-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
No NBA finals thread?
- Thread starter Desdichado
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
If a lot of things had happened differently for both teams it wouldn't have mattered. Still, Duncan's free throw record in that game was almost embarrassing. I wonder what happened to him?drothgery said:
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
I've kind of followed the "back and forth" on the officiating in this thread. I'll pick my spots to add commentary.
BACKGROUND: I played high school basketball (I dropped off our varsity team my senior year to take college math & physics courses, and that was the year our varsity team lost the California state championship game - I only mention this to note that I played against some high-level high school players - while I was a scrub, a couple of my teammates were all-state selections and they were the guys I went against in practice every day). I coached high school basketball part-time while in college. I've refereed for years. I still play rec league ball. So I like to think I know a *little* about the game.
Here goes...
The single elementary rule of officiating a basketball game is simple to understand: if there is contact at any point other than on the ball itself, the person initiating contact has committed a foul. If you understand that single, fundamental rule, nearly every foul call in the game naturally "falls out of it."
The block/charge call? Whichever moved to a point where the other player was physically unable to avoid the contact "initiated" the contact, and is therefore guilty of the foul. If I move into position after you leave your feet and contact occurs, you were physically unable to avoid the contact, and thus I am guilty of blocking. If I move into a position before you leave your feet (i.e., you can step in another direction) and contact occurs, you are guilty of a charge. If we are running and I am moving parallel to you and you suddenly jump into me, that's a foul on you because my original motion was legal (I was not creating contact) and I had no opportunity to avoid the contact (although you never see it called this way). And so on, and so on.
Watching these finals is painful to me because I see this fundamental rule of officiating ignored so often.
Watch Chauncey Billups as he dribbles the ball over the timeline. Tony Parker waits for him at the top of the three point arc, standing still. Billups gallops up with his dribble, plants his shoulder into Parker, and bumps him back two feet. That is an offensive foul on Billups.
Watch Richard Hamilton race around screens. See Bruce Bowen bump him when he changes directions. Watch them grab at each other and slap hands away. That's a foul on Bowen.
Watch Tayshawn Prince chest-bump Manu Ginobili as he dribbles along the perimeter to keep him from "turning the corner." That's a foul on Prince.
Watch Tim Duncan take an entry pass into the post, and do a couple of power dribbles, putting his butt and/or shoulder into one of the Wallaces. That's an offensve foul on Duncan.
Now of course, I'll be the first to tell you that it's not just these two teams... it's basically every team in the NBA on every possession of every single game. And why do these players do this? Because the officials allow them to. One of the most assinine statements I keep hearing is that "players need to adjust to the way the officials are calling the game." Why? Shouldn't the officials be more or less impartial and every official call every game nearly the exact same way (I understand that angles have a little something to do with this, and not every official has exactly the same angle on every play, but you get the idea)?
If the officials called all contact (which is, incidentally, how the rules are written), instead of only calling contact when they THINK it gives a player an advantage (the way the rules are currently enforced), you would get rid of the inconsistency in refereeing (because different referees have different perspectives on what gives a player an advantage).
I can just hear the screams now... "but you're taking away the ability to play defense!" No, I'm not. If the rules are enforced correctly, a lot of the contact offensive players now rely on to "get space" would be correctly labelled "offensive fouls" and offensive players wouldn't have as much of an advantage as you might think at first blush. Again, the question is not "was the defender moving" but rather, "given his motion one step ago, was it physically impossible for the defender to avoid the contact from the offensive player?" If the offensive player dribbles into you, that's an offensive foul.
What kind of defense can you play in such situations? Today we tend to call it "position defense" - that is, you anticipate where the offensive player wants to go and you make sure you get there first. If he moves you off that spot, it's a foul on him. In theory, you would give Earl Boykins a chance to hold off Shaq in the low post - because if Boykins gets to a spot first, Shaq has to go AROUND (not through) or it's a foul. This sort of officiating rewards defenders who move their feet and anticipate where the offensive player is going.
