PDA

View Full Version : Refs for Today's Game - The Pits



IndyHoya
04-16-2011, 09:58 PM
What a triumvirate: Violet Palmer, Joey Crawford, and Bennett Salvatore.

Could it ever be worse than that?

BringJackBack
04-16-2011, 10:00 PM
It showed too. I thought that I was going to die.

Pacergeek
04-16-2011, 10:04 PM
i loved it when vogel got a technical. enough was enough. our guy was mugged on that play.

IndyHoya
04-16-2011, 10:06 PM
i loved it when vogel got a technical. enough was enough. our guy was mugged on that play.

If I remember rightly, they called Collison for traveling.

Psyren
04-16-2011, 10:06 PM
No, it could not get any worse.

I hope it's not the same for the whole series.

I mean seriously, who the hell let Violet Palmer officiate an NBA playoff game? And Joey should've been gone many many MANY years ago.

xIndyFan
04-16-2011, 10:08 PM
didn't think the officiating was all that bad. i like crawford. not a big fan of Bennett Salvatore or Violet Palmer, but i've seen both of them suck much worse. i basically like the way they called the game. it was physical, they let the player's play.

vnzla81
04-16-2011, 10:08 PM
The referees did an Ok job today, Rose was going to get more fouls because the guy attacks the basket non stop, the only guy that does that on the Pacers is Tyler and he didn't do that as much today(his shot was falling) we actually got some calls at the end and didn't hit the free trows.

BringJackBack
04-16-2011, 10:09 PM
Well, it could be worse. Oh, wait.. It couldn't.

vapacersfan
04-16-2011, 10:10 PM
Considering the usual superstar bias, I actually thought the refs called a decent game.

Now I could write a thesis on how disguisting the whole "superstar player = superstar call" attitude is, and the fact the NBA continues to deny this exists is comical, but that is a story for another day.

As for the OP, my initial reaction when I heard the refs announced was :hmm: and :-o along with :shakehead

That said, Violet was not all that bad. I truly hate Joey, and that is sad because I think he is a decent ref when he is trying to be the center of attention.

More to the point, I think the refs were far from perfect, but the Bulls won (and Pacers lost) this game more then the refs lost us this game. If I had to blame one thing alone I would say lack of playoff experience, and there is only one way to fix that.....

Pacergeek
04-16-2011, 10:12 PM
If I remember rightly, they called Collison for traveling.

thats right. but DC was bumped to cause the travel.

Eleazar
04-16-2011, 10:12 PM
didn't think the officiating was all that bad. i like crawford. not a big fan of Bennett Salvatore or Violet Palmer, but i've seen both of them suck much worse. i basically like the way they called the game. it was physical, they let the player's play.

Except for when that player was in between Rose and the basket.

IndyHoya
04-16-2011, 10:12 PM
Considering the usual superstar bias, I actually thought the refs called a decent game.

Now I could write a thesis on how disguisting the whole "superstar player = superstar call" attitude is, and the fact the NBA continues to deny this exists is comical, but that is a story for another day.

As for the OP, my initial reaction when I heard the refs announced was :hmm: and :-o along with :shakehead

That said, Violet was not all that bad. I truly hate Joey, and that is sad because I think he is a decent ref when he is trying to be the center of attention.

More to the point, I think the refs were far from perfect, but the Bulls won (and Pacers lost) this game more then the refs lost us this game. If I had to blame one thing alone I would say lack of playoff experience, and there is only one way to fix that.....

It's hard to fix 21 FTs awarded to 1 player.

vapacersfan
04-16-2011, 10:14 PM
Yes the bulls got more calls.

The Pacers also left a lot of points at the line.

Sorry, I just cannot say the refs lost us this game.

On the bright side, with Bill Simmons pointing this out via his tweeter, I bet it at least gets some national play. We will see if that mater for game two.....

Professor S
04-16-2011, 10:16 PM
Do the referee crews switch from game to game? City to city? Any way to know who we've got next game?

vapacersfan
04-16-2011, 10:17 PM
Do the referee crews switch from game to game? City to city? Any way to know who we've got next game?

They have a rotation and rarely work back to back games (maybe they never do)

Not sure if it switches city to city

Sookie
04-16-2011, 10:17 PM
Collison was absolutely hammered at the end of the game too, could have turned a 3 point lead into a five point lead..instead we had DRose going the other way on a fast break..

Kuq_e_Zi91
04-16-2011, 10:20 PM
Honestly, does it really matter who officiates? I shook my head when I saw who they assigned us, but then I tried thinking of who I would rather have and I couldn't do it. While you could argue some refs are worse than others, ultimately they're all pretty bad. You just gotta live with it.

IndyHoya
04-16-2011, 10:25 PM
Collison was absolutely hammered at the end of the game too, could have turned a 3 point lead into a five point lead..instead we had DRose going the other way on a fast break..

Spot on! That non-call was extremely pivotal. It was highway robbery. A totally obvious call missed by our elite crew of *seasoned* NBA officials. Collison was under the basket, holding the ball about chest high and starting to take the ball up for a shot. He was then obviously hacked across both arms causing him to lose the ball and the Bulls to start their fast break. The entire world saw it and nothing was called.

Our troika of Palmer, Crawford, and Salvatore saw nothing. They saw everything that happened to Derrick Rose and sometimes saw things that didn't happen to him.

speakout4
04-16-2011, 10:32 PM
Spot on! That non-call was extremely pivotal. It was highway robbery. A totally obvious call missed by our elite crew of *seasoned* NBA officials.

Our troika of Palmer, Crawford, and Salvatore
The refs know who is supposed to win. They aren't "elite" because of play calling. The one ref that was crooked wasn't even obviously considered any worse than the others. It's not wrestling but it's not NFL either.

graphic-er
04-16-2011, 10:41 PM
Rose got alot of calls, how about those 2 plays in the 4th where Hibbert jump straight up and Rose jumped into him. Thats not a foul. How about the the play where Mike D. stood straight up and DRose just plows over his shoulder for the And-1. He probably had at least 3-4 plays that were legitimate charges that he got away with. Like said in the game thread. The refs make the superstars. I hate it when great players are bailed out by the refs.

Rose has this move that almost always guarantees a whistle, he will drive and hop step and jump off at angle toward the defender and draw contact on their shoulders or hips, and get the whistle every time even the though the defender is standing in perfect defensive position to take a charge.

kidthecat
04-16-2011, 10:57 PM
At least the game was called consistently, even if that "consistency" was at a disadvantage to the Pacers.

While I will agree that those are about the worst three refs you could put together (especially Violet -- just miserable), the main villain is the ridiculous perimeter-oriented rules of today. It's pretty obvious the "opening up" of the game was just a cheap ploy to allow all-star guards (what the common fan pays to see) pump up their own numbers and sell tickets.

I'd kill to go back to the early 2000's -- let alone the 90's!

ilive4sports
04-16-2011, 11:06 PM
It doesn't matter who the officials are. See the Philly/Miami game FT attempts.

AesopRockOn
04-16-2011, 11:09 PM
Could it ever be worse than that?

:bavetta:

:-p

Unclebuck
04-16-2011, 11:14 PM
I thought the refs were pretty good.

But even if I didn't. I think complaining about the refs is what the losers do

Trophy
04-16-2011, 11:15 PM
I'm not a fan of those refs, but they were much more fair today than in the past.

We got our calls and the Bulls got theirs.

Some could go either way for both sides, but overall they called the game better in the playoffs.

Kid Minneapolis
04-16-2011, 11:22 PM
Rose is a contact artist. It's pretty much half his game. Drive 200 mph into a crowd of people so fast that they can't set their feet, and just careen off them while throwing a shot towards the basket, go to line, shoot two free throws. The refs will call it 99 times out of 100 in favor of Rose. He figured that out, and he's milking it. They *are* fouls. He's drawing them.

It works.... and it kinda sucks. What are ya gonna do. Iverson was much the same, except I can honestly say Iverson had a lot more actual skill than Rose. Rose is just bigger and stronger.

The plow-into-a-crowd-and-shoot-free-throws tactic also seems to be Chicago's playoff gameplan... it's not gonna take 'em far, imo. It'll work against these young Pacers, especially while the NBA world is riding high on Rose-mania, but I still think the Pacers are going to continue to give them massive fits, and next round, Chicago is going to be in trouble. Rose can't drop 40 every game. At some point in time, this schtick just isn't gonna work.

Unclebuck
04-16-2011, 11:26 PM
I posted this in another thread, but have re-watched the entire game and Rose was fouled another half-dozen times when fouls were not called.

Sookie
04-16-2011, 11:27 PM
I thought the refs were pretty good.

But even if I didn't. I think complaining about the refs is what the losers do

Quite frankly, other than the superstar calls (and the terrible missed Collison call), they were decent.

Thing is, the superstar calls were a guarantee. Maybe if people make a big fuss about the free throw difference it'll be a bit better. But I doubt it.

It's not to say that the refs were the cause. But the refs certainly helped Chicago's cause when Chicago needed it.

Sandman21
04-16-2011, 11:49 PM
Could it ever be worse than that?
Sure it can. I've heard high school students call basketball games on high school radio stations with less homerism than Jon Barry did today!:D

Unclebuck
04-16-2011, 11:52 PM
Sure it can. I've heard high school students call basketball games on high school radio stations with less homerism than Jon Barry did today!:D


I didn't notice it

AesopRockOn
04-17-2011, 12:04 AM
I didn't notice it

It wasn't so much homerism as much as it was a Bulls-centric broadcast. Every time they went to commercial, every single storyline that was mentioned was Bulls-related. My friend who is a Bulls fan texted me during the game, "Barry isn't giving the Pacers enough credit." It wasn't offensive as much as it was ignorant. There were also about seven instances when Barry mentioned that "maybe this is the sequence that will finally spark the Bulls' comeback." It was not conducive to enjoyment for a Pacers fan.

pwee31
04-17-2011, 12:06 AM
I posted this in another thread, but have re-watched the entire game and Rose was fouled another half-dozen times when fouls were not called.

So did I, and so was Hansbrough... except Tyler didn't take 21 Free Throws

Unclebuck
04-17-2011, 12:07 AM
It wasn't so much homerism as much as it was a Bulls-centric broadcast. Every time they went to commercial, every single storyline that was mentioned was Bulls-related. My friend who is a Bulls fan texted me during the game, "Barry isn't giving the Pacers enough credit." It wasn't offensive as much as it was ignorant. There were also about seven instances when Barry mentioned that "maybe this is the sequence that will finally spark the Bulls' comeback." It was not conducive to enjoyment for a Pacers fan.

I'm sure a lot of Pacers fans agreed with Barry and I'm sure most of the non-Pacers fans who were watching agreed with Barry

Sookie
04-17-2011, 12:41 AM
The commentating was funny..because I swear, as soon as the commentators started almost rooting for the Pacers, the Bulls went on their run.

Also, I'm sure Rose was technically fouled a half a dozen more times (probably more) than was called. But he wasn't fouled more than the entire Pacers team put together. He also commits a lot more fouls than are ever called on him. (Constantly reaching in and committing charges)

TheDon
04-17-2011, 07:12 AM
:bavetta:

:-p

:ding:

Shade
04-17-2011, 07:18 AM
Honestly, I didn't think the officiating was that bad. Especially considering who the officials were.

Though, both of those "blocks" by Noah on McBob at the end were fouls. He never even touched the ball.

Mark
04-17-2011, 10:32 AM
I just can't respect any ref that throws Tim Duncan out of a game for doing absolutely nothing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF-97F00t8E

ksuttonjr76
04-17-2011, 10:52 AM
Repost from another thread...


Personally, I don't want to completely blame the refs. I thought the refs made better calls in the 2nd half, then the 1st half. David Stern probably made the call, and let the refs know that we have another potential Bulls vs. Celtics series going WITH a good storyline.

# 1 Seed with the presumed MVP
# 8 Seed with a young, rookie coach for a team entering the playoffs after 5 years
Indiana the only team to have a Game 7 against the Championship Bulls
Jordan vs. Miller angle
A potential # 8 upset of the # 1
Can Rose maintain his performance to take his team past the Pacers?
Psycho T arguably being the most decorated college player ever


Honestly, I can see the calls getting BETTER in order to extend this series, if the games remain competitive each time. The only questionable calls for me was when Granger was mugged on a drive and the traveling call on Collison. If we get blown out in one those games.....

ksuttonjr76
04-17-2011, 10:56 AM
I'm sure a lot of Pacers fans agreed with Barry and I'm sure most of the non-Pacers fans who were watching agreed with Barry

Nope...Barry REALLY didn't know that much about the Pacers. For a NATIONAL televised game, Barry was CLEARLY in favor of the Bulls. When I watched the Bulls/Pacers games and gotten the Chicago feed, they're commentary wasn't as bad as Barry's was.

The way Barry was talking, I would have expected that from a local televised game, and NOT from a national televised game.

kellogg
04-17-2011, 11:02 AM
I thought the refs were pretty good.

But even if I didn't. I think complaining about the refs is what the losers do

Weren't watching the same game I was then.

Rose got away with the same nonsense when we won in OT here.

Complaining about the refs is legitimate if they're truly bad (or like T Donaghy, crooked)...winning and losing is immaterial to the argument.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 11:48 AM
Weren't watching the same game I was then.

