ok this post covers a few topics so... shmoey shmawford was the best i could do. forgive me.
(in reference to the SAS-LAL gm 4 last night)
i thought doug collins summed it up perfectly with these 2 remarks (paraphrased):
1. the real difference was the energy/offensive rebounding in the first half. the lakers
were getting to all the loose balls and all the off boards.
2. it's a testament to the spurs defense that it was even a close game come 4th Q, because
wow did they suck offensively.
i think the lakers played way more focused and intense ball pretty much throughout the
entire game. i didn't think the spurs were gonna get out played like that, especially at
home (see my spurs in 6 prediction), but if timmy (and brent barry) are the only ones
that are going to show up, they are F'd. i know manu is hurting, but the spurs obviously
need more from their 2nd (?) best player if they're gonna beat good teams in 7 (see box
scores of all the games in this series-if manu AND timmy show up, they win. in fact, see
box scores of all the spurs games with a healthy timmy and manu). i think jeremy correctly
pointed out a few weeks ago that manu would be the real deciding factor. and i think we
are now seeing the truth of that. kudos to the lakers and phil for adjusting properly
when the spurs made moves to take over the game. and kudos to kobe for being a
stinking maniac. bruce played him VERY tight, and he still looked good.
and finally, kudos to fish. if he hadn't decided to jump on brent
barry at the last second, i would have no more ammo to throw at these STUPID FUCKING REFS.
get ready, you stupid horse. i know you've been deceased for some time and you have been
beaten relentlessly for years now, but i got a little something for ya!
when are they going to fix the reffing system? thats 2 times i can remember (you guys?)
in this post-season alone that we've seen terrible calls at the very end of a critical
playoff game that all but seal the playoff fate of the team in question. the spurs were
lucky as hell to be anywhere near the lakers at the end of that game, but who can really
disagree with these statements?:
1.the last play of the game was grossly miscalled.
2.if that last call was made correctly, it would have likely changed the outcome
of a CRITICAL playoff game, and possibly the series (the WC FINALS no less!)
so, do they never call fouls on the last play? (ahem, shasher!) why/why not? should they?
now, you KNOW that stern and his buddies are looking at this and thinking 2 things:
1.everything is falling into place just as we planned. soon, we will reap the rewards
of our labor and our precious celtics/lakers finals will be upon us! (ok, maybe not)
2.ok the spurs just got jobbed, and it was because our reffing system is broke.
how do we prevent that in the future?
at some point, changes are going to HAVE to be made. i think that much is certain. it's
like the camera men sitting on the sidelines right underneath the basket- at some point,
kobe or somebody is gonna break a foot on one of those bastards and then the league will
FINALLY get them off the floor. it's just a matter of time.
and one last thing-how the smell is joey fu#&*$ing crawford the lead official at a
spurs playoff game? can anyone answer that one? wtf?! i don't think they should have
reinstated him. but to reinstate him and the very next season there's blown call like
this in a huge, close spurs playoff game? come on man. come on. seems a little fishy (no pun
intended, i swear!) to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Horrible call! What really surprises me is how the TNT guys defended it! I mean, F!, that was a fucking foul. Of course he could have sold it better, but why the fuck does he need to sell some guy jumping on him? I guess those TNT guys are more in league with the league than I thought.
And thats not all. The call the whole game were crappy. Phil called them out after just the 1st quarter.
They would not call a hard foul on one end, then immediately call a ticky tack foul on the other end. Its totally bonkers. How are the players to know what they are suppose to do.
As to your question, I think they stick with their typical game plan for calling fouls, even on the last play. Don't, for any reason, stay consistent.
I actually thought the no call was good at the end of the game. That being said it's only because I think that should NEVER be called a foul. On the replay you can clearly see Barry jump FORWARD into Fisher creating the contact. As far as I could tell Fisher jumped straight up or as close to straight up as a human can jump. Had Barry just jumped straight up as well there would have been no contact. Instead, he leaned into Fisher to CREATE the contact and FISH for a foul. That should not ever be a foul in my opinion. Unless you throw up a fake and get the guy to jump into/towards you.
