CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: Ogaju on April 26, 2018, 10:14:33 AM
-
Are the NBA defenders watching? This is why these stars are larger than life..they are allowed to foul on offense and defense, and now they can goaltend too....no wonder LeBlock makes NBA all defense teams..
-
I'm really shocked the Pacers didn't make more noise about this. They got screwed. That was a clear goaltend on a game winning shot.
-
Totally should have been called under the current rules, but they should change the rules as that shouldn't have been a goal tend. The ball was still going up and wasn't directly over the hoop.
-
I honestly don't think someone should expect a referee to see a goaltend that was that close in actual real time. I guess the question should be, if the possible goaltend is that close, should the referee just blow the whistle every time to see the replay?
I have to give it up to LeBron. He made a great play on defense, and followed it up with an even better play on offense to win the game. Now would LeBron have been able to make that same shot if the goaltend was called and Cleveland was down by two, instead of the game being tied? I'd rather see a guy make a play like LeBron did on defense, than to see Indiana win on a technicality based on a ball hitting the backboard a mere 2/10 of a second before it was blocked.
-
It was really bang bang. In real time, that is really difficult to catch.
Definitely was goaltending but you see that with the benefit of instant replay. I can see how the referees would miss it in real time. The game moves do [dang] fast at that level. It was really that close.
-
I honestly don't think someone should expect a referee to see a goaltend that was that close in actual real time. I guess the question should be, if the possible goaltend is that close, should the referee just blow the whistle every time to see the replay?
I have to give it up to LeBron. He made a great play on defense, and followed it up with an even better play on offense to win the game. Now would LeBron have been able to make that same shot if the goaltend was called and Cleveland was down by two, instead of the game being tied? I'd rather see a guy make a play like LeBron did on defense, than to see Indiana win on a technicality based on a ball hitting the backboard a mere 2/10 of a second before it was blocked.
I'd rather see LeBron lose. And I'd rather see the correct calls made.
-
I feel like when it is that close they have to be able to review it in that kind of situation. I don't want to see a game decided like that. You also have to feel like if the game was in Indiana it would have been called
-
Even if the refs got the call right, the Pacers still lose. It's like everyone's forgetting that LeBron went down and hit a 3 afterwards. Sure the Pacers will run a slightly different defense (Sabonis and Oladipo would have probably been guarding the corner 3's instead of doubling Love in the post), but LeBron would still be guarded the same way at the top by Young. So even if the refs got the goaltend right, LeBron still hits the 3 and the Pacers still lose.
-
Even if the refs got the call right, the Pacers still lose. It's like everyone's forgetting that LeBron went down and hit a 3 afterwards. Sure the Pacers will run a slightly different defense (Sabonis and Oladipo would have probably been guarding the corner 3's instead of doubling Love in the post), but LeBron would still be guarded the same way at the top by Young. So even if the refs got the goaltend right, LeBron still hits the 3 and the Pacers still lose.
I don't think we can safely assume that, because of the butterfly effect.
-
Clearly a goaltend and that non-call changed a lot. With the scored tied there’s low pressure shooting the final shot: the worse that can happen is there’s an overtime. But behind by 2 points, the game - a huge game - is on the line, so there’s great pressure to hit the shot, and Lebron has a history of missing those.
-
Why was it not reviewable? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen goaltending calls reviewed. No?
-
Even if the refs got the call right, the Pacers still lose. It's like everyone's forgetting that LeBron went down and hit a 3 afterwards. Sure the Pacers will run a slightly different defense (Sabonis and Oladipo would have probably been guarding the corner 3's instead of doubling Love in the post), but LeBron would still be guarded the same way at the top by Young. So even if the refs got the goaltend right, LeBron still hits the 3 and the Pacers still lose.
You seem to be missing the key point that the pacers would be setting up their whole defense to guard the 3 so the worst that could happen would be a tie. When it was tied they actually preferred the three being shot cause it is a lower percentage and any shot beats them. You understand that right?
-
Why was it not reviewable? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen goaltending calls reviewed. No?
Apparently they can only review it if they called it a goaltend , not if they did not blow the whistle
-
Why was it not reviewable? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen goaltending calls reviewed. No?
Apparently they can only review it if they called it a goaltend , not if they did not blow the whistle
Yeah they can only review calls that have a blown whistle or the clock stops immediately on the play (like a ball out of bounds).
Again though, that should not be a goal tend and the rules should be changed.
-
Even if the refs got the call right, the Pacers still lose. It's like everyone's forgetting that LeBron went down and hit a 3 afterwards. Sure the Pacers will run a slightly different defense (Sabonis and Oladipo would have probably been guarding the corner 3's instead of doubling Love in the post), but LeBron would still be guarded the same way at the top by Young. So even if the refs got the goaltend right, LeBron still hits the 3 and the Pacers still lose.
You seem to be missing the key point that the pacers would be setting up their whole defense to guard the 3 so the worst that could happen would be a tie. When it was tied they actually preferred the three being shot cause it is a lower percentage and any shot beats them. You understand that right?
What did I write in my post?
Sure the Pacers will run a slightly different defense (Sabonis and Oladipo would have probably been guarding the corner 3's instead of doubling Love in the post)
Even so, if I really think about it, I don't know if the Pacers run a different D. Whether you're up 2 or tied, you don't give up an easy 2 to send the game to overtime, you still guard everything to get the win. The different D would probably only come if the Pacers are up 3, which they wouldn't be, unless we're arguing it was a goaltend + a foul.
It's not like Thad Young was laying off LeBron giving him the 3, he was guarding him tight for everything. I see Thad Young guarding LeBron the same way whether tied, or up 2, or up 3 even (different D would come from Sabonis and Oladipo, not Young). So how do you think the D would have been drawn up? The real difference to me would be the mental pressure on LeBron, easier to take a shot knowing the worst case is overtime vs worst case being a loss. Still think that if down 2, the Cavs run the same play and the Pacers D up LeBron the same way.
