Celtics-Cavaliers game 4

Here are some noteworthy clips from the game.

OOB throw-in contact (no-call): Streamable - simple video sharing

Kevin Love shoulder injury (common foul): Streamable - simple video sharing

JR Smith flagrant 2: Streamable - simple video sharing

Kendrick Perkins flagrant 1: Streamable - simple video sharing

[Jay R]

I was very surprised that Perkins stayed in the game. Steve Javie said what I was thinking; if you eject Perkins you don't have too worry about him the rest of the game. Or worry about a Celtic player retaliating.

Would not be surprised if Smith gets a suspension.

[Pantherdreams]

I acually think that the Perkins play was worse then the Smith play. End result clearly worse for Smith but he was blow up for two forearm shots on the intial cut to the rim and hand arms and hands on his back and neck again prior to him swinging back. Doesn't make it right but its a retaliation type action in an already physical game to someone doing something similar.

Perk is basically deciding to make a non basketball play.

[Raymond]

I get audio, but the screen either freezes or goes blank.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I get audio, but the screen either freezes or goes blank.

Sorry for your troubles. Those videos all run in HTML5, which all modern browsers support. If your browser doesn't support HTML5, then it should default to run in Flash. Maybe check to see if your browser is updated or try another browser?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Here are some noteworthy clips from the game.

OOB throw-in contact (no-call): Bush league

Kevin Love shoulder injury (common foul): Looks intentional..UGLY
JR Smith flagrant 2: UGLY

Kendrick Perkins flagrant 1: UGLY. How is he allowed to stay in the game after further review? This a Flagrant 1 in the NBA???

Collectively...all good reasons why I really don't watch the NBA any more. This looks more like pro wrestling than basketball. I'm waiting for a folding chair to make an appearance.

[Raymond]

Sooo, just b/c it is so slow around here. A1 scores a basket and his momentum carries him OOB. While still OOB A1 then:

1) reaches back inbounds and touches a pass that has already been released by B1

2) reaches back inbounds and touches the ball while B1 has extended the ball completely inbounds without yet releasing the pass.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sooo, just b/c it is so slow around here. A1 scores a basket and his momentum carries him OOB. While still OOB A1 then:

1) reaches back inbounds and touches a pass that has already been released by B1

2) reaches back inbounds and touches the ball while B1 has extended the ball completely inbounds without yet releasing the pass.

Normally, A1 would be excused for being OOB in such a play but when A1 takes action to defend the throwin, they lose that benefit.

#1...OOB violation on A1.

#2...throwin violation on A1 for being across the boundary line before the ball is released on the throwin. But not a T for contacting the ball since the ball was on the inbounds side of the line.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sooo, just b/c it is so slow around here. A1 scores a basket and his momentum carries him OOB. While still OOB A1 then:

1) reaches back inbounds and touches a pass that has already been released by B1

2) reaches back inbounds and touches the ball while B1 has extended the ball completely inbounds without yet releasing the pass.

OOB violation on both. Unlike Camron I don't think the plane violation would apply in #2.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

OOB violation on both. Unlike Camron I don't think the plane violation would apply in #2.

Rule 7. Section 6. ART. 4 . . . The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass. See 9-2-10 Penalty.

Was the ball released yet? Did the player have any part of their person through the boundary plane? (note that the rule doesn't talk about reaching through, just about being through).

Taken literally, this rule could be read to say that it is a violation if A1 is just OOB in the cases presented. However, we know that really isn't the intent...B1 can't get a DOG violation against A by starting the throwin so quick after A1's made basket that A1 might still be OOB due to momentum. A1 gets a pass in those cases. However, when A1 starts defending the throwin, A1 is now subject to the throwin rules.

[potato]

OOB aside.

The defender did touch the ball before the ball was released from the player, so is that not a violation?

Plus he grabbed the player, is that not a violation?

and doing both while out of bounds, surely if it's not a violation it'd still be a turnover.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Was the ball released yet? Did the player have any part of their person through the boundary plane? (note that the rule doesn't talk about reaching through, just about being through).

Taken literally, this rule could be read to say that it is a violation if A1 is just OOB in the cases presented. However, we know that really isn't the intent...B1 can't get a DOG violation against A by starting the throwin so quick after A1's made basket that A1 might still be OOB due to momentum. A1 gets a pass in those cases. However, when A1 starts defending the throwin, A1 is now subject to the throwin rules.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by potato

OOB aside.

The defender did touch the ball before the ball was released from the player, so is that not a violation?

Plus he grabbed the player, is that not a violation?

and doing both while out of bounds, surely if it's not a violation it'd still be a turnover.

The other team had the ball, so it can't be a turnover.

If the thrower-in extends the ball inbounds over the boundary plain, it is legal for the defense to touch the ball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by potato

OOB aside.

The defender did touch the ball before the ball was released from the player, so is that not a violation?

No. BNR already addressed this above.

Originally Posted by potato

Plus he grabbed the player, is that not a violation?

I don't see any mention of that in the situation. If that were to occur, it would be an intentional foul, not a violation.