Rose got away with the same nonsense when we won in OT here.

Complaining about the refs is legitimate if they're truly bad (or like T Donaghy, crooked)...winning and losing is immaterial to the argument.

Rose's 19 made free throws were the most by any player in a playoff game since Allen Iverson made the number back in 2002 while he was still with the Philadelphia 76ers. Voila! A new star is born!

I would like to see a video replay of all those fouls that gave rise to his 21 FT attempts. Maybe it's my imagination, but to me Rose almost always goes up right and wards off with his left hand. As someone also pointed out, he gets calls when sliding over to avoid square contact but hitting a positioned defender while sliding sideways -- something that should either be a charge or a non-call under standard rules.

For anyone that's interested, here's a pretty good video on the difference between a charge and a blocking foul: http://tinyurl.com/ybbghh4

Also, for those interested in Talmudic analysis, here's a summary of the NBA Rules on blocks and charges. As a lawyer, I find their opaqueness and lack of clarity positively breathtaking.

Section II-Blocking
Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent.

A defensive player is permitted to establish a legal guarding position in the path of a dribbler regardless of his speed and distance.

A defensive player is not permitted to move into the path of an offensive player once he has started his shooting motion.

A defensive player must allow a moving player the distance to stop or change direction when the offensive player receives a pass outside the lower defensive box.

A defensive player must allow an alighted player the distance to land and then stop or change direction when the offensive player is outside the lower defensive box.

A defensive player is permitted to establish a legal guarding position in the path of an offensive player who receives a pass inside the lower defensive box regardless of his speed and distance.

Note: The Lower Defensive Box (LDB) is the area from the bottom tip of the free throw circle to the endline between the two 3’ posted-up marks),

A defensive player must allow an alighted player who receives a pass the space to land when the offensive player is inside the lower defensive box.

A defensive player must allow a moving offensive player without the ball the distance to stop or change direction.

The speed of the offensive player will determine the amount of distance a defensive player must allow.

If an offensive player causes contact with a defensive player who has established a legal position, an offensive foul shall be called and no points may be scored.

A defensive player may turn slightly to protect himself, but is never allowed to bend over and submarine an opponent.

An offensive foul should never be called if the contact is with a secondary defensive player who has established a defensive position within a designated "restricted area" near the basket for the purpose of drawing an offensive foul.

The "restricted area" for this purpose is the area bounded by an arc with a 4-foot radius measured from the middle of the basket.

EXCEPTION: Any player may be legally positioned within the "restricted area" if the offensive player receives the ball within the Lower Defensive Box.

The mere fact that contact occurs on these type of plays, or any other similar play, does not necessarily mean that a personal foul has been committed. The offocials must decide whether the contact is negligible and/or incidental, judging each situation separately.

Blocks/Charge: A block/charge foul occurs when a defender tries to get in front of his man to stop him from going in that direction. If he does not get into a legal defensive position and contact occurs, it is a blocking foul. If he gets to a legal position and the offensive player runs into him it is an offensive foul. In both situations, if the contact is minimal, no foul may be called. To get into a legal position defending against the dribbler, the defender just needs to get in front of him. On a drive to the basket, the defender must get to his position before the shooter starts his upward shooting motion. For most other cases, the defender must get into position and allow enough distance for the offensive player to stop and/or change direction.

beast23
04-17-2011, 12:03 PM
I posted this in another thread, but have re-watched the entire game and Rose was fouled another half-dozen times when fouls were not called.
But to be perfectly fair, Buck, how many times did our players stand or jump perfectly verticle, where Rose jumped into them... and the foul WAS called?

At some point in time, I'd say that refs will get altered instructions on how to make these calls. They will probably then be forced to make judgement calls on the "intent" of the offensive player. If the player attacks the rim and is relying more on creating contact and getting the foul by putting up a "wing and a prayer" shot, then no foul?

IMO, there is a huge difference in drawing contact and creating contact. But no matter what the rules or the instructions to the officials, it all comes down to judgement calls made in fractions of a second.

Moses
04-17-2011, 12:03 PM
Palmer and Salvatore have been MUCH worse in the past than they were yesterday. I thought the officiating wasn't horrible but there were at least 4-5 questionable calls. The best was at the very end of the game when Joakim Noah "blocked" McRoberts 3 straight times by slapping his arm. It is obvious that Rose is getting the same calls that Wade did a few years ago when the Heat won a championship. It's going to be hard for any team to beat the Bulls when Rose gets over 20 free throws a game similar to how Wade did back then.

BillS
04-17-2011, 12:26 PM
As I said in another thread, the call I have the most problem with is when Rose initiates contact on a set defender who is not moving and is standing straight up, but because he can bring his body around at an angle before the contact he gets the call.

I just don't see how this is a defensive foul. I can see the no-call for the charge, as the offensive player is (usually) avoiding direct contact, but if the defender's space is now being narrowed not just to where his body remains still but also only the front part of that body, there's a huge problem.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 12:42 PM
As I said in another thread, the call I have the most problem with is when Rose initiates contact on a set defender who is not moving and is standing straight up, but because he can bring his body around at an angle before the contact he gets the call.

I just don't see how this is a defensive foul. I can see the no-call for the charge, as the offensive player is (usually) avoiding direct contact, but if the defender's space is now being narrowed not just to where his body remains still but also only the front part of that body, there's a huge problem.

As I read the rules (quoted below), you are absolutely right. It should not be a foul.

A good example of this was a Rose take to the bucket in either the late 1st or early part of the 2nd Quarter. It was replayed so I had an opportunity to get a good look at it. Dunleavy seemed to be properly positioned, stationary and unmoving, in "legal guarding position" outside the "restricted area" before Rose leaves his feet to go up for the shot. Rose, then goes airborne and moving (as always) to his right, avoids full contact and slides to Dunleavy's left brushing Dunleavy's side as he elevates. Tweet! Foul on Dunleavy! Why? No apparent reason under the rules. If Dunleavy's stationary and in "legal guarding position" then if Rose bumps him as he takes his shot, the contact is either a "charge" under the rules or a "no-call" if the sainted triumvirate of Palmer, Crawford, or Salvatore elect to swallow their whistles. See, de minimis or "incidental" contact can be ignored under the NBA Rules at the discretion of the officials.

In practical terms though, usually one of the troika can be reliably counted on to blow his or her whistle in the above situation. It takes 3 people to make the no-call. It only takes one to call a charge or a block. Yesterday, the crew only seemed uniformly decided on swallowing their whistles when Collison had the ball. (The non-call on Collison under the bucket, when he was clearly and obviously hacked, was probably their worst blunder of the day -- Sookie alluded to its importance in one of her posts). None of the troika were shy about calling blocks whenever Rose was making his move to the hoop; they called some charges against the Bulls (but I honestly can't recall even one against Rose).

Anyway, I'd love to see the fouls on Rose that gave rise to his 21 FTs replayed on video.

Slick Pinkham
04-17-2011, 12:59 PM
Though, both of those "blocks" by Noah on McBob at the end were fouls. He never even touched the ball.

http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=kZXQ9 M91mn5B2z$0E8hPWc$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYtz6tuEdIcVb67 jTpm$zjHxWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

Unclebuck
04-17-2011, 01:15 PM
Complaining about the refs and announcers is a complete and utter waste of time and energy. That is one thing I do not like about the playoffs

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 01:20 PM
Complaining about the refs and announcers is a complete and utter waste of time and energy.

Yeah, but it's my time to waste and my energy to burn. If you feel that way, why go out of your way to read this thread?

Part of the fun of rehashing a game is critiquing the refing. Don't be such a killjoy.

Slick Pinkham
04-17-2011, 01:20 PM
The 16-1 finish had nothing to do with poor officiating IMO, and counting up fouls called, as if everyone plays the same way, is the most useless piece of evidence ever to gauge the fairness of officiating.

Peck
04-17-2011, 01:24 PM
Complaining about the refs and announcers is a complete and utter waste of time and energy. That is one thing I do not like about the playoffs

You really do not like Pacer fans very much do you?

pacer4ever
04-17-2011, 01:27 PM
We had a 10pt lead with 3:30 left we :choke: our offense stalls in the final few mins. Chicago has a closer we dont. But that was a pretty bad :choke: we did today. Cant blame the refs it's the players and coaches fault.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 01:32 PM
We had a 10pt lead with 3:30 left we :choke: our offense stalls in the final few mins. Chicago has a closer we dont. But that was a pretty bad :choke: we did today. Cant blame the refs it's the players and coaches fault.

I don't see why referees can't be faulted if they make bad calls. Explain why referees are never blameworthy or subject to account.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 02:06 PM
The 16-1 finish had nothing to do with poor officiating IMO, and counting up fouls called, as if everyone plays the same way, is the most useless piece of evidence ever to gauge the fairness of officiating.

What metric would you use to gauge the fairness of officiating? Or is there one? Or if there is no metric, how would you gauge it? Or do you just accept the referees, like the Pope, as infallible and move on?

If there is a vast disparity in fouls assessed between teams, or all fouls are assessed in favor of one player, can that ever be a prima facie metric for examination of fairness?

I agree that there can be shades of grey. I also like to think I know the difference between night and day. No charges called on Rose. 21 foul shots assessed against the Pacers on his takes to the basket. No star treatment? No unfairness? It's all perfectly fair?

speakout4
04-17-2011, 02:19 PM
I thought the refs were pretty good.

But even if I didn't. I think complaining about the refs is what the losers do
I think that is naive if the playing field is not the same for everyone.. Is the assumption you are making is that the referring is the same for all?

Why should winners complain if they are undeservingly getting the breaks?

Thoreau87
04-17-2011, 02:20 PM
As I said in another thread, the call I have the most problem with is when Rose initiates contact on a set defender who is not moving and is standing straight up, but because he can bring his body around at an angle before the contact he gets the call.

I just don't see how this is a defensive foul. I can see the no-call for the charge, as the offensive player is (usually) avoiding direct contact, but if the defender's space is now being narrowed not just to where his body remains still but also only the front part of that body, there's a huge problem.

Too bad our defenders were basically never set. I agree with Hoya on the Dunleavy call and they also missed one when Rush was set and took a knee to the chest in the 1st half. Although *****y, IMO, 2 first half calls weren't the difference in a 1-16 meltdown. Not that anyone disputes that.

Simply put, it's tough to draw a charge on Rose. He's fast to the point where he will beat you to the spot before you can get set.

I hate to say it, but that last and 1 against Roy was even a correct call. He gave Rose a hip check (feet moving, arms straight up).

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 02:33 PM
Too bad our defenders were basically never set. I agree with Hoya on the Dunleavy call and they also missed one when Rush was set and took a knee to the chest in the 1st half. Although *****y, IMO, 2 first half calls weren't the difference in a 1-16 meltdown. Not that anyone disputes that.

Simply put, it's tough to draw a charge on Rose. He's fast to the point where he will beat you to the spot before you can get set.

I hate to say it, but that last and 1 against Roy was even a correct call. He gave Rose a hip check (feet moving, arms straight up).

On the other hand, if those 2 first half calls are charges, then the game changes a lot. Rose can't continue penetrating with impunity as he risks picking up more calls. It's too easy to just say a couple of early missed calls don't matter.

My only consolation in rehashing all this is that perhaps, in some parallel universe, the right calls are being made and, to everyone's surprise, the Pacers win Game One against the Eastern Conference Champs and the polluted Chicago River is glutted with the bloated bodies of suicidal Bulls fans and their bandwagon cousins from Indianapolis.

Peck
04-17-2011, 02:33 PM
Too bad our defenders were basically never set. I agree with Hoya on the Dunleavy call and they also missed one when Rush was set and took a knee to the chest in the 1st half. Although *****y, IMO, 2 first half calls weren't the difference in a 1-16 meltdown. Not that anyone disputes that.

Simply put, it's tough to draw a charge on Rose. He's fast to the point where he will beat you to the spot before you can get set.

I hate to say it, but that last and 1 against Roy was even a correct call. He gave Rose a hip check (feet moving, arms straight up).

One may not have anything to do with another however you can not say that Rose being called for two charges in the first half would not have changed the look of the game.

He then has to start thinking about what he is doing instead of just being able just throw himself into defenders knowing that he is going to get the foul called on them.

Kuq_e_Zi91
04-17-2011, 02:42 PM
It could be a lot worse. Check out the Blazers/Mavs 4th quarter last night. The free throw disparity: 19 to 2 in favor of the home team. And the Mavs are primarily a jump shooting team, while the Blazers lived in the paint.

Thoreau87
04-17-2011, 02:51 PM
One may not have anything to do with another however you can not say that Rose being called for two charges in the first half would not have changed the look of the game.

He then has to start thinking about what he is doing instead of just being able just throw himself into defenders knowing that he is going to get the foul called on them.

What kind of look were you hoping for? Up 10 with 3 mins and 30 seconds to go not a good enough look.

Those 2 calls were bang bang plays anyway. As fans we know refs aren't perfect. Again I hate to say it, but a beauty of D Rose's game is that he can force refs into making imperfect calls due to his quickness. I can't fault him or the refs for that. That's why they're called tough calls.