-
Why was it not reviewable? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen goaltending calls reviewed. No?
Apparently they can only review it if they called it a goaltend , not if they did not blow the whistle
Yeah they can only review calls that have a blown whistle or the clock stops immediately on the play (like a ball out of bounds).
Again though, that should not be a goal tend and the rules should be changed.
You keep saying that it should not be a goal tend. Who cares what the rules might be later when the NBA might or might not change them. By the rules today, that was a goaltend, and it had an impact on the game.
The real change that needs to happen is some type of coach's challenge maybe 2 a game that requires the refs to review the video.
-
Why was it not reviewable? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen goaltending calls reviewed. No?
Apparently they can only review it if they called it a goaltend , not if they did not blow the whistle
Yeah they can only review calls that have a blown whistle or the clock stops immediately on the play (like a ball out of bounds).
Again though, that should not be a goal tend and the rules should be changed.
You keep saying that it should not be a goal tend. Who cares what the rules might be later when the NBA might or might not change them. By the rules today, that was a goaltend, and it had an impact on the game.
The real change that needs to happen is some type of coach's challenge maybe 2 a game that requires the refs to review the video.
I acknowledged under the rules it should have been called, but that should not be a goal tend. The shot was still going up. Under international rules that is in fact not a goal tend and that should be the rules in the NBA.
-
Didn't watch the game but listened to the Dunc'd on recap and they indicated that there was an out of bounds situation right before the block play, which didn't get reviewed, that should have been Cavs ball but Indiana got it. Curious why there isn't any mention of that on here other than this thread is anti-Lebron focused.
-
Even if the refs got the call right, the Pacers still lose. It's like everyone's forgetting that LeBron went down and hit a 3 afterwards. Sure the Pacers will run a slightly different defense (Sabonis and Oladipo would have probably been guarding the corner 3's instead of doubling Love in the post), but LeBron would still be guarded the same way at the top by Young. So even if the refs got the goaltend right, LeBron still hits the 3 and the Pacers still lose.
You seem to be missing the key point that the pacers would be setting up their whole defense to guard the 3 so the worst that could happen would be a tie. When it was tied they actually preferred the three being shot cause it is a lower percentage and any shot beats them. You understand that right?
What did I write in my post?
Sure the Pacers will run a slightly different defense (Sabonis and Oladipo would have probably been guarding the corner 3's instead of doubling Love in the post)
Even so, if I really think about it, I don't know if the Pacers run a different D. Whether you're up 2 or tied, you don't give up an easy 2 to send the game to overtime, you still guard everything to get the win. The different D would probably only come if the Pacers are up 3, which they wouldn't be, unless we're arguing it was a goaltend + a foul.
It's not like Thad Young was laying off LeBron giving him the 3, he was guarding him tight for everything. I see Thad Young guarding LeBron the same way whether tied, or up 2, or up 3 even (different D would come from Sabonis and Oladipo, not Young). So how do you think the D would have been drawn up? The real difference to me would be the mental pressure on LeBron, easier to take a shot knowing the worst case is overtime vs worst case being a loss. Still think that if down 2, the Cavs run the same play and the Pacers D up LeBron the same way.
Your original post seemed to act like the score was not entirely critical and there was a reasonable chance that Cleveland runs the same play tied as they down two. I completely disagree with that.
To answer your question they try to run a lob or get a pass to someone going towards the rim. You have the chance of getting a tie that way in so many ways. You can get a foul on the drive (very unlikely on a 3 point shot), you have a chance to get a tipin (which is nearly impossible on a 3 point shot cause of the time of the ball in the air and the increased likelihood of a long rebound). Add that to the fact that the Pacers are going to be guarding the 3 point line with their coach saying no matter what no 3's and it is extremely unlikely the Cavs end up shooting a 3 in that situation. Young can even guard Lebron in a way that he is only getting the pass inside the 3 point line. If there was more time, like 10 seconds, the Cavs would still have a chance to run some screens and get a 3, but I think it would have been extremely asinine to do it with 3.5 seconds instead of trying to tie the game with one of the best drivers of all time (Lebron). With the score tied, it is house money and Lebron can be a care free hero knowing if he misses it just goes to OT.
-
Why was it not reviewable? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen goaltending calls reviewed. No?
Apparently they can only review it if they called it a goaltend , not if they did not blow the whistle
Yeah they can only review calls that have a blown whistle or the clock stops immediately on the play (like a ball out of bounds).
Again though, that should not be a goal tend and the rules should be changed.
You keep saying that it should not be a goal tend. Who cares what the rules might be later when the NBA might or might not change them. By the rules today, that was a goaltend, and it had an impact on the game.
The real change that needs to happen is some type of coach's challenge maybe 2 a game that requires the refs to review the video.
Exactly. If we all wanted rules changed every time it would be something that benefitted our favorite player the league would be ridiculous. Strange argument to say the least.
-
Didn't watch the game but listened to the Dunc'd on recap and they indicated that there was an out of bounds situation right before the block play, which didn't get reviewed, that should have been Cavs ball but Indiana got it. Curious why there isn't any mention of that on here other than this thread is anti-Lebron focused.
1) That play wasn't clear-cut at all and gets into the indisputable evidence to overturn area
2) There were 35 seconds left not 3
3) It wasn't even a basket
4) The goaltend was clearcut and black and white
5) The goaltend occured with 3 seconds left
You really don't get it Tazz? Your better than this.
Pretty basic, surprised you don't understand
-
Why was it not reviewable? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen goaltending calls reviewed. No?
Apparently they can only review it if they called it a goaltend , not if they did not blow the whistle
Yeah they can only review calls that have a blown whistle or the clock stops immediately on the play (like a ball out of bounds).
Again though, that should not be a goal tend and the rules should be changed.
You keep saying that it should not be a goal tend. Who cares what the rules might be later when the NBA might or might not change them. By the rules today, that was a goaltend, and it had an impact on the game.
