I don't like about basketball. There is never a consistent manner in which calls are made. In the MLB, no one is going to call a ball foul in the 1st but fair in the 9th. It makes no sense.

Yeah.

Balls and strikes are really consistent and holding penalties in the NFL are very scientific. Luckilly, Selig put in QuestTech to make things more objective and that's been a huge success. :rolleyes:

idioteque
05-29-2008, 10:40 AM
Yeah.

Balls and strikes are really consistent and holding penalties in the NFL are very scientific. :rolleyes:

Basketball is by far the worst. Tell me the last time someone struck out controversially in the bottom of the 9th in a playoff game. It happens but it doesn't happen very often. This "there should have been a foul at the end of the game" business in basketball seems to be happening on a regular basis. You hear about it the most by far.

count55
05-29-2008, 10:42 AM
Without getting into the specifics of this situation, I think it's great that the NBA is willing to acknowledge something like this. I've been campaigning for something like this for years because I felt the NFL was always able to mute claims of crooked officiating by openly critiquing the performance and acknowledging errors.

Mistakes happen, and, while frustrating, are understandable. However, I always felt Stern and the NBA were making a huge mistake by (occasionally) brutally suppressing even honest criticism of the officiating. It gave the impression that they had something to hide.

I've already given my treatise on why I hate refs swallowing their whistles late in games, but I don't limit it to just the NBA...the NFL, among others, are guilty of it as well.

Unclebuck
05-29-2008, 10:50 AM
Look, I think NBA refs are terrible, but it's awful that the league is in effect blaming the officials for not making the call when the league offers no real directive to how calls should be administered at the end of the game compared to the beginning.




That isn't true, the refs are directed to call the game the same from start to finish.


I think it is a mistake for the NBA to come out and say a subjective call such as this is a wrong call.

travmil
05-29-2008, 10:51 AM
I've already given my treatise on why I hate refs swallowing their whistles late in games...

Exactly. The game should be called EXACTLY the same from start to finish, regardless of the situation, or the player. If you are on the defending team with 4 seconds to go and you KNOW that the ref is NOT going to blow the whistle for ANY reason, what is going to stop you from completely mugging the player with the ball like Fisher did? Games should be called the same, all the time, no exceptions.

travmil
05-29-2008, 10:52 AM
That isn't true, the refs are directed to call the game the same from start to finish.

What they are directed to do and what actually happens are two very different things.

Bridge
05-29-2008, 11:09 AM
I liked the no-call personally. I hate it when the refs decide a close game at the end. Barry had enough time to take another dribble, square up, and fire. I would only call a foul on the last shot if it was something blatant.

idioteque
05-29-2008, 11:10 AM
That isn't true, the refs are directed to call the game the same from start to finish.

That directive has no teeth. The officials have been altering the way they call the game whether the game is a playoff game or not or whether the game is in the final minute or not for years.

So where does it stop, where is the line drawn? Do you start calling a game differently in the 4th quarter or when there are 4 minutes left? Or 30 seconds?

If the NBA really wants referees to call the game the same all the way through then they are going to have to take further action for that to really happen.

naptownmenace
05-29-2008, 11:46 AM
It should've been a foul but I had no problem with it being a no-call. In fact I would've been shocked if the refs had blown the whistle.

Everyone knows the refs don't call a foul with less than 4 seconds on the clock unless it's an intentional foul or if the player is clearly knocked to the floor. I've seen it a hundred times. As soon as they realized Barry could still get a shot off they decided to swallow their whistles.

Meh, the Spurs had it coming to em anyway after that Suns series last year. You know what they say about payback...

Shade
05-29-2008, 11:53 AM
Suck it, JayRedd.

Suck it long...and suck it hard.

:D

Trader Joe
05-29-2008, 11:56 AM
Suck it, JayRedd.

Suck it long...and suck it hard.

:D



:innocent::stretch::punch:

(These smilies are for JayRedd. Just to clarify)

maragin
05-29-2008, 11:58 AM
Lump me in with those that think the game should be called correctly from pre-season on.

MyFavMartin
05-29-2008, 12:18 PM
Should have been called. Barry got Fisher in the air and who wouldn't try to draw a foul if you're a good FT shooter?

