Celtics offensive foul call
 

It's slow today, and nobody has mentioned this call in the Celtics game.

(Before we even start, if you're just going to make a smart@ss comment about the NBA, please just stay away.)

This is a play that 98% of the time is called against the defender. I have no problem with Bennet Salvatore's call here because Pierce jumps sideways. But the NBA call, in general, is to call this against the defender; and it seems a really strange time to swim that hard against the tide.

Is this call correct?

Is it appropriate for the game and situation?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X5xQExrt0aA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X5xQExrt0aA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

"He can pivot into a man that's jumping forward." What the H-E-double hockey sticks does that mean?

this is definitely an offensive foul. The norm or status quo you are talking about is when the defender jumps directly at the shooter and the offensive player can then draw a foul from such, but hamilton is jumping to the side of Pierce, more like a fly by, and pierce steps over into him overtly which we are told to deem this as well as plays such as overt leg kicks during jump shots and wipe outs on plays to the basket as offensive fouls.

That's a foul, but Fisher hip checking Barry is not. Neither was a travel.
No rhyme or reason.

Correct, shooter moved into the path of an airborne player without allowing that player a place to land. Normally with a shot, this is not strictly considered....the shooter is often moving "into" the path of the defender but the two paths are already on a collision course. In this case, the airborne defensive player would have completely missed the shooter but for the completely unusual side step of the shooter.

I've officiated basketball for close to 50 years and I don't have a clue what criteria is used in the NBA to make <b>ANY</b> foul call. Note that <b>isn't</b> a smart-azz comment either; it's a fact.

Great call by 15.

Where Have You Gone Bill Russell ???
 

Based on my knowledge of NFHS rules:

Disagree. Pierce traveled, watch his left foot, the pivot foot.

Agree. Since travel wasn't called, it was a player control foul. Pierce certainly initiates contact by moving to his right, into Hamilton.

Full disclosure. I'm not a big NBA fan, but when I do pay any attention to this league, I pay attention to the Celtics. I grew up watching the Celtics, coached by Bill Russell, on ABC, on Sunday afternoons. Defense, teamwork, fast break offense, you gotta love the good old days.

I wasn't giving my opinion. I was comparing the two cases and saying what had actually been called. Both were probably travels. But NBA travels are like eating soup with a fork, you just don't pick up much. I'm saying that Fisher made at least as much contact with Barry, and I think Barry was put at a disadvantage by not being able to get off a shot cleanly. If Pierce doesn't move into Hamilton he passes by cleanly, yes, but did this bump but Hamilton at a disadvantage? I say no.

Rasheed: "It ain't basketball. It's (bleeping) entertainment."

With all due respect, I have never seen two games where every contact was considered a foul or not a foul across the board at any level. This should not be about the NBA no more than if I showed video of two high school plays and come to a conclusion that is what is expected or not expected at the high school level.

Both the Pierce call and the Fisher call are not the same things or the same kind of contact.

Peace

thumbs up to Salvatore...
 

Great call.

If Pierce jumps normally for a shot, he gets slammed, and the foul is on Hamilton. And one.

Instead, Pierce makes the dirty streetball play and lunges sideways - leading with his elbow - into the airborne Hamilton. Brain cramps like that deserve to be penalized.

Kudos to Salvatore for having the cajones to make that call.

"He can pivot into a man that's jumping forward" - what a ridiculously ignorant comment. Instead of waiting to see a better angle on the replay, the announcers dump all over the official. Big surprise. Not.

Personally, I really liked the call, as well as being really surprised that call was made.
When I make similar calls on a high school floor, I make 1/2 the people really upset!

haha, I feel your pain.

My line to the coach is:

"I had a defensive foul all the way....until your player_________"

scrapper wants to talk about THIS play. yes there is a travel in this play, i think everybody might agree with that, the NBA noted that there should have been a foul with the fisher, Barry play. Scrapper just wants to discuss the reasoning of THIS play. so why are we beating a dead horse? Let's discuss some of these plays:

Cheap And 1 early in the clip and then weak foul with .1 left:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No5hnQ0JjUA


I don't see anything wrong with this player positioning either:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mILwQctYLw

I do not necessarily agree with the NBA Postition on this. For one the official did not have the benefit of replay and made a decision based on what was happening on the actual play.