The real change that needs to happen is some type of coach's challenge maybe 2 a game that requires the refs to review the video.
Exactly. If we all wanted rules changed every time it would be something that benefitted our favorite player the league would be ridiculous. Strange argument to say the least.
The goaltending rule is fine the way it is. It’s clear cut, easy for refs to interpret by saying that if the ball touches the glass first it’s a goal tend. If you change that , it would leave too much of it up to interpretation and create a lot of variability of what is called a goal tend
-
I feel like when it is that close they have to be able to review it in that kind of situation. I don't want to see a game decided like that. You also have to feel like if the game was in Indiana it would have been called
THiS ^ ....
Deciding a playoff game is critical . Im not qualified to make the call, it appeared like a clean play to me . Under the circumstances tho , a play in the last two minutes that decides the game , needs to be reviewed , otherwise the game loses respect . The game was too close and hard played to let it be decided by a third party poor call.
I agree its hard for the refs to make the correct call, given angles and speed . That alone , should be enough reason to let the refs review the call to get it right.
I can live with the bad calls during first 46 minutes . But the last two minutes calls should be challenged , its just a shame how mnay games are decided in the last two minutes by poor ref calls. Let a coach burn a critical timeout to challenge a game critical play the last two minutes .
The block looked good to,me ...but the opposing coach should be allowed to challenge the call to get things right. Maybe each coach should get one FREE PLAY call , non foul related.
CHALLENGE or review during the last two minutes . Or one during OT.
-
I feel like when it is that close they have to be able to review it in that kind of situation. I don't want to see a game decided like that. You also have to feel like if the game was in Indiana it would have been called
THiS ^ ....
Deciding a playoff game is critical . Im not qualified to make the call, it appeared like a clean play to me . Under the circumstances tho , a play in the last two minutes that decides the game , needs to be reviewed . The game was too close and hard played to let it be decided by a third party poor call.
I agree its hard for the refs to make the correct call, given angles and speed . That alone , should be enough reason to let the refs review the call to get it right.
I can live with the bad calls during first 46 minutes . But the last two minutes calls should be challenged , its just a shame how mnay games are decided in the last two minutes by poor ref calls.
The block looked good to,me ...but the opposing coach should be allowed to challenge the call to get things right. Maybe each coach should get one FREE PLAY CHALLENGE during the last two minutes .
Yes. I have totally come around to this challenge rule. I just want it right at the end of the day and not feel like star players or teams are getting calls because they are at home. If the out of bounds play earlier was challenged by Cleveland and they got the ball I would have also felt better about it.
If they called this a goaltend after a challenge and Cleveland somehow decided to still go for 3 and won, I would have been happy that everything was on the up and up. The way this game was decided just leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth.
-
Didn't watch the game but listened to the Dunc'd on recap and they indicated that there was an out of bounds situation right before the block play, which didn't get reviewed, that should have been Cavs ball but Indiana got it. Curious why there isn't any mention of that on here other than this thread is anti-Lebron focused.
1) That play wasn't clear-cut at all and gets into the indisputable evidence to overturn area
2) There were 35 seconds left not 3
3) It wasn't even a basket
4) The goaltend was clearcut and black and white
5) The goaltend occured with 3 seconds left
You really don't get it Tazz? Your better than this.
Pretty basic, surprised you don't understand
Take a chill pill. Did you miss the "didn't watch the game" part and just heard it mentioned on a podcast? I'll watch the replay later today and be able to make my own assessment but am I not allowed to ask why others haven't mentioned it?
-
I feel like when it is that close they have to be able to review it in that kind of situation. I don't want to see a game decided like that. You also have to feel like if the game was in Indiana it would have been called
THiS ^ ....
Deciding a playoff game is critical . Im not qualified to make the call, it appeared like a clean play to me . Under the circumstances tho , a play in the last two minutes that decides the game , needs to be reviewed . The game was too close and hard played to let it be decided by a third party poor call.
I agree its hard for the refs to make the correct call, given angles and speed . That alone , should be enough reason to let the refs review the call to get it right.
I can live with the bad calls during first 46 minutes . But the last two minutes calls should be challenged , its just a shame how mnay games are decided in the last two minutes by poor ref calls.
The block looked good to,me ...but the opposing coach should be allowed to challenge the call to get things right. Maybe each coach should get one FREE PLAY CHALLENGE during the last two minutes .
Yes. I have totally come around to this challenge rule. I just want it right at the end of the day and not feel like star players or teams are getting calls because they are at home. If the out of bounds play earlier was challenged by Cleveland and they got the ball I would have also felt better about it.
If they called this a goaltend after a challenge and Cleveland somehow decided to still go for 3 and won, I would have been happy that everything was on the up and up. The way this game was decided just leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth.
yes it does . It would go along way to ensure professional integrity for the NBA to be certain as possible difficult calls are reviewed . A game like this playoff ...deserves a respectable outcome , that both side can live with.
The technology we have today allows a pretty good call to be confirmed by reviewing refs or officials.
The fans are getting better information on replays than the refs and its killing the game . I'm not wanting the whole game reviewed . Teams can play harder and make up for ref mistakes . But , during the last two minutes , a bad call throws a game , the fans go home mad and this does not help the NBA reputation.
-
Didn't watch the game but listened to the Dunc'd on recap and they indicated that there was an out of bounds situation right before the block play, which didn't get reviewed, that should have been Cavs ball but Indiana got it. Curious why there isn't any mention of that on here other than this thread is anti-Lebron focused.
1) That play wasn't clear-cut at all and gets into the indisputable evidence to overturn area
2) There were 35 seconds left not 3
3) It wasn't even a basket
4) The goaltend was clearcut and black and white
5) The goaltend occured with 3 seconds left
You really don't get it Tazz? Your better than this.