The problem is they have been calling that crap all season and that's why Barry attempted to get the call. Dirk does that crap all the freaking time. However, Barry, being incredibly smart, should have also known that they won't call a foul at the end of the game unless it's a flagrant two practically. So he should have just taken the shot without the fake and hoped that he could have elevated over Fisher since he's like 4 inches taller.
Bottom line though, if I was a Spurs fan I would be IRATE. Although SA had other opportunities to win that game besides just that call.
Also, there was a blown call just before that. They called a shot clock violation on LA which gave the ball back to SA. But the replay showed that the ball glanced off the rim and then hit Horry's leg and went out of bounds. So the ball should have belonged to LA with like 5 seconds left and SA would have had to foul which could have put them 4 points down.
Like Jake said though, without Manu and Tony contributing more the Spurs can't hope to beat LA.
Last play looked like a no call to me. I don't think that play is normally called in prior games either. You don't pumpfake, then dribble(!), then jump into the guy that bit on the pump. You gotta go right up again after the pumpfake. Brent does that and there is probably no contact anyway.
I don't think that "goaltend" near the end was a goaltend though. Was really close though. I thought Odom blocked Parker's layup just b4 it hit the glass.
i had to go back and watch it again after reading this and i totally disagree. i have seen kobe (and many others) do the exact same thing a million times and it gets called a foul 9 out of 10 times. i can hear the 'last play of the game so there's no fouls' argument, but to me it looks EXACTLY like what gets called all the time during reg season (and playoffs most of the time).
having said that, i agree completely that it shouldn't be called a foul. but that's not the point here.
i just reread my last comment and confused myself!
to clarify, i agree that when a player does that, they should never be called for a foul. however, since i believe that a precedent has been set by calling the same play a foul throughout the season, it's not ok to not call it at the end of a playoff game.
also, i gotta agree with you that there were ample opportunities to win the game before that play and if i was pop i'd be more upset that my team fell off than that the refs missed a call. anyhow....
NBA said it should have been an impeding foul (is that the same as blocking?), shooting 2. I guess the contact was on the dribble.
Plenty of fresh bad calls in bos-det game 5 though.
Tom, link me to where you saw that the NBA actually admitted the got a call wrong. I gotta see that.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/news/story?id=3416412
I read it on the ticker during the pistons game, but found a link for ya.
Another artical just caught my eye, "NBA to implement fines for flopping." Sweet, as long as they do it right.
Am was relieved to see Jimi’s response. I’ve been too tired to write cohesively at night and too busy during the day but within 5 minutes of game 4’s conclusion, I was jotting down discussion points because I knew, right when the buzzer went off, I’d have to exercise some counterargument to balance my assumption that everyone here would be screaming "Foul!" I looked yesterday and Jake’s post seemed to confirm that so I avoided reading any more until I had more written. Needless to say it got me all worked up. Anyhow, below is basically what I’d gathered together:
Nice post Jake! I strongly agree with most of what you said. Primarily speaking with regard to the half blind zebra (can I call them that in basketball?) problem epidemic. Unfortunately, I’m a little more motivated both of your "who can argue with these statements" proposal. Well I can, and will.
"1.the last play of the game was grossly miscalled." I know the fact that I'm such a homer taints my arguement but here goes. I watched it in slow motion repeatedly. After the 4th or 5th time, I started watching their feet mostly and I'm actually not even sure Fish would have fouled him if Barry went straight up for the shot. Granted, he could have leaned into it, like so many do nowadays, and probably drawn the foul but my point is actually that Barry initiated that contact. Barry pulled back from shooting and started the dribble AFTER DFish went to the air. Barry got hit by Fish because he leaned over into him while airbound - it's the same premise as stepping under someone attempting to take a charge. If Barry hadn't moved, Fish's feet would have landed right in front of Barry's. (note: I wrote this before the NBA made their admission. I don't care what they say, they got it right the first time. They're "reviewer" got it wrong. I wish I still had it on DVR.)
Further, NOBODY on the Spurs argued at all even after the game (including Barry - he even said "that call shouldn't be made in the Western Conference Finals"). Pop actually said: "If I was a Ref, I wouldn't have called it." No sarcasm, no rancor. One announcer (Mark Jackson & JVG I think) made an interesting comment that all 15 players he'd talked to said it was a good no call and that all 5 coaches wanted the foul.
