PDA

View Full Version : The officiating



Shade
01-08-2009, 12:12 AM
I don't want to rain on everyone's parade or bring down the post-game thread, so I'm going to start my own ***** thread about the officiating in tonight's game.

This is the type of game that gives fodder to the conspiracy theorists. Amare gets away with murder out there, as was evidenced most notably when he mowed down both Dun and Foster late in the game. The latter was called a foul on Jeff; on the former, there was no whistle at all. In fact, the only offensive fouls that got called on Amare tonight were when Granger took them, further proving the existence of the superstar call.

One-sided officiating like tonight really takes the fun out of these games for me. When we lost the lead, all I could think of was how a couple of those ridiculous calls the Suns got were going to bite us in the *** and cost us a much-needed, and much-deserved, victory.

Is anything ever going to be done to fix this glaring flaw?

croz24
01-08-2009, 12:17 AM
when an offensive player leaves his feet to catch a pass, he has every right to land regardless of whether or not a defensive player is underneath him. if you are referring to when amare knocked down dun after catching the pass, that was not an offensive foul. a good no-call and if anything a foul on dun. if you aren't referring to that play with dun being "mowed down", then i apologize.

travmil
01-08-2009, 12:30 AM
croz, your interpretation of that rule is simply not true. If it were, that would be the go to play of every team in the NBA. Put it this way, if a player moving WITHOUT the ball did that it would be an offensive foul. Why should having the ball change that?

Here's the offical rule from http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList


Section II--By Dribbler
a. A dribbler shall not (1) charge into an opponent who has established a legal guarding position, or (2) attempt to dribble between two opponents, or (3) attempt to dribble between an opponent and a boundary, where sufficient space is not avail-able for illegal contact to be avoided.
b. If a defender is able to establish a legal position in the straight line path of the dribbler, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his dribble.
c. The dribbler must be in control of his body at all times. If illegal contact occurs, the responsibility is on the dribbler.
PENALTY: The offender is assessed an offensive foul. There is no team foul. The ball is awarded to the offended team on the sideline nearest the spot where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline than the free throw line extended.
EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section I--a.
d. If a dribbler has sufficient space to have his head and shoulders in advance of his defender, the responsibility for illegal contact is on the defender.
e. If a dribbler has established a straight line path, a defender may not crowd him out of that path.
PENALTY: The defender shall be assessed a personal foul and a team foul. If the penalty is not in effect, the offended team is awarded the ball on the sideline nearest the spot where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline than the free throw line extended. If the penalty is in effect, one free throw attempt plus a penalty free throw attempt is awarded.





There's NOTHING in there about the defender in there being required to allow the defender to land. The lone exception does not cover the situation you are describing.

MyFavMartin
01-08-2009, 12:31 AM
agree with croz on that one, but all the other stuff I had problems with. see it every night. foster gets beat like a ragdoll.

MyFavMartin
01-08-2009, 12:33 AM
guy can land on catching a pass. can't undercut him and then claim a charge.

Hicks
01-08-2009, 12:34 AM
How would it have been a foul on Dunleavy when Phoenix had just scored, the Pacers were or had just inbounded the ball, and they're all running down court, when Amare knocks Mike on the side of his head?

As for the one where Amare came down on Diener, that's fine.... but isn't that rule about verticle space? Well, he was moving horizontally toward the basket. If horizontal moves like that were allowed, why not just jump into your defender every time? I mean apparently the rule is the defender has to let you land, so why not?

MyFavMartin
01-08-2009, 12:37 AM
so was diener planted before amare jumped?

agree with the headshot to dunleavey being a blatant foul

Shade
01-08-2009, 12:39 AM
How would it have been a foul on Dunleavy when Phoenix had just scored, the Pacers were or had just inbounded the ball, and they're all running down court, when Amare knocks Mike on the side of his head?

Precisely. I think croz and I are referring to two different plays.


As for the one where Amare came down on Diener, that's fine.... but isn't that rule about verticle space? Well, he was moving horizontally toward the basket. If horizontal moves like that were allowed, why not just jump into your defender every time? I mean apparently the rule is the defender has to let you land, so why not?

Yep. By that rationale, the Graham dunk should have been a foul on Barbosa, because he didn't leave any room for Stephen to come down.