Secondly, he referenced the Barry/Fisher play and that is why I referenced it. That being said I had no problem with the Pierce Offensive Foul call. That is just me.

Peace

I don't mind discussing these plays, but please start a new thread for them. Thanks.

Those were exactly my thoughts, as well, Mick. That's why I mentioned that it seemed that the call goes against the defender almost all the time.

At least on this call I agree.

Are you kidding?

Do you *REALLY* like this call??

I don't. I thought it sucked.

Well, IF there's a call, I don't think it can be against the defender in that play. Pierce clearly jumps to the side, outside his vertical plane, to initiate contact on the defender, who was already airborne, that probably wouldn't have occurred if he'd jumped straight up.'

You could argue for a no-call, and I wouldn't argue too hard against you.

Then you don't really like this call after all, do you?

Coud you defend ths call in your game? Sitting in the locker room with your assignor?

I'm with Dan. Sure, he stepped into the defender's path. But not very much. I like a no call on this a LOT better than the offensive foul.

True, not the same thing, but the plays are similar in that both involve a defender flying at a would-be 3 point shooter. The difference is that Fisher took a poor angle and was, in my opinion, clearly responsible for the contact. Some say the contact was not sufficient to warrant a foul call.

Others, including myself, disagree saying that the contact kept him from having any kind of good look at the final shot. From here we spin off in various directions: He should have jumped into the contact........The star (which Barry is not) would have gotten the call....Joey Crawford has issues.......etc.

On the second play it seems that Hamilton took a good angle. He flies at Pierce hoping to distract him, and if Pierce goes straight up, there probably is no contact at all. But Pierce slides over and creates the contact. Hamilton hits the floor, yes, but the ball is in the hoop by now. Was the defender put at a disadvantage? Did the contact help Pierce get the shot off? I don't see how.

Me neither.


NBA officiating is selective in what is called and not called, and NCAA D1 is heading more and more in that same direction. My question is why? These are the greatest players in the world. Is it asking too much to make a traveling call that you would expect to see made in a middle school game?
If Fisher was in jr. high and made the play that he made, and his team had lost, the jr. high coach would have used that play as an example for years to come. "SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU COMMIT YOURSELF AND LEAVE YOUR FEET. YOU GOTTA BE SMARTER THAN THAT, GUYS."

I don't see anything that would justify the P/C call. I don't see Pierce use any elbow as was mentioned earlier. I see an out-of-control defender running at a shooter. Pierce stepped in front of him similar to a defender trying to draw a charge. Maybe a no-call or possibly a foul on the defense but I sure don't see a P/C.

My position was the contact did not cause and advantage based on what Barry was trying to do. Enough contact is not really my determining factor for fouls.

Do a YouTube search and the biggest star of all was not getting a lot of "calls" by jumping into people during jump shots. And that star is Kobe Bryant who was on opposite team. Again that "star" issue must not be as prevalent as you claim. ;)

The contact did not help Pierce get the shot off, but you can make a case that Hamilton would not have hit the floor if Pierce did not throw and elbow. If nothing else it was a dirty or rough act. I have no problem with the call. Could you make a case that no call could have been made on this play? Sure you could, but if Hamilton the next opportunity throws an elbow, and then we will look back at this play as the catalyst of that action. And the official will get blamed as usual for not "cleaning up" the game.

The fact that you are comparing JH to the NBA says a lot right there. If this was JH and a player did the same thing as Barry, I would not have called a foul. And considering that JH players travel when the look at the ball and competent officials pass on those little technical plays all the time. And if we did call a travel as much as you suggest in a JH game, then every possession would have a turnover.

Peace

What was Barry trying to do?

This was not my personal claim, but one that is frequently heard.
I think this concept is not totally without merit.

Watch the video again - the replay in particular that shows the angle from behind.

Seriously - you don't see Pierce lunge out sideways?

Really?

Just because people believe something does not make it true. Just like you said there were not traveling calls made, I was watching Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals and I saw two travel calls off the bat. One call was where a Celtic player was just standing still and moved his pivot foot. I wonder if the people who say that do more than watch a single YouTube video or actually watch games from beginning to the end. Now I admit I am not as big of an NBA fan as I used to be, but I do watch several portions of games when I get a chance and I see lots of travels and lot of stars not getting any special calls.