But most importantly, if you force the referees to call a foul every time there is contact, you get consistent officiating. You'll see a lot less of offensive players "trying to draw contact" because they'll be afraid of being tagged as the initiator of the contact. You'll see a lot less bumping and clutching and grabbing because you'll get called for everything.
Over the long haul, it means your body will be subject to a lot less stress, and you'll be able to play a lot longer. If it's consistent, the players will adapt.
I hear a lot about "Detroit/San Antonio playing the right way" - maybe they do have the team concept down, but to me, "playing the right way" means getting through a game with zero personal fouls that you didn't TRY to commit (e.g., stop the clock, prevent a layup, etc.). It doesn't JUST mean playing "unselfish" basketball, it means playing basketball utterly and completely by the rules - which means no fouls except "strategic" fouls (in the situations mentioned above).
As a "big guy" I can bang in the post when I play with just about anybody. But in my 15 or so years of playing basketball, I have only been called for three fouls that I didn't deliberately choose to commit in order to save a layup or stop the clock (and I remember all three). Yes, I actually play that clean (and in high school, before my knee and ankle got blown out, was a defensive stopper against anyone from guards to centers). I've played an entire game without fouling out after picking up four personal fouls by the end of the first quarter - without changing the way I play. I am not nearly as talented as these NBA players... if I can do it, surely they can do it.
*sighs* Sorry, rant over. This isn't an attack on Detroit and San Antonio, BTW - they play exactly as they should given the current state of officiating. I just happen to think the officiating is so piss-poor due to a lack of fundamental understanding of the game of basketball on the part of the referees that it bugs me (referees will brag that 95%+ of the fouls they call are correct on video review - that's great, but how many times, on video review, did they mistakenly "non-call" what should have been a foul? Well, they don't like to even look at that, so they don't have an answer - but when I watch game tape, it usually comes out to at least three obvious non-calls for every whistle, which means their officiating is not 95%+ correct but rather about 25% correct).
All that said, and to get this back on topic, I think San Antonio will win tonight. I picked the Spurs in six before the series started (ask my wife) and I'll be honest, I was sweating bullets after Games 3 and 4 that I'd be wrong. And all through Game 5, I was nervous.
One final question - what is up with Rip Hamilton on the final play of Game 5? Grab the inbound pass, throw a shoulder into Parker, throw an elbow in his face, travel (two-footed jump followed by another two-footed jump) while throwing yet ANOTHER elbow into Parker's face, then looking at the referees incredulously for not calling a foul on Parker. I mean, what is he going to say, "didn't you see him viciously hit my elbow with his face - twice?"
--The Sigil
BACKGROUND: I played high school basketball (I dropped off our varsity team my senior year to take college math & physics courses, and that was the year our varsity team lost the California state championship game - I only mention this to note that I played against some high-level high school players - while I was a scrub, a couple of my teammates were all-state selections and they were the guys I went against in practice every day). I coached high school basketball part-time while in college. I've refereed for years. I still play rec league ball. So I like to think I know a *little* about the game.
Here goes...This is true... and it shouldn't be. Basketball, when played by the rules, is a non-contact sport. The problem is that officiating in basketball at all levels is horrific, because referees watch (and emulate) NBA referees, where contact is not only allowed, but in many ways encouraged.
The single elementary rule of officiating a basketball game is simple to understand: if there is contact at any point other than on the ball itself, the person initiating contact has committed a foul. If you understand that single, fundamental rule, nearly every foul call in the game naturally "falls out of it."
The block/charge call? Whichever moved to a point where the other player was physically unable to avoid the contact "initiated" the contact, and is therefore guilty of the foul. If I move into position after you leave your feet and contact occurs, you were physically unable to avoid the contact, and thus I am guilty of blocking. If I move into a position before you leave your feet (i.e., you can step in another direction) and contact occurs, you are guilty of a charge. If we are running and I am moving parallel to you and you suddenly jump into me, that's a foul on you because my original motion was legal (I was not creating contact) and I had no opportunity to avoid the contact (although you never see it called this way). And so on, and so on.