Aren't you supposed to not foul in that situation? Fisher should have been a goat, not a hero.

croz24
05-29-2008, 12:39 PM
shoulda woulda coulda...i spent last night on youtube watching some old knicks/pacers playoff games (the intentional foul that wasn't, the 4-pt play), and the nba refs are STILL a joke...after this ref scandal, i question everything that's happened through the years...

carpediem024
05-29-2008, 12:41 PM
http://i32.tinypic.com/8vvq4m.jpg

Seriously come on. What's the point of calling out a ref for missing a call to favor the Spurs but missing to point out that the refs missed a call 0.4 seconds before that to favor the Lakers. They should've just gotten over it because the refs blew pretty much the whole game. I don't know... maybe its me and that I don't know what traveling really is. But the one by Tim was just pathetic.

Oh well Lakers won! Its looking like Lakers Celtics.

Major Cold
05-29-2008, 01:04 PM
Barry should have flopped and sold it. So the media could complain about that. That way Stern could come up with a fine based system to stop the flopping....too late

Funny that the man taking the shot was the only non-flopper on the roster.

count55
05-29-2008, 01:06 PM
I liked the no-call personally. I hate it when the refs decide a close game at the end. Barry had enough time to take another dribble, square up, and fire. I would only call a foul on the last shot if it was something blatant.

Worst argument on the face of the earth for that position. By deciding NOT to call anything, the refs are in fact, having more impact on the outcome. Let's say the play happened twice during the game, once for each team. Team A drew the foul early in the third, hit both free throws, and were leading with 2 seconds left in the game by 1 point. Team B gets the same play with 2 seconds left, the ref swallows the whistle, no Free Throws, Team A wins. The fact that the official decided to treat the same thing differently because of its position in the timing of the game means that the ref is deciding, or at least influencing the outcome, in a different way than he is meant to (by impartially enforcing the rules).

Unclebuck
05-29-2008, 01:07 PM
Barry should have flopped and sold it. So the media could complain about that. That way Stern could come up with a fine based system to stop the flopping....too late

Funny that the man taking the shot was the only non-flopper on the roster.

I know there has been a lot of talk the past couple of days about Barry not "selling the foul" and by that I assume most people mean he had to flop. No all he had to do was instead of taking the dribble, shot the ball right up through Fisher and he wouldhave gotten 3 FT and the Spurs win the game

carpediem024
05-29-2008, 01:14 PM
Then they would flame him even more for flopping.

ABADays
05-29-2008, 01:16 PM
The one thing I really do hate about playoff basketball is the mugging on just about every shot. If the game were called correctly there wouldn't be any players left by halftime.

SycamoreKen
05-29-2008, 01:18 PM
I liked the no-call personally. I hate it when the refs decide a close game at the end. Barry had enough time to take another dribble, square up, and fire. I would only call a foul on the last shot if it was something blatant.

My argument to that is, they did decide the game by NOT doing their job and calling the foul. Fisher commited the foul - player action. Barry should have been forced to hit the free throws - player action. If over time happens then the teams decide who wins - player actions. By actually doing his job the ref would have allowed the players to decide the game. By not doing his job he bailed out Fisher and took away the opportunity that Barry had created.

I agree that the game is hard to officiate and some calls are hard to make. In this case it was just the officials deciding they were not going to make the call. It was way too obvious.

loborick
05-29-2008, 02:02 PM
What the NBA did is ridiculous. What they need to acknowledge is no NBA game is called correctly. How many calls were blown during that game? Yet the only one they choose to acknowledge is that one.

Put standards on your officials they are required to live up to and penalize them if they don't. But officiating is so subjective, the only thing you can really require is consistency. Call the game the same all game, making the same calls.

rexnom
05-29-2008, 07:45 PM
I know there has been a lot of talk the past couple of days about Barry not "selling the foul" and by that I assume most people mean he had to flop. No all he had to do was instead of taking the dribble, shot the ball right up through Fisher and he wouldhave gotten 3 FT and the Spurs win the game
Yeah, I agree with Reggie's take on it 100%. Barry wanted a shot, not FTs. He shied away from contact. Reggie, Ginobili, Kobe, Jordan, etc. wouldn't have done that. I think the no-call is actually a good call. Kind of consistent with what the NBA calls/doesn't call. If he wanted FTs, he would have gotten them. I still can't believe the NBA came out against the foul. What does that achieve but undermine it's own credibility? Why don't they point out every wrong call then? There were many that game (including Barry's travel before the foul).

rexnom
05-29-2008, 07:48 PM
My argument to that is, they did decide the game by NOT doing their job and calling the foul. Fisher commited the foul - player action. Barry should have been forced to hit the free throws - player action. If over time happens then the teams decide who wins - player actions. By actually doing his job the ref would have allowed the players to decide the game. By not doing his job he bailed out Fisher and took away the opportunity that Barry had created.