It makes me think that many here are listening more to what uneducated media members think rather than watching the game themselves. Let us not make it sound like all other levels call every travel and every foul because there is a lot of contact.

Peace

Well he certainly was not trying to shoot at the time of contact.

Peace

Ref no calls it and all hell will break lose....way to much contact involving a shooter to not have something. If he calls nothing, the coaches, the fans, and the press will be raking him over the coals for not putting the shooter on the line (that would be the angle they would take).

His motion had absolutely nothing to do with taking the shot. It wasn't a basketball play. The defender had established a non-contact path and was in the air. Pierce gave up an open shot solely to create contact...his foul.

Reverse the roles....a defender moving the exact same way into the path of an airborne shooter...any question about that one?

I agree. If there was a foul, I have 2 shots not three. Barry moved in such a way that the contact was minimized rather than "taking one for the team" in order to "sell the call" as suggested by Reggie Miller and others. But this should not let the defender off the hook if the contact hindered the shot, which I think it did.

New question: If the Pierce/Hamilton play is a game deciding last second play, would/should Salvatore have made the same call?

And that is why some of us are working the NBA and some of us never will get there. Officials at that level are judged on those kinds of plays while officials not working those levels can call whatever and most will never care.

Why not? If it is obvious what Pierce did, the time of the game should not matter in my opinion.

Peace

"New question: If the Pierce/Hamilton play is a game deciding last second play, would/should Salvatore have made the same call?"



Absolutely...and Salvatore would have the stones to do it too.

So now that Joey has been judged, what happens to him?

I have no idea. Maybe he does not get a certain game in the Finals. Maybe he was fined for the missed call (Which I disagree with the way the NBA handled that). I guess only someone that is in the NBA or works in the NBA knows. I did hear on time an NBA Official say that working that level is not as fun as you think.

Peace

Lean sideways? Yes.
Lunge? Nope, don't see anything close to a lunge.

Good post Camron.

To help those out who claim to have no idea what is and is not a foul in the pro game, I am going to state some plays so when you see them you will know why they are called and if they are not then just chuck them up as missed plays:

There are 4 pertinent plays in which the nba wants offensive fouls called and they want them called as such due to the actions being overt in nature.

The first is a "wipe out" or "clear out" in which the offensive player goes in for a dunk or a layup and in doing so fends off the defender with his off arm in attempt to keep him from blocking the shot, contesting it, etc. He may also not lead with an unnatural knee or leg kick. This move is considered overt and will be deemed an offensive foul regardless of restricted area guidelines.

The second is leg kicks or unnatural extension of the leg by jump shooters in order to attempt to "fool the referee". Leg kicks of this nature will be deemed overt and an offensive foul will be called.

The third has also to do with jump shooters in which if the official judges that the defender will miss or not contact the shooter and the jump shooter makes an overt move to draw contact, this will also be deemed an offensive foul.

Lastly, is when a dribbler is coming up the floor and notices a trailing defender coming up behind him and "seeks him out" to draw contact. This will also be deemed an offensive foul.

There is just a snippet of what should be getting called. Like I said if it is not then chuck it up as a miss. We all miss plays. It's human nature.

btaylor64,
In order to better understand your post, could you briefly state your source of information?
Thanks.
mick

Mick, his claims of having "NBA" sources are credible. I do know for a fact that he is subject to NBA training.

Very cool ! :)

Legitimate question.....not a flame.....

What possible good could NBA training be if you aren't working at that level? :confused: If you are working high school/college ball, isn't that what what you should be concentrating on?

