Explaining 10 Questionable Calls from the Heat Game
During the close game against the Heat last night, we saw a lot of questionable and, in some cases, confusing calls. So let's look at some of these calls and see if they were right or wrong.
I will be referencing the Official NBA Rulebook for the 2011-2012 Season.
Play 1) Let's break it down starting from 5:00 left in the final quarter. Right off the bat, we have our first questionable call. Wade drives to the basket on a fast break and misses. Well after the play, the referee calls a foul. There's no rule for this, it's just a frustrating call. It doesn't matter whether the play was a foul or not (and, upon replay it clearly wasn't), the ref should call the foul when it happens, not after the shot missed.
Play 2) On Miami's next possession, we see LeBron travel, and get rewarded with free throws. This happens every time he touches the ball, and the refs have overlooked it his whole career. Not much to analyze here. Let's skip the rest of the missed travels.
Play 3) With exactly two minutes remaining, Blake gets his 5th foul on a loose ball play. Again, it's a late whistle, which is why Griffin gets so angry afterwards. On this play, the replay revealed that it was the right call. Blake clearly comes over Bosh's back to swipe the ball away.
Play 4) With only 27 seconds left, and the Clippers down by 1, Blake Griffin kicks the ball out to Chauncey Billups, who misses the three but is fouled by LeBron James. Some citizens mentioned that James hit Billups well after the foul, so it should be a two shot foul, not a three shot. The reason that Billups is awarded with three shots is because he is still in the act of shooting. Chauncey gets good elevation on his jumper, and he is still in the air when LeBron makes contact. It is by this rule that most four-point plays occur.
Play 5) When the Heat get the ball back, Wade is dribbling the ball on the wing. When he drives, the ball goes out of bounds off of Billups' shoe. The referees rule that it is Clipper ball, but after video review change the call. Ultimately it is disappointing, but it's the right call.
Play 6) Just 5 seconds later, LeBron is shooting his second free throw. He misses, but Wade saves the ball off of DeAndre Jordan to retain possession. This play was one of the more controversial calls in the game, but the refs again got it right. Here is why: a player is considered inbounds until he touches the floor out of bounds. Wade clearly leaps from inbounds and throws the ball off of Jordan, who is considered out of bounds because he has stepped outside the court. Some have claimed that the ball hit the baseline before bouncing to Wade, but there is no camera angle that I have seen to prove that. However, I believe that the Heat would have been awarded the ball anyways, because Griffin had touched it last. Did Blake get fouled? Yes, but that's not reviewable.
Play 7) After inbounding the ball following Wade's save, LeBron drives again, and draws another foul. Again the refs miss a travel. After LeBron picks up the basketball, he plants both his feet, right, then left. After planting his left foot, James drags his right, making his left foot his 'pivot foot'. Up to this point, there is no violation. However, after dragging his right, James plants it, and switches his pivot foot, rotating around while moving his left foot to draw the foul. It is illegal to switch your pivot foot, and when I watched it the baseline replay I could clearly see the violation.
Let's move to overtime.
Play 8) At the 4:08 mark, Billups drives toward the baseline and is met by Haslem. Even though Chauncey passed the ball before colliding with Haslem, it is still a charging foul because Haslem meets the following criteria: outside of the restricted area, feet set with no leaning, takes the blow to the chest. This call is similar to when a player releases the ball on a layup before running into the defender. The play is still called a charge.
Play 9) Now here is the big play: the DeAndre Jordan block on Chris Bosh with 45 seconds remaining. Despite the argument put up by the Heat, this play is clearly and indisputably a block and not a goaltend. From the first replay angle, it appears that the ball is on its way down, making it a goaltend. But, from the original camera angle the shot is clearly headed for the backboard. This is a fairly complicated rule, so let's break it down a little further.
- On a regular field goal attempt, a player shall not touch any ball within the playing area that is on its downward flight with an opportunity to score.
- On a bank field goal attempt, a player shall not touch any ball within the playing area that has already made contact with the backboard and is above rim level, whether the ball is on its upwards or downwards flight.