Pretty basic, surprised you don't understand
Take a chill pill. Did you miss the "didn't watch the game" part and just heard it mentioned on a podcast? I'll watch the replay later today and be able to make my own assessment but am I not allowed to ask why others haven't mentioned it?
Tazz if you are going to accuse everyone of being anti-lebron in a thread, you should at least know what you are talking about and have watched the plays in question. Whether or not you watched the game, you should understand people are going to talk more about a play that happens with 3 seconds left and involves a basket than a play with 33 seconds left that doesn't involve a basket. That is just common sense. Not sure why I need a chill pill for pointing that out and I think everyone would agree with me that a play with seconds left and a score is more controversial than a non-score 35 seconds earlier. This would be the case regardless of whether Lebron was involved or it was greg ostertag. Its a fair thing to call you out on.
-
It was definitely a goal tend but I think they also missed a call just before that play when they called the ball out of bounds on Lebron. The ball appeared to be knocked out of his hands, hit the baseline, hit LBJ and went out of bounds after that. Two missed calls IMO. Sometimes they even out in the end.
-
Even if the refs got the call right, the Pacers still lose. It's like everyone's forgetting that LeBron went down and hit a 3 afterwards. Sure the Pacers will run a slightly different defense (Sabonis and Oladipo would have probably been guarding the corner 3's instead of doubling Love in the post), but LeBron would still be guarded the same way at the top by Young. So even if the refs got the goaltend right, LeBron still hits the 3 and the Pacers still lose.
A lot more pressure taking a shot down two vs tie game.
Maybe he still bangs a three. Maybe they score two and send it to overtime, or maybe they miss.
Who knows.
-
Didn't watch the game but listened to the Dunc'd on recap and they indicated that there was an out of bounds situation right before the block play, which didn't get reviewed, that should have been Cavs ball but Indiana got it. Curious why there isn't any mention of that on here other than this thread is anti-Lebron focused.
1) That play wasn't clear-cut at all and gets into the indisputable evidence to overturn area
2) There were 35 seconds left not 3
3) It wasn't even a basket
4) The goaltend was clearcut and black and white
5) The goaltend occured with 3 seconds left
You really don't get it Tazz? Your better than this.
Pretty basic, surprised you don't understand
Take a chill pill. Did you miss the "didn't watch the game" part and just heard it mentioned on a podcast? I'll watch the replay later today and be able to make my own assessment but am I not allowed to ask why others haven't mentioned it?
Tazz if you are going to accuse everyone of being anti-lebron in a thread, you should at least know what you are talking about and have watched the plays in question. Whether or not you watched the game, you should understand people are going to talk more about a play that happens with 3 seconds left and involves a basket than a play with 33 seconds left that doesn't involve a basket. That is just common sense. Not sure why I need a chill pill for pointing that out and I think everyone would agree with me that a play with seconds left and a score is more controversial than a non-score 35 seconds earlier. This would be the case regardless of whether Lebron was involved or it was greg ostertag. Its a fair thing to call you out on.
I feel like Tazz asked a perfectly valid and innocent question, that for some reason, you seemed to take offense to. I was watching the Bruins game, so I was also completely unaware of that out of bounds play. I assume you must also think that the non-call shot clock violation in game 5 of the Celtics-Bucks series had no effect at the end of the game, simply because it didn't occur with only 3 seconds left.
-
Didn't watch the game but listened to the Dunc'd on recap and they indicated that there was an out of bounds situation right before the block play, which didn't get reviewed, that should have been Cavs ball but Indiana got it. Curious why there isn't any mention of that on here other than this thread is anti-Lebron focused.
1) That play wasn't clear-cut at all and gets into the indisputable evidence to overturn area
2) There were 35 seconds left not 3
3) It wasn't even a basket
4) The goaltend was clearcut and black and white
5) The goaltend occured with 3 seconds left
You really don't get it Tazz? Your better than this.
Pretty basic, surprised you don't understand
Take a chill pill. Did you miss the "didn't watch the game" part and just heard it mentioned on a podcast? I'll watch the replay later today and be able to make my own assessment but am I not allowed to ask why others haven't mentioned it?
Tazz if you are going to accuse everyone of being anti-lebron in a thread, you should at least know what you are talking about and have watched the plays in question. Whether or not you watched the game, you should understand people are going to talk more about a play that happens with 3 seconds left and involves a basket than a play with 33 seconds left that doesn't involve a basket. That is just common sense. Not sure why I need a chill pill for pointing that out and I think everyone would agree with me that a play with seconds left and a score is more controversial than a non-score 35 seconds earlier. This would be the case regardless of whether Lebron was involved or it was greg ostertag. Its a fair thing to call you out on.
I feel like Tazz asked a perfectly valid and innocent question, that for some reason, you seemed to take offense to. I was watching the Bruins game, so I was also completely unaware of that out of bounds play. I assume you must also think that the non-call shot clock violation in game 5 of the Celtics-Bucks series had no effect at the end of the game, simply because it didn't occur with only 3 seconds left.
If he didn't throw in the insult, sure it would have been innocent. However, saying people are only discussing this in a certain way because because they dislike a certain player is a fly-by insult and invalidates people's opinion's who actually did watch the game. That is not called for.
Secondly, to answer your question, I did not say the out of bounds play was not relevant to the outcome of the game. He asked why people were talking more over the goaltend than the out of bounds play. I explained why, and I do think that is pretty common sense (at end of game, actually involved a basket being scored etc).
However, if you don't understand this I can apply it to the celtics. Did that shot clock violation matter? Yes absolutely, they would have had a small chance to still win the game if they got the ball back down 5 with a minute left. However, to take this further, it certainly mattered way less than Jaylen Brown being fouled in game 4 with 30 seconds left when he should have been shooting free throws. People that are not fans of either team are going to discuss that Brown value more than they are the shot clock, cause the importance it had on the impact of the game is so much greater.