Watching these finals is painful to me because I see this fundamental rule of officiating ignored so often.
Watch Chauncey Billups as he dribbles the ball over the timeline. Tony Parker waits for him at the top of the three point arc, standing still. Billups gallops up with his dribble, plants his shoulder into Parker, and bumps him back two feet. That is an offensive foul on Billups.
Watch Richard Hamilton race around screens. See Bruce Bowen bump him when he changes directions. Watch them grab at each other and slap hands away. That's a foul on Bowen.
Watch Tayshawn Prince chest-bump Manu Ginobili as he dribbles along the perimeter to keep him from "turning the corner." That's a foul on Prince.
Watch Tim Duncan take an entry pass into the post, and do a couple of power dribbles, putting his butt and/or shoulder into one of the Wallaces. That's an offensve foul on Duncan.
Now of course, I'll be the first to tell you that it's not just these two teams... it's basically every team in the NBA on every possession of every single game. And why do these players do this? Because the officials allow them to. One of the most assinine statements I keep hearing is that "players need to adjust to the way the officials are calling the game." Why? Shouldn't the officials be more or less impartial and every official call every game nearly the exact same way (I understand that angles have a little something to do with this, and not every official has exactly the same angle on every play, but you get the idea)?
If the officials called all contact (which is, incidentally, how the rules are written), instead of only calling contact when they THINK it gives a player an advantage (the way the rules are currently enforced), you would get rid of the inconsistency in refereeing (because different referees have different perspectives on what gives a player an advantage).
I can just hear the screams now... "but you're taking away the ability to play defense!" No, I'm not. If the rules are enforced correctly, a lot of the contact offensive players now rely on to "get space" would be correctly labelled "offensive fouls" and offensive players wouldn't have as much of an advantage as you might think at first blush. Again, the question is not "was the defender moving" but rather, "given his motion one step ago, was it physically impossible for the defender to avoid the contact from the offensive player?" If the offensive player dribbles into you, that's an offensive foul.
What kind of defense can you play in such situations? Today we tend to call it "position defense" - that is, you anticipate where the offensive player wants to go and you make sure you get there first. If he moves you off that spot, it's a foul on him. In theory, you would give Earl Boykins a chance to hold off Shaq in the low post - because if Boykins gets to a spot first, Shaq has to go AROUND (not through) or it's a foul. This sort of officiating rewards defenders who move their feet and anticipate where the offensive player is going.
But most importantly, if you force the referees to call a foul every time there is contact, you get consistent officiating. You'll see a lot less of offensive players "trying to draw contact" because they'll be afraid of being tagged as the initiator of the contact. You'll see a lot less bumping and clutching and grabbing because you'll get called for everything.
Over the long haul, it means your body will be subject to a lot less stress, and you'll be able to play a lot longer. If it's consistent, the players will adapt.
I hear a lot about "Detroit/San Antonio playing the right way" - maybe they do have the team concept down, but to me, "playing the right way" means getting through a game with zero personal fouls that you didn't TRY to commit (e.g., stop the clock, prevent a layup, etc.). It doesn't JUST mean playing "unselfish" basketball, it means playing basketball utterly and completely by the rules - which means no fouls except "strategic" fouls (in the situations mentioned above).
As a "big guy" I can bang in the post when I play with just about anybody. But in my 15 or so years of playing basketball, I have only been called for three fouls that I didn't deliberately choose to commit in order to save a layup or stop the clock (and I remember all three). Yes, I actually play that clean (and in high school, before my knee and ankle got blown out, was a defensive stopper against anyone from guards to centers). I've played an entire game without fouling out after picking up four personal fouls by the end of the first quarter - without changing the way I play. I am not nearly as talented as these NBA players... if I can do it, surely they can do it.
