NBA playoffs (NBA haters stay away)

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The end of the Mavs/Nuggets game shows in a nutshell everything that is wrong with the NBA.

So much for competing with honor and actually trying to play good, legal defense against the opponent. Here's an idea, instead of trying to gain an advantage through an illegal act, make a great play and block the shot.

If you really believe that, then you have to say that it also shows everything that is wrong with basketball at ALL levels, which might be true. I don't know. But teams at ALL levels strategically foul at the end of games for a few different reasons.

I'm not sure why this shows what's wrong with the NBA.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The end of the Mavs/Nuggets game shows in a nutshell everything that is wrong with the NBA.

A team is upset that they committed an illegal act (fouled) on purpose in an attempt to benefit from it and lost when the official didn't reward them by whistling it and opponent was able to play through the contact and make the winning shot despite it.

The "league" is now even publicly stating the officials missed the foul on the play.

So much for competing with honor and actually trying to play good, legal defense against the opponent. Here's an idea, instead of trying to gain an advantage through an illegal act, make a great play and block the shot.

The guys just don't get it.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just saw the replay. I can see why there was no foul called. The defender bounced off the Carmelo and Carmelo continued to play. There could have been a foul called, but there wasn't one called. Life goes on. This is the very reason I stopped watching the NBA on a regular basis for years. Every thing that happens is about whining. And the Dallas Mavericks are at the top of this.

Peace

No different than a high school game where one team is trying to stop the clock and commits a foul.

Would you have passed on the contact in a HS or college game?

If they were trying to prevent a 3-pt shot and put the guy on the line for FT's - it's a smart play, one that we see at every level.

I agree with the NBA saying there should have been a call. Perhaps it should have been Flagrant-1 (intentional), but still should have been a whistle.

My $0.02

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Would you have passed on the contact in a HS or college game?

If they were trying to prevent a 3-pt shot and put the guy on the line for FT's - it's a smart play, one that we see at every level.

I agree with the NBA saying there should have been a call. Perhaps it should have been Flagrant-1 (intentional), but still should have been a whistle.

My $0.02

Not likely, but then again this was not a typical end of game foul situation. And since the contact did not really affect the play, I might have possibly passed. Not saying I would have actually passed on the play, just saying I understand in a split second why they passed.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If you really believe that, then you have to say that it also shows everything that is wrong with basketball at ALL levels, which might be true. I don't know. But teams at ALL levels strategically foul at the end of games for a few different reasons.

I'm not sure why this shows what's wrong with the NBA.

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

No different than a high school game where one team is trying to stop the clock and commits a foul.

Would you have passed on the contact in a HS or college game?

If they were trying to prevent a 3-pt shot and put the guy on the line for FT's - it's a smart play, one that we see at every level.

I agree with the NBA saying there should have been a call. Perhaps it should have been Flagrant-1 (intentional), but still should have been a whistle.

My $0.02

I take issue with the NBA mentality. They really believe that this tactic is okay. I say that it is nothing more than cheating. The team is attempting to gain an advantage by doing something illegal.
Let me point out that the NBA is the same league that doesn't allow a secondary defender to stand in the area under the basket. That has been deemed to not be legitimate defense. How about a rule change that any deliberate foul in the final 24 seconds (That's one shot clock period.), results in three FTs for the opponent. It doesn't matter whether the fouled player was in the act of shooting or not. It's an automatic three FTs. That would stamp out this silliness. It's simply not legitimate defense.

HS and NCAA have both clearly stated that "wrapping-up" and opponent is an intentional personal foul. It's not a basketball play. It's a tackle.

However, look at what the coaches are teaching and the players are discussing at the NBA level.

===============================
Updated: May 10, 2009, 6:41 PM ET
Rivers instructs Celts how to foul


By Chris Sheridan
ESPN.com



ORLANDO, Fla. -- On the morning after one of the more controversial nights of the NBA playoffs, Doc Rivers sent a message to his team: If we have a foul to give, make sure you commit it the right way.

In other words, not the Wright way.