Because the shot is a bank attempt by Bosh, it is legal to block it any time before the ball hits the backboard, with no regard to the ball's angle of flight. Therefore, because Jordan made contact with the ball before it hit the backboard, it is a good and legal blocked shot.
Play 10) After Mario Chalmers misses a three pointer with under 20 seconds remaining, Blake Griffin quickly chases down the rebound, and, not wanting to shoot free throws, hands the ball off to Chauncey Billups. While Blake is giving the ball to Billups, Shane Battier tries to foul Griffin. An argument ensues where Battier is trying to convince the referee that Griffin should be shooting free throws. However, this is a pointless argument. Since the Heat had not committed 4 fouls in overtime, or 2 fouls in the final 2 minutes of overtime, Miami had a foul to give, which results in a sideline inbound for the Clippers, no matter whether Battier fouled Griffin or Billups.
Hopefully this clears up some of your questions. If any of these explanations require further support, or any citizens have other questions regarding rules and calls, please leave them in the comments.
106 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great Stuff
I had half a mind to post about some of last night’s oddities, and one of them was definitely your #10, Battier’s foul on Griffin. Not sure I’ve ever been mad at Battier but in short, he was acting like a prick, and Griffin definitely didn’t like the idea of having to shoot freethrows there, and for good reason I guess, but I’d have liked to have seen him a little less petrified.
"The need to be right - the sign of a vulgar mind."
by ghost_ride on Jan 12, 2012 9:40 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Re: Play 6
I thought Wade had his hand on Deandre’s shoulder when he touches the ball thus making him out of bounds.
by Jonee on Jan 12, 2012 9:45 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
hmmm
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that called. You’re saying that if you’re in contact with something out of play, then you are out of play, which I believe is indeed the rule. But again,it does not seem to be called that way – though it doesn’t come up much.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:04 AM PST up reply actions
It's a matter of sample size
How often have we seen a play like that one? I agree, however, that if Wade touched DJ before letting go of the ball and after DJ was already out, then Wade was out by rule when he touched the ball to save it. The questions are:
Did Wade touch DJ?
If so, was DJ considered out of bounds when Wade touched him?
If so, did Wade touch DJ before letting go of the ball?
If the answer to all of these questions is yes, then the Clippers should have been awarded possession. If the answer to any is no, then the call was correct.
DJ was definitely out of bounds
It’s close as to whether Wade is touching DJ when he touches the ball, but he definitely touches Deandre’s shoulder to help launch himself while DJ is out. In that case, Wade is out and can’t save the ball the same as if he touched the floor out of bounds and then jumped in the air. IMO, at least.
One thing that was controversial was the no call at the VERY end.
Well, it really wasn’t “controversial” for the Clippers, especially because it is obvious that NONE of the Heat players fouled.
I read in a Ramona tweet (I think) that Spolestra was mad not that they weren't calling fouls
But that the ref handed the ball to CP3 on the sideline so quickly, not allowing the D to get set up and try for the turnover.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
That didn't even make a big difference.
It was apparent that they weren’t going to foul Billups. And I find it pretty hard to believe that CP3 would have turned the ball over on an inbound. I suppose it may have made a difference, but it didn’t call for him being thrown out of the game.
It's about setting the defense
By getting the ball to the inbounder quickly, it made it easier to inbound the ball to Billups.
Having said that, give me a break. How long did we stand there with Shane Battier pointing at Blake? Spoelstra says the refs caught his team off guard? Who’s fault is that? If Spoelstra had a time out to use to set his defense, he should have used it. Beyond that, since when is it the ref’s job to help out either coach in getting set? The ref’s job is to put the ball in play. Unless Spoelstra has a procedural issue beyond “Hey, you guys, we weren’t ready!” he should either shut up or go find his blankie or something.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:09 AM PST up reply actions
Coaching stress
Coaches work really hard, and especially in the shortened season, you can bet that there’s alot of sleep lost amongst NBA head coaches this season. Rick Carlisle got tossed from the first game of ESPN’s doubleheader on a no call in the second quarter. I can see Spo being angry and frustrated at the end of a crazy game with alot of crazy officiating (enough to warrant a feature) and back-to-back overtime losses.
