Celtics/Sixers Game 7
 

So what do we think of the offensive foul that DQ'd Pierce?

I'm a Celtics fan (and a happy one right now), and I thought it was a charge. Defender obtained LGP and was moving obliquely, and Pierce caused the contact.

I'm also a Celts fan and I thought it was a block. Defender was not set..stepped in late. Brutal call on Pierce for a SIXTH foul. Overall, the crew seemed inconsistent. I saw a couple felonies (from both teams) go uncalled...and a couple minor brushes draw a whistle. Not a big fan of this crew.

I hope to see (Joey) Crawford & Co. in Miami Monday

I asked APG to pull the video, but I rewound the game (I missed that part when putting my kids to bed) when I saw a Celtics fan on FB ask about the foul.

I liked the call. Defender doesn't have to be set, he had LGP, IMO, and was moving within the restrictions provided in the rules.

A Tommy Award For The Officials ???
 

More importantly, what did Tommy Heinsohn think about it?

Unfortunately Joe Crawford and Marc Davis are working Game 1 of Thunder/Spurs.

Joe Crawford, Marc Davis, Greg Willard with John Goble as the alternate...that's an excellent crew.

I have no problem with the charge here. Bang bang play.

The no call I didn't like was about 60 seconds before Pierce fouled out. Rondo was defending a 76ers player (I forget who) and the Sixer two handed Rondo into another player to free himself up. I rewound that one to make sure and yes McCutchen was looking right at it and he had no call. In fact he was giving Rondo the "get up" signal while Doc Rivers was ready to lose it.

Agree. I'm sure they'll review it and ask what Monty saw on the play, but I have to think it goes down as and NCI.

Another NCI came just a little later when Brand and a Celtic got very slightly tangled on the right side block. Brand pulls the Celtic defender to the floor, no whistle, Brand gets up and flashes to the RA arc on the left side of the lane gets a pass completely undefended, turns to the basket for the lay-up and gets fouled by the defender who had been on the ground.

My guess is that there was no whistle because both players went to the ground, but on replay, it sure looked to me like Brand clamped and pulled to bring the Celtic defender down.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lbDHPqfki9A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That was ABSOLUTELY an offensive foul on Pierce.

Opinionated ???
 

... says "Bizarro World" Tommy Heinsohn.

What is this business about being set? :confused: How was this a "brutal call"? All the defender has to do is get his torso directly in the path of the offensive player and beat the player to the spot. The beginning of your post has all the ear marks of a fan.

IMO, it was a close play, but I think the defender, JUST, beat the offensive player to the spot and thus a correct call on the offensive foul.

Correct Interpretation ...
 

And I would concur.

I've heard Ronnie Nunn say time and time again that when the guard and the dribbler arrive at the same spot at the same time, it's a block. I don't think the defender beats him to the spot. Tough call either way.

+1

Block

Textbook charge....not even close.

Not even close? Really? I doubt we'd be having this debate if it wasn't a lttle bit close.

PC and the T buys the slot a beer.

I agree with the call but don't agree with the Slot having the whistle. Lead and Trail both had a clear view of the play and the Slot had a body directly in between him and the play.

We are having thiis debate b/c some officials just aren't honest with themselves. :D

CR, I'm with you. I didn't even need to look at the slo-mo on this one. Contact in the torso. Defender established then maintained LGP. I know we're having debate on it in the string but there really isn't much question.

BZ, what does the defender not being "set" have to do with anything? Pierce was dribbling so that has no bearing.

Wow, takes guts to make that call on Pierce.

I liked the PC here, using Fed rules. I'm no NBA official so I don't know if NBA rules differ. But in High School, that's a PC 100% of the time (or should be)

if anyone EVER needs evidence that there are NOT enough player control/charging calls made, simply read through this thread......here is your evidence.

LGP was established by the defender, he moved laterally to maintain LGP, & the offensive player moved into and thru the defender.....all of that makes this a charge.

The fact that there is so much disagreement means that we ALL need more rule and video review to call these correctly.

Take away the time/score of the game, take away the offensive player (and the # of personal fouls he has), and forget that this is Game 7......

In any game, on any level....this is a player control foul.

I can see your point but sometimes (and I think in this case) the Slot has the best "open look" at the play. The T and L are looking at the backs of the players and thus have a "closed look."

As others have said, I've heard many evaluators echo the "if 2 players arrive at a spot at the same time, it's a block" theory. My supervisor also says that if he has to look at a play 2x's when bodies end up on the floor, then he is fine with whatever call was made on the floor as long as a whistle blew.

A great crew saving call either way.

He was only in his path with 2 feet down a whole 4 steps before contact . I'm not sure what else he needed to to to obtain LGP. After that, he moved, but did so legally and even got 2 feet down in Pierce's path once (maybe twice) more. The only thing he didn't do was satisfy the myth of needing to be "set". But last time I check, most of us didn't rule based on myths.

Thats not the way I see it. Defender looked like he slid into Pierce's path right before contact and did not establish LGP before he got clobbered. Maybe I've got green colored glasses on...but he was not in Pierce's path 4 steps away.

What did the defender do wrong? He is back up and gets in front of the ball handler. This is a charge all the way, every day and all day and twice on Sunday.