The controversial ending to Saturday night's Nuggets-Mavericks game was one of the primary topics of discussion at the Celtics' morning shootaround Sunday, with the teaching emphasis on having players use both arms to wrap up an opposing player on the perimeter to ensure the referee whistles the foul.
"The wrap-up also takes longer than raking a guy across the arms, and it reduces the chance that he can get off an attempt and get three foul shots," Rivers said.
In the Nuggets-Mavs game, Antoine Wright appeared to intentionally foul Denver's Carmelo Anthony twice when Dallas had a foul to give, and the NBA took the highly unusual action of issuing a statement after the game saying the referees had not made the correct call.
Among the Celtics' players, the lingering impression was that Wright was as much at fault as anyone because he did not commit the foul in the proper manner -- especially when he had the perfect opportunity at the moment when Anthony bobbled the ball before regaining control and sinking the game-winning shot.
Other than the lecture on proper fouling techniques, Rivers said the Celtics concentrated on cutting down the Magic's ability to use dribble penetration play to initiate their offense.
The defending champion Celtics trail the best-of-seven series 2-1 heading into tonight's Game 4. Game 5 is Tuesday night in Boston.
"People think we're going away, and we're not. We are who we are. We're a group of fighters," Rivers said.
Chris Sheridan covers the NBA for ESPN.com.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I take issue with the NBA mentality. They really believe that this tactic is okay. I say that it is nothing more than cheating.

I guess you'll have to explain to me how the situation in the original scenario (not the "wrapping up", as you mention in your most recent post) is different from a HS player fouling to stop the clock and force the opponent to shoot a 1-and-1; or how it's different from a college player fouling near midcourt before the bonus, simply to force the trailing team to inbound the ball again and waste time before getting off a final shot.

These are both examples of using an "illegal" action -- a foul -- to a strategic advantage. Isn't that what Dallas was trying to do at the end of that game?

Note that I'm not even discussing whether there should or should not have been a foul called in that situation. I'm only wondering why the NBA play is "cheating" and the HS and college plays are legitimate strategy.

[Odd Duck]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not likely, but then again this was not a typical end of game foul situation. And since the contact did not really affect the play, I might have possibly passed. Not saying I would have actually passed on the play, just saying I understand in a split second why they passed.

Peace

I agree that was not a Flagrant-1. I might have passed on that contact early in the game but at the end of the game, when the entire crew knows the game situation (even at my level we always go over TO's available, foul count, time on clock, arrow and anything else we can cover) and the game is physical...60+ fouls called...I would definetly get the first contact so there would be no question if I should have called a flagrant.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Odd Duck

I agree that was not a Flagrant-1. I might have passed on that contact early in the game but at the end of the game, when the entire crew knows the game situation (even at my level we always go over TO's available, foul count, time on clock, arrow and anything else we can cover) and the game is physical...60+ fouls called...I would definetly get the first contact so there would be no question if I should have called a flagrant.

When did I say anything about this being a Flagrant (NBA or non-NBA Standard)?

Peace

[Nevadaref]

For the record, I think that the entire strategy of fouling on purpose is bad for the game and needs to be addressed with a rule change, but the NFHS, NCAA, and obviously the NBA governing bodies disagree with me.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I guess you'll have to explain to me how the situation in the original scenario (not the "wrapping up", as you mention in your most recent post) is different from a HS player fouling to stop the clock and force the opponent to shoot a 1-and-1; ...

When FTs will be awarded there is a tangible penalty as the opponent can score. It's debatable whether 1-1 is the right number of FTs to award given the increased impact of the 3pt shot on the game.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

...or how it's different from a college player fouling near midcourt before the bonus, simply to force the trailing team to inbound the ball again and waste time before getting off a final shot. ...

That's the one that needs to cease. That's blatant unfair play at any level. At the HS and NCAA level, the intentional personal foul can and should be called. I don't know exactly how the NBA handles such, but a simple rule could take care of this unfair tactic.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

These are both examples of using an "illegal" action -- a foul -- to a strategic advantage. Isn't that what Dallas was trying to do at the end of that game?