Peck
04-17-2011, 03:03 PM
What kind of look were you hoping for? Up 10 with 3 mins and 30 seconds to go not a good enough look.

Those 2 calls were bang bang plays anyway. As fans we know refs aren't perfect. Again I hate to say it, but a beauty of D Rose's game is that he can force refs into making imperfect calls due to his quickness. I can't fault him or the refs for that. That's why they're called tough calls.

Again I agree that the final 3 min. was not ref induced.

However is it wrong to ask would he have had the game he had if he had been given two charging fouls. I don't remember exactly but I think both of the fouls you are refering two ended up as and 1 plays. That's six points, take six points away and how does the game change? Even if they were not and 1's take four points away and how does the game change?

I am not blaming the referee's for the loss, see my odd thoughts post for that, but I can't say that it wasn't a factor either.

shags
04-17-2011, 03:07 PM
Nope...Barry REALLY didn't know that much about the Pacers. For a NATIONAL televised game, Barry was CLEARLY in favor of the Bulls. When I watched the Bulls/Pacers games and gotten the Chicago feed, they're commentary wasn't as bad as Barry's was.

The way Barry was talking, I would have expected that from a local televised game, and NOT from a national televised game.

I'm honestly surprised most Pacers fans didn't mute the TV and listen to Mark Boyle on the radio. That's what I would have done. Your last sentence is dead-on, and I'm not a fan of either team.

As far as the refs, I didn't think they had much of an impact on the outcome. Although I was mildly amused at the trio assigned to that game, and was shocked that Violet Palmer got assigned to a playoff game.

ilive4sports
04-17-2011, 03:13 PM
What kind of look were you hoping for? Up 10 with 3 mins and 30 seconds to go not a good enough look.

Those 2 calls were bang bang plays anyway. As fans we know refs aren't perfect. Again I hate to say it, but a beauty of D Rose's game is that he can force refs into making imperfect calls due to his quickness. I can't fault him or the refs for that. That's why they're called tough calls.

I don't think thats what he meant. If Rose picked up two offensive fouls from driving in the first half, his whole game becomes different because he has to be more careful as he is in foul trouble. He can't just fly into the lane and expect to draw the foul, which is what happened yesterday. He would always be risking the offensive foul. It would have been a very different game we saw from Rose. And considering his outside shot wasn't falling, it would have been to our advantage.

Also our bigs wouldn't have been in as much foul trouble. Hibbert had to sit for awhile with his fouls. Having him in the game more would have helped us as well.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 03:22 PM
What kind of look were you hoping for? Up 10 with 3 mins and 30 seconds to go not a good enough look.

Those 2 calls were bang bang plays anyway. As fans we know refs aren't perfect. Again I hate to say it, but a beauty of D Rose's game is that he can force refs into making imperfect calls due to his quickness. I can't fault him or the refs for that. That's why they're called tough calls.

Did you think we had that game won at the 3:30 mark? I sure didn't. I figured there'd be some sort of Bulls comeback. I had my hopes, but the way Rose was getting to the line, I figured the 3:30 would last around 10 minutes. And it did.

Virtually all fouls in the NBA are of the "bang bang" variety. Rose got the benefit of every bang. I just checked. There were zero charging calls on him all game.

"Tough calls" are usually a euphemism for a refereeing mistake. And I don't see why one can't fault a referee for making a mistake. NBA refs are vaunted as "the best in the business," the "top of the line", the "pinnacles of the refereeing profession." Yet it's the same old thing. Rose, LeBron, Nowitzky, the Star treatment. If the refs won't call a charge on Rose, then, as Peck said, he's just going to continue taking it inside seeking or making contact secure in the knowledge that he'll get to shoot FTs.

Yeah, the Bulls played tough over the last 3:30. But they also got virtually every call during that period too. The lone exception was one Noah shooting foul on Roy. The blatant hack on Collison at the 1:30 mark wasn't called and it was pivotal. It led to a Rose fast-break layup that let Chicago tie the game instead of us potentially going up 4. It was an horrendously bad no-call.

There wasn't much equity in the last couple of minutes. And it wasn't all Bull poise and Pacer ineptitude.

Thoreau87
04-17-2011, 03:31 PM
Again I agree that the final 3 min. was not ref induced.

However is it wrong to ask would he have had the game he had if he had been given two charging fouls. I don't remember exactly but I think both of the fouls you are refering two ended up as and 1 plays. That's six points, take six points away and how does the game change? Even if they were not and 1's take four points away and how does the game change?

I am not blaming the referee's for the loss, see my odd thoughts post for that, but I can't say that it wasn't a factor either.

I agree, it's not wrong to ask/question. That's what fans of the losing team do. I played the what if game for hours following the tough loss.

Nonetheless, we can complain/wish/hope/criticize/point out factors (insert a better word if you have one) until the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact that calls like that are basically written in stone when you have a player like Rose (someone athletic enough to force tough calls). It's a great and overlooked asset of his game.

speakout4
04-17-2011, 03:38 PM
I agree, it's not wrong to ask/question. That's what fans of the losing team do. I played the what if game for hours following the tough loss.

Nonetheless, we can complain/wish/hope/criticize/point out factors (insert a better word if you have one) until the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact that calls like that are basically written in stone when you have a player like Rose (someone athletic enough to force tough calls). It's a great and overlooked asset of his game.
Phil Jackson is very good at "complaining" about unfair advantages, getting himself fined, and setting the stage for more equitable calls favoring the lakers. he puts the refs on notice that he will not let them get away with the star treatments, walks, etc.

Thoreau87
04-17-2011, 03:50 PM
I don't think thats what he meant. If Rose picked up two offensive fouls from driving in the first half, his whole game becomes different because he has to be more careful as he is in foul trouble. He can't just fly into the lane and expect to draw the foul, which is what happened yesterday. He would always be risking the offensive foul. It would have been a very different game we saw from Rose. And considering his outside shot wasn't falling, it would have been to our advantage.

Also our bigs wouldn't have been in as much foul trouble. Hibbert had to sit for awhile with his fouls. Having him in the game more would have helped us as well.

IndyHoya and ilive4sports:

I understand how things would have been different.

With that said, we were still up 10 with 3 and half min to go and had every opportunity to close out the game. In that same closing stretch there were no bad calls made against the Pacers. We choked because our coach and players lack playoff experience.

IMO, Korver cleanly poked the ball away from Collison. He caught some arm after Collison flailed for no reason (other then to draw an undeserved foul). Didn't really see a definitive replay so I could be wrong.

Also IMO, there's a difference between star treatment and creating a tough call situation due to athleticism.

Slick Pinkham
04-17-2011, 03:54 PM
You really do not like Pacer fans very much do you?

Incessant whining about biased and even fixed officiating was not always one of the defining characteristics of Pacers fans. It has unfortunately crept in, perhaps first spurred by legit anger at the awful LJ 4 point play. It's taken hold of late. One reason is perhaps overlap with the Colts fanbase, who have long embraced a paranoid attitude towards officials and been encouraged by team officials like Polian to do so. I don't think Larry Bird is an excuse-maker, and I wish fewer fans were also not prone to seeing officiating conspiracies lurking behind every tough defeat.

ksuttonjr76
04-17-2011, 03:57 PM
Phil Jackson is very good at "complaining" about unfair advantages, getting himself fined, and setting the stage for more equitable calls favoring the lakers. he puts the refs on notice that he will not let them get away with the star treatments, walks, etc.

Can Vogel afford the fine :D?

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 04:24 PM
IndyHoya and ilive4sports:

I understand how things would have been different.

With that said, we were still up 10 with 3 and half min to go and had every opportunity to close out the game. In that same closing stretch there were no bad calls made against the Pacers. We choked because our coach and players lack playoff experience.

IMO, Korver cleanly poked the ball away from Collison. He caught some arm after Collison flailed for no reason (other then to draw an undeserved foul). Didn't really see a definitive replay so I could be wrong.

Also IMO, there's a difference between star treatment and creating a tough call situation due to athleticism.

Thoreau, you're VERY wrong about that being a "clean" poke. It was a clear hack across both arms as he was going up for a shot. It was one of the most blatant fouls of the game. I've been reliving it in my mind over and over again. As I type this I can see the arm going across both of Collison's. And watching the resulting fast break that I'm pretty sure tied the game at that point. It makes my insides cringe as I sit here thinking about it. It was a VERY, VERY, VERY bad no call.

I'm not the only one here that's mentioned it, either. Sookie talked about it in one of her earlier posts. I was watching the game at BWW and I remember turning to Chris Denari and he was shaking his head in total disbelief.

And really, not calling fouls on "stars" is part of what star treatment is. Free trips to the line, the benefit of all doubts, the edge in every close call. Rose is everything you say, fast, good first step, strong, savvy. He's also Chicago's new Jordan and getting all the media hype that accompanies that. No star treatment? You've mentioned yourself that he probably charged at least twice (and I think maybe a couple of other times as well. I really would like to see a compendium of the fouls he got the benefit of). It isn't all his athleticism. He was given 21 foul shots. 21 21 21. Nothing like that has happened in nearly 10 years of playoff ball.

And not one charge in that mix? No reach-ins while guarding Collison either? No star treatment? Just "tough" call situations?

Come on, my brother. Be not naive. A star is born! Hark! I perceive a new star rising in the East! Nay, tis not a star, tis a nova! Nay a Supernova and 'tis of a rosy color and it looms over that Windy City. Tis the rebirth of MJ! Tis history repeating itself. Tis a new media darling rising whom we can all worship and adore by buying his shoes!

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 04:40 PM
Incessant whining about biased and even fixed officiating was not always one of the defining characteristics of Pacers fans. It has unfortunately crept in, perhaps first spurred by legit anger at the awful LJ 4 point play. It's taken hold of late. One reason is perhaps overlap with the Colts fanbase, who have long embraced a paranoid attitude towards officials and been encouraged by team officials like Polian to do so. I don't think Larry Bird is an excuse-maker, and I wish fewer fans were also not prone to seeing officiating conspiracies lurking behind every tough defeat.

No one here has mentioned any conspiracy. Occam's Razor would point to another answer -- which has been mentioned here. Ineptitude. Violet Palmer, Joey Crawford, and Bennett Salvatore inspired ineptitude. That and star-inspired inevitability. And if we think the officiating is wanting in the process, do we just say nothing? Why? I admit it probably does no good. But if the officiating stinks, we, as fans, certainly have every right to complain about it. It's about the only right as fans that we have.

But while I reject any major conspiracies, I think that there really is a "go along and get along" chumminess that pervades the playoffs. And from that emerges a sense of inevitability. A sense that results are basically foreordained.

We go through 82 games to reach Nirvana -- being in the playoffs. Then, particularly in the First Round, everything spins into a sort of inevitable cycle - where intense games ensue with lowly underdog teams matched up against teams with superstars, -- superstars that for some reason get to play by their own sets of rules. And these stars are usually ensconced in major-market cities where they get big media hype. And because they're stars, it's OK that they get the benefit of all close calls. And the have-not teams, like Indiana, just have to lump it because, hey, that's the way it is. Their teams don't have stars and no one cares about you if you're from a town with a population of under 2 Million.

Rules-Shmoolz! Rules are different for the stars. We have to keep those stars shining, don't we? And besides, as stars, they are better than everyone else. Hence they deserve to get those "tough calls." And those big advertising contracts.

And the same NBA refs keep officiating the same games in the same old way -- getting older, making the same stupid calls without any perceived ill effect or consequences, merrily avoiding controversies by inevitably calling things the star's way. In this fashion, no boats are rocked. The right teams always win. No feathers are ruffled. No inconvenient upsets ensue. And one star's or another star's team is usually crowned as the new NBA Champ. And all the major markets and advertising people are happy, happy, happy. And David Stern is happy. And the big town owners are happy too.

And so it goes. We move on to next year's 82-game season wondering what new LeBron, what new Kobe, what new Carmelo, or what new Derrick Rose will emerge from what new big media market and what he will do to win that next NBA championship. And so on. And so on. And we in small-market areas hope too. We always hope.

So it's not really a refereeing conspiracy - the star treatment. It's more just taking the path of least resistance. And if Derrick Rose gets to go to the free throw line 21 times against 8th seed Indiana in this state of affairs, well, that's just the way it goes.

There will be no ill effects. Violet, Joey, and Bennett will go on to referee another day and everyone will be happy, happy, happy except star-less teams like the Pacers and their hopeful fans.

Thoreau87
04-17-2011, 05:47 PM
Thoreau, you're VERY wrong about that being a "clean" poke. It was a clear hack across both arms as he was going up for a shot. It was one of the most blatant fouls of the game. I've been reliving it in my mind over and over again. As I type this I can see the arm going across both of Collison's. And watching the resulting fast break that I'm pretty sure tied the game at that point. It makes my insides cringe as I sit here thinking about it. It was a VERY, VERY, VERY bad no call.

I'm not the only one here that's mentioned it, either. Sookie talked about it in one of her earlier posts. I was watching the game at BWW and I remember turning to Chris Denari and he was shaking his head in total disbelief.

