NBA Playoffs 2015-2016

[Smart457]

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. 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.

Just because 5 biased Celtics fans who want Durant are complaining, does not mean you are correct. Do you honestly believe that is what proves who is making a better point? That seems like a stance a shallow minded person would take.

The part about me comparing one view to another. I never did. So you can take your subjective or not subjective argument and apply it somewhere it makes more sense to.

[Smart457]

If you're Pop, do you protest the game?

Yes. They do have some sort of mechanism to address that, don't they?

I remember Memphis won a game on a Courtney Lee layup with .3 seconds left, and some team who had Javale McGee at the time said that he tipped it, meaning time would've ran out before he could put it in. The NBA reviewed it and ruled against the protest.

They should be able to protest (if they want to). The grounds for a protest are VERY open-ended; they basically permit a team to challenge the outcome of the game if there was any major mistake that impacted the outcome of the game. The most recent example was in a Heat vs. Hawks game in 2008; Shaq was given a 6th foul incorrectly, disqualifying him from the game. The Heat protested, won, and the game was finished later.

But the Spurs got the ball.

I'm trying to figure out the logic here. Why are you complaining? The Spurs had a very high percentage chance to score on a 3 v 1.

Because I think the (no) call was incorrect. It doesn't matter that the result was a good opportunity for the Spurs. The rules are in place for a reason. There were several CLEAR violations of the rules on that play. Swallowing whistles is one thing when it comes to something a bit more subjective (contact down low), but the rules are explcit and clear when it comes to what happened on that play. I'm not sure how one can watch that play and not be annoyed that nothing was called.

You do realize that fouls are missed at all points during the game. Are they going to protest because a missed call happened in the first quarter also now?

Yes, technically speaking an incorrect call with 45 minutes remaining has the same impact as an incorrect call with 45 seconds left--I think the 2 minute report should be a 48 minute report because of this. However, it's naive to pretend that a call like that with 45:13 remaining is the same as that call with 13 seconds remaining. A missed call at a crucial moment in a playoff game potentially changed the outcome of the game, and that bothers me. Clearly that doesn't bother you, so there's really no sense in continuing to argue over this point.

You are asking for a protest so the Spurs can get the ball back when they indeed got the ball back. I think I'm making more sense.

1. I never said they should protest, but rather that they could.
2. You don't seem to understand that I don't care about the outcome. The process is what bothers me. I resent the fact that several blatant violations of the rules were committed directly in front of officials, who in turn, ignored said violations. Why have rules if they are not going to be enforced?

They missed Patty Mills taking like 5 steps in the middle of the fourth. Missed calls happen. If the Spurs didn't get the ball then I would feel bad for them but they did. Apparently Leonard was grabbing Westbrook's jersey but refs normally let players get away with stuff at the end of games. It's probably why there was no call.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I can respect that. Good thing you aren't also a philosopher cause they are so much smarter then the rest of us. But honestly good to know people like you are on the board. We will respectfully agree to disagree.

[jpotter33]

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. 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.

Just because 5 biased Celtics fans who want Durant are complaining, does not mean you are correct. Do you honestly believe that is what proves who is making a better point? That seems like a stance a shallow minded person would take.

The part about me comparing one view to another. I never did. So you can take your subjective or not subjective argument and apply it somewhere it makes more sense to.

Haha okay, obviously you're not grasping the argument. We'll agree to disagree. No point in arguing any further on this.

[MBunge]

Mistakes happen

It wasn't a mistake.  It was a perfect demonstration of the fundamentally corrupt nature of NBA officiating.  That everyone in the NBA has been conditioned to accept the corruption is irrelevant.

If a Major League umpire did his job the way the average NBA ref does his, not only would he have a different strike zone for each player but he would arbitrarily change those strike zones at different points in the game.

Mike

[jpotter33]

If you're Pop, do you protest the game?

Yes. They do have some sort of mechanism to address that, don't they?

I remember Memphis won a game on a Courtney Lee layup with .3 seconds left, and some team who had Javale McGee at the time said that he tipped it, meaning time would've ran out before he could put it in. The NBA reviewed it and ruled against the protest.