Also, Spo is always rumored to be on the hot seat. Losing streaks are not good. So I can understand him being frustrated at the end of a game that was clearly over at that point, and losing control.
Also
Whoever’s fault it was, the fact is that the failure to call the foul on CP3, if there was one, cost them the game.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
huh?
I’d except “Cost them their final teeny, tiny sliver of hope that maybe Paul would miss at least one free throw and then they’d get a four point play in the final 8 seconds and force a second overtime.” Cost them the game? Nope.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:58 AM PST up reply actions
ah yes...
But while others don’t have an edit button, I have to power to delete my own comment and replace it with the proper word. I won’t do that in this case, but I could.
Yes, accept. Not except.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
It's okay, thought it was just a dig at Lebron, hahah
http://twitter.com/#!/KingJames/status/157537234785009665
Yes, that's more accurate
Sorry – cost them their last possible chance at it.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Maybe
But maybe the Heat should have stopped complaining and focusing on D.
by yaggiefresh on Jan 12, 2012 11:50 PM PST up reply actions
Your logic is flawed regarding the goaltend. Just because you can’t touch a ball after it hits the backboard no matter where it is does not mean that you can touch it anywhere before it hits. If that were the case you could just claim that every shot is an attempted bank, which would eliminate the goaltending rule. I’m not making a judgment on this particular call. Just saying that a ball supposedly headed for the backboard is not fair game if it’s on the way down.
by clipped on Jan 12, 2012 9:52 PM PST via mobile reply actions
The rule only mentions bank shots AFTER they hit the backboard. You cannot infer anything about bank shots BEFORE they hit the backboard from that rule. Unless you find a rule stating something about pre-backboard banks, it does not matter whether it is headed toward the backboard or not, you cannot block a shot on its way down.
by clipped on Jan 12, 2012 10:06 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not sure if I'm odd when I bank a shot in.
But unless it is a jump shot gone wrong, my bank shot layups always rise until they hit the backboard, then they drop down.
Yes it is; and yes, I get into debates with other fans who...
Obviously know nothing about basketball. I also have some comments on bleacher report.
The one I found was the crazy argentinian who loves Manu
lol, that guy was crazy, and I’m a huge Manu fan.
Probably talking about bank shot jumpers
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
hubie mentioned that rule last night.
the rule book is pretty thin, much less info than I am sure the refs are given
what? The announcer said that rule during the game
and the rule book is thin. It doesn’t describe calls sufficiently for someone to read it and automatically be an NBA ref.
Re: Thin Rulebook
You’re right, the refs have more than just the NBA Rule Book to go on. There’s a great addendum called the NBA Case Book, a pdf of which you can find here. It uses a Q&A format to clarify the rulings using actual game situations. Though it doesn’t address this goaltending question directly, it does offer one clue, in that it refers to a field-goal attempt “on its downward flight toward the basket ring and/or backboard.” But usually — as with the recent dispute over the call on the Jamal Crawford/CP3 tie-up at the end of the 1st Portland game — it has exactly the info you’re looking for.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Now living the good life in Lob City, CA.
by boltsfan21 on Jan 13, 2012 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I have to agree
By LJ’s interpretation of the rule, it just doesn’t seem to pass the sniff test. I would think that a midrange bank shot still fall under a “regular field goal attempt with an opportunity to score”. I don’t think just because the glass is intended to be used, that you’re allowed to hit the ball on it’s downward flight. Wording might be poor, but by “regular field goal” I don’t think the rule book means “non-bank-shot”, to me a bank shot is still a “regular field goal attempt”. I’ve never heard the intention of a bank shot ever coming up in a goal tend call.
The second part of the rule is ONLY to clarify that bank shots where the flight of the ball continues it’s flight upward cannot be touched after the ball hits the glass.