And really, not calling fouls on "stars" is part of what star treatment is. Free trips to the line, the benefit of all doubts, the edge in every close call. Rose is everything you say, fast, good first step, strong, savvy. He's also Chicago's new Jordan and getting all the media hype that accompanies that. No star treatment? You've mentioned yourself that he probably charged at least twice (and I think maybe a couple of other times as well. I really would like to see a compendium of the fouls he got the benefit of). It isn't all his athleticism. He was given 21 foul shots. 21 21 21. Nothing like that has happened in nearly 10 years of playoff ball.

And not one charge in that mix? No reach-ins while guarding Collison either? No star treatment? Just "tough" call situations?

Come on, my brother. Be not naive. A star is born! Hark! I perceive a new star rising in the East! Nay, tis not a star, tis a nova! Nay a Supernova and 'tis of a rosy color and it looms over that Windy City. Tis the rebirth of MJ! Tis history repeating itself. Tis a new media darling rising whom we can all worship and adore by buying his shoes!

Like I said, I didn't get a definitive look at the Collison play and very well could be wrong.

I agree completely with your definition of a "star call" or "star treatment".

Still, the close calls I described (only 2 possible charges) could both be attributed to his athleticism making it extremely tough on a referee to call a charge. There's bang bang and Derrick Rose bang bang. The kid creates his own luck through physical dominance. Not saying being the heir (air) apparent to the GOAT doesn't help but every call that goes against our beloved Pacers can't be written off as a "star call".

Eleazar
04-17-2011, 05:47 PM
The last 3 minutes may not be able to be blamed on the refs, but the Bulls even being within reach to come back during the last three minutes can be. Without Rose getting every single call, most of them either being non-fouls or charging fouls suddenly instead of the Pacers only being up 10 points they are up 20 points, and it is a completely different game. The refs may not have been the difference at the end, but they were the difference for the previous 45 minutes.

Eleazar
04-17-2011, 05:49 PM
Like I said, I didn't get a definitive look at the Collison play and very well could be wrong.

I agree completely with your definition of a "star call" or "star treatment".

Still, the close calls I described (only 2 possible charges) could both be attributed to his athleticism making it extremely tough on a referee to call a charge. There's bang bang and Derrick Rose bang bang. The kid creates his own luck through physical dominance. Not saying being the heir (air) apparent to the GOAT doesn't help but every call that goes against our beloved Pacers can't be written off as a "star call".

I didn't see very many close calls. I know I am young, but maybe old guys just don't have the eyes to see those close calls as clearly as a younger person. If that is the case they probably shouldn't be NBA refs.

ilive4sports
04-17-2011, 06:08 PM
IndyHoya and ilive4sports:

I understand how things would have been different.

With that said, we were still up 10 with 3 and half min to go and had every opportunity to close out the game. In that same closing stretch there were no bad calls made against the Pacers. We choked because our coach and players lack playoff experience.

IMO, Korver cleanly poked the ball away from Collison. He caught some arm after Collison flailed for no reason (other then to draw an undeserved foul). Didn't really see a definitive replay so I could be wrong.

Also IMO, there's a difference between star treatment and creating a tough call situation due to athleticism.

No doubt that the Pacers need to play better down the line. It's been a problem all season long. But even with the refs not making any bad calls in the last 3 minutes, the tempo and standards were already set. Rose got into the lane at the end of the game. Had the tone been set that he needs to be more cautious in his drives because he can pick up an offensive foul, attacking the basket would have been less of an option.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 06:41 PM
I didn't see very many close calls. I know I am young, but maybe old guys just don't have the eyes to see those close calls as clearly as a younger person. If that is the case they probably shouldn't be NBA refs.

Once an NBA ref, always an NBA ref unless you get caught gambling on NBA games that you ref. That's against the rules. Otherwise, NBA refereeing is a lifetime meal ticket, deterioration of your vision, movement, bowels and thought processes notwithstanding. Age is no consideration. In the NBA, referees age like a fine wine. The older you are the better. With age comes "experience". If you're a demented, incontinent octogenarian, that's a plus for an NBA refereeing resume.

Dr. Awesome
04-17-2011, 07:07 PM
Am I still the only one to have picked up that UB just likes to play devils advocate on every subject? Is it really only me?

Sookie
04-17-2011, 07:15 PM
Am I still the only one to have picked up that UB just likes to play devils advocate on every subject? Is it really only me?

To a point.

But sometimes UB isn't going against the grain. Like for instance, throughout O'brien's entire tenure UB was completely on O'brien's side. And was decently critical of Vogel (as much as you could be) But after the Bulls game, gave Vogel a lot of credit.

But he does seem to like to be the minority opinion..:laugh:

Unclebuck
04-17-2011, 07:37 PM
For example, Jack Nies was born November 11, 1937 (making him 74 and the oldest NBA ref). He is in his 29th season and has officiated over 1,800+ regular season games, 150+ play-off games, and 10 NBA Finals games. He was a teacher for the trainable mentally challenged for 7 years. He also instructed several current referees on how to be an effective official. It remains unclear at this time if these two avocations are interrelated.


Not sure what your point is but he retired two years ago

Unclebuck
04-17-2011, 07:41 PM
But to be perfectly fair, Buck, how many times did our players stand or jump perfectly verticle, where Rose jumped into them... and the foul WAS called?

At some point in time, I'd say that refs will get altered instructions on how to make these calls. They will probably then be forced to make judgement calls on the "intent" of the offensive player. If the player attacks the rim and is relying more on creating contact and getting the foul by putting up a "wing and a prayer" shot, then no foul?

IMO, there is a huge difference in drawing contact and creating contact. But no matter what the rules or the instructions to the officials, it all comes down to judgement calls made in fractions of a second.


I always thought if the defender jumps into the air whether the ofensive player jumps into him or not it is a defensive foul. At least that is the way it is called 98% of the time in the NBA. Unless the offensive player used his off arm to clear out or does something else unusual, the defensive player is going to get the call. is that fair, I don't know, but that is the way it is

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 07:41 PM
Not sure what your point is but he retired two years ago

Whoops! Editing as we speak.

My point is that NBA referees can get pretty old and still keep their jobs.

Unclebuck
04-17-2011, 07:43 PM
What a triumvirate: Violet Palmer, Joey Crawford, and Bennett Salvatore.

Could it ever be worse than that?


Crawford is actually the exact ref you want as a playoff road team. My guess is once the Pacers coaches found out it was Crawford, they were giddy

vnzla81
04-17-2011, 07:44 PM
Am I still the only one to have picked up that UB just likes to play devils advocate on every subject? Is it really only me?

I actually agree with him on this one, I think is a waste of time complaining about the referees, if the Pacers instead of playing like crap in the last 3 minutes had adjusted, had make the free trows and made a few jumpers, I think we could have won the game.

Unclebuck
04-17-2011, 07:45 PM
You really do not like Pacer fans very much do you?


How so? What do you mean.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 07:48 PM
I always thought if the defender jumps into the air whether the ofensive player jumps into him or not it is a defensive foul. At least that is the way it is called 98% of the time in the NBA. Unless the offensive player used his off arm to clear out or does something else unusual, the defensive player is going to get the call. is that fair, I don't know, but that is the way it is

Interesting you bring that up. When I was looking at the NBA Rules earlier this morning, I was trying to find the "Principle of Verticality" defined somewhere and I couldn't. At least not in the NBA Rules.

All I could find was stuff about the "legal guarding position". And that seemed to say that you had to have both feet on the ground to avoid being called for a block.

I found non-NBA Rules discussing the "Principle of Verticality" that seemed to say that a player has an absolute right to the territory immediately above him. Talk seemed a little ambivalent about whether that meant you could leave your feet and if contacted by an incoming player still not be called for blocking provided you jumped straight up.

Roy's apparently been told to jump straight up and hasn't been called for the incidental contact as in former years. I'd be interested in clarification on this too.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 07:50 PM
Crawford is actually the exact ref you want as a playoff road team. My guess is once the Pacers coaches found out it was Crawford, they were giddy

Well, I have to admit, looking at B-Pump's stats, that Joey Crawford has been good to us. We were 5-0 this year in games he refereed.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 07:57 PM
I actually agree with him on this one, I think is a waste of time complaining about the referees, if the Pacers instead of playing like crap in the last 3 minutes had adjusted, had make the free trows and made a few jumpers, I think we could have won the game.

I'm pretty sure we only shot 2 free throws in the last 3 minutes - Roy hit one and missed one. They shot 4. Noah missed one and Rose hit all 3 of his. Noah's and one of Rose's were "and ones".

Unclebuck
04-17-2011, 08:00 PM
Interesting you bring that up. When I was looking at the NBA Rules earlier this morning, I was trying to find the "Principle of Verticality" defined somewhere and I couldn't. At least not in the NBA Rules.

All I could find was stuff about the "legal guarding position". And that seemed to say that you had to have both feet on the ground to avoid being called for a block.

I found non-NBA Rules discussing the "Principle of Verticality" that seemed to say that a player has an absolute right to the territory immediately above him. Talk seemed a little ambivalent about whether that meant you could leave your feet and if contacted by an incoming player still not be called for blocking provided you jumped straight up.

Roy's apparently been told to jump straight up and hasn't been called for the incidental contact as in former years. I'd be interested in clarification on this too.


In the NBA if the defender jumps into the air he will get called for a foul if there is contact unless the ofensive player does soemthing unusual.

Principle of verticality is not an NBA term, it is a college term. In the NBA if you want an offensive foul you cannot jump. Actually back in the late 70's and 80's there were so few offensive fouls calld players never ttried to get them, they either tried to block the shot, got out of the way or took the foul. A big guy holding his ground and taking a charge is somewhat new in the NBA - probably started in the 90's

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 08:03 PM
I always thought if the defender jumps into the air whether the ofensive player jumps into him or not it is a defensive foul. At least that is the way it is called 98% of the time in the NBA. Unless the offensive player used his off arm to clear out or does something else unusual, the defensive player is going to get the call. is that fair, I don't know, but that is the way it is

I found this. But as mentioned, nowhere in the NBA Rules:

VERTICALITY-Verticality applies to a legal position. The basic components of the principle of verticality are:

Legal guarding position must be established and attained initially, and movement thereafter must be legal;

From this position, the defender may rise or jump vertically and occupy the space within his or her vertical plane;

The hands and arms of the defender may be raised within his or her vertical plane while the defender is on the floor or in the air;

The defender should not be penalized for leaving the floor vertically or having his or her hands and arms extended within the vertical plane;

The offensive player whether on the floor or airborne may not clear out or cause contact that is a foul;

The defender may not "belly up" or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact that is a foul outside his or her vertical plane;

The player with the ball is to be given no more protection or consideration than the defender in the judging of which player has violated the rules.

All I found in the NBA Rules was this:

Contact Situations:

3. Guarding an opponent:

...A player is entitled to a vertical position even to the extent of holding his arms above his shoulders, as in post play or when double-teaming in pressing tactics.

I'm wondering if the NBA Rules incorporate other general rules of basketball.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 08:21 PM
In the NBA if the defender jumps into the air he will get called for a foul if there is contact unless the ofensive player does soemthing unusual.

Principle of verticality is not an NBA term, it is a college term. In the NBA if you want an offensive foul you cannot jump. Actually back in the late 70's and 80's there were so few offensive fouls calld players never ttried to get them, they either tried to block the shot, got out of the way or took the foul. A big guy holding his ground and taking a charge is somewhat new in the NBA - probably started in the 90's

What you are saying certainly seems to be true. I've been all through the NBA Rules about it and only found what I posted previously -- which seems to imply that both of a defender's feet have to be planted (a prerequisite for the NBA's "legal guarding position") before the defender can take a charge. The defender can put his arms straight up and is apparently entitled to the space above him, but he has to have his feet planted. If they aren't, he's not in the "legal guarding position" and he's called for the block.

You can't jump straight up in the NBA and take a charge. People saying otherwise appear to be wrong -- at least insofar as NBA Rules are concerned.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 08:29 PM
Crawford is actually the exact ref you want as a playoff road team. My guess is once the Pacers coaches found out it was Crawford, they were giddy

I'm curious. Why do you think Joey Crawford is the exact ref you want. After the technical he called on Tim Duncan for "laughing" at him from the bench, he seems kind of demented. In the ensuing encounter, he challenged Duncan to fight him. Afterwards, Crawford was removed from refereeing by Stu Jackson and David Stern for a while.

Eleazar
04-17-2011, 08:34 PM
What you are saying certainly seems to be true. I've been all through the NBA Rules about it and only found what I posted previously -- which seems to imply that both of a defender's feet have to be planted (a prerequisite for the NBA's "legal guarding position") before the defender can take a charge. The defender can put his arms straight up and is apparently entitled to the space above him, but he has to have his feet planted. If they aren't, he's not in the "legal guarding position" and he's called for the block.

You can't jump straight up in the NBA and take a charge. People saying otherwise appear to be wrong -- at least insofar as NBA Rules are concerned.

That really was the problem yesterday though. The problem was more with Rose jumping around a defender and still getting a foul called when there should have been absolutely no call.

I personally don't agree with absolutely having to have both feet set to draw a charge, I only think you should have to be there with enough time for the offensive player to avoid running into the defender.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 08:47 PM
That really was the problem yesterday though. The problem was more with Rose jumping around a defender and still getting a foul called when there should have been absolutely no call.

I personally don't agree with absolutely having to have both feet set to draw a charge, I only think you should have to be there with enough time for the offensive player to avoid running into the defender.