They should be able to protest (if they want to). The grounds for a protest are VERY open-ended; they basically permit a team to challenge the outcome of the game if there was any major mistake that impacted the outcome of the game. The most recent example was in a Heat vs. Hawks game in 2008; Shaq was given a 6th foul incorrectly, disqualifying him from the game. The Heat protested, won, and the game was finished later.

But the Spurs got the ball.

I'm trying to figure out the logic here. Why are you complaining? The Spurs had a very high percentage chance to score on a 3 v 1.

Because I think the (no) call was incorrect. It doesn't matter that the result was a good opportunity for the Spurs. The rules are in place for a reason. There were several CLEAR violations of the rules on that play. Swallowing whistles is one thing when it comes to something a bit more subjective (contact down low), but the rules are explcit and clear when it comes to what happened on that play. I'm not sure how one can watch that play and not be annoyed that nothing was called.

You do realize that fouls are missed at all points during the game. Are they going to protest because a missed call happened in the first quarter also now?

Yes, technically speaking an incorrect call with 45 minutes remaining has the same impact as an incorrect call with 45 seconds left--I think the 2 minute report should be a 48 minute report because of this. However, it's naive to pretend that a call like that with 45:13 remaining is the same as that call with 13 seconds remaining. A missed call at a crucial moment in a playoff game potentially changed the outcome of the game, and that bothers me. Clearly that doesn't bother you, so there's really no sense in continuing to argue over this point.

You are asking for a protest so the Spurs can get the ball back when they indeed got the ball back. I think I'm making more sense.

1. I never said they should protest, but rather that they could.
2. You don't seem to understand that I don't care about the outcome. The process is what bothers me. I resent the fact that several blatant violations of the rules were committed directly in front of officials, who in turn, ignored said violations. Why have rules if they are not going to be enforced?

They missed Patty Mills taking like 5 steps in the middle of the fourth. Missed calls happen. If the Spurs didn't get the ball then I would feel bad for them but they did. Apparently Leonard was grabbing Westbrook's jersey but refs normally let players get away with stuff at the end of games. It's probably why there was no call.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I can respect that. Good thing you aren't also a philosopher cause they are so much smarter then the rest of us. But honestly good to know people like you are on the board. We will respectfully agree to disagree.

"...smarter than the rest of us."  In all seriousness, though, I never said any of that. I said you shouldn't argue logic with a philosopher, which is the core component of philosophy, when you accused me of making a faulty argument due to unconstrained emotions. There's kind of a big difference there. I meant no offense by it.

[Smart457]

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. 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.

Just because 5 biased Celtics fans who want Durant are complaining, does not mean you are correct. Do you honestly believe that is what proves who is making a better point? That seems like a stance a shallow minded person would take.

The part about me comparing one view to another. I never did. So you can take your subjective or not subjective argument and apply it somewhere it makes more sense to.

Haha okay, obviously you're not grasping the argument. We'll agree to disagree. No point in arguing any further on this.

The argument you are inventing in your head?

Seriously man. I've seen you with several posters really go at it with them. You say it's not worth your time yet you keep posting. I kind of feel sorry now that I gave you the satisfaction of getting into it with you. That won't happen again.

I wish I could delete my posts.

[Smart457]

Seems like the majority of people are agreeing with my view that the Spurs choked on that 3v1 and that they shouldn't be complaining when they ultimately ended up with with the ball in a high percentage play.

Go to the comments section -

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15450702/late-non-call-oklahoma-city-thunder-win-san-antonio-spurs-offensive-foul-refs-say

I get that many posters are emotionally vested in this series since a sweep guarantees that Durant is leaving OKC but the Spurs only have themselves to blame. Not to mention Leonard holds Westbrook on that play. Ginobili steps over the line.

Refs miss calls. They must had decided to continue to let the physical play go on and missed calls on both sides happened. If the Spurs score on that 3v1, OKC has beef that Ginobili stepped over the line.

[TheFlex]

Mistakes happen

It wasn't a mistake.  It was a perfect demonstration of the fundamentally corrupt nature of NBA officiating.  That everyone in the NBA has been conditioned to accept the corruption is irrelevant.