MyFavMartin
01-08-2009, 12:41 AM
B. Personal Foul

Section I--Types
a. A player shall not hold, push, charge into, impede the progress of an oppo-nent by extending a hand, forearm, leg or knee or by bending the body into a posi-tion that is not normal. Contact that results in the re-routing of an opponent is a foul which must be called immediately.
b. Contact initiated by the defensive player guarding a player with the ball is not legal. This contact includes, but is not limited to, forearm, hands, or body check.


If the defender isn't there before the offensive player jumped, isn't that impeding the movement of a player?

MyFavMartin
01-08-2009, 12:42 AM
Yep. By that rationale, the Graham dunk should have been a foul on Barbosa, because he didn't leave any room for Stephen to come down.

No. Barbosa was there clearly before Graham jumped. Hence, established position.

Shade
01-08-2009, 12:43 AM
No. Barbosa was there clearly before Graham jumped. Hence, established position.

I believe Barbosa was still moving while Graham was in the air, but was set by the time contact was made.

theboyjwo
01-08-2009, 12:44 AM
I thought he was still back peddling.

MyFavMartin
01-08-2009, 12:48 AM
I believe Barbosa was still moving while Graham was in the air, but was set by the time contact was made.

Well if that were the case I would agree with you, but I thought I saw different.

Midcoasted
01-08-2009, 12:52 AM
I don't want to rain on everyone's parade or bring down the post-game thread, so I'm going to start my own ***** thread about the officiating in tonight's game.

This is the type of game that gives fodder to the conspiracy theorists. Amare gets away with murder out there, as was evidenced most notably when he mowed down both Dun and Foster late in the game. The latter was called a foul on Jeff; on the former, there was no whistle at all. In fact, the only offensive fouls that got called on Amare tonight were when Granger took them, further proving the existence of the superstar call.

One-sided officiating like tonight really takes the fun out of these games for me. When we lost the lead, all I could think of was how a couple of those ridiculous calls the Suns got were going to bite us in the *** and cost us a much-needed, and much-deserved, victory.

Is anything ever going to be done to fix this glaring flaw?


Pray that Granger keeps getting 30 a game so that he starts recieving super star treatment himself nightly. If I were Stern I'd tell the officials to stop giving super star treatment or get the boot.

I worried about the exact same thing. Granger is so clutch though. Anyone else realizing we are becoming clutch with guys like Jack and Granger?

croz24
01-08-2009, 01:00 AM
Precisely. I think croz and I are referring to two different plays.



Yep. By that rationale, the Graham dunk should have been a foul on Barbosa, because he didn't leave any room for Stephen to come down.

as i stated, we might be referring to a different play. the play i was referring to the people on the game thread were going crazy thinking it was a foul on amare. with probably 2 minutes left in the game, amare jumps in the air to catch a pass near the basket. dun runs into position to take the charge before amare lands. amare lands and literally mows down dun. dun was laying under the basket and amare dunks it.

Lord Helmet
01-08-2009, 01:13 AM
as i stated, we might be referring to a different play. the play i was referring to the people on the game thread were going crazy thinking it was a foul on amare. with probably 2 minutes left in the game, amare jumps in the air to catch a pass near the basket. dun runs into position to take the charge before amare lands. amare lands and literally mows down dun. dun was laying under the basket and amare dunks it.
I *****ed about that play, but I remember at least 2-3 earlier instances of total BS calls.

Mike getting knocked by Amare was one, I think.

D23
01-08-2009, 09:53 AM
I found a good video of one of Amare's drives down the lane. It's at about the 0:07 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11iq5-6JIhU

Phildog
01-08-2009, 09:58 AM
When I watched it, I thought we were getting some calls that we should not have received either. Amare's situation was clearly evident, but it wasn't a one-way street last night--it was just bad.

owl
01-08-2009, 09:59 AM
Forget the one where Dunleavy was knocked down. That was debateable. The two blatant
ones were when Amare drove and ran over a player who was outside the circle and planted.
This happened twice and was so blatant I could not believe the call was not made.
Once I could handle but twice was rediculous. The only explanation is favoritism or worse
the fix is in.

