Oh my goodness, that is huge. Ibaka straight up pushed Ginobli when he was the one inbounding the ball.
NBA officiating is so effing terrible, and how many calls now have they blown in the last two minutes that cost playoff games?
If I'm Pop I'm raising all sorts of hell about that, especially being RIGHT IN FRONT of the referee... There's going to be some hell to pay there.
The Spurs got the ball. They choked at the end. They had a 3 v 1 and blew it.
No way can you blame the refs. The Spurs blew a great chance at the end.
Yeah, I can't blame the refs for expecting them to do their jobs 
I get it you want the Spurs to win cause then Durant leaves so your judgement is clouded. The refs made a decision to swallow their whistles. They could had called a bad foul on green when he got the ball from Durant. It was a mad scramble. Spurs choked.
You're so out there sometimes it's not even worth arguing with you.
Webber blew a gasket over it.
The NBA on TNT crew is blowing a gasket over it.
But, no, you're right. No big deal.
Riiiiight. Cause you are only getting charged up cause you want Durant. We all do but the Spurs choked that last play. They aren't getting a better chance out of a timeout then a 3v1. That's why Pop didn't call a timeout. They benefitted and choked.
Okay, bud. You're the one with the burden of proof saying that it's not a big deal that an obvious missed call was not called, because most rational people see the logic behind the argument that it is, in fact, a big deal. Keep reveling in your biased ignorance just because you made a post earlier this game saying how good the refs have been. 
And what did I say earlier? That the refs have swallowed their whistles so far. Isn't that what happened at the end of the game? How is that any different then what I posted earlier?
The Spurs could had called a timeout but the 3v1 was a much higher percentage. Tell me how the Spurs got screwed? They choked.
Last time that I'm indulging you, because you don't seem to be rational or objective enough at the moment to look at the play objectively.
Here's the play again: https://twitter.com/Deadspin/status/727349361785626624
That's only justifiably "swallowing their whistles" and "not screwing over the Spurs" to OKC fans. There's absolutely no justification for not calling that call whatsoever, and I'd be saying the exact same thing if the roles were reversed.
You still haven't told me what better play the Spurs would have other than that 3v1.
The point I'm making is not if it was a foul or not but that the Spurs choked and can't blame the refs.
Yes, you can. It doesn't matter what happened after the no-call, because a stoppage in play would've necessarily happened and forced Pop to take a timeout. You have absolutely no idea what would've happened after that if the call was called correctly, so saying that they didn't score on the 3v1 so they don't deserve a second chance doesn't make any sense.
Listen to Ginobili. He came to his senses saying they had their chance.
If teams can protest a call that they still got the ball then maybe the Thunder can protest other calls. Slippery slope. Not happening.
THIS WAS MORE THAN JUST A SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF A FOUL! This is illegal contact. There's no interpretation to it.
In fact, if I remember right Ginobli was called for a technical for a similar play against us last year. IT was taking out the ball, and Ginobli was guarding him and touched the ball. Let me find it, but I swear I remember it and it cost them free throws.
You sure get worked up.
No need to work up the sweat man. All I said was the Spurs choked a 3v1. Mistakes happen and missed calls happen all the time. The ref swallowed his whistle. The Spurs still had the ball on a 3v1. They choked.
Because you're calling apples oranges, which isn't logical. I can accept the fact that they'd swallow their whistle on a subjective foul. What I can't accept is them not calling a blatant violation right in front of the ref. It would be like Westbrook double-dribbling or stepping out of bounds right in front of the ref and them not calling it, which is just wrong. The NBA on TNT crew had a reffing source just say that it was definitely a violation, and it could've even been a technical foul plus the ball.
But this won't be the last we hear of it. I fully expect the Spurs to protest it, though I did just see where Ginobli's toe might've been on the line, too. That might ultimately give the NBA the cajones to not do anything about this.
If anything, this just shows how much we need coach's challenges in the NBA. Officials have blown numerous potentially game-changing calls now in the playoffs, and the stakes are too high to just let them continue to alter games in this way.
If you want to say I'm calling apples oranges then go ahead and work out how you came to that conclusion cause I guarantee you are just making that statement cause you are frustrated that I'm right.
I've done told you how it is different (and so has Max, by the way), so the fact that you still cannot grasp how that's different than a subjective foul not being called means I shouldn't waste anymore breath on you. Or it means that you're not really aware of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, but here it goes.
There's objective criteria for what is and isn't a foul, but since referees are human and fallible, there's necessarily subjectivity that plays into what constitutes a foul for each ref.
Other violations, though, are not subjective in that sense, because there's no qualitative measurements. Rather, it's a binary, bifurcated system, i.e. either the violation was committed or not.
This play that we were talking about is of the latter variety, so subjectivity and interpretation should have nothing to do with it. Under no circumstances can the imbounder of the ball make contact with the person in bounds defending him; otherwise, it's a violation. Thus, every single ref in that situation should call that violation no matter what.
Therefore, you saying that the refs were "letting them play" and "swallowing their whistles" makes no sense in this context, because that would be like saying that they're "swallowing their whistles" by not calling out of bounds violations anymore, which obviously doesn't make any sense. So, once again, yes, you were comparing apples to oranges. Surely you can grasp your fallacious reasoning this time after numerous posters have pointed it out and it's been repeated at least thrice.
So who is frustrated because the other person is right now?
(For future reference - don't argue logic with a philosopher, especially when you're using fallacious reasoning in your arguments.
)