Interpretation
That’s exactly what it is. Unfortunately, the book doesn’t clarify. When I read it I already had that preconcieved notion because I believe Hubie Brown mentioned something about “it’s not a goaltend because the ball was clearly headed towards the glass”, or something to that effect.
So when I read the rules, I was looking for that, and I suppose I found wording that allows that train of thought, so I proceeded with it.
The mid range jumper bank shot is really what makes me believe that I may have erred. If the rule was as I believed, wouldn’t DJ just block every midrange jumper when it was about to hit the glass? Interesting. I wish that I had an NBA official in my phone…
Hubie
I didn’t watch the ESPN broadcast, so I don’t know what Hubie said. I will say this though… Hubie talks – A LOT – and I love the guy, but sometimes he gets himself painted into a corner when his mouth gets going faster than his brain. It wouldn’t be the first time that Hubie structured a sentence in such a way that it was hard to know what he was saying.
At the end of the day, reading the rule book, there really isn’t much room for interpretation on this. If a defender touches any shot on it’s downward arc, provided it has a chance to score, bank or not, it’s a goal tend. So the question on DJ-Bosh ultimately is whether it was going up or down.
Now, as I mentioned, I was watching the Clippers broadcast, and frankly, this play wasn’t even presented as being controversial. To my recollection, Ralph and Mike didn’t even mention the Heat being upset. Looked like a clean block to me, but I only watched it once or twice.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:21 AM PST up reply actions
First paragraph about Hubie
+1000
I love Hubie too, but he does this a lot.
Re: Heat being upset, I seem to recall Mike saying in passing that LeBron was gesturing for a goaltend, but it seemed more like a quick reaction rather than anyone actually trying to argue to the refs. Just like how guys make a face wanting a foul, but quickly get over it. (Except Blake, he takes like 5 plays to get over it.)
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
From the angle on the National Coverage
it looked like the shot was going down. When they called a timeout LBJ was definitely telling the ref about it.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Jan 13, 2012 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
Re: play 8
Haslem didn’t seem set at all on this play… he was still hopping into position and as I recall, his heels weren’t even down yet. Milph said it looked more like he just ran to the spot and collided with Billups.
Also, you didn’t mention the one where Blake tried to dunk and there was a no call, even though Joel Anthony was both inside the restricted area AND he was pushing his arms forward into Blake. Though, you may not have mentioned this because Steve mentioned it in his recap. I’m a little fuzzy on the restricted area rules, if that plays any part (or if it’s only relevant when someone’s trying to take a charge).
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Oh, and great job breaking down #9
This is why multiple angles are awesome.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
I on,y did the end of the game
so 5 min of the 4th
basically, restricted area is only for charges. If the defender is on or over the line, then it is a block
Yea I forget when that happened
Ok, wasn’t sure if the restricted area was more complicated. Grazie :D
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
On the Blake-Anthony play
Restricted area really wouldn’t come into play on that one. The rules involved here are many, and they rule book is tough to interpret, so I’m not going to quote directly, but rather try to word it in a common sense way in which it is enforced in the NBA.
The restricted area applies exclusively to charge-block calls, specifically when the defender is set in a way to impede the offensive player, and is not making a play on the ball. You can always try to make a play on the ball regardless of the restricted area, or otherwise we’d never get a blocked dunk.
The next rule involved here is the rule of verticality. If the defender goes straight up, i.e. is vertical, then body contact is not a foul on the defender. In that situation, the ref could conceivably call body contact an offensive foul, but in reality, on this sort of play, it’s almost always considered incidental (provided the defender is vertical).
But the rule of verticality is not really applied to contact on a shooter’s arms. I suppose it could be, but I’ve never seen it done. If you make contact with a shooter’s arms, while that guys in a normal shooting motion, it’s ruled a foul, period. I don’t care what the rule book says, that’s how it is called in the NBA. heck, even the abnormal motion of the Kevin Durant “rip through” move is a foul (though no longer a shooting foul). Again, from an actual practical application standpoint, NBA refs allow all kinds of contact provided you block the shot, but Anthony didn’t come close to getting high enough to challenge the actual shot.