I say that knowing from Ben's past posts that he is a fairly new/young official that seems to be struggling mightily with both the NFHS and NCAA rulesets. If you're working high school ball and you don't have a very good grasp of those rules, why waste time on a ruleset that you don't work?

as soon as I read his post, this is the first thing that came to my mind

and Salvatore's call seemed very unnecessary to me, Pierce did initiate contact and then he threw up a wild shot so if you dont blow the whistle on the contact then the Celtics had already been penalized by losing possession on the terrible shot

but he clearly travelled to initiate the contact and IMHO the travelling call should have been made

There are people in this area that work Pro-Am ball with NBA Rules with current college and professional players. The officials use NBA/Pro-Am rules and mechanics and several NBA Officials help train and evaluate the officials. Some get the opportunity to work in other Pro leagues that could lead to NBDL or the WNBA. I cannot speak for what goes on in other parts of the country, but that is an option for people around here.

Learning pro rules does not mean you have to know other rules sets first.

Peace

I can't speak to Ben's situation but I have seen and know NCAA officials who don't have a good grasp on NFHS rules.

If Ben is having trouble with NBA rules I'm sure he would receive a letter indicating such.

Which is fine, if you're not working games in those other rule sets.

1) I was well aware of that. I am also aware that most of these Pro-Am leagues are mainly glorified rec leagues. I am also aware of the NBA Junior programs also that use NBA rules.

2) You missed my point completely. My point is that if an official is <b>MAINLY</b> working at the high school level, or maybe even doing a few D3/JUCO games, shouldn't that official spend the greater part of their time learning the rules, mechanics and philosophies of the level that they <b>usually</b> work in? Obviously, if btaylor is mainly or solely doing minor pro, NBDL or WNBA games, my post isn't germane or relevant. I was under the impression though, maybe wrongly, that Mr. Taylor is a young official with only a few years experience who is just breaking into high school varsity ball and also maybe doing some lower-level college stuff. If I am wrong in my assumption, I will certainly admit such.

My point was, and is, that imo an official should concentrate on learning the rules, mechanics and philosophies of the levels that they usually work in before spending a lot of time on another ruleset. I sureashell could be wrong, and it sureashell won't be the first time either, but it seems to me from his previous posts that Mr. Taylor knows a heckuva lot more about NBA rules than he does about NFHS/NCAA rules. If he is working mainly games played under NBA rules, then kudos to him. However, if he is working mainly games played under high school and college rules, then it might be a good idea for him imo to concentrate on the rulesets that he actually works.

I think if you want to reff real good you should learn the bennett salvatore or steve javie rule book and quite wasting time with that other stuff

That doesn't answer any of my questions, News. I still don't know what levels that Ben usually works. As I said, I assumed(maybe completely wrongly) that Ben works mainly some high school/lower level college/rec/AAU ball played under mainly NFHS/NCAA rules. If he is in an NBA development program and the bulk of the games that he is doing are played under NBA rules, then more luck to him. That seems to be his dream.

Btw, if there are NCAA officials doing games under NFHS rules without bothering to learn those rules, then they're doing all of us a dis-service. That's just wrong.

And a fine point it is. Now please move it to a new thread about philosophies, and leave this thread to people who would like to actually discuss the play.

Uh oh!

Is this Bob or Mick hacking Scrappy's ID & speaking as a mod in this post?

Or should we get the mods to proclaim Scrappy as "Content Police Member"?

I'm fine either way... just trying to figure out your standing on this matter.

and btw... it seems the discussion on this play is he ffffed it up or he made a great call.
Except for you who is sitting exactly on the fence.

I've seen a couple. They are clinicians and assignors for high school level camps. ;)

I just heard on the radio that until this year, there have been 61 NBA finals; of which the Lakers or Celtics have won 30. So, after this year, those two teams will have combined for exactly half of all NBA finals champions.

And the Celtics have won 8 of their 16 championships against the Lakers, in 10 tries against them.

At the time, I knew my HS rules pretty well. I always made a 90+ on my tests, but let's just say i don't need to know them so much any more. I didn't do it like you want people to and you are probably right that officials should study the rulesets that they work the most but I had a goal to reach and I wanted to know the rules for it. That's just me though. I might have done it wrong but I don't regret it in the least.

Similar with Toronto and Montreal; they've accounted for just under half of all Stanley Cup winners.

Good Lord, it's communicable. Now we got ourselves another one that wants to dictate what and where something should be posted.:rolleyes:

Lah me........now the NBA philosophy isn't pertinent to an NBA foul call. I'm questioning whether there actually IS an NBA philosophy when it comes to fouls, traveling, etc., and if there is, then whatinthehell is it? Don't you think that might just be a teeny-weeny bit relevant to what you want to discuss?