Well, as I read the NBA Rules, if a player is in the "legal guarding position" (both feet planted) and the offensive player initiates contact then one of two things can happen:

1. The offensive player has "charged" and a foul is assessed; or

2. At the referee's discretion, if he deems the contact only "incidental", he can elect not to make any call either way (i.e., no block and no charge).

In the example where a player in the "legal guarding position" is hit, the offensive player (i.e. Rose) is not supposed to get a foul shot as the defensive player isn't blocking.

Being in the "legal guarding position" doesn't mean you have to be absolutely set and stationary. It only means you have a right to the space you occupy if you have both of your feet on the ground. If your feet are moving or you are sliding your feet or torso over at the time contact with the offensive player is made, that's a block.

Slick Pinkham
04-17-2011, 08:49 PM
If there is a vast disparity in fouls assessed between teams, or all fouls are assessed in favor of one player... can that ever be a prima facie metric for examination of fairness?

The most common reasons for a large disparity in free throw attempts is having athletically superior players, playing an attacking style, having excellent passing, spacing, movement, and ball rotation.

If a team runs a motion offense very well, they will shoot more free throws. I believe that in every season Bob Knight or Mike Kryzewski ever coached, their teams MADE more free throws than their opponents even ATTEMPTED. The same NBA teams every year lead the league in free throw differential. It has more to do with style of play than anything else.

Slick Pinkham
04-17-2011, 08:55 PM
The problem with most defenders is that even if their body is set or if they jump vertically, they reach with their hands out of the vertical plane and towards the ball or the oncoming driving player. Most every time you will reach out-- it is human nature. If you do not reach, then you have the right to the space above you, unless you only occupy that space after the driving player has become airborne.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 08:57 PM
The most common reasons for a large disparity in free throw attempts is having athletically superior players, playing an attacking style, having excellent passing, spacing, movement, and ball rotation.

If a team runs a motion offense very well, they will shoot more free throws. I believe that in every season Bob Knight or Mike Kryzewski ever coached, their teams MADE more free throws than their opponents even ATTEMPTED. The same NBA teams every year lead the league in free throw differential. It has more to do with style of play than anything else.

Well, I'd buy that up to a point. But I don't know if a motion offense generates more FTs than other offenses. For example, one of the knocks on Jim O'Brien's "motion offense" was the dearth of FTs.

With Rose, the athleticism is there and the attacking style, but not much of the other factors you mentioned. It was mostly isolation plays or pick and rolls that the Bulls seemed to be running for him and, as mentioned, this one player - Rose - got to shoot FTs 21 times. That smells fishy to me and it causes me some concern. As mentioned, that's the first time one player has shot that many FTs in a playoff game since 2002. No charges were called too. Star treatment? Maybe.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 09:03 PM
The problem with most defenders is that even if their body is set or if they jump vertically, they reach with their hands out of the vertical plane and towards the ball or the oncoming driving player. Most every time you will reach out-- it is human nature. If you do not reach, then you have the right to the space above you, unless you only occupy that space after the driving player has become airborne.

Correct.

But assuming the defensive player is in the "legal guarding position" and not reaching and has assumed that position before the offensive player goes airborne, then a charge should be called if there is more than mere incidental contact.

Buck is right too about the offensive player not being able to ward off with his off arm. Something Rose does with a fair amount of regularity.

IndyHoya
04-17-2011, 09:16 PM
The problem with most defenders is that even if their body is set or if they jump vertically, they reach with their hands out of the vertical plane and towards the ball or the oncoming driving player. Most every time you will reach out-- it is human nature. If you do not reach, then you have the right to the space above you, unless you only occupy that space after the driving player has become airborne.

Another interesting thing I didn't know when I was looking at the NBA Rules had to do with the Restricted Area (the 4' arc under the basket). The Rules seemed to say that the Area only applied to "secondary defenders". In other words, if an offensive player beats his primary defender and a secondary defender steps up to take the charge, his feet have to be outside the Restricted Area. If they aren't, a blocking foul can be called on contact.

On the other hand, if the primary defender is still guarding the offensive player, the way I read the Rules, the primary defender could still take the charge even if he theoretically sets up to do so in the Restricted Area.

Do I understand this Rule correctly?

Unclebuck
04-17-2011, 09:53 PM
I'm curious. Why do you think Joey Crawford is the exact ref you want. After the technical he called on Tim Duncan for "laughing" at him from the bench, he seems kind of demented. In the ensuing encounter, he challenged Duncan to fight him. Afterwards, Crawford was removed from refereeing by Stu Jackson and David Stern for a while.

Some refs are intimadated by the crowd and afraid to make a tough calls late in a close game against the home team. Joey Crawford will make any call at any team against any team home or road team. That is what you want as the road team. As the road team Joey is probably the ref most coaches would want

Kuq_e_Zi91
04-17-2011, 10:10 PM
Hibbert jumped straight up all season long. It's one of the major aspects of his game that he improved to cut down on his fouls. In previous seasons he would try to block every shot.

docpaul
04-17-2011, 10:24 PM
OK, I think it's time that we as fans start sucking it up a little, and start acting as if we're behind a winning team.

For example, we need to reduce the whining about how ESPN doesn't "talk about the team"... how about we play so damn aggressively, that the public is forced to pay more attention?

Instead of whining about bad calls, let's support our team getting enough of a lead to where poor calls will have less impact?

We need a better attitude. Dismiss the "bad calls", the "lack of respect", and get behind this team. Take your cues from our new interim head coach. Believe in them. "The man" isn't holding this team back. The team is holding itself back. These young guys, once they believe in themselves will get it done. Did you all watch the Memphis game today?

We as fans need to expect hard work, dismiss lame excuses, and quickly dust ourselves off after a tough loss. Let's try to be good sports, and recognize that respect isn't given, it's earned.

Eleazar
04-17-2011, 11:51 PM
OK, I think it's time that we as fans start sucking it up a little, and start acting as if we're behind a winning team.

For example, we need to reduce the whining about how ESPN doesn't "talk about the team"... how about we play so damn aggressively, that the public is forced to pay more attention?

Instead of whining about bad calls, let's support our team getting enough of a lead to where poor calls will have less impact?

We need a better attitude. Dismiss the "bad calls", the "lack of respect", and get behind this team. Take your cues from our new interim head coach. Believe in them. "The man" isn't holding this team back. The team is holding itself back. These young guys, once they believe in themselves will get it done. Did you all watch the Memphis game today?

We as fans need to expect hard work, dismiss lame excuses, and quickly dust ourselves off after a tough loss. Let's try to be good sports, and recognize that respect isn't given, it's earned.

Sorry when there is something blatantly wrong I do not just sit back and take it. I know for a fact that this Pacer team is better than that Bulls team, but I also realize that it doesn't matter how good you are if the refs are going to favor the other team so heavily you aren't likely to win. I don't give a **** about ESPN not giving the Pacers any time of day, but I do care about the refs not calling a fair consistent game. Once the NBA has refs that are fair and consistent I will stop complaining. 90% of the time the refs, even biased refs, don't decide the game, but there is 10% of the time where it is so far in favor of one team that they do decided the game yesterday was one of that 10%.

Peck
04-18-2011, 12:29 AM
Some refs are intimadated by the crowd and afraid to make a tough calls late in a close game against the home team. Joey Crawford will make any call at any team against any team home or road team. That is what you want as the road team. As the road team Joey is probably the ref most coaches would want

Pssssssssssssstttttt.....

Don't look now but you are actually admitting that NBA referee's either make or not make calls based on things other than rules. Therfore if they are more willing to give the home team an advantage (your implication I believe) then why is it so far out of the question that they would give a star player an advantage as well?

vapacersfan
04-18-2011, 12:45 AM
Pssssssssssssstttttt.....

Don't look now but you are actually admitting that NBA referee's either make or not make calls based on things other than rules. Therfore if they are more willing to give the home team an advantage (your implication I believe) then why is it so far out of the question that they would give a star player an advantage as well?

I wish I could double or triple thank this post.

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 08:11 AM
Pssssssssssssstttttt.....

Don't look now but you are actually admitting that NBA referee's either make or not make calls based on things other than rules. Therfore if they are more willing to give the home team an advantage (your implication I believe) then why is it so far out of the question that they would give a star player an advantage as well?


The topic as you mentioned was star treatment, so I was responding to that. There are dozens of issues about the refs. And I was not addressing those.

But sure some refs call it close, some let a lot of things go uncalled, some call a lot of offensive fouls, some call a lot of traveling, some tend to at the margins favor the home team or the road team. No doubt refs are different and I never suggested the refs don't make mistakes or are perfect in any way.
Refs are human and I think especially in playoff games when the crowd is extremely vocal it does impact some of the refs especially when the home team gets on a huge run which typically happens in almost every game. At those times I want Joey Crawford if I am a fan of the road team.

But no, they aren't "willing" to give the home team advantage, it just happens, they don't try to make it happen, it is human nature that.

So I don't think my comments effect my prior comments on star treatment

Spirit
04-18-2011, 08:13 AM
Steve Javy is worse than all of those.

Rogco
04-18-2011, 08:14 AM
The refs were just awful to start the game, but got a bit better as they settled down. There were a couple of blantantly bad calls and unfortunately they all went against the Pacers. There was one play where I was sure the Bulls were standing out of bounds with the ball, but that was Violet's call, and she's hopeless. The travelling against Collison at the end of the half was a three point swing and would have been Rose's 3rd foul. If you watched the game on TV even the commentator starting laughing about the call he called it "ha ha ha that was ha ha close ha ha ha"

Rose had a couple charges called as blocks. What irritated me about them was the charge to start the game against George (I thought it was the correct call) but then the refs completely changed the charge criteria if Rose had the ball after that.

All in all if it was an evenly ref'd game I say we win by about 6. As it was, I've seen much worse, however I hate Violet and I hate the old guy in charge.

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 08:47 AM
Steve Javy is worse than all of those.


IMO he is the best ref in the league right now

Peck
04-18-2011, 11:45 AM
The topic as you mentioned was star treatment, so I was responding to that. There are dozens of issues about the refs. And I was not addressing those.

But sure some refs call it close, some let a lot of things go uncalled, some call a lot of offensive fouls, some call a lot of traveling, some tend to at the margins favor the home team or the road team. No doubt refs are different and I never suggested the refs don't make mistakes or are perfect in any way.
Refs are human and I think especially in playoff games when the crowd is extremely vocal it does impact some of the refs especially when the home team gets on a huge run which typically happens in almost every game. At those times I want Joey Crawford if I am a fan of the road team.

But no, they aren't "willing" to give the home team advantage, it just happens, they don't try to make it happen, it is human nature that.

So I don't think my comments effect my prior comments on star treatment

So you’re saying that outside occurrences (fan noise, high emotions, etc.) might and can affect the way that a referee calls a game? If that is true why is it a stretch to believe that star power, cult of personality or whatever other term you want to use does not also impact the way they call a game?

Why should some faceless anonymous entity like a home crowd be more of an issue than the money maker franchise and league savior (whoever that would be at the time)?

Either way with your admission it is clear that even you believe that referee's do not call games based strictly on the rules.

Slick Pinkham
04-18-2011, 01:10 PM
I think that one very common mistake that officials make if to anticipate the play and make a call accordingly. Example: If a defender rushes at a jumpshooter and the ref isn't sure that he made contact, and that shooter is Reggie Miller and the shot is an airball, he blows the whistle because his instinct is that no way Reggie shots an airball unless there was contact. Does he make the same call if the jump shooter is Jeff Foster? Not likely. He didn't see the foul, and nothing about the shot being off validated his expectation that a foul may have occurred. Should refs in all instances not make a call unless thet absolutely are sure that they see the contact? OF COURSE!

Officials make many mistakes, but all games have hundreds of calls/no calls. I don't think that there is a systematic intentional bias to call things one way or another. There is random human error and there is no-so-random anticipation biases.

A nonbasketball example comes from baseball. Ted Williams supposedly had the best vision ever measured. He also had tremendous plate discipline and wouldn't swing at a ball. So... he had that reputation, and pity the umpire who call a strike on him. I think at least one umpire remarked to a catcher, who thought a pitch called a ball was actually a strike, saying "If Ted Williams thinks it was a ball, then I'm not going to dispute that"

Do these anticipation biases contribute to star calls? Well, for the Reggie example, I guess so. But it is also a chicken & egg conundrum. Why is the star a star? Maybe the star has some skill sets that render him unguardable at times. The player who is a star due to his blazing quickness is also the player who may use that blazing quickness to punish defenders, who are out of position and must hack at him as he attacks the rim. Does the less quick, non-star player get that call? No, but why? Could it be because the less-quick non-star didn't beat the defender to the spot like that star did?

There is human error in officiating. I have no reason to believe, however, that almost all examples of poor calls can't be explained by human error or bad judgement. Of the (say) 300 calls/non-calls in a game, say 4% are wrong. That's 12 bad calls. If 7 favor the home team and 5 the road team, the road team will cry and moan about 7 bad calls (not 12, because they were just fine with the other five!). Likewise the home team will cry and moan about 5 bad calls. Some officials for sure have higher mistake rates (Violet Palmer HAS TO BE ONE).