On that play, they could have called an offensive foul on Griffin for initiating contact with a vertical Anthony, they could have called an offensive foul on Griffin for fending off Anthony with his off hand, or they could have called any number of fouls on Anthony, most notably significant contact with Griffin’s shooting arm without blocking the shot. But it’s a foul of one kind or another.
The only possible justification for a no call is “you both fouled, play on” which isn’t officially a part of basketball, but does happen.
About 95% of the time, that’s a defensive foul.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
Play 1 was the worst one imo
No one touched wade and they called the foul after he missed the shot. Horrible call ref.
we’re cheap, like to drink and are pissed off.
WHO WANTS A FREE SHARPIE?? -- Blake Griffin
bad call
but in the momentum, in the speed, and the refs angle
DJ’s arm could have looked like it grabbed Wade at the waist…only on the backboard cam you can clearly see there was little to no contact…
but from the Ref’s angle, i can understand how they could think different
its one of those bad calls that i would be willing to swallow and be okay with it…HOWEVER i’m not okay that it was a LATE call
Ralph, "Last year so often with Blake Griffin you would see these things coming, with Paul, he's so crafty, all of a sudden boom there it is."
I'm thinking...
the ref blew the whistle with the assumption that there was no way Wade would miss that layup without getting fouled. I don’t think the ref saw the foul (because there wasn’t a foul to see).
I remember a similar instance that worked in the Clippers favor a few years back. Ricky Davis had a runaway layup, but blew it as Ty Lawson ran by. Ref blew the whistle, assuming that Ricky got touched and fouled. Replay shows that Ty didn’t touch Ricky at all.
As infuriating as they may be, blown calls are part of the game that I have come to accept. It’s easy for us to criticize them with the help of instant replays and what not, but they have to keep their eyes on a ton of things happening on the court and make split second decisions. For the most part, I think NBA referees do a great job. My only beef with the refs is their failure to call traveling: LBJ traveled a multitude of times during our game as mentioned above, Gerald Wallace took 4 steps in the Portland game (how does one go from the three point line to the basket without having to dribble the ball???), and though I didn’t see it in our game, DWade likes to do a spin move + 2 steps on his way to a layup.
remember that fast break pull up jump shot against us years back
and it missed, and the refs called a foul when Mobley just clapped and was no close enough to teach the shooter
i forgot the opponent
Ralph, "Last year so often with Blake Griffin you would see these things coming, with Paul, he's so crafty, all of a sudden boom there it is."
lol
the clap can sound like a slap. alot of times refs call “sound fouls” where they can hear the slap. Mostly these occur in empty high school/aau gyms. I would assume that in an NBA arena, it is way too loud to rely on that. Cat must have one loud clap.
I remember it well
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
Billups
If you watch closely, the ref makes a motion of moving his arm around his waist when he signals the call. And in the replay, Chauncey does indeed brush Wade’s waist ever so slightly. It’s such minor contact, it should never have been called a foul, BUT it was not a complete mystery call – the ref saw what he saw.
Having said that, you can count one thousand one, one thousand two before the whistle blows with the ball in DJ’s hands and he’s making an outlet pass. That’s atrocious, and clearly the miss influenced the call, which is bush league. Call the foul or don’t call the foul. You’re an NBA ref. This isn’t the local church league.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:42 AM PST up reply actions
this happens all the time
the miss influenced the call
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’s the reason for maybe half of all late whistles. The refs don’t want to give 3 points for a foul they deem relatively minor, so they wait to see if the ball goes through. And whether you agree with it or not, it demonstrates a level of reffing savvy beyond the zebras of your local church league — I think it’s way more common in the NBA than at any amateur level, including college.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Now living the good life in Lob City, CA.