*sighs* Sorry, rant over. This isn't an attack on Detroit and San Antonio, BTW - they play exactly as they should given the current state of officiating. I just happen to think the officiating is so piss-poor due to a lack of fundamental understanding of the game of basketball on the part of the referees that it bugs me (referees will brag that 95%+ of the fouls they call are correct on video review - that's great, but how many times, on video review, did they mistakenly "non-call" what should have been a foul? Well, they don't like to even look at that, so they don't have an answer - but when I watch game tape, it usually comes out to at least three obvious non-calls for every whistle, which means their officiating is not 95%+ correct but rather about 25% correct).
All that said, and to get this back on topic, I think San Antonio will win tonight. I picked the Spurs in six before the series started (ask my wife) and I'll be honest, I was sweating bullets after Games 3 and 4 that I'd be wrong. And all through Game 5, I was nervous.
One final question - what is up with Rip Hamilton on the final play of Game 5? Grab the inbound pass, throw a shoulder into Parker, throw an elbow in his face, travel (two-footed jump followed by another two-footed jump) while throwing yet ANOTHER elbow into Parker's face, then looking at the referees incredulously for not calling a foul on Parker. I mean, what is he going to say, "didn't you see him viciously hit my elbow with his face - twice?"
--The Sigil
Desdichado
Hero
The Sigil, you're giving Edena_of_Neith a run for his money on lengthy posts.
I do disagree with you on one point -- that the refs are letting fouls slip because they don't understand the rules. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think they understand they perfectly well, but they also understand what the audience in general wants to see, and a lot of foul-calling is not it.
Anyway, I agree -- I don't know what the deal with Hamilton was at the end of game 5 -- that was a honeheaded play, and it certainly cost Detroit the chance to pull a win out of the game.
And now my prediction has come true -- we move into game 7 on Thursday. Because I didn't make a prediction about who would win, I should probably shut my mouth and count myself lucky to have been right so far, but I'm gonna go ahead and pick Detroit to win on Thursday. I think for the last four games they've played better than San Antonio, and SA was lucky to pull out a win on game 5. You can't count on luck to strike again right when you need it, and I think game 6 was the proof of that. Although a closer game (until the end) than the earlier blow-outs, I still think Detroit pretty much had the edge the entire game.
As Dan Wetzel -- sports writer for Yahoo! said, "Here is the Detroit Pistons' record over the last three seasons when facing playoff elimination: 8-1. Here is their record in the last 10 games in which they could eliminate a playoff opponent: 10-0. That's stone cold savage."
I do disagree with you on one point -- that the refs are letting fouls slip because they don't understand the rules. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think they understand they perfectly well, but they also understand what the audience in general wants to see, and a lot of foul-calling is not it.
Anyway, I agree -- I don't know what the deal with Hamilton was at the end of game 5 -- that was a honeheaded play, and it certainly cost Detroit the chance to pull a win out of the game.
And now my prediction has come true -- we move into game 7 on Thursday. Because I didn't make a prediction about who would win, I should probably shut my mouth and count myself lucky to have been right so far, but I'm gonna go ahead and pick Detroit to win on Thursday. I think for the last four games they've played better than San Antonio, and SA was lucky to pull out a win on game 5. You can't count on luck to strike again right when you need it, and I think game 6 was the proof of that. Although a closer game (until the end) than the earlier blow-outs, I still think Detroit pretty much had the edge the entire game.
As Dan Wetzel -- sports writer for Yahoo! said, "Here is the Detroit Pistons' record over the last three seasons when facing playoff elimination: 8-1. Here is their record in the last 10 games in which they could eliminate a playoff opponent: 10-0. That's stone cold savage."
Last edited:
DonTadow
First Post
Joshua Dyal said:The Sigil, you're giving Edena_of_Neith a run for his money on lengthy posts.
I do disagree with you on one point -- that the refs are letting fouls slip because they don't understand the rules. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think they understand they perfectly well, but they also understand what the audience in general wants to see, and a lot of foul-calling is not it.
Anyway, I agree -- I don't know what the deal with Hamilton was at the end of game 5 -- that was a honeheaded play, and it certainly cost Detroit the chance to pull a win out of the game.