If you really don't understand the difference in value for these plays, there are actually systems that score how much specific plays impact win probability. I am more familiar with them for the NFL but they do exist for the NBA also. You can also look at the win probability charts throughout the game.
-
Didn't watch the game but listened to the Dunc'd on recap and they indicated that there was an out of bounds situation right before the block play, which didn't get reviewed, that should have been Cavs ball but Indiana got it. Curious why there isn't any mention of that on here other than this thread is anti-Lebron focused.
1) That play wasn't clear-cut at all and gets into the indisputable evidence to overturn area
2) There were 35 seconds left not 3
3) It wasn't even a basket
4) The goaltend was clearcut and black and white
5) The goaltend occured with 3 seconds left
You really don't get it Tazz? Your better than this.
Pretty basic, surprised you don't understand
Take a chill pill. Did you miss the "didn't watch the game" part and just heard it mentioned on a podcast? I'll watch the replay later today and be able to make my own assessment but am I not allowed to ask why others haven't mentioned it?
Tazz if you are going to accuse everyone of being anti-lebron in a thread, you should at least know what you are talking about and have watched the plays in question. Whether or not you watched the game, you should understand people are going to talk more about a play that happens with 3 seconds left and involves a basket than a play with 33 seconds left that doesn't involve a basket. That is just common sense. Not sure why I need a chill pill for pointing that out and I think everyone would agree with me that a play with seconds left and a score is more controversial than a non-score 35 seconds earlier. This would be the case regardless of whether Lebron was involved or it was greg ostertag. Its a fair thing to call you out on.
I feel like Tazz asked a perfectly valid and innocent question, that for some reason, you seemed to take offense to. I was watching the Bruins game, so I was also completely unaware of that out of bounds play. I assume you must also think that the non-call shot clock violation in game 5 of the Celtics-Bucks series had no effect at the end of the game, simply because it didn't occur with only 3 seconds left.
If he didn't throw in the insult, sure it would have been innocent. However, saying people are only discussing this in a certain way because because they dislike a certain player is a fly-by insult and invalidates people's opinion's who actually did watch the game. That is not called for.
Secondly, to answer your question, I did not say the out of bounds play was not relevant to the outcome of the game. He asked why people were talking more over the goaltend than the out of bounds play. I explained why, and I do think that is pretty common sense (at end of game, actually involved a basket being scored etc).
However, if you don't understand this I can apply it to the celtics. Did that shot clock violation matter? Yes absolutely, they would have had a small chance to still win the game if they got the ball back down 5 with a minute left. However, to take this further, it certainly mattered way less than Jaylen Brown being fouled in game 4 with 30 seconds left when he should have been shooting free throws. People that are not fans of either team are going to discuss that Brown value more than they are the shot clock, cause the importance it had on the impact of the game is so much greater.
If you really don't understand the difference in value for these plays, there are actually systems that score how much specific plays impact win probability. I am more familiar with them for the NFL but they do exist for the NBA also. You can also look at the win probability charts throughout the game.
You don't think an incorrect change of possession call with 26.3 seconds left in the game could have significantly altered the outcome of the game. If they get the James out of bounds play call correct, there is no drive by Oladipo to even be arguing about.
-
Didn't watch the game but listened to the Dunc'd on recap and they indicated that there was an out of bounds situation right before the block play, which didn't get reviewed, that should have been Cavs ball but Indiana got it. Curious why there isn't any mention of that on here other than this thread is anti-Lebron focused.
1) That play wasn't clear-cut at all and gets into the indisputable evidence to overturn area
2) There were 35 seconds left not 3
3) It wasn't even a basket
4) The goaltend was clearcut and black and white
5) The goaltend occured with 3 seconds left
You really don't get it Tazz? Your better than this.
Pretty basic, surprised you don't understand
Take a chill pill. Did you miss the "didn't watch the game" part and just heard it mentioned on a podcast? I'll watch the replay later today and be able to make my own assessment but am I not allowed to ask why others haven't mentioned it?
Tazz if you are going to accuse everyone of being anti-lebron in a thread, you should at least know what you are talking about and have watched the plays in question. Whether or not you watched the game, you should understand people are going to talk more about a play that happens with 3 seconds left and involves a basket than a play with 33 seconds left that doesn't involve a basket. That is just common sense. Not sure why I need a chill pill for pointing that out and I think everyone would agree with me that a play with seconds left and a score is more controversial than a non-score 35 seconds earlier. This would be the case regardless of whether Lebron was involved or it was greg ostertag. Its a fair thing to call you out on.
I feel like Tazz asked a perfectly valid and innocent question, that for some reason, you seemed to take offense to. I was watching the Bruins game, so I was also completely unaware of that out of bounds play. I assume you must also think that the non-call shot clock violation in game 5 of the Celtics-Bucks series had no effect at the end of the game, simply because it didn't occur with only 3 seconds left.
If he didn't throw in the insult, sure it would have been innocent. However, saying people are only discussing this in a certain way because because they dislike a certain player is a fly-by insult and invalidates people's opinion's who actually did watch the game. That is not called for.
Secondly, to answer your question, I did not say the out of bounds play was not relevant to the outcome of the game. He asked why people were talking more over the goaltend than the out of bounds play. I explained why, and I do think that is pretty common sense (at end of game, actually involved a basket being scored etc).
However, if you don't understand this I can apply it to the celtics. Did that shot clock violation matter? Yes absolutely, they would have had a small chance to still win the game if they got the ball back down 5 with a minute left. However, to take this further, it certainly mattered way less than Jaylen Brown being fouled in game 4 with 30 seconds left when he should have been shooting free throws. People that are not fans of either team are going to discuss that Brown value more than they are the shot clock, cause the importance it had on the impact of the game is so much greater.
If you really don't understand the difference in value for these plays, there are actually systems that score how much specific plays impact win probability. I am more familiar with them for the NFL but they do exist for the NBA also. You can also look at the win probability charts throughout the game.