I agree that the game is hard to officiate and some calls are hard to make. In this case it was just the officials deciding they were not going to make the call. It was way too obvious.
What about the clear travel? How do you feel about that?

And, for the record, I think the refs saw the travel and just decided not to call it because it was too petty - the violation is quite clear, especially to the trained eye (refs).

Major Cold
05-29-2008, 08:32 PM
What about the clear travel? How do you feel about that?

And, for the record, I think the refs saw the travel and just decided not to call it because it was too petty - the violation is quite clear, especially to the trained eye (refs).

Easy to an eye who sees it in superslow motion. Come on it was not that easy of a call, thus the talk of the foul and not the travel.

SycamoreKen
05-30-2008, 12:01 AM
What about the clear travel? How do you feel about that?

And, for the record, I think the refs saw the travel and just decided not to call it because it was too petty - the violation is quite clear, especially to the trained eye (refs).

I knew he traveled when he did that as well. Just another example of the refs letting things go instead of doing their job. Bet they would have called it if it said Oberto on the Jersey instead of Duncan.

rexnom
05-30-2008, 12:53 AM
I knew he traveled when he did that as well. Just another example of the refs letting things go instead of doing their job. Bet they would have called it if it said Oberto on the Jersey instead of Duncan.
Whew. I appreciate your honesty like this, especially after a tough loss like last night.

Shade
05-30-2008, 03:04 PM
http://i32.tinypic.com/8vvq4m.jpg

Seriously come on. What's the point of calling out a ref for missing a call to favor the Spurs but missing to point out that the refs missed a call 0.4 seconds before that to favor the Lakers. They should've just gotten over it because the refs blew pretty much the whole game. I don't know... maybe its me and that I don't know what traveling really is. But the one by Tim was just pathetic.

Oh well Lakers won! Its looking like Lakers Celtics.

Because it was a blatant missed call that directly affected the last play of the game (which also happened to determine the outcome of said game).

Pretty much every fan would be irate if their team was on the receiving end of that missed call.

Naptown_Seth
05-30-2008, 03:12 PM
I hate it when the refs decide a close game at the end.
I am so sick of this excuse because by not calling it the same as normal they ARE DECIDING the game.

How about this, Reggie shoots from clearly behind the 3 to tie the game. Ref calls it a 2. Game over. Good thing the ref didn't "decide" the game, right?

Letting the defense just punch someone upside the head is deciding that the defending team should have a better shot at winning than the offensive team. Letting them hold, trip, whatever is AGAINST THE RULES is giving one team an advantage.


If the ref called that Fisher foul you know who would have decided the game at the end? THE PLAYERS, namely Barry and Fisher.

Fouls are there to force you to play with fair limits; if you can not play within those limits then you just lost (on that play). No different than if you can't make a shot or can't stay in bounds.

Yes a foul has an air of subjectivity to it, but there shouldn't be a blatent adjustment of what is acceptable based on playoffs, end of game or player reputation. Ever.

Let the PLAYERS decide the game, not RULES ADJUSTMENTS for circumstances.

Shade
05-30-2008, 03:15 PM
I am so sick of this excuse because by not calling it the same as normal they ARE DECIDING the game.

How about this, Reggie shoots from clearly behind the 3 to tie the game. Ref calls it a 2. Game over. Good thing the ref didn't "decide" the game, right?

Letting the defense just punch someone upside the head is deciding that the defending team should have a better shot at winning than the offensive team. Letting them hold, trip, whatever is AGAINST THE RULES is giving one team an advantage.


If the ref called that Fisher foul you know who would have decided the game at the end? THE PLAYERS, namely Barry and Fisher.

Fouls are there to force you to play with fair limits; if you can not play within those limits then you just lost (on that play). No different than if you can't make a shot or can't stay in bounds.