It's the nature of the game to have judgment calls but it irks me to no end that people eagerly attach sinister meanings to mistakes. Can it happen that officials are crooked? Donagy was one. I am convinced that the college ref and Knight nemesis Ted Valentine had a personal crusade to make calls against Indiana in the game vs. Duke in the 1992 final four. It can happen, unfortunately, but it is exceedingly rare.

xIndyFan
04-18-2011, 01:21 PM
So you’re saying that outside occurrences (fan noise, high emotions, etc.) might and can affect the way that a referee calls a game? If that is true why is it a stretch to believe that star power, cult of personality or whatever other term you want to use does not also impact the way they call a game?

Why should some faceless anonymous entity like a home crowd be more of an issue than the money maker franchise and league savior (whoever that would be at the time)?

Either way with your admission it is clear that even you believe that referee's do not call games based strictly on the rules.

i know you guys are old friends, but your comments seem unfair. officials are human. they make mistakes. they see things differently within the rules. none of this implies that the officials favor one team above the other for any reason except superior play.

officials make mistakes. bad officials make more mistakes than good officials. that is why i want joey crawford to officate pacer games and not bennett salvatore. that doesn't make bennett unfair or biased, it makes him not as good at his job as joey is.


. . . Either way with your admission it is clear that even you believe that referee's do not call games based strictly on the rules.

anytime you get people making calls, you will get different interpretations of which rule applies. or missed calls. but this implies officiating is intentionally biased in favor of one team. that is silly. all officials call the game based on the rules. even the bad ones. younger less experienced officials do get swayed by the crowd. that is a mistake of judgement, not a mistake of intent. guys miss calls, but they don't cheat. not in the playoffs.

Since86
04-18-2011, 01:34 PM
We're also talking about a league that thought Tim Donaghy was a good referee and wasn't crooked until the FBI came knocking on his door.

He admittingly changed outcomes of games, and no one was the wiser. But now we're trying to argue that it isn't happening or could happen?

That's the whole point, no one KNEW it was happening when it actually was. His bad calls when he was reffing were given the exact same excuses as the rest of the officials are getting.

Regardless of what you think of Tim Donaghy as a person, whether you think he's a liar or not, if it wasn't for the FBI no one would have known what he was doing, and he would be doing it still today.

xIndyFan
04-18-2011, 01:39 PM
We're also talking about a league that thought Tim Donaghy was a good referee and wasn't crooked until the FBI came knocking on his door.

He admittingly changed outcomes of games, and no one was the wiser. But now we're trying to argue that it isn't happening or could happen?

That's the whole point, no one KNEW it was happening when it actually was. His bad calls when he was reffing were given the exact same excuses as the rest of the officials are getting.

are you saying that all the officials are doing what donaghy did?

or are some of them?? half, 1/4, 5 or 6 guys.

is it joey, bennett or violet?

or is this just a 'is it possible' arguement.

if it is the latter, yes, it is possible that another official is betting on games. anything is possible. other than that, it is a bogus arguement.

Eleazar
04-18-2011, 01:41 PM
i know you guys are old friends, but your comments seem unfair. officials are human. they make mistakes. they see things differently within the rules. none of this implies that the officials favor one team above the other for any reason except superior play.

officials make mistakes. bad officials make more mistakes than good officials. that is why i want joey crawford to officate pacer games and not bennett salvatore. that doesn't make bennett unfair or biased, it makes him not as good at his job as joey is.



anytime you get people making calls, you will get different interpretations of which rule applies. or missed calls. but this implies officiating is intentionally biased in favor of one team. that is silly. all officials call the game based on the rules. even the bad ones. younger less experienced officials do get swayed by the crowd. that is a mistake of judgement, not a mistake of intent. guys miss calls, but they don't cheat. not in the playoffs.

I don't think there is a person here that doesn't understand that refs do make mistakes, even really bad mistakes some times. If that was all it was a couple of bad mistakes you would not be seeing so much complaining about it, because people accept that bad calls will happen and those kind of bad calls rarely affect the outcome of the game. If those bad calls happen repeatedly over the course of the game how can it just be human error?

These refs aren't just randomly picked, given the rule book, and thrown out there to ref. They go through training. They are told exactly what each rule mean, most likely given a hundred examples of each one. While some refs may let you get away with more, while others are more strict, there is no misinterpretation of the rules.

Slick Pinkham
04-18-2011, 01:45 PM
But now we're trying to argue that it isn't happening or could happen?

But on the flip side now, some are trying to argue that it is happening on an everyday basis?

Every criminal tries to tie himself to the Duke lacrosse case "See, I'm being framed, just like those boys were!" and

seemingly many disappointed fans eagerly tie every tough loss to the refs being just like Tim Donagy.

It's a huge stretch, when there are much simpler explanations, like human error and perception biases.

Since86
04-18-2011, 01:46 PM
No it's not.

Did the NBA bust Tim? No. They had no idea he was a "rogue" official until the FBI stepped in.

They thought he was a good referee while he was intentionally making wrong calls. That DID NOT know it was even happening, while he was doing it. They needed someone from the outside to show them the evidence, the evidence that they reviewed after every game. They, supposedly, dissected his calls and evaluated his performance, and didn't find anything to suggest he was doing it on purpose.

That's the whole freaking point. They're all judgement calls, so when you make the wrong call you have the whole, well I had a bad angle, it was bang-bang, whatever excuse is already built in because it's a JUDGEMENT.

So Tim Donaghy purposefully made bad calls, for years mind you, and no one knew. But yet the argument is that it isn't happening now?

How can anyone possibily know this? And you're not going to find out if it is happening if you can't even ask the damn question.


The NBA shouldn't have to wait until the FBI arrests one of their employees before they figure out something is wrong with the way they're doing their job.

David Stern did one hell of a job keeping the eyes off their lack of supervision, and distancing the league away from an employee they had no clue was morally bankrupt.

Since86
04-18-2011, 01:50 PM
But on the flip side now, some are trying to argue that it is happening on an everyday basis?

Every criminal tries to tie himself to the Duke lacrosse case "See, I'm being framed, just like those boys were!" and

seemingly many disappointed fans eagerly tie every tough loss to the refs being just like Tim Donagy.

It's a huge stretch, when there are much simpler explanations, like human error and perception biases.

We're talking about opinions here, not sexual assualt. I don't think I need to explain the difference.

What I'm saying is this.

No one knew Tim Donaghy was doing it. It could very well be happening now.

If the questions isn't posed, "Is there another Tim Donaghy" then the answer of "yes" can never be answered.


I understand that calls are judgements, and they can go either way. But when the same player continually gets the better end of the deal, then something else is at work. The line should be pretty close to 50-50, not 90-10.

xIndyFan
04-18-2011, 01:51 PM
. . . If those bad calls happen repeatedly over the course of the game how can it just be human error?

usually it means marc davis, bennet salvatore or ken mauer are officiating. :D

sorry, just couldn't pass a chance to throw my least favorite officials under the bus. :o

in general, it is because the calls you refer to are not really bad calls. just different interpretations than your [or my] own. :shrug:

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 01:59 PM
So you’re saying that outside occurrences (fan noise, high emotions, etc.) might and can affect the way that a referee calls a game? If that is true why is it a stretch to believe that star power, cult of personality or whatever other term you want to use does not also impact the way they call a game?

Why should some faceless anonymous entity like a home crowd be more of an issue than the money maker franchise and league savior (whoever that would be at the time)?

Either way with your admission it is clear that even you believe that referee's do not call games based strictly on the rules.


My personal opinion is I would like them to call a game less on the rules. hback in the 80's the top refs were so good they had a feel for the game and were able to call the game differently depending on what was needed.

I'm not sure what you want me to say, I don't think the stars get the calls. besdies which stars are we talking about. Ask the players, coaches and fans in Orlando if they think Dwight Howard gets the calls. They would say no. Certain players do really get fouled a lot, sure they are star players because in a lot of instances in order to be a star players you have to be able to draw a lot of fouls

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 02:01 PM
We're also talking about a league that thought Tim Donaghy was a good referee and wasn't crooked until the FBI came knocking on his door.

He admittingly changed outcomes of games, and no one was the wiser. .


I just remember thread after thread and article after article about how he was just the tip of the iceberg, "you just wait, there will be dozens of refs involved" nope hasn't happened

Since86
04-18-2011, 02:03 PM
I just remember thread after thread and article after article about how he was just the tip of the iceberg, "you just wait, there will be dozens of refs involved" nope hasn't happened

And the attitudes dominating this thread might be a reason why.

If you aren't willing to actively look for the next Tim Donaghy, you will never find him.

EDIT: Tim also told us that the league pushed for certain series etc. Can you cite any investigations into his claims? I can't.

I'm not saying they weren't performed, I'm saying we don't know. And if we don't know, then we don't know.....

It could be nothing, or it could be something. We don't know....

Eleazar
04-18-2011, 02:12 PM
usually it means marc davis, bennet salvatore or ken mauer are officiating. :D

sorry, just couldn't pass a chance to throw my least favorite officials under the bus. :o

in general, it is because the calls you refer to are not really bad calls. just different interpretations than your [or my] own. :shrug:

That is the problem though there is no different interpretation. These aren't just random guys that signed up to ref a few boys and girls club games. These are professional refs that go through training and know exactly how the NBA wants them to call things. There is no interpretation, the NBA does the interpretation for the refs. That is why leagues fine players and coaches who complain about the refs, because saying the refs are stupid is the same as saying the league is stupid.

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 02:13 PM
And the attitudes dominating this thread might be a reason why.

If you aren't willing to actively look for the next Tim Donaghy, you will never find him.

EDIT: Tim also told us that the league pushed for certain series etc. Can you cite any investigations into his claims? I can't.

I'm not saying they weren't performed, I'm saying we don't know. And if we don't know, then we don't know.....

It could be nothing, or it could be something. We don't know....


He is a crazy bitter criminal fool, I don't put any stock into what he says. Plus everything he said was hearsay and third hand, rumors, nothing concrete.

I forget all the changes they made after the Donaghy thing, but I figure they are investigating it a ton.

Peck
04-18-2011, 02:30 PM
All,

Before I get lumped in the pile of "bitter" loser Pacer fans I want to re-emphasize again that I in no way am claiming the NBA handed the game one win to the Bulls.

Overall I think referee's do an excellent job, other than Benet Salvatore' but that is another matter.

But unlike my good friend Uncle Buck I do think at times star players receive the overly generous benefit of the doubt from officials.

I also strongly disagree with U.B. that no I do NOT want refs. calling the game based on their feel for a particular series. Rules are rules for a reason and there is nothing that should allow player A to have an advantage over player B because "it's his game style". Everybody should have the same equal playing field.

Since86
04-18-2011, 02:40 PM
He is a crazy bitter criminal fool, I don't put any stock into what he says. Plus everything he said was hearsay and third hand, rumors, nothing concrete.

Well that's fine. But if you want to stop the drug trade, you're going to have to deal with drug dealers.

You can't clean anything up, without expecting to get your hands a little dirty.

We're talking about a guy that fooled the system for years. I don't think that's the definition of someone who's stupid crazy, but rather just crazy crazy.

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 02:55 PM
All,

Before I get lumped in the pile of "bitter" loser Pacer fans I want to re-emphasize again that I in no way am claiming the NBA handed the game one win to the Bulls.

Overall I think referee's do an excellent job, other than Benet Salvatore' but that is another matter.

But unlike my good friend Uncle Buck I do think at times star players receive the overly generous benefit of the doubt from officials.

I also strongly disagree with U.B. that no I do NOT want refs. calling the game based on their feel for a particular series. Rules are rules for a reason and there is nothing that should allow player A to have an advantage over player B because "it's his game style". Everybody should have the same equal playing field.

Couple of points.

No not now, the refs are capable nor have they been trained to call an NBA game like the late great earl strom. I realize those days are long gone and won't ever come back.

On the star player thing some players are allowed to do twhat they do. Like Patrick Ewing travel almost every play, Reggie traveled a lot also. But I don't consider those star calls, just they were allowed to do what they did almost every play. I would have to go back and watch some old foilm, but probably a player like Shandon Anderosn was allowed to get away with his move. I mean are you going to call Ewing for traveling 10 times a game. No

Although really the refs are going away from that type of thing, so while I don't think the games are officiated any better than they used to be the direction they are headed is probably more to most of your liking. You see more fouls called at the end of games. You see more traveling, you see a much more standardized system of officiating

I would argue though you are taking away the refs ability to think reason and are training them to be robots.

vapacersfan
04-18-2011, 03:14 PM
are you saying that all the officials are doing what donaghy did?

or are some of them?? half, 1/4, 5 or 6 guys.

is it joey, bennett or violet?

or is this just a 'is it possible' arguement.

if it is the latter, yes, it is possible that another official is betting on games. anything is possible. other than that, it is a bogus arguement.

I can only speak for myself, but I think what he is saying is it has happened before so it could happen again.

This notion that no one should ever question refs because nothing could EVER be off is comical at best.

vapacersfan
04-18-2011, 03:17 PM
My personal opinion is I would like them to call a game less on the rules. hback in the 80's the top refs were so good they had a feel for the game and were able to call the game differently depending on what was needed.