If a Major League umpire did his job the way the average NBA ref does his, not only would he have a different strike zone for each player but he would arbitrarily change those strike zones at different points in the game.

Mike

Exactly what you describe is something that happens repeatedly in the MLB.

[fairweatherfan]

I get that many posters are emotionally vested in this series since a sweep guarantees that Durant is leaving OKC but the Spurs only have themselves to blame. Not to mention Leonard holds Westbrook on that play. Ginobili steps over the line.

Without getting into the original argument, has anyone else noticed that this seems to be something defenders are getting away with all the time now?  Technically I think no part of your body is even allowed to break the plane of the out-of-bounds line, but I see guys routinely reaching across, jumping forward where half their foot lands over the line, etc.  It'd be nice to see it called more often.

[Smart457]

I get that many posters are emotionally vested in this series since a sweep guarantees that Durant is leaving OKC but the Spurs only have themselves to blame. Not to mention Leonard holds Westbrook on that play. Ginobili steps over the line.

Without getting into the original argument, has anyone else noticed that this seems to be something defenders are getting away with all the time now?  Technically I think no part of your body is even allowed to break the plane of the out-of-bounds line, but I see guys routinely reaching across, jumping forward where half their foot lands over the line, etc.  It'd be nice to see it called more often.

I think the refs just don't want a whistle there to decide the outcome of the game but now they probably will have to.

[Endless Paradise]

L2M report came out. Six incorrect non-calls in favor of the Spurs, two in favor of the Thunder. On the controversial inbound play, the Thunder were fouled twice (Mills grabbed Adams, Kawhi grabbed Westbrook). Ginobili was ruled to have committed a violation by touching the line.

Spurs lost that game fair and square. They petition the result of that game, the NBA's returning those fouls they got away with.

The refs let the players determine the game and I'm entirely fine with that, as long as there were consistent non-calls both ways.

http://official.nba.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/L2M-OKC-SAS-5-2-16.pdf

[MBunge]

Mistakes happen

It wasn't a mistake.  It was a perfect demonstration of the fundamentally corrupt nature of NBA officiating.  That everyone in the NBA has been conditioned to accept the corruption is irrelevant.

If a Major League umpire did his job the way the average NBA ref does his, not only would he have a different strike zone for each player but he would arbitrarily change those strike zones at different points in the game.

Mike

Exactly what you describe is something that happens repeatedly in the MLB.

I've seen enough baseball to know that isn't true.  Umps have different strike zones and sometimes they'll miss a call, but they simply don't give the outside corner to this guy and this guy but not to that guy or that guy.

Mike

[Smart457]

L2M report came out. Six incorrect non-calls in favor of the Spurs, two in favor of the Thunder. On the controversial inbound play, the Thunder were fouled twice (Mills grabbed Adams, Kawhi grabbed Westbrook). Ginobili was ruled to have committed a violation by touching the line.

Spurs lost that game fair and square. They petition the result of that game, the NBA's returning those fouls they got away with.

The refs let the players determine the game and I'm entirely fine with that, as long as there were consistent non-calls both ways.

http://official.nba.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/L2M-OKC-SAS-5-2-16.pdf

Awesome. Thanks for sharing.

I guess the outraged posters last night have come to their senses that while the refs missed some fouls that the Spurs still had a fair or maybe an unfair, depending on how you want to view it, attempt to win the game.

[Chief]

I hope Whiteside is ok. If injured, it could cost him millions.

[jdz101]

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.

Plus Kawhi also had a handful of westbrook's jersey on that side out play. That's also a rule that shouldn't be open to interpretation that wasn't called.

Missed that. If that happened then everyone complaining should stop. Fouls on both teams.

https://twitter.com/Drap11/status/727353302648680449

Hopefully that link still works. Definitely pulls him back with a handful of jersey.

The refs just swallow the whistle on those side out plays. I remember in the golden state boston game at the end draymond green basically powerbombed marcus smart at the top of the key in the middle of the court clear as day and nothing got called.

Theres nothing corrupt about it, players know they can get away with murder on those plays and they do. For both teams.