You don't think an incorrect change of possession call with 26.3 seconds left in the game could have significantly altered the outcome of the game. If they get the James out of bounds play call correct, there is no drive by Oladipo to even be arguing about.
Did you not read Moranis? I really don't know how I could have been more clear with this. For the 3rd time now, I am not saying the out of bounds play did not matter. I am answering his question why a play that would result in a basket with 3 seconds left is being discussed a lot more. Jeez. Board is having a tough day here....
-
The league has always allowed LeBron to goal tend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OQalbnPdiY
I always felt he is a great player who got tons of help from the league as their chosen one for his tenure.
-
It was undeniably a goaltend and changed the outcome of the game. Had the refs counted the basket Lebron doesn't have the luxury of taking a zero pressure 28 footer because they'd be down 2 and a miss results in a 3-2 series deficit. But because the refs ignored the goaltend and the game was tied it was a no-lose situation for Lebron. A miss still gives them OT and the make wins it. And on the Oladipo drive Lebron can be seen grabbing his arm on the way up so technically it could have been an AND 1. But it's the NBA and they don't want to see and Indiana vs Toronto/Wiz series in round 2.
-
Didn't watch the game but listened to the Dunc'd on recap and they indicated that there was an out of bounds situation right before the block play, which didn't get reviewed, that should have been Cavs ball but Indiana got it. Curious why there isn't any mention of that on here other than this thread is anti-Lebron focused.
1) That play wasn't clear-cut at all and gets into the indisputable evidence to overturn area
2) There were 35 seconds left not 3
3) It wasn't even a basket
4) The goaltend was clearcut and black and white
5) The goaltend occured with 3 seconds left
You really don't get it Tazz? Your better than this.
Pretty basic, surprised you don't understand
Take a chill pill. Did you miss the "didn't watch the game" part and just heard it mentioned on a podcast? I'll watch the replay later today and be able to make my own assessment but am I not allowed to ask why others haven't mentioned it?
Tazz if you are going to accuse everyone of being anti-lebron in a thread, you should at least know what you are talking about and have watched the plays in question. Whether or not you watched the game, you should understand people are going to talk more about a play that happens with 3 seconds left and involves a basket than a play with 33 seconds left that doesn't involve a basket. That is just common sense. Not sure why I need a chill pill for pointing that out and I think everyone would agree with me that a play with seconds left and a score is more controversial than a non-score 35 seconds earlier. This would be the case regardless of whether Lebron was involved or it was greg ostertag. Its a fair thing to call you out on.
I feel like Tazz asked a perfectly valid and innocent question, that for some reason, you seemed to take offense to. I was watching the Bruins game, so I was also completely unaware of that out of bounds play. I assume you must also think that the non-call shot clock violation in game 5 of the Celtics-Bucks series had no effect at the end of the game, simply because it didn't occur with only 3 seconds left.
A bad call is a bad call, regardless of the time left in the game. But are all bad calls created equal? I personally don’t think so.
I always have a much bigger issue with scoring plays. So of course incorrect foul calls and goaltends are more significant to me than whether a guy was .5 inch on the baseline.
The now infamous shot clock violation was not a scoring play. Horford didn’t hit that shot and had he gotten it off .2 seconds earlier, would that excuse Milwaukee for not securing the rebound? The play wasn’t dead yet and they didn’t get the rebound. Even after that, Celtics didn’t score on the second chance. So yes time came off the clock, but it didn’t change the score.
I know the rules are what they are but it’s getting ridiculous to put so much on the refs when this sport is arguably the fastest there is and there are only 3 refs per game. You can’t even hesitate for a split second because apparently a late whistle means a bailout call. It’s really not an easy job and when the rules state they can review, they usually do.
Refs in every sport get calls wrong, but NBA players complain more than any other sport, all game long.
NBA needs to expand their crews to four (if even just for the playoffs) and also allow more reviews. I don’t see how they want the game to be played quicker and called perfectly. I’d rather a game take an extra five minutes and get more bang-bang plays reviewed.
-
Just walking through rule scenarios here - the LeBron block could've been reviewed if it was called a goaltend live, because the ball would be dead. Or maybe even if he'd blocked it out of bounds. The continuation of play after the block is what ruled it out.
But what would happen if (not here obviously) a reviewed goaltend that stayed inbounds was ruled a clean block? Would Cleveland get the ball automatically, or would Indiana have it with the remaining shot clock? Anybody know?
-
Just walking through rule scenarios here - the LeBron block could've been reviewed if it was called a goaltend live, because the ball would be dead. Or maybe even if he'd blocked it out of bounds. The continuation of play after the block is what ruled it out.
But what would happen if (not here obviously) a reviewed goaltend that stayed inbounds was ruled a clean block? Would Cleveland get the ball automatically, or would Indiana have it with the remaining shot clock? Anybody know?
I am not positive on this, but I believe if they whistled it for a goaltend and reviewed and it was determined to be clean, it would be called a jump ball. I don't think you have a clear recovery rule like you do on a fumble in the NFL, but maybe I am wrong.
-
Why was it not reviewable? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen goaltending calls reviewed. No?
Apparently they can only review it if they called it a goaltend , not if they did not blow the whistle
Yeah they can only review calls that have a blown whistle or the clock stops immediately on the play (like a ball out of bounds).
Again though, that should not be a goal tend and the rules should be changed.
You keep saying that it should not be a goal tend. Who cares what the rules might be later when the NBA might or might not change them. By the rules today, that was a goaltend, and it had an impact on the game.
The real change that needs to happen is some type of coach's challenge maybe 2 a game that requires the refs to review the video.
Exactly. If we all wanted rules changed every time it would be something that benefitted our favorite player the league would be ridiculous. Strange argument to say the least.
The goaltending rule is fine the way it is. It’s clear cut, easy for refs to interpret by saying that if the ball touches the glass first it’s a goal tend. If you change that , it would leave too much of it up to interpretation and create a lot of variability of what is called a goal tend
This. The current rule is a lot less ambiguous than a ref having to decide whether a ball is at the top of its arc etc.