I'm not sure what you want me to say, I don't think the stars get the calls. besdies which stars are we talking about. Ask the players, coaches and fans in Orlando if they think Dwight Howard gets the calls. They would say no. Certain players do really get fouled a lot, sure they are star players because in a lot of instances in order to be a star players you have to be able to draw a lot of fouls

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Howard does get fouled a lot, but from my limited time watching games in Florida he also got quite a reputation as a whiner which did not help him. Then again, big guys get fouled more IMO (see Shaq) and yes, I agree about the chicken or the egg theory. Does not change the fact a star is more likely to get a call then a 12th man on the same exact play, and for no other reason then the fact that player is a star player.

vapacersfan
04-18-2011, 03:18 PM
I just remember thread after thread and article after article about how he was just the tip of the iceberg, "you just wait, there will be dozens of refs involved" nope hasn't happened

100% serious question: How do you know?

I mean, I hoped the NBA would be perpectly transparent, and I have little doubt that they researched this issue to the best of their ability (it was embarraing, no matter how you spin it)

That said, how do we know the NBA did not sweep it under the rug, or just simply miss it.

I mean, they did a great job catching Tim and his cheating, didn't they?............

vapacersfan
04-18-2011, 03:20 PM
He is a crazy bitter criminal fool, I don't put any stock into what he says. Plus everything he said was hearsay and third hand, rumors, nothing concrete.

I forget all the changes they made after the Donaghy thing, but I figure they are investigating it a ton.

So you would rather just dismiss everything he says because he is a criminal.

Do I take everythign he says as gospel? NO

Does that mean that he is unable to tell the truth now? NO

There is enough smoke for me to think there might be a fire, and that is a problem.

Doesnt matter, though. Clearly you and David Stern have a bat phone and he has done a great job instructing you on how to have an answer for everything and not hold the NBA accountable at all

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 03:21 PM
100% serious question: How do you know?

I mean, I hoped the NBA would be perpectly transparent, and I have little doubt that they researched this issue to the best of their ability (it was embarraing, no matter how you spin it)

That said, how do we know the NBA did not sweep it under the rug, or just simply miss it.

I mean, they did a great job catching Tim and his cheating, didn't they?............


The media would be all over it. The sports media, the NBA media and the news media. We would know.

vapacersfan
04-18-2011, 03:23 PM
Couple of points.

No not now, the refs are capable nor have they been trained to call an NBA game like the late great earl strom. I realize those days are long gone and won't ever come back.

On the star player thing some players are allowed to do twhat they do. Like Patrick Ewing travel almost every play, Reggie traveled a lot also. But I don't consider those star calls, just they were allowed to do what they did almost every play. I would have to go back and watch some old foilm, but probably a player like Shandon Anderosn was allowed to get away with his move. I mean are you going to call Ewing for traveling 10 times a game. No

Although really the refs are going away from that type of thing, so while I don't think the games are officiated any better than they used to be the direction they are headed is probably more to most of your liking. You see more fouls called at the end of games. You see more traveling, you see a much more standardized system of officiating

I would argue though you are taking away the refs ability to think reason and are training them to be robots.

Why not? If it really is that bad lets just get rid of traveling from the rulebook, then everyone can do it......

As for the last point, I agree to a point. However, I DO NOT pin that on the refs. I put that in the NBA. Stop adding stupid rules (like hand checks) and let the players play.

I hate the refs for this stupid techincal foul enforcement rule, but I get they are just doing their job.

Eleazar
04-18-2011, 03:23 PM
Couple of points.

No not now, the refs are capable nor have they been trained to call an NBA game like the late great earl strom. I realize those days are long gone and won't ever come back.

On the star player thing some players are allowed to do twhat they do. Like Patrick Ewing travel almost every play, Reggie traveled a lot also. But I don't consider those star calls, just they were allowed to do what they did almost every play. I would have to go back and watch some old foilm, but probably a player like Shandon Anderosn was allowed to get away with his move. I mean are you going to call Ewing for traveling 10 times a game. No

Although really the refs are going away from that type of thing, so while I don't think the games are officiated any better than they used to be the direction they are headed is probably more to most of your liking. You see more fouls called at the end of games. You see more traveling, you see a much more standardized system of officiating

I would argue though you are taking away the refs ability to think reason and are training them to be robots.

If Patrick Ewing traveled 10 times a game yes I would call him for traveling 10 times a game.

Refs aren't out there to think, they are out there to enforce the rules of the game. If making them more robot like means that we get consistent reffing that is fair to everyone then good that is the way it should be. Just because a player has a reputation for being more physical does not mean refs should allow him to do something that would be a foul on someone else. Likewise just because someone has a reputation of "being too fast to draw a charge" does not mean if he runs into someone it is a blocking foul.

Like I have said before if these refs can't keep up with the pace of the game they need to bring in younger refs who have eyes fast enough for the game.

Eleazar
04-18-2011, 03:26 PM
The media would be all over it. The sports media, the NBA media and the news media. We would know.

Yeah, and if the CIA is kidnapping people and running mind control experiments on them we would know to. Oh snap.

vapacersfan
04-18-2011, 03:27 PM
The media would be all over it. The sports media, the NBA media and the news media. We would know.

You really beleive that?

I have no doubt if it was fixed (Stern tells X person to tell Y person to tell Z person to have the refs fix the game) you would be correct.

However, I do not think it is a written rule. IMO if there is something going on (and I am still not sure there is) I think it would be a unwritten policy of NBA refs being encouraged by the vertran refs (or coaches or fans) to push certain players or teams.

Remember the finals game when during a time-out of a Lakers game the refs were miked up and you heard Kenny Mauer (I think)say - "Remember guys, Shaq has 5 fouls".

No you could easily argue (and I am sure you will) that they were saying do not give him a cheap foul, or you could argue (which I will) that they are saying watch out for him and lets not have him foul out because he is a "star player" and we want him to last as long as possible.

That is only one example, and I will not even touch game 6 of the Kings-Lakers game (and of course I do not need to be reminded that the Kings could have wo game 7).

BillS
04-18-2011, 03:35 PM
I believe great players will still be great if you force them to play within the rules. Patrick Ewing is not going to spend 10 years traveling 10 times a game - if it gets called, he'll correct it or he won't be in the league, and he was too good to not be in the league.

I always say that the "good old days" were when rules were made to STOP players from dominating - the "current days" are when rules are "interpreted" because dominant players clearly are better than the refs can possibly be.

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 04:00 PM
Yes I really believe that

vapacersfan
04-18-2011, 04:07 PM
Not much I can say then. To each their own

Eleazar
04-18-2011, 04:10 PM
Not much I can say then. To each their own

I can, it is naive to think that something like that would get a lot of media attention no matter what. I think you would be surprised how easy it is for someone with tons of money to sweep something like that under the rug.

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 04:17 PM
I can, it is naive to think that something like that would get a lot of media attention no matter what. I think you would be surprised how easy it is for someone with tons of money to sweep something like that under the rug.


so they are going to pay off the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS news, ABC news, NBC News, ESPN news, all the reporters covering the NBA and the FBI. It has been 4 years since the scandal.

Since86
04-18-2011, 04:21 PM
You're assuming anyone in the media care enough to actually put in the effort. They don't.

They hardly report about the CBA situation, let alone actually dig into stories.

There's not much more that can be said if you don't even think superstar players get calls. If you can't acknowledge even that point, then there isn't even a starting point for the discussion.

Unclebuck
04-18-2011, 04:27 PM
You're assuming anyone in the media care enough to actually put in the effort. They don't.

They hardly report about the CBA situation, let alone actually dig into stories.

There's not much more that can be said if you don't even think superstar players get calls. If you can't acknowledge even that point, then there isn't even a starting point for the discussion.


I completely disagree with you. An NBA referee betting scandal or something close is big news a huge story

Since86
04-18-2011, 04:32 PM
The media didn't even dig into Barack Obama's presidential campaign (his relationships with Rezko, Ayers, Louis Farakhan, Rev. Wright etc, which I'm not saying that there IS something, just saying that it was pushed aside quickly) and you think they're going to take the time to investigate David Stern?

Yeah okay.......

Slick Pinkham
04-18-2011, 06:15 PM
One of the main issues is that you are asking for proof of a negative, for me to convince you that game-fixing by corrupt referees is NOT going on. That is backwards. Substantial charges require substantial evidence, so you will have to show me that evidence. The burden of proof is always on the person assusing something criminal. Sure you can find Pacer fans who feel they were robbed by bad calls. Guess what, you can find Bull fans who feel that they were robbed by different bad calls.

When there is a simple explanation for bad calls being made (ineptitude and/or human error) it is a little odd to reach for the complicated explantion (fraud) with no evidence to steer you in that direction

Since86
04-19-2011, 01:27 AM
One of the main issues is that you are asking for proof of a negative, for me to convince you that game-fixing by corrupt referees is NOT going on. That is backwards. Substantial charges require substantial evidence, so you will have to show me that evidence. The burden of proof is always on the person assusing something criminal. Sure you can find Pacer fans who feel they were robbed by bad calls. Guess what, you can find Bull fans who feel that they were robbed by different bad calls.

When there is a simple explanation for bad calls being made (ineptitude and/or human error) it is a little odd to reach for the complicated explantion (fraud) with no evidence to steer you in that direction

That's completely wrong in what i've said. I said you have to open pose the question and search for an answer.

I don't know if there is one but im not niave enough to think there couldn't.

Slick Pinkham
04-19-2011, 08:00 AM
This notion that no one should ever question refs because nothing could EVER be off is comical at best.

and nobody has ever said that, either

NuffSaid
04-19-2011, 11:50 AM
All I know is when Bob Kravitz writes and article (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110419/SPORTS15/104190327/1062/SPORTS04/Kravitz-Pacers-do-everything-right-win-vs-Bulls) praising the Pacers and condeming the officiating in both games in this series which showed ALOT of favoritism toward the home team, there has to be something wrong with the officiating. It was even evident by the announcers yesterday that the Bulls were the beneficiaries of two late calls they should never have gotten, both of which turned the tide completely in the Bulls' favor down the stretch.

My hope is that the Pacers play just as hard in Games 3 and 4 and receive lots of "home cooking" as well. Otherwise, they'll get routed as most expected would happen anyway. I thing the Bulls have been lucky to escape with both wins. Bad officiating and losing DC certainly didn't hurt their cause.

Slick Pinkham
04-19-2011, 11:57 AM
Bulls fans are up in arms about bad officiating on what they call phantom fouls on Noah and repeated flops by Foster, Hansbrough, and McRoberts. So if both sides are complaining, I guess it was OK.

I though the charge calls on the Bulls were correct, that Noah did not get clean blocks and did foul both times, and that unfortunately Hibbert did push off with his left arm while hooking with his right on that crucial call that the TNT announcers bashed but never analyzed until the postgame show.

BPump33
04-19-2011, 12:01 PM
Bulls fans are up in arms about bad officiating on what they call phantom fouls on Noah and repeated flops by Foster, Hansbrough, and McRoberts. So if both sides are complaining, I guess it was OK.

I though the charge calls on the Bulls were correct, that Noah did not get clean blocks and did foul both times, and that unfortunately Hibbert did push off with his left arm while hooking with his right on that crucial call that the TNT announcers bashed but never analyzed until the postgame show.

If Hibbert pushed off on that play, then Rose/Boozer/Granger should all foul out in the first quarter. I don't see how you call that there.

Slick Pinkham
04-19-2011, 12:06 PM
They didn't show the replay from a decent angle until the postgame show, but Roy fully extended his left arm right into the defender to create space. The next-nearest Bull was screaming immediately at the ref that it was an offensive foul, before he even blew the whistle. You could say he begged for the call, I guess, and I certainly hated the call at the time. It hurt us terribly. But viewing the replay later after I had calmed down a little, I understand the call.

BPump33
04-19-2011, 12:09 PM
They didn't show the replay from a decent angle until the postgame show, but Roy fully extended his left arm right into the defender to create space. The next-nearest Bull was screaming immediately at the ref that it was an offensive foul, before he even blew the whistle. You could say he begged for the call, I guess, and I certainly hated the call at the time. It hurt us terribly. But viewing the replay later after I had calmed down a little, I understand the call.

I guess what I'm saying is that Boozer/Rose/Granger all three push off all game long with their off hand and they don't call that, but they call it down the stretch when I truly didn't think it was nearly as bad as some that went uncalled. I think that's cheap as hell. I also respect your opinion, but I don't feel like Roy truly extended that arm.

Since86
04-19-2011, 12:22 PM
Chicago fans might be complaining, but their complaints are on calls early in the game. Those don't really matter in the grand scheme. Calls late in the 4th have the utmost importance, and the Pacers didn't get a single call during that stretch.

Boozer pushed Jeff so hard out of bounds that he had to carry his momentum and walk towards the short corner, but not one single official saw anything?

Does anyone HONESTLY think that Jeff is just going to lose his balance on his own and go out of bounds on a rebound? Seriously?

Jeff has some of the best balance when fighting for position in the game. How many times have we seen him arm wrestle a guy get an offensive rebound and a put back with one arm? Uh, a lot.....

As far as Hibbert, CWebb was correct. Noah wasn't even bodying him up, there was a sizeable gap between their bodies and Hibbert didn't extend his arm. Yes, his forearm was up, but that play happens 10 out of 10 times. You're taught to protect the ball with your off arm, and not extend, in JR high basketball.