OakMoses
01-08-2009, 10:07 AM
I actually thought the officiating in this game was better overall than the officiating in the Denver game which was atrocious. I didn't really have a problem with either of the no calls on Amare that have been mentioned, but there were 2 times where he clearly lowered his shoulder and bowled over a Pacer while driving into the lane. Blocking fouls were called on both plays, but both were obvious charges.

I didn't have a problem with the charging call on Graham. He plays like a bull in a China closet, I'm surprised he doesn't get more of those.

Other than that I remember one really bad call in the 4th quarter that got Richardson to the foul line. He basically just drove in completely out of control, jumped and flung the ball at the rim. I'm sure there was contact but I hate it when refs reward players who are blatantly foul-seeking rather than trying to make a good play.

There was also a ridiculous continuation call where Barbosa (I think) got fouled above the free throw line and was given continuation on a layup.

Also, Barbosa carries the ball more than just about anyone I've ever seen. If he played college ball in America he'd get called for that at least 4 times a game.

Since86
01-08-2009, 01:25 PM
I believe Barbosa was still moving while Graham was in the air, but was set by the time contact was made.


There's a difference. In the NBA you don't have to have to be immobile to take a charge. You only have to establish position. Barbosa had position, then straightened up to take the charge.

If an offensive player leaves his feet, a defensive player cannot slide under him, establish position, and then claim a charge.

count55
01-08-2009, 01:38 PM
There's a difference. In the NBA you don't have to have to be immobile to take a charge. You only have to establish position. Barbosa had position, then straightened up to take the charge.

If an offensive player leaves his feet, a defensive player cannot slide under him, establish position, and then claim a charge.

I never got a really good viewpoint, but, while Barbosa had established position with his feet, I thought that he leaned a little to his left to catch Graham.

More to the point, I am frustrated that the establishment of position by Pacer defenders didn't seem to prevent the officials from calling blocking fouls.

JayRedd
01-08-2009, 01:49 PM
On the Graham dunk, there's no way it was a foul on Barbosa. He had position.

I personally wouldn't have called the charge cause midgets under the hoop shouldn't be able to do that crap, but it was a no-call at best and, according to the letter of the rulebook, an offensive foul.

count55
01-08-2009, 01:52 PM
On the Graham dunk, there's no way it was a foul on Barbosa. He had position.

I personally wouldn't have called the charge cause midgets under the hoop shouldn't be able to do that crap, but it was a no-call at best and, according to the letter of the rulebook, an offensive foul.

Yeah, I certainly could've lived with a no call. Like I said, Graham kind of went over LB's left shoulder, and from the baseline, it looked like LB was leaning a bit.

There was very little contact either way.

EDIT: I don't think you have to be "set" to draw a charge. If a defender is sliding, but maintaining position, then the offensive player initiating (undue) contact should be a charge. However, if the guy were to lean at the last second (which LB may or may not have done), then I say no call or block.

But again, the frustration comes from the inequity in calls.

Shade
01-08-2009, 02:00 PM
There's a difference. In the NBA you don't have to have to be immobile to take a charge. You only have to establish position. Barbosa had position, then straightened up to take the charge.

I'm not arguing that Graham's dunk was a foul. It clearly was. I was arguing the technicalities of the "letter of the law" that was posted earlier.


If an offensive player leaves his feet, a defensive player cannot slide under him, establish position, and then claim a charge.Unless you're Bruce Bowen, apparently.

croz24
01-08-2009, 02:09 PM
the pacers won the game and here we are complaining about officiating. for a suns home game, the officiating was on par with what you'd expect playing on the road. if we're going to complain about lost leads, lets talk players/coaching, not the officials.

Since86
01-08-2009, 02:11 PM
I'm not arguing that Graham's dunk was a foul. It clearly was. I was arguing the technicalities of the "letter of the law" that was posted earlier.

Unless you're Bruce Bowen, apparently.


I know, and completely agree about Bowen.

I'm just saying that Croz is partially right. A defensive player has to allow an offensive player the space to land if they are in the air, if the defensive player hadn't established position before the offensive player became airborn.

I should have included Trav in the mix, because really that's where my post came about. iPacer got the rule correct, because of the phrase:"A dribbler shall not (1) charge into an opponent who has established a legal guarding position, "