"2.if that last call was made correctly, it would have likely changed the outcome of a CRITICAL playoff game, and possibly the series (the WC FINALS no less!)" I know many here don't like this argument (I'm guessing because it sounds like a defense of poor ref'ing?) but what would have changed the face of the WCFinals more is if every Spur showed up to play defense in game 5. Look, bad calls are going to happen. We, at home, get the benefit of Slow Mo, Super Slow Mo, closer than real camera shots, replay, re-replay, re-re-replay and now all in High Def! (I wonder if the proportion of fans unhappy with ref'ing has any correlation to HD's rise in popularity/availability?) You can't play a poor game and be unhappy about 1 call, even if it's the last one. I can understand being pissed about inconsistent calls throughout the game but in a game of X (80? 90? more?) possessions, play is ultimately the difference. If the game were competitive the whole way the single call can become more of an arguement I think (see Rockets/Jazz). In this game though, the Spurs have to look at their own play (defense and shooting). They were missing open 3's at an unbelievable click. How they managed 95 pts is incredible. Charles said ockroaches right?
If one wants to start arguing individual calls though, let's do it. Aside from the Lakers making a few mental mistakes to let SA in the game (Gasol misses 2 free throws in the final minute and Kobe makes a huge judgement error in shooting and missing the gimme) the refs managed to do them one (more actually) better. To start out, when the Lakers were ready to maul San An into depression, Patrick mentioned it earlier, they called 2 early fouls on Odom and Fisher. 3 out of 4 of those fouls were pretty weak. Phil even mentioned it after the first quarter. The refs bailed the Spurs out of what looked like was going to be a much deeper hole than they had at the end of 1. Another example: Kobe didn't get 1 free throw. All of the contact that Bowen is allowed and not one time was there a foul on Kobe? You gonna call 3 stupid fouls on Fish and Odom early and never call one on Edward Scissorhands? Ok, so neither of those examples had a direct relationship with the end game. I got a couple that do though. Two BIG'uns. One I've heard mentioned. Fisher's shot at the other end grazed the rim which should have reset (turned off in this case) the shot clock. It definitely hit the rim. With only 5.6 seconds left, the Spurs would have had to try to steal the inbounds and/or foul. The Barry/Fisher incident should never have even occurred. The second, nobody has mentioned. After Kobe's missed gimme (and poor decision making) Odom's 'goaltending' call on Parker was ALL WRONG. This one I watched a few times to make sure I was seeing it correctly and A) Odom hit the ball BEFORE it hit the backboard so the shot shouldn't have counted and B) there was no contact/foul (until after they both landed out of bounds which is never called). That's 3 points and huge momentum at home.
Finally, Crawford. I don't know that he should have been at this game. If you're the NBA you're just taking a chance that a wierd play happens. If you really want him ref'ing, send him to Boston/Detroit. But "i don't think they should have reinstated him."?? I know he 'challenged Tim Duncan' to a fight but it's not like he was going to actually kick timmy's ass. He literally couldn't you know? He was angry and lost his temper. It was stupid. But he is one of the best officials in the NBA. To say you should be fired from a job you've had for 30+ years (and one your very good at to boot) is a bit ridiculous to me. If you said the same thing (to someone twice your size) at work, do you think you should be fired? Seems a little strong to me.
None of the above speaks directly to your overall point though which is that something needs to be done about the refereeing as a whole. Bringing up a strange, maybe too far fetched, point. One that I’m hesitant to make and one that may not have a definite winning side for years to come. Being that the Kevin Garnett trade to the Celtics could have done more bad for the NBA than good. Sure, it rejuvenated a franchise with the most storied NBA history ever. It contributed hugely to the massive fan following this season. It, almost single-handedly, fueled overall interest for the first half of the season (until the WC race became obvious that nobody was backing down). It gave the East more legitimacy than it’s had in a few years. But it also distracted the world from the Tim Donoughy scandal and attention on the ever growing unpopularity of NBA officials. I'm not sure that the gambling story would have helped change things but at least more disussion would have happened. I did start to hear those discussions, around quality of calls, completely unrelated to gambling, more than I'd ever heard before and then... nothing. Nothing but KG in clover green headlines.