I'm not saying there is a league wide conspiracy. I'm saying refs are smart enough to know that superstars made the league, and are good for the league, and they (and their teams) will get the benefit of the doubt when it matters.

Slick Pinkham
04-19-2011, 12:22 PM
Note the hand into Noah's armpit, creating the space.

I was literally yelling at the TV that it was a bad call!

But I think I was wrong.

Do they always call that? No. Is Noah some overprotected superstar? No. Should they call that? Yes, unfortunately in this instance.

http://i56.tinypic.com/jgnx8p.jpg

BPump33
04-19-2011, 12:29 PM
I still don't think Hibbert created the space, I think he just was protecting like anyone shooting a hook would do. However, even if he was clearing out/extending, how many times did this happen during the game without a call? Seriously, Rose uses his offhand more than Granger does and I didn't think that was possible. I just can't believe they had the balls to call that down the stretch after letting it go all night.

Seriously though, thanks for taking the time to post the picture.

vapacersfan
04-19-2011, 12:32 PM
I called the offensive foul as it happened, not sure how anyone could argue it.

I do wish the refs would call it both ways (and more consistently, if you are going to call that a push off then call both sides pushing off in quarters 1-3 as well)

As BP and S86 said, well Foster (and Hans) must just have really, really, really bad balance.

Will be interesting to see if the officiating evens out in Indiana.

vapacersfan
04-19-2011, 12:33 PM
and nobody has ever said that, either

It might not have been said in as many words, but yes, it has been said (or implied)

BillS
04-19-2011, 12:49 PM
Note the hand into Noah's armpit, creating the space.

I was literally yelling at the TV that it was a bad call!

But I think I was wrong.

Do they always call that? No. Is Noah some overprotected superstar? No. Should they call that? Yes, unfortunately in this instance.

http://i56.tinypic.com/jgnx8p.jpg

Just the contact doesn't make the foul. Did Noah start out closer to Roy and was he4 moved by the hand? No. Did Roy start out with the hand closer and extend it? No. That's why the picture in and of itself, being a just a snapshot of a moment, can't make the argument on its own.

Even the TNT announcers argued that it wasn't a good offensive foul call for those two reasons.

Trader Joe
04-19-2011, 12:54 PM
Webber made the key point, Noah gave Hibbert the space, Roy did not create it. Did Roy travel before he ever shot? Yeah, pretty blatantly in fact. Roy had happy feet all game. He seriously needs to get his head screwed on straight.

Since86
04-19-2011, 12:58 PM
Yeah, that picture doesn't show anything, because the space was already there and it wasn't created.

When you use your off hand it's not going to be a rigged extremity that keeps it's shape no matter what the circumstances. It's going to be extended until their is contact, but just because there is a hand on his chest doesn't mean he's pushing.

Noah wasn't moved off his spot, nor did even come close of knocking him off balance. You're allowed to use your off arm, you just can't create space with it. Roy didn't create space.

Noah wants that space between them, it allows him to jump higher and negate Roy's height advantage.

You're told to go into a shot blocker because they want/like space between the bodies.

Basketball is a contact sport. It's not a collision sport like football, but it's a contact sport. There's going to be contact on every play. Not every contact is a foul.

Trader Joe
04-19-2011, 01:01 PM
It's also important to ask, did Roy gain some advantage by his arm being there? I don't think so, not with how far away Noah was as Roy started the move.

Since86
04-19-2011, 01:06 PM
I think that still fram answers that question too. Noah's shoulders are square above his torso, and his back isn't arched. If he's getting pushed then he's fully contracted his whole body like a board, and his whole body moved off the spot.

xIndyFan
04-19-2011, 01:13 PM
I guess what I'm saying is that Boozer/Rose/Granger all three push off all game long with their off hand and they don't call that, but they call it down the stretch when I truly didn't think it was nearly as bad as some that went uncalled. I think that's cheap as hell. I also respect your opinion, but I don't feel like Roy truly extended that arm.

he did extend the arm. you could see it from the baseline shot. :shrug:

everybody fouls every play in the paint in the playoffs. that's what physical play causes.

my biggest problem with the officiating in the 2nd game was how the entire game was officiated. the officials in the 2nd game were trying to make calls. looking for a reason to make a call. in the first game, the officials were looking for reasons not to make a call.

my thinking was the age/experience level of the 2nd group was less than the 1st. the younger officials were more like college officials in the NCAA's. they were trying too hard to officiate the game as opposed to letting the game happen and reacting to what happens.

Unclebuck
04-19-2011, 04:36 PM
It's also important to ask, did Roy gain some advantage by his arm being there? I don't think so, not with how far away Noah was as Roy started the move.


That is the correct question, and I agree did not not

However I think he did gain an avantage on that play because he clearly traveled.

Kuq_e_Zi91
04-20-2011, 02:43 AM
my biggest problem with the officiating in game 2 was how long it took rose to get called for his 3rd foul. things like that won't show up in statistics, but rose absolutely fouled price on a drive in the 2nd quarter and they instead credited brewer with the foul, when he wasn't even near price. numerous times after that, he hit aj when he was shooting a three, still no call. he pushes off paul george, no call. he literally hits collison in the face, no call. then when he finally gets called for fouling aj on the three when the game was basically over, he has the nerve to complain.

all i'm asking for is consistency. if you call fouls like roy's offensive foul, rose would have fouled out in the first half.

also, does any player carry the ball more than rose? i thought iverson was bad in his days, but wow. he palms the ball nearly every other dribble.

Midcoasted
04-20-2011, 03:25 AM
Couple of points.

No not now, the refs are capable nor have they been trained to call an NBA game like the late great earl strom. I realize those days are long gone and won't ever come back.

On the star player thing some players are allowed to do twhat they do. Like Patrick Ewing travel almost every play, Reggie traveled a lot also. But I don't consider those star calls, just they were allowed to do what they did almost every play. I would have to go back and watch some old foilm, but probably a player like Shandon Anderosn was allowed to get away with his move. I mean are you going to call Ewing for traveling 10 times a game. No

Although really the refs are going away from that type of thing, so while I don't think the games are officiated any better than they used to be the direction they are headed is probably more to most of your liking. You see more fouls called at the end of games. You see more traveling, you see a much more standardized system of officiating

I would argue though you are taking away the refs ability to think reason and are training them to be robots.

Then how did three refs agree that was a foul on Hibbert (they had time to consult, and it clearly wasn't a foul, but George did get fouled on his put back) and Foster gets shoved to the floor by Boozer and loses the ball out of bounds because of it and all three refs swallowed the whistle (it was a clear foul). There is just no way three professional NBA refs who are supposed to be "the best in the world" all missed both calls. The odds of all three refs missing both calls would be in the 1 in a million category. This has happened more than once in this series. It can't be a coincidence.

The league knew if they didn't make this thing 8 vs 5 then their precious Bulls would be down 2-0 on their way to the rowdiest Fieldhouse in a decade. I'm sorry Uncle Buck, but if I believed you on other posts, I would believe.

1. Job was not the problem. Frank Vogel has proven he was.
2. Our players we have now are not good enough to compete for a championship one day. You admitted this playoff series you were wrong.
3. Murphy deserved to play over Hansbrough, McRoberts and Hibbert.

Sorry I refuse to believe you on this one and I think if you look at how you have been wrong on things you argued to death before, maybe you could take some real insight into what's really going on. You really think the millions of dollars bet on games/made by teams still don't influence who is going to get the calls or not? Then I'm sorry Buck, you are lost and there is no hope in ever enlightening you unless the FBI busts the whole league open but I think they just used Tim as the fall guy IMO. I believe what he says, because I've witnessed it with my own eyes.

UncleBuck, I think your eyes are playing tricks on you again. JOB was the problem, our players can compete for a championship, Murphy should have been benched years ago, and we are down 0-2 because of the refs' superstar treatment of Rose (calling ticky tack fouls on us, while allowing him to clearly foul our players and not even get whistled.) It's not like I'm asking for them to call ticky tack fouls on Rose and foul him out every game, but if they are going to call these fouls on us, Rose would have been fouled out at least once in this series. They also are giving unfair calls at the most oppurtune times to all the Bulls.

See Buck, it doesn't matter if they call a fair foul when we are up by 8 and the game isn't even close to over, if in crunch time late in the 4th they will go out of their way to give every call they possibly can to the Bulls. This has happened three games in a row against the Bulls. It is not a coincidence. Calling me crazy on this is like everyone who called me crazy when I said the young guys will compete one day and they were that good. Well look who's laughing now :dance::dance::happydanc:happydanc

Midcoasted
04-20-2011, 03:28 AM
my biggest problem with the officiating in game 2 was how long it took rose to get called for his 3rd foul. things like that won't show up in statistics, but rose absolutely fouled price on a drive in the 2nd quarter and they instead credited brewer with the foul, when he wasn't even near price. numerous times after that, he hit aj when he was shooting a three, still no call. he pushes off paul george, no call. he literally hits collison in the face, no call. then when he finally gets called for fouling aj on the three when the game was basically over, he has the nerve to complain.

all i'm asking for is consistency. if you call fouls like roy's offensive foul, rose would have fouled out in the first half.

also, does any player carry the ball more than rose? i thought iverson was bad in his days, but wow. he palms the ball nearly every other dribble.

It has become ridiculous I'm afraid. Everything you said is the truth. Don't let this rest. We as fans deserve better. Let Unclebuck keep shilling for TPTB. It is clear the only reason we are not up 2-0 is because it is 8 vs 5. The league hath made it so.

Unclebuck
04-20-2011, 08:37 AM
It has become ridiculous I'm afraid. Everything you said is the truth. Don't let this rest. We as fans deserve better. Let Unclebuck keep shilling for TPTB. It is clear the only reason we are not up 2-0 is because it is 8 vs 5. The league hath made it so.

I see what I see.

BPump33
04-20-2011, 08:41 AM
my biggest problem with the officiating in game 2 was how long it took rose to get called for his 3rd foul. things like that won't show up in statistics, but rose absolutely fouled price on a drive in the 2nd quarter and they instead credited brewer with the foul, when he wasn't even near price. numerous times after that, he hit aj when he was shooting a three, still no call. he pushes off paul george, no call. he literally hits collison in the face, no call. then when he finally gets called for fouling aj on the three when the game was basically over, he has the nerve to complain.

all i'm asking for is consistency. if you call fouls like roy's offensive foul, rose would have fouled out in the first half.

also, does any player carry the ball more than rose? i thought iverson was bad in his days, but wow. he palms the ball nearly every other dribble.

All of us were extremely confused by the 3rd foul call on Rose that went to Brewer. Anyone have video on that? I don't remember them showing a replay and it was right before a commercial.

Unclebuck
04-20-2011, 08:48 AM
Not sure if cherry-picking is fair. Why not go through every single play, every single call, every single non-call. If someone does that I'll listen

BPump33
04-20-2011, 08:50 AM
Not sure if cherry-picking is fair. Why not go through every single play, every single call, every single non-call. If someone does that I'll listen

Huh?

vapacersfan
04-20-2011, 01:11 PM
Not sure if cherry-picking is fair. Why not go through every single play, every single call, every single non-call. If someone does that I'll listen

I think I have said before I would love to do a project like that (with a group of arbitrary fans, so a Pacers fan could not do a Pacers game and a Bulls fan could not do a Bulls game)

If I had the disposable income I would do that in a heart beat.

Hell, if there is a NBA season next year I may just do a blog and choose one or two games a week to do just that.

Would be interesting to see if anyone would take notice.

xIndyFan
04-21-2011, 11:11 PM
game 3

thought the game was officiated reasonably.

but there was one interesting subplot. mike callahan and ken mauer. a couple of veteran officials.

it seemed to me, mauer was trying to be the star of the game. making all the calls, big dramatic gestures, over officiating

as opposed to callahan who just watched the game and made the calls as they happened. i much prefer the official that lets the game happen instead of trying to be the center of attention. nice job by mike.

vapacersfan
04-21-2011, 11:22 PM
I missed the first quarter and 2 minutes of the second, but I thought the game was officiated nicely.

I missed if Foster and Rose got double techs (I thought if anything Rose should have got one and foster a personal and that's it) but besides that play I thought they did a decent job.

A few missed calls on the inside (esp when McRoberts got elbowed in the face) but I am glad they let them play.

graphic-er
04-22-2011, 08:39 AM
Game 3 is the heartbreaker from an officiating standpoint. The did a good job the whole game up until the 4th where they missed 2 key travels. The one where deng took three steps driving across the lane for his little pull up jumper. Then of course the play that won the game.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lc6qXwuUjJM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lc6qXwuUjJM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Is that a superstar call or did the ref not see it? How could he not see if you can see him right there in the bottom of the frame. He has essentially a better viewing angle than the TV Cameras on this one. He could clearly see one leg land after another, and not at the same time. Perhaps he was too focused on calling a foul for any sort of contact made to Derrick Rose, again some people say the super star treatment does not exists. BUT IT DOES.

Kuq_e_Zi91
04-22-2011, 05:25 PM
You have a better shot at winning the lottery than seeing traveling called in the NBA, especially on a potential game-winning bucket by the MVP.