This seemed especially late, though
Usually you can just force yourself to assume the ref was inhaling or something and took a second longer to blow the whistle, but this one was so perfect in the timing that it was blatantly obvious the ref was waiting to see if the ball came off the rim. I’m fine with the foul call, just not the manner in which the ref made the call. It makes the league look bad.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Agreed, it was ridiculously late
I wasn’t trying to imply that I think the ref did the right thing in that instance. They should NEVER blow the whistle THAT late. I just meant that, in general, I’m not entirely against refs using the result to decide whether or not to blow the whistle.
Also, in this case he shouldn’t have blown the whistle for another reason: It wasn’t a f—-ing foul!
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Now living the good life in Lob City, CA.
O.T. but Dwight Howard is destroying the Warriors
35 free throw attempts… thats an NBA record
we’re cheap, like to drink and are pissed off.
WHO WANTS A FREE SHARPIE?? -- Blake Griffin
The NO CALL on Blake's dunk attempt was absurd...
If you don’t think it’s a foul, it has to be an offensive foul. There was a ton of contact, could have gone either way, should have gone to Blake, but to just watch and let them play on was ridiculous.
To top it all off.
They called a clear path foul when it was for sure not a clear path and Lebron was the one who initiated contact in the first place.
Clear Path call was definitely one of the most questionable calls of the night
"It's better to be an optimist who is sometimes wrong than a pessimist who is always right"unknown
by bestclipfan on Jan 12, 2012 10:46 PM PST up reply actions
clear path
as far as I know, that was NOT a clear path foul b/c LeBron was not past halfcourt. Even though the ball had passed the line, at the point of the foul it appeared to me that lebrons body was still behind the line.
That was the kicker...
it would have been bad if it had led to a normal transition but 2 shots and the ball, come on.
The refs were really bad both ways. Someone should go back and try to figure out who got the worst of the bad calls on the scoreboard. It seemed to even out.
I forgot about that...
That clear path call on the heels of the Blake no call was brutal. About then we’re thinking “Refs won’t let Clippers win this one.”
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:44 AM PST up reply actions
did anyone else notice juwan howard venture onto the court when spoelstra went bonkers?
isnt that worth a suspension? (not that it matters)
saw the same thing
by rule, its a suspension, but a veteran like juwan who was only calming spo down? He’ll get away with it
Actually no
It’s only illegal to come off the bench if there’s an altercation on the court. It’s open to interpretation, but having your coach go temporarily insane probably doesn’t qualify.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Of course
they can’t call it every time an excited player on the bench steps foot onto the court, but Howard was out past midcourt. I’m sure that could qualify, if he was yelling at the ref himself instead of restraining his coach.
Yelling at a ref
You can issue a Technical foul or a suspension anytime for conduct towards the ref of course. That’s a judgment call. But if we’re talking about the automatic suspension, leaving the bench rule (the Amare Stoudemire 2007 playoffs suspension thing) then it only applies if a player leaves the bench following an “altercation”. “Altercation” is open to interpretation, but it is usually reserved for a physical encounter between players on the court. There’s nothing that says a player can’t be on the court during a dead ball.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 10:12 AM PST up reply actions
Dead ball
I understand what you are saying, but any time a player is out at center court when there is no timeout called… that is suspect to me. As I said, he was a peacemaker so there was no problem. But when you say dead ball… does that mean Trey can run out onto the court and whisper a joke to CP3 while Blake is shooting free throws?
Strictly speaking...
I’d suggest that there’s a difference between a free throw and a stoppage such as this. But think of it this way. If there are six players on the court because a player got confused about a substitution, and the ref is ready to hand the ball to the inbounder when the team notices their error, the team will sort it out, get the player off the court and play will resume. If play starts with six on the court, it’s a technical foul. But while the ball is dead, I suppose you could call something, but you don’t.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
travel
haha, but yea if the NBA comes out and has to say something about it, you know it must’ve been pretty bad.
I loved the one viewer comment
“It was not a travel. It was a journey!”
"Great Balls Of Fire, Reggie's Back!"
So...
did you have time to look over the play?
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Jan 13, 2012 12:33 PM PST up reply actions
It was a joke?
thought you got distracted by all the porn…
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Jan 14, 2012 1:38 AM PST up reply actions
Wow
That’s a great look at that.