Yes a foul has an air of subjectivity to it, but there shouldn't be a blatent adjustment of what is acceptable based on playoffs, end of game or player reputation. Ever.

Let the PLAYERS decide the game, not RULES ADJUSTMENTS for circumstances.

Wow. Did I just agree with both Seth and Redd, and on the same day no less?

I think I need to lay down for a bit.

Hicks
05-30-2008, 03:44 PM
I am so sick of this excuse because by not calling it the same as normal they ARE DECIDING the game.

How about this, Reggie shoots from clearly behind the 3 to tie the game. Ref calls it a 2. Game over. Good thing the ref didn't "decide" the game, right?

Letting the defense just punch someone upside the head is deciding that the defending team should have a better shot at winning than the offensive team. Letting them hold, trip, whatever is AGAINST THE RULES is giving one team an advantage.


If the ref called that Fisher foul you know who would have decided the game at the end? THE PLAYERS, namely Barry and Fisher.

Fouls are there to force you to play with fair limits; if you can not play within those limits then you just lost (on that play). No different than if you can't make a shot or can't stay in bounds.

Yes a foul has an air of subjectivity to it, but there shouldn't be a blatent adjustment of what is acceptable based on playoffs, end of game or player reputation. Ever.

Let the PLAYERS decide the game, not RULES ADJUSTMENTS for circumstances.

Thank you!

JayRedd
05-30-2008, 03:50 PM
I bet Seth is one of those guys that calls moving screens and three-seconds during pick-up.

Unclebuck
05-30-2008, 03:51 PM
I am so sick of this excuse because by not calling it the same as normal they ARE DECIDING the game.

How about this, Reggie shoots from clearly behind the 3 to tie the game. Ref calls it a 2. Game over. Good thing the ref didn't "decide" the game, right?

Letting the defense just punch someone upside the head is deciding that the defending team should have a better shot at winning than the offensive team. Letting them hold, trip, whatever is AGAINST THE RULES is giving one team an advantage.


If the ref called that Fisher foul you know who would have decided the game at the end? THE PLAYERS, namely Barry and Fisher.

Fouls are there to force you to play with fair limits; if you can not play within those limits then you just lost (on that play). No different than if you can't make a shot or can't stay in bounds.

Yes a foul has an air of subjectivity to it, but there shouldn't be a blatent adjustment of what is acceptable based on playoffs, end of game or player reputation. Ever.

Let the PLAYERS decide the game, not RULES ADJUSTMENTS for circumstances.



No one is suggesting that an obvious foul not be called, if someone gets punched upside the head as they are shooting the ball, - a foul call will be made everytime whether there 1 second left in the game or not. But what we don't want is the refs to make a bunch of calls at the end of a game. I want them to error on the side of not making a call. (that does not mean you ignore obvious fouls, but just make sure it is a foul)

That is all some of us are asking for - including the majority of NBA players.


Take a look at late game inbound situations - there are probably 8 fouls being committed in the 4 or 5 seconds it takes to get the ball in - each of the 8 players involved in the play foul, both ways

Unclebuck
05-30-2008, 03:53 PM
I bet Seth is one of those guys that calls moving screens and three-seconds during pick-up.

LOL, I used to dispise playing against a really physical guy in pickup games because they get away with murder

rexnom
05-30-2008, 04:01 PM
I know the missed foul is egregious but the travel is pretty bad too. The ball is going to be inbounded to ONE player. He's going to be making very few moves. How can the refs NOT be watching his feet?

DeS
05-30-2008, 05:40 PM
BTW, in Euroloeague they decided to eliminate the rude playing in the end. They directed referees to call the technical fouls on every single occasion when player fouls not making a play into a ball.
Sometimes it really sucks, especially when your team get technical with few seconds left in a tied game. Taking into account that the fouling player just wanted to make o simple timer stop without no intent to harm anyone. But i think in the season end teams adapted (or maybe referees found some compromise).

Cobol Sam
05-31-2008, 01:15 AM
I haven't seen the Duncan travel. Anyone have a link to video of it?

SamBear
06-01-2008, 01:09 PM
Did anyone really expect the league would let the Detroit or the Spurs win??? :laugh:

Not even sure why they even had the damn playoffs... they could have saved everyone money, time, heartache ect... pfffttt FTNBA