-
im not in favor of giving coaches challenges to use throughout the game like then NFL does, HOWEVER. I do think that inside of the final 2 minutes of the game, if a team has a timeout left, they can take said timeout and ask the officials to review any reviewable play. if youre not responsible with your timeouts and you have none left, then youre at the mercy of the the current rules like this one where the play wouldnt be reviewable bc theres no dead ball
-
Totally should have been called under the current rules, but they should change the rules as that shouldn't have been a goal tend. The ball was still going up and wasn't directly over the hoop.
Umm, yes, it should have been a goaltend because it was a goaltend. You're not allowed to touch the ball once it hits the backboard, nor are you allowed to hit the backboard when someone is attempting a layup, which is never enforced, anymore, much like the provision concerning as to how players are not allowed to touch the net or put their hand(s) in the basket during a shot attempt. I think. Does anyone else remember when Pau Gasol blatantly goaltended Courtney Lee's shot at the end of regulation in Game 2 of the 2009 NBA Finals? Dude literally put his hand in the basket and hit the backboard all at once, and even Phil Jackson admitted that it should have been called, albeit two days later, lol ::) -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7hXMtcRy4
http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4246830
-
Totally should have been called under the current rules, but they should change the rules as that shouldn't have been a goal tend. The ball was still going up and wasn't directly over the hoop.
Umm, yes, it should have been a goal tend because it was a goal tend. You're not allowed to touch the ball once it hits the backboard, nor are you allowed to hit the backboard when someone is attempting a layup, which is never enforced, anymore, much like the provision concerning as to how players are not allowed to touch the net or put their hand(s) in the basket during a shot attempt. I think. Does anyone else remember when Pau Gasol blatantly goal tended Courtney Lee's shot at the end of regulation in Game 2 of the 2009 NBA Finals? Dude literally put his hand in the basket and hit the backboard all at once, and even Phil Jackson admitted that it should have been called, albeit two days later, lol ::) -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7hXMtcRy4
http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4246830
Pau also had an up-and-down that went uncalled (and on which he scored) against the Cs in Game 7 of the 2010 Finals. He must have friends in high places.
-
Totally should have been called under the current rules, but they should change the rules as that shouldn't have been a goal tend. The ball was still going up and wasn't directly over the hoop.
Umm, yes, it should have been a goaltend because it was a goaltend. You're not allowed to touch the ball once it hits the backboard, nor are you allowed to hit the backboard when someone is attempting a layup, which is never enforced, anymore, much like the provision concerning as to how players are not allowed to touch the net or put their hand(s) in the basket during a shot attempt. I think. Does anyone else remember when Pau Gasol blatantly goaltended Courtney Lee's shot at the end of regulation in Game 2 of the 2009 NBA Finals? Dude literally put his hand in the basket and hit the backboard all at once, and even Phil Jackson admitted that it should have been called, albeit two days later, lol ::) -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7hXMtcRy4
http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4246830
Pau also had an up-and-down that went uncalled (and on which he scored) against the Cs in Game 7 of the 2010 Finals. He must have friends in high places.
Oh yeah, I remember that, believe me, although, as Bill Walton said afterwards, Boston lost that series in Game 3, and I'll always wonder as to whether or not Michael Finley - yes, Michael Finley - could have stepped in for that other guy after the latter was kneed in the thigh on his first jumper by the artist formerly known as Ron Artest ::) and never shot the same way for the rest of that series, I believe, but don't quote me on that.
Anyway, what's let's say "interesting" ::) about Gasol, imo, is that, if you remember as to how hey whined on what seemed like every single play despite routinely going over the backs of KG, Sheed, Perk, etc. which always resulted in fouls/free throws for the Lakers, when the latter played the Mavericks that very next year, the officials never gave him any of those calls, despite his antics, and haven't since. Hmm...::)
Honestly, though, and while that Game was almost a carbon copy of Game 7 between the Bulls and Pacers in the 1998 ECF, the reality was that Boston beat itself, too often, offensively, imo, and needed more depth in the form of, say, Wesley Matthews and Jerry Stackhouse, plus Finley, if they were to have beaten the Lakers. Brandon Bass in place of Glen Davis would have helped tremendously, as well, imo, and guys like Jannero Pargo and Jason Williams could have been had as a backup/backups for Rondo. Joe Smith could have been helpful, too, not to mention Ben Wallace, but we'll never know now, 2K notwithstanding, of course, lol. Sigh.
-
Why was it not reviewable? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen goaltending calls reviewed. No?
Apparently they can only review it if they called it a goaltend , not if they did not blow the whistle
Yeah they can only review calls that have a blown whistle or the clock stops immediately on the play (like a ball out of bounds).
Again though, that should not be a goal tend and the rules should be changed.
You keep saying that it should not be a goal tend. Who cares what the rules might be later when the NBA might or might not change them. By the rules today, that was a goaltend, and it had an impact on the game.
The real change that needs to happen is some type of coach's challenge maybe 2 a game that requires the refs to review the video.
Exactly. If we all wanted rules changed every time it would be something that benefitted our favorite player the league would be ridiculous. Strange argument to say the least.
The goaltending rule is fine the way it is. It’s clear cut, easy for refs to interpret by saying that if the ball touches the glass first it’s a goal tend. If you change that , it would leave too much of it up to interpretation and create a lot of variability of what is called a goal tend
This. The current rule is a lot less ambiguous than a ref having to decide whether a ball is at the top of its arc etc.
they do that everywhere else
-
Totally should have been called under the current rules, but they should change the rules as that shouldn't have been a goal tend. The ball was still going up and wasn't directly over the hoop.