Here’s the thing… sometimes things happen so quickly, a dragged pivot foot can be a matter of interpretation, it’s easy to miss these, and then you see the replay and you’re like, “Oh sure, I see it now, that was a travel.” Sometimes. Not this time. Watching the play in real time, I immediately screamed “That’s a walk” as did Mike Smith. It was an EASY call – a blatant walk. A move that makes no sense as you’re watching – you don’t have to see his feet, you know that he didn’t do that in any sort of legal manner. Not only did he drag his pivot foot, he then switched it and started a whole new move. It wasn’t just a travel – it was a folk dance. And DJ’s ‘foul’ (which was pretty minor given how they were calling things in that game) occurred long after the multiple traveling violations.
Bottom line is that this is one of the truly troublesome problems with NBA officiating. Missing calls is one thing – refs aren’t perfect, and it happens. But far too often the stars are given the benefit of the doubt, particularly in key situations. LeBron James is a star, therefore we won’t call a clear travel against him in a key situation, and furthermore we will put him on the line if he is stripped. James (and Wade and Kobe and, yes, Blake) are supremely gifted athletes and incredibly difficult for defenses to stop – they’re the last ones the refs should be helping.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Jan 13, 2012 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, Mike Smith was all over that from half court.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
I promise you, if blake did that (brons non call) he would be called for traveling!
I don’t see the refs giving blake the benefit of the doubt anytime soon!
brijo1
by ThaFoX on Jan 13, 2012 8:17 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Goaltending
This is an extremely tough call for the refs to make at full game speed. Sure, one of the 5 players on the court and slow motion replay viewers may have different angles than the refs. This is one that just won’t get called every time until you have a fourth ref who just sits on top of the backboard.
To me, I feel the same way as Rob Lo (above) commented on the Wade late whistle incident.
Wow A Lot of Posts So Far On This
Anyway regarding Play #1 above.
I believe the rule in practice is that a foul can be called within a reasonable time period after it is committed. Was this late call within a reasonable time period after the play ended? I don’t know but clearly the official who made the call thought so.
I do know that calls like this are not that uncommon in the NBA.
No
where the foul looked to be(even though upon replay it wasn’t) was before wade shot the ball. the whistle wasn’t blown until after the shot was released, hit the glass, and rolled off the rim. Wade had already landed and was headed the other way when the whistle blew.
That Is Not How It Is Done
You really have to watch a lot of NBA basketball which I do to know that this is a common type call. It is even a common type call in the NCAA and most of the basketball world.
I Am Saying That This Is A Common Type Call
for a number of reasons.
One reason that you see this call made quite often is because the official who is supposed to make the call does not make it for one reason or another. Therefore when he does not make the call another official after waiting for the call that did not come makes the call and it becomes a late call.
I am not saying that is what happened here but it is just one example of why late calls are made and common calls.
Was it the proper call assuming it was not a late call? I don’t know but we aren’t discussing whether it would have been the proper call if it had been made when people expected it to be made.
The official on the court who is supposed to make the call because of his court location and the area on the court that he is officiating at the time often gets screened out and can not properly if at all see the play. Hence he doesn’t make the call waiting for another official who might have seen the play make the call. This leads to delayed calls.
I do not know if that is what happened in this case.
ok- thanks
I agree regarding late calls, just was confused a bit.
This was on a fast break and there was clearly one official trailing the play on the same side as the play occured. He didn’t call it at first, but I assume that after Wade missed he assumed that a foul had been committed
That Appears To Be The Consensus
I used to really rag on NBA officiating until I watched a number of “You Make The Call” episodes on NBA.TV After watching a number of those episodes of that show I pretty much go along with the officials call though I may not like it.