Btw, you win. I'm outa this one. Buh-bye.

Congratulations on reaching your goals and leaving high school ball in your rear-view mirror. You obviously had no interest in that level anyway. I take it that you are at least doing semi-pro, NBDL and WNBA games on a regular basis now.

Btw, does that apply to NCAA games too? Have you now gone beyond that level also? Just wondering.

Let me answer you without being the least bit condescending, like you have been with me ever since I started posting here. I haven't left HS in the rear view mirror, I still work it every once in a while, why heck, I even reffed some junior high games. I also ref some D2 and some D1 and i ref in the NBA Development League. I am only telling you this because it seems to be such a big issue for you. I would have preferred it just have been kept in anonymity but if you are that hellbent on it then here you are.

Lastly, I don't really have a problem with you but you seem to have one with me and I'm sorry about that, I'm just providing this forum with information of what I have been taught just like everyone else on here.

I will chime in here because we have a Pro-Am League here and have done it for several years now... There is actually value in knowing the basic NBA rules...

Many of the things you hear coaches yell for when they are howler monkeys (especially at the lower levels) is what the see on TV in the NBA. by understanding what they are yelling about it does in fact allow to explain better or at least understand their (of course idiotic) position.

When you hear them calling for a travel when the shooter gets his own shot before it hits the rim, running OOB rule, one shot T's, three second rule, backcourt rule and loose balls, the crash under neath the basket we call PC but yell he's under the basket......

When you ref a game with Pro rules and have to watch for defensive three seconds you really do ref the defense. When you have to call the restricted area and know who the primary and secondary players are. When you know the sub rules may be different, it adds a whole new perspective in paying attention to the game.

There are a lot of guys that are bigger, faster, stronger playing in that game and officiating it teaches you about position, advantage disadvantage, ad plays, you will never see in a jv ball game...

Best of all you can pull a Mark Padgett and when a coach asks about a call that he thinks is a NFHS rule but is really NBA you have the witty comeback...

Youre absolutely right coach there are 29 arenas in the country where you would be 100% right, this just isnt one of them....

(if it is the playoffs like right now) Its there are only two arenas...

Or something else like "when you get paid like Phil Johnson, I'll make that call"

WOW! I've become an icon! I knew I was a legend in my own mind, but this!!!

BTW - according to one train of thought in this thread, I should be most familiar with driveway rules. :p

What part of "congratulations on reaching your goals" did you fail to comprehend? I wrote that and I meant it.

For some reason, you seem to take it personally when someone knocks the NBA. Well, you'd better get used to it because I'm hardly alone in that regard. You also seem to have missed the fact that I don't knock NBA officials <i>per se</i> either, as others do. I think that NBA officials do a great job considering the handicap that I believe they're being forced to work under. That handicap is having to work for a league that has become far more entertainment-oriented than game-oriented. The problem imo is the criteria that NBA officials are being forced to meet. And imo, part of that criteria is having to officiate a game without being able to apply certain rules evenly and consistently- rules such as traveling, palming, and ,yes, how fouls are called. The direction being given to the officials lies with the NBA and the problems are the NBA's doing, and it is too damn bad that the officials are constantly taking crap for something that really isn't their fault imo.

My opinion, Ben, like it or not....and it has nothing to do with you personally in any way.

Good luck with your officiating career. I hope that you reach all of your goals, and I really mean that. Don't think for a minute though that I'll stop showing my disdain for the current edition of the NBA. Imo, it has strayed too far from the game of "basketball" and has become unwatchable. And that is NOT a knock on the people officiating the games.

Fwiw I think that the NHL is also having similar problems. I used to love watching hockey. No more.

Hopefully, that'll set the record straight on where I'm coming from.

PS: Let me also apologize to Scrappy for briefly ignoring his directive to take a hike. I'll resume that journey, as ordered.

You are wrong on many levels, but I do not want to continue debating this with you. Considering who is actually playing games shows that you have to be a little better than what is usually in a rec league.