I personally think they need to take a page from the NFL. They need two more officials. One more on the floor and another 'booth' official. The 4 on the floor would be able to contain the play much better (one on each of the 4 sides of the court half). Another would be up in the booth. Ideally these booth guys would be some of the older officials so they could still be mentors to the young'uns and the NBA wouldn't feel guilty getting rid of them and we could instill some youthfull legs and eyes into the referee pool.
I was thinking, because Stern is old he's not going to change too dramatically at this point. Stern, though he has the NBA's best interest in mind, really answers to owners because they make the most money off of the game. We need to start a grass roots campaign to change the system and it has to get the owners' attention. Unless someone has some ideas, we could start by lobbying Cuban for help/advice? I know he tried to wage that war on his own a few years ago and was squashed by the Sterninator. He'd be sympathetic at least. We could get Obama involved too! Vive la revolution!
After re-reading that post I think it came off a little more harsh than I'd originally intended. I was flying through it trying to finish before game 6 and seemed to speak directly to Jake's original post more often than not making it seem, to me at least, like I was taking issue with his comments only. My whole point was supposed to been just that the Lakers played a phenomenal game and one play (that should have never even existed) was being focused on too much and the Spurs shooting performance not enough. And that I'm ready for at least 4 floor officials.
well, jer, most of those things i agree with wholeheartedly:
1. lakers out played the spurs from start to finish. it should have ended up, all things considered, i think, a lakers W. (and fairly, too) the spurs played poorly and the lakers didn't. i'm certain that there are a LOT more aspects of that game for pop to be upset about than that one call.
2. there were other terrible calls, maybe more in favor of the spurs (not sure, because there were tons) during the whole game and to focus on just one is unfair, even if it was at the end of the game.
3. i like your suggestions for the refs. it would no doubt be a huge improvement over what happens now.
BUT, (to waste even more time on the issues that we both see as secondary here haha)
i rewatched that play (that, agreed, shouldn't have existed) after reading jimi's post, then again several times after reading your post. and i have no choice but to stick to my guns here.
i swear that exact play gets called a foul 9 out of 10 times this season. the only rationalization i see for that being a no call is that they 'supposedly' never really call fouls on the last play of a playoff game and and everyone knows that (including pop and brent, which i think has a lot to do with their statements after the game).
i mean, if i'm a ref and i'm following protocol (not calling fouls on the last play unless its pretty much a favorite) then i certainly wouldn't have called that a foul. but if i'm a ref trying to be consistent and fair as possible, i wouldn't even think twice about blowing the whistle. as with most things, i think consistency is of paramount importance. or, should be anyhow.
i saw where pop said that and where brent talked about it. i think they know that the game was not rightfully there's and that last play was one of many bad calls which didn't GIVE the lakers the W.
the lakers earned the W by playing better ball, and i think pop and brent knew that. HOWEVER, if you're going to call that play a foul 90% of the time, and then not call it at the end of a playoff game (even if the play only happened because of another bad call, in the other teams favor), its gonna piss me off. its just more fuel to the fire of hatred i have for these refs.
speaking of which, NO i dont think they should have reinstated crawford.
not at all. absolutely not.
especially with the more tenured and more 'revered' refs, i think a lapse in judgement like that and an OBVIOUS lack of ability to stay professional regardless of what happens on the floor is certainly grounds to shitcan the guy. give him a severance package or something, but letting him back on the floor to ref (especially a spurs game!) i think is a bad move.
in my opinion, maintaining a professional demeanor through all the crap is the #1 priority for a ref in any sport. and i think he proved without a doubt that he cannot be trusted to do that.
one last thing.
this quote from your last post there, i think is very eloquent, concise, and correct:
...the Lakers played a phenomenal game and one play (that should have never even existed) was being focused on too much and the Spurs shooting performance not enough. And that I'm ready for at least 4 floor officials.
all too true. i should have just copied that into my comment instead of rambling on for 3 hours trying to say the same thing.
*excerpt from above:
i mean, if i'm a ref and i'm following protocol (not calling fouls on the last play unless its pretty much a favorite)
by favorite, i meant flagrant. sorry.
and once again, great post jer.
Post a Comment