This is not about getting to a spot at the same time, the defender was there and got RTFOd.

I am calling a charge all the time on this play, even if it is close.

Peace

I have a charge.

Exactly, because the T should have called the PC. The C called that out of his area. PC happened off the opposite elbow and the slash originated from the wing.

There's no way the defender gets to the spot first. He's still moving to the spot when there's contact. That's a block.

This is why there's so much controversy regarding so many charging fouls being called. Got too many guys out there who love to punch.

Where in the rulebook is there any conversation or wording about getting to a spot? The defender was backing up and had a legal position. And the controversy about charges are from media people and coaches (which is the only people on the NCAA committee). So who cares about a controversy that has still not be endorsed or supported by the supervisor of officials. If he does and he will if he thinks so, then that will be a reasonable point of view. But without bringing in that part of this discussion, the defender was backing away and took it in the chest. That is a charge all day in my book and I have a NBA official that gives presentations in my association all the time and is perplexed that more charges are not called even in the NBA.

Peace

Curious how y'all think he had 'legal position'.

I think that's why Tony (and me, for that matter) have a block on this play.

Under NBA rules, the defender must get the torso directly in the path of the offensive player and must beat the defender to the spot. If he's there late or both players arrive at the same time, it's a blocking foul.

I don't think he (defender) did. That's been my contention since seeing the play live.

OK, then under NBA rules was this a blocking foul? It sounds by your description this is still an offensive foul from my understanding.

Peace

Continuing to be moving is not relevant.

He had a spot in the path a long time before contact. After that, movement is legal to stay in the path.

He was straight in front of the dribbler (in the path), had two feed on the floor and was facing the dribbler the moment the dribbler beat the first defender...between 10 and 11 seconds in in the video replay as the dribbler stepped with his right foot and lifted his left. LGP obtained.

The dribbler veers to the left and the defender shifts right to stay in front of him the entire time. The dribbler take two more steps and collides with the torso of the defender as they're both shifting together.

In fact, the primary contact is on the defenders LEFT side...indicating the defender definitely stayed in the dribbler's path.

If the contact had been on the defender's right side, that would probably mean the defender would not have remained in the path and would have lost LGP and would have needed to reobtain it. He would have been moving into the dribber in such a case...for a block. But that isn't what happened.

Sorry fellas - watched it again. And again. I disagree that (a) defender was straight in front of the dribbler and (b) had both feet on the floor for LGP. Also disagree that any movement was "in the path" (definitely sideways). Not saying it wasn't a bang-bang play, but neither is it as obvious as you're making it out to be.

I personally thought offensive foul, but the play is so close, that I would have been okay with a blocking foul.

All conversations I have had with a former NBA officials the basic rules they apply are the same. And in this case it appears nothing should be called but an offensive foul. I will ask my friend and see what he thinks. I am going to see him in a week for sure and I will ask his take on this play and report it back to you.

Peace

You're going to ask a former NBA official to review a call by a current NBA official? How do you think he'll respond? I'll save you the time. He's going to concur: "they made the right call...charging".

Do you really think he's going to go against any call a current crew in the post season makes, especially if he know's you are going to take that opinion back to a public discussion board?

From the NBA web site
 

So...given these definitions, what did the defender do on this play that was illegal?

I think it's been stated repeatedly by some (me included) that there is doubt that "he legally gets to that spot first " and thusly that the defender DID NOT "establish a position on the floor" based on what the video os showing.

There is obvious disagreement over what we are ALL seeing in the video...so it looks like this one's going to go round and round....

To be fair, I am big Celtic fan...

But, I thought it was a charge. I also did not think it was that obvious and being the NBA, it easily could have gone the other way.

If it was Lebron, I would have thought it was very obviously a charge:)

Considering he is a current NBA evaluator and someone we go to for training in my area, I think he will give his honest answer. He told me what he felt about a play last year that was a block/charge call and I asked him about before the playoffs were over last year. He has in the past used video and examples from the NBA to teach officials at camps and meetings with his knowledge. I already have a good idea what he is going to say anyway, but I would like to confirm that feeling. I also did not necessarily say I was going to bring it to the entire board either.

Peace

Here are Pierce and Young as Young establishes LGP

http://i47.tinypic.com/2lwvz7m.jpg

Young and Pierce right before contact.

http://i50.tinypic.com/o32aq.jpg


So...what did Young do that was illegal? BTW, if I took a shot from two frames later Young gets hit in the chest.

If he isn't straight in front of him with two feet down, I guess that is an impossible requirement. The still shot by JetMetFan above , or just slightly before that when the dribbler is turning his path from right to left, crossing the defender, is exactly that. Nothing says he has to have his feet down and be in his path for anything more than an instant....he doesn't have to be SET in his path as the dribbler comes at him as it seems you and a couple of others are implying.


Uh, sideways is in the path if the path is shifting sideways.


Your can certainly disagree with the conclusion but your descriptions of what the player is required to do to get and maintain LGP don't match the rules.

To the letter even.

He more than got to "the spot" first since the contact was more on his trailing side than his leading side. He was there before the dribbler. And his movement was not toward the dribbler...it was away from him.

I agree. This is not that close.

I agree with Camron.

At least it is not if you judge the play by the actual rules instead of by common misconceptions of what a defender can or can't do.