The problem is the system to get in the NBA does not hire people because they have worked a State Final in high school. I can also tell you I know of no college supervisors that hire officials because they are accomplished high school officials as well. Actually most big time college officials or even new college officials at the D1 level in many cases could not get varsity games or playoffs at the high school level. I really do not see your connection as to why you must know lower level rules before getting to know NBA or NCAA Rules.

Once again I disagree. Many of the college and pro rules and mechanics have filtered down to the high school level. If you know other levels I feel it helps you a lot with the level you work. What better way in my opinion to really understand 2 Person when you understand what 3 Person is all about?

Peace

And the last six posts are why I asked you to take that discussion to another thread. So much for talking about the play. :(

Know what? You just convinced me NOT to take a hike.

That's ok. I will.

Well thanks. I just don't believe what you said about refs not being allowed to call plays consistently I just feel you are not watching enough NBA ball. I have, sitting in my house right now, web clips on DVD of at least 30 plays involving palming and traveling violations. I don't referee traveling any different in my pro games as I do my college games.

As for the play that scrapper is talking about:

I don't know what more we can say, I know that I explained that the play in question is to be deemed an offensive foul and Bennett called it as such. I can see where some people would no call this, but I cannot see where someone would call it a defensive foul....

Maybe you can take this annoying whining to another thread?

We already have 2 topics open under this thread and you are contributing to neither.

You're quite right when you say that I don't watch NBA games, but that's simply because I really don't personally enjoy the type of game currently being played.

It's really not about the stuff that does get called either, Ben. It's the stuff that goes <b>uncalled</b> that's looks to me like it's exactly the same as the actual calls being made. I say that realizing that all officials blow calls; I also say that believing that the guys doing the League with all of their specialized training should be expected to blow a helluva lot fewer calls than officials doing a lower level. It's the consistency that bothers me, and knowing the 24-hour nitpicking and second-guessing that an NBA ref has to endure, I just gotta believe personally that there are other factors coming into play. Factors that I sureasheck don't know about because I don't know what NBA play-calling philosophies are these days.No matter what, everybody has their own opinion anyway.

Fwiw, I agree with you and the others that agreed with you that the only possible foul calls on the Pierce play should be a (cheap imo) offensive foul or a no-call. However, I also think that he traveled <b>into</b> the contact. He took a full step sideways after his pivot was set and traveling was the correct call by rule. And that's one of the things that baffles me personally about the NBA. The shuffles and little steps to square-up or get behind the 3-point line seem to be ignored.

I'm starting to think this fascination with Chuck Elias is a bit unhealthy; especially in threads he doesn't read.

I cannot argue with this logic.

Groundhog Day Came Early This Year ...
 

ChuckElias came out of hiding for a short time, literally, on two different levels, especially the shorter level, earlier this week, putting his life, and that of his family, at great risk, to contribute to this Forum. As far as I know, he's now back, safely tucked away, in the Federal Witness Protection Program.

I'm sure that we'll hear from him again on February 2.

In light of the fact that we're talking about Chuck, I think it's more accurate (appropo?) to call it "Squirrel Day" instead of "Groundhog Day."
Furthermore, rather than February 2, he appears ever year around March 25th to start a thread.

Every now and again, cabin fever sets in and the little fella pops his head into another thread. However, those sitings are rare and, I suspect, merely apocryphal.

Squirrel Appreciation Day
 

Squirrel Appreciation Day
When : Always January 21st

Squirrel Appreciation Day is an opportunity to enjoy and appreciate your tree climbing, nut gathering neighborhood squirrels. It's held in mid-winter when food sources are scarce for squirrels and other wildlife. Sure, squirrels spent all fall gathering and "squirreling " away food. But, their supplies may not be enough. And, the variety of food is limited. So, give them an extra special treat today to supplement their winter diets.

When you think about it, mid winter is the best time to appreciate squirrels. In the winter they provide a little entertainment. During other times of the year, you may look at them as a pest in the flower and vegetable gardens.

According to Christy Hargrove, the founder, "Celebration of the event itself is up to the individual or group -- anything from putting out extra food for the squirrels to learning something new about the species."

We don't have any squirrels in my neighborhood. Too many foxes. That's the good news.

The really good news is that nobody keeps their annoying little dogs outside either. :D