The majority of people learn the NBA foul rules by watching TV and listening to the announcers. Notice I said majority. After watching that show I was amazed at how little so many NBA announcers know about the foul rules, Ralph and Mike excluded of course. LOL
Late calls are common
But they usually try to at least make it seem like it was just a late call. The ref was clearly just waiting to see if the shot went in or not, which is NOT part of the rules.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
The non-foul call at the end
Whether it was what Spoelstra was upset about or not, some Heat fans are upset that the refs didn’t issue a foul in the final seconds, stopping the clock with the Clippers holding a three point lead, giving the Heat one last glimmer of hope.
But watching that play, clearly they didn’t get to Billups to foul him. Nor did they foul Chris Paul before he passed the ball ahead to DeAndre for the dunk. Now, you could say that they fouled Paul after the pass and that the ref should have called that. BUT, strictly speaking, they would have been fouling a player without the ball in the final two minutes – that’s the Shaq rule, two shots and the ball out of bounds for the Clippers. So it wouldn’t have helped them, had the refs actually applied the rule correctly.
FYI, same thing applies on the Battier, Blake thing seconds before. Had the Heat been in the bonus, Blake did not have the ball when Battier fouled him. We don’t know how the refs would have ruled since the Clippers weren’t in the bonus, but had they not been, the right call would have been two shots for Griffin, Clippers ball out of bounds.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
Saw this yesterday
Ira Winderman: NBA acknowledges LeBron James should have been called for travel instead of awarded free throws late in fourth vs. Clippers. Twitter
Good job, NBA. Now don’t mess it up again.
heat fans response: well it made up for the jordan goaltend
no. if LeBron had been called for a travel, then the game would have never reached overtime.
Like that makes me feel any better
I’m sick of certain teams and players getting away with blatant violations.
It turns me off the NBA at times
Anybody know if Miami fans have been bitching?
It’s always tempting to cherry pick the bad calls. The no-call on DJ’s block may have been a make-up for LBJ’s travel. In any case, it wasn’t like Miami was getting cheated by the refs. Beyond the officiating and Lebron’s miscues, the real story was our defense.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
11.32 @ 4th Quarter Wade & CP3 incident - no call
As noted on my fan post there was a play where Wade fends off Paul in the backcourt and there was a no call in the 4th quarter. The way I saw the play unfold -
Wade gets the ball and takes a bounce and then picks up the ball as Paul defends him
Fends Paul off who falls to the ground
Takes off down the court bouncing again
It irks me to no end that there was a no call. It was either an offensive foul or double dribble.
I’m interested in other people’s thoughts on this play to either settle me down or encourage my rage!!
On #6 Steve D.J.'s Foot was touching out of bound.
When Wade threw the ball to D.J. his foot was already out of bound making it
a bad call. If he would of been inbound and Wade throws it off him then the
call is correct. The foul where i think they mess up was the foul they called
on Chancey. I was at the stadium and didn’t see it, then i came home and
watched it again and it was a phantom foul.
i remember thinking something similar too
not sure the rules on this. I know like for instance hitting a ref out of bounds, I think he counts as part of the out of bounds and it’s ball out, even if it bounces off him back in. But not sure that rule applies to players, that once he establishes himself out of bounds, that he is technically part of the out of bounds area. I remember watching the play live, I thought that might be the case, since I think DJ was pretty much all the way out of bounds when the ball hit him, but it never seemed to come up, so I assumed that wasn’t the case.
Just seems like that should be the rule though, so like if a player crashed into the first row diving after a ball, you can’t just throw it off of him and have it be your ball.
look at it this way
If blake has 1 foot out of bounds, and Paul passes to him, it’s out of bounds off of BLake. Same rule here. If DJ was out of ounds prior to the ball hitting him, he is still out of bounds.
well in that example
doesn’t really help, since if the rules were as I described it, it’d still be out of bounds, just off Paul, since Blake is part of out of bounds area.
Like I said, this probably isn’t the rule, I think it only applies to refs, but yea, just wasn’t sure of the specifics.
I'm not sure about that
I thinks it’s out of bounds off the player how THREW the ball in that case. Just as if he threw it and it hit the stanchion (sp?)
Never mind
I convinced myself that I am wrong in this thinking.

by 