And now my prediction has come true -- we move into game 7 on Thursday. Because I didn't make a prediction about who would win, I should probably shut my mouth and count myself lucky to have been right so far, but I'm gonna go ahead and pick Detroit to win on Thursday. I think for the last four games they've played better than San Antonio, and SA was lucky to pull out a win on game 5. You can't count on luck to strike again right when you need it, and I think game 6 was the proof of that. Although a closer game (until the end) than the earlier blow-outs, I still think Detroit pretty much had the edge the entire game.
I don't think it has anything to do with them not understanding the rules, the NBA is in the business of making money not techincally sound basketball games. Like you said, if they called it like it was suppose to be we'd have whistles blown every minute and guys would play off each other like nfl players after 5 yards. That would slow the game down and may present drodgy games with less excitiment which will turn off the casual basketball fan and thus loose valuable advertising revenue.
By the way I've enjoyed your batman debate on the other thread Sigil.
The game's going one longer than i expected but i expect the pistons to wrap this up. This is a one game superbowl played on the opposing home court. The pistons are 10 -0 in closeout games and have experience with hadling the pressure of big game 7s. Detroit needs to run off of this conifence and continue to feed the ball quicker to hamilton off the curl. They also need to keep Lindsey on Manu.
Parker, as I said earlier, disappears under pressure and did so last night, game 5, and game 4. For SA to win they will need HOrry to step up big as no one else off the bench I see as taking on that mantle.
d20Dwarf
Explorer
My 7-game prediction came true, we're manly men for that. The home team domination didn't happen, but ah well, it was close. 
I predict San Antonio wins tomorrow. Detroit pulled this one out great, but San Antonio played about as bad as they could on their home turf. They're experienced, and more importantly, they're much more consistent than Detroit. Detroit is volatile, and I'm not sure they can maintain their composure tomorrow if some calls go against them early (hell, they'll *imagine* calls not going against them if they have to).
San Antonio 84, Detroit 79.
Spurs are the NBA Champions, baby!
The home team domination didn't happen, but ah well, it was close. I predict San Antonio wins tomorrow. Detroit pulled this one out great, but San Antonio played about as bad as they could on their home turf. They're experienced, and more importantly, they're much more consistent than Detroit. Detroit is volatile, and I'm not sure they can maintain their composure tomorrow if some calls go against them early (hell, they'll *imagine* calls not going against them if they have to).
San Antonio 84, Detroit 79.
Spurs are the NBA Champions, baby!
DonTadow
First Post
Their not experienced at game 7s or pressure. I think it was very common, what you saw was a clear breakdown of pressure annihlating San Antonio. Even in game 5 the only one who came through was HOrry whom had the game 7 pressure experience. Everyone else choked pretty much.d20Dwarf said:My 7-game prediction came true, we're manly men for that.
I predict San Antonio wins tomorrow. Detroit pulled this one out great, but San Antonio played about as bad as they could on their home turf. They're experienced, and more importantly, they're much more consistent than Detroit. Detroit is volatile, and I'm not sure they can maintain their composure tomorrow if some calls go against them early (hell, they'll *imagine* calls not going against them if they have to).
San Antonio 84, Detroit 79.
Spurs are the NBA Champions, baby!
I keep hearing, "SA can't play any worse". I've been hearing that for the last 4 games.
Desdichado
Hero
I 100% agree. I think San Antonio got lucky on game 5, actually, not that they really outplayed Detroit. Which suprised me somewhat. San Antonio is a team I have a lot of respect for, and I thought they would make a better showing in this series than they have. Even in game 5, I think Detroit largely outplayed them in most respects, despite the score at the end of overtime.DonTadow said:
Detroit, on the other hand, has been marginalized unnecessarily for years. Last year, it was largely considered a fluke that they won by many fans and commentators, who blame the soap opera at L.A. for paving the way for their victory. I think this year has really proven the lie to that perception, but it's still dying hard anyway. I think Detroit has the doggedness to pull off a game seven win still -- if anything, I think that's what Detroit is best at.
loki44
Explorer
The Sigil said:
Since we're throwing out our balling credentials, I too played basketball throughout high school. I started for 4 years at a Chicago city public school. It's a very competitive league to say the least. I ran track in college so I never took basketball farther (not that I could've
) I've helped coach a youth team in the Atlanta Police Athletic League for about 7 years now. I NEVER complain about officiating. It totally sends kids the wrong message.Sigil, this has to be the most lawful post I've ever read!