In a nutshell that is what I have a serious problem with-- using an illegal action to gain a strategic advantage. It's taking advantage of the rules and we know that the NFHS book says right in the front that a team shouldn't be allowed to gain an advantage not intended by the rules. Does the NBA have a similar provision or statement? That's why it is different. It's not in the spirit of fair play and is clearly against the NFHS philosophy, but it doesn't seem to be against the pro philosophy.

In my opinion, Dallas was trying to cheat, and justice was served when it didn't work out for them.

[ronald]

Well, I have 2 cents and they are not really mine. Last weekend I went to a camp where the instructor was Mr. Ed T. Rush. The other instructor was an NBA observer, and member of the Court Club.

1) Game management by refs means they know they have a foul to give.

2) Get the foul when it occurs.

3) Since the foul occurred (as I recall, correct if wrong) above the free throw line and 3 pt line, we have a freedom of movement foul. It is immediate, no let's see if they can play through it. So ref blew it.

4) Off topic - Official's Grade for 2008 D1 Tournament - 68% That percent is what the crews got. It is not an individual score. You are a team on the court.

5) NBA refs probably average 2 hr pregame, view video of games worked and graded every game. In a league by themselves. The rest of us need to remember what league we are in --the minors.

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by ronald

Well, I have 2 cents and they are not really mine. Last weekend I went to a camp where the instructor was Mr. Ed T. Rush. The other instructor was an NBA observer, and member of the Court Club.

1) Game management by refs means they know they have a foul to give.

2) Get the foul when it occurs.

3) Since the foul occurred (as I recall, correct if wrong) above the free throw line and 3 pt line, we have a freedom of movement foul. It is immediate, no let's see if they can play through it. So ref blew it.

4) Off topic - Official's Grade for 2008 D1 Tournament - 68% That percent is what the crews got. It is not an individual score. You are a team on the court.

5) NBA refs probably average 2 hr pregame, view video of games worked and graded every game. In a league by themselves. The rest of us need to remember what league we are in --the minors.

Ronald - Do you have any other notes, insights, feedback, etc from this camp? I really wanted to make it down but had a family wedding. I'm doing the Next Level Camp at Villanova which will probably espouse the same ideas, etc so want to know what to look forward to.

Let me know, thanks!!

Fellow Court Club Member,

Brad

[ronald]

bradfordwilkins

I took notes and can share them. Is the appropriate manner to share them in a general discussion or by pm?

I am not a member of the Court but the instructors are.

I have never been to any camp as I am just a JV/rec ball guy.

Biggest tool is video breakdown.

Not good enough to know definitions--must master definitions.

Let me know how to share notes or instructor's insights.

Ron

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by ronald

4) Off topic - Official's Grade for 2008 D1 Tournament - 68% That percent is what the crews got. It is not an individual score. You are a team on the court.

I'm going to repeat myself, because people keep bringing this up. There's no way that's an accurate number. Either the evaluation method was flawed, or the evaluators wanted to make a point and skewed the reviewable plays.

There's no way that even ONE official on each crew missed 32% of his calls in ONE game. So it's inconceivable that 100 of the best officials in the country ALL missed a full third of their calls over the course of 64 games.

I'm nowhere near one of the best 100 officials in the country -- nowhere near -- and I haven't missed 32% of my calls in a game (let alone over the course of 64 games) since I was working 5th grade games.

Until I see every call they charted and see which ones they charted as incorrect, I consider this "study" to be completely non-credible.

[grunewar]

Compliments of USAToday:

Late in the third quarter, James had some fun with an Atlanta police officer standing guard over the officials while they reviewed a shot by Wally Szczerbiak to determine if it was a three-pointer. James backed away playfully when the officer shooed him away from the monitor, then eased his way close enough to get a look before the officer noticed.......

Not that I'm hating, but did anybody see the GT/BI called by the L early in the 1Q of the Cavs games?
I believe it was an alley-oop pass to James.
Just thought it was odd to be called from that position. Thoughts?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Not that I'm hating, but did anybody see the GT/BI called by the L early in the 1Q of the Cavs games?
I believe it was an alley-oop pass to James.
Just thought it was odd to be called from that position. Thoughts?

Where was the L? Was that the pass that was made from way in the backcourt? Weren't the T and C in the backcourt at the time?