Umm, yes, it should have been a goaltend because it was a goaltend. You're not allowed to touch the ball once it hits the backboard, nor are you allowed to hit the backboard when someone is attempting a layup, which is never enforced, anymore, much like the provision concerning as to how players are not allowed to touch the net or put their hand(s) in the basket during a shot attempt. I think. Does anyone else remember when Pau Gasol blatantly goaltended Courtney Lee's shot at the end of regulation in Game 2 of the 2009 NBA Finals? Dude literally put his hand in the basket and hit the backboard all at once, and even Phil Jackson admitted that it should have been called, albeit two days later, lol ::) -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7hXMtcRy4
http://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4246830
not sure what this has to do with my post at all
-
It was undeniably a goaltend and changed the outcome of the game. Had the refs counted the basket Lebron doesn't have the luxury of taking a zero pressure 28 footer because they'd be down 2 and a miss results in a 3-2 series deficit. But because the refs ignored the goaltend and the game was tied it was a no-lose situation for Lebron. A miss still gives them OT and the make wins it. And on the Oladipo drive Lebron can be seen grabbing his arm on the way up so technically it could have been an AND 1. But it's the NBA and they don't want to see and Indiana vs Toronto/Wiz series in round 2.
It undeniably was a goaltend and undeniably altered the SCORE of the game. Unfortunately we’ll never know what the outcome would have been if the call had been different. And the refs didn’t let Lebron goaltend. Was a bang bang play that was very very difficult.
-
That was the call that will enrout LeBron James to the NBA Finals.
-
im not in favor of giving coaches challenges to use throughout the game like then NFL does, HOWEVER. I do think that inside of the final 2 minutes of the game, if a team has a timeout left, they can take said timeout and ask the officials to review any reviewable play. if youre not responsible with your timeouts and you have none left, then youre at the mercy of the the current rules like this one where the play wouldnt be reviewable bc theres no dead ball
Coaches challenges would have many of the same issues as the current rule. You’re certainly not going to let a coach challenge while the play is live. Can you imagine a coach running on the court to stop a fast break? And once the next play has happened, you are not going to review a challenge and undo what happened afterwards.
-
I’ll start off by saying I’m as big of a lebron hater as anyone.
But, it isn’t clear that was a goaltend. The rule clearly states that a ball that hits the backboard before being blocked is a goal-tend if it is ABOVE the ring.
From my POV it is not clear that ball was above the rim.
-
I’ll start off by saying I’m as big of a lebron hater as anyone.
But, it isn’t clear that was a goaltend. The rule clearly states that a ball that hits the backboard before being blocked is a goal-tend if it is ABOVE the ring.
From my POV it is not clear that ball was above the rim.
the league already confirmed it was a goaltend. They also confirmed that Indiana never should have had possession to begin with though.
-
I’ll start off by saying I’m as big of a lebron hater as anyone.
But, it isn’t clear that was a goaltend. The rule clearly states that a ball that hits the backboard before being blocked is a goal-tend if it is ABOVE the ring.
From my POV it is not clear that ball was above the rim.
It doesn’t have to be above the rim. The rule is, if it hits the glass first and is then blocked, it’s a goaltend
-
I’ll start off by saying I’m as big of a lebron hater as anyone.
But, it isn’t clear that was a goaltend. The rule clearly states that a ball that hits the backboard before being blocked is a goal-tend if it is ABOVE the ring.
From my POV it is not clear that ball was above the rim.
It doesn’t have to be above the rim. The rule is, if it hits the glass first and is then blocked, it’s a goaltend
you are both sort of correct as their are two separate rules for blocking a ball after it touches the backboard.
d. During a field goal attempt, touch a ball after it has touched any part of the backboard above ring level, whether the ball is considered on its upward or downward flight.
e. During a field goal attempt, touch a ball after it has touched the backboard below the ring level and while the ball is on its upward flight.
In either case, the block was a goal tend.
My personal opinion (as I've stated in this thread) is Rule E should be eliminated. If the ball is still going up you should be allowed to block it even if it hit the backboard first as that would make it like any other position on the floor.
-
Are the NBA defenders watching? This is why these stars are larger than life..they are allowed to foul on offense and defense, and now they can goaltend too....no wonder LeBlock makes NBA all defense teams..
I mean, in real time there was zero percent chance they could tell if that was on the glass or not, and they can't review it under the current rules.
Even in super slow, 60 FPS slo mo, the ball barley gets to the glass before he blocks it. I think your asking a bit much for an official to determine in real time if that ball touched on it's own before Lebron swatted the hell out of it.
Now, if you want to say the NBA refs suck, i agree in general.
If you want to say that the call should have been reviewable as well.....eh. I think we've given wayyyyy to much to replay and sorry, sometimes human error is part of sports. All of the sudden we would have replay review on every stinking play in the final two minutes.
I'm having a hard time working up outrage on this particular call for the above reason.
-
Are the NBA defenders watching? This is why these stars are larger than life..they are allowed to foul on offense and defense, and now they can goaltend too....no wonder LeBlock makes NBA all defense teams..
I mean, in real time there was zero percent chance they could tell if that was on the glass or not, and they can't review it under the current rules.
Even in super slow, 60 FPS slo mo, the ball barley gets to the glass before he blocks it. I think your asking a bit much for an official to determine in real time if that ball touched on it's own before Lebron swatted the hell out of it.
Now, if you want to say the NBA refs suck, i agree in general.
If you want to say that the call should have been reviewable as well.....eh. I think we've given wayyyyy to much to replay and sorry, sometimes human error is part of sports. All of the sudden we would have replay review on every stinking play in the final two minutes.
I'm having a hard time working up outrage on this particular call for the above reason.
Youre absolutely right, except I don’t think I general the refs suck. They’re the best in the world, which more than anything shows you how difficult the job is. Of course, the typical fan has no perception. Players make mistakes, coaches makes mistakes, yet refs are expected to be perfect? Makes no sense whatsoever.
I mean, I’m cool with some replay but oftent it takes away from the experience, which is why we watch (not just the outcome).