(refreshing actually) Where do you ref, Shangri-la? (Oh yeah, you're from Cali) Requiring absolutely no contact is just not realistic IMHO. The NBA court is a relatively small, finite space in which ten freakishly built men perform at amazing levels of speed, agility and overall athleticism. I can't even imagine a game with no physical contact. Refs are human, not robots, so they will interpret rules in different ways. Players SHOULD have to adjust their game based on how it's being called. I have no problem with that at all. It makes the game more interesting. I don't even think the debate over how fouls are called, or not, in the NBA is the biggest problem with rules interpretation. A foul, in essence, is a judgement call. Sometimes I even wish the NBA had a "play on" rule like soccer. How about enforcing things like 3-seconds, travelling, palming, etc...? Okay, having said that, my beef with people complaining about refs has nothing to do with how they interpret/enforce the rules as written, or not. As far as I'm concerned the actual rules are open to debate and interpretation by individual refs despite the fact that they appear to be clearly written and defined. My beef with people complaining about refs is when the claim is made that they favored one team over another because of $, or some sort of unspoken mandate from the NBA head offices (okay, since I've moved to Atlanta and become a fan of Georgia Tech I've been known to complain about the refs favoring Duke in one way or another, but the NCAA is another debate). That's just crap IMHO.
The other thing that bugs me is when people put forth that the NBA is somehow debased in it's current state because games are being called, or not, in a way that allows for "ugliness" on defense. Gimme a break! When George Mikan passed away recently all the anecdotal interviews I saw/heard from old-timers who knew him and his game glorified his "physical game" (translate: brutality). Physicality in the NBA is nothing new. What I can't stand are guys who hearken back to some "glory day" in the annals of basketball who assert that today's game is less fundamentally sound or just isn't the same game. B.S. Today's game is better. The athletes are better. The coaches are better. The teams are better. And it all gets better every year.
Apart from all that, didn't think it'd go this far, but the Spurs will win tomorrow.
DonTadow
First Post
loki44 said:Since we're throwing out our balling credentials, I too played basketball throughout high school. I started for 4 years at a Chicago city public school. It's a very competitive league to say the least. I ran track in college so I never took basketball farther (not that I could've
Sigil, this has to be the most lawful post I've ever read!
Okay, having said that, my beef with people complaining about refs has nothing to do with how they interpret/enforce the rules as written, or not. As far as I'm concerned the actual rules are open to debate and interpretation by individual refs despite the fact that they appear to be clearly written and defined. My beef with people complaining about refs is when the claim is made that they favored one team over another because of $, or some sort of unspoken mandate from the NBA head offices (okay, since I've moved to Atlanta and become a fan of Georgia Tech I've been known to complain about the refs favoring Duke in one way or another, but the NCAA is another debate). That's just crap IMHO.
The other thing that bugs me is when people put forth that the NBA is somehow debased in it's current state because games are being called, or not, in a way that allows for "ugliness" on defense. Gimme a break! When George Mikan passed away recently all the anecdotal interviews I saw/heard from old-timers who knew him and his game glorified his "physical game" (translate: brutality). Physicality in the NBA is nothing new. What I can't stand are guys who hearken back to some "glory day" in the annals of basketball who assert that today's game is less fundamentally sound or just isn't the same game. B.S. Today's game is better. The athletes are better. The coaches are better. The teams are better. And it all gets better every year.
Apart from all that, didn't think it'd go this far, but the Spurs will win tomorrow.
Just like all of the U.S. sports the game has gotten softer in the last decade or two. People complain about the physical defense of Detroit, which is NOTHING compared to the bad boys era. The same thing has happened with football. Now that sports players make more money rules have been passed to keep them playing longer.
Similar Threads
