NBA Admits It Was a Foul
by Apes and Androids on May 29, 2008 6:37 AM CDT
44 comments
You gotta be kidding me!
The NBA acknowledged that a foul should have been called on the final possession of Game 4 in the Western Conference finals, when Derek Fisher made contact with the Spurs Brent Barry just before Barry would try a game-winning 3-point shot to tie the series.
"With the benefit of instant replay, it appears a foul should have been called," NBA spokesman Tim Frank said.
I'll say it again: Go back and watch the final play of Game 4 on Youtube. It shouldn’t have even been a foul. Mark where Barry and Fisher are when Fisher jumps. Notice Fisher never enters the space where Barry is/was at the time of the jump. Barry initiates the contact by dribbling into Fisher while Fisher’s in the air. Barry could’ve been called for a charge, honestly.
0 recs |
44 comments
Email
Print
Comments
ummm
go basketball!
Me fail English? That's unpossible! - RW
by Panorama on May 29, 2008 6:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
.500 or bust!
"There is no reason for me to move to third base," Young said.
-FOTF 5/20/2008
"Well, we are one of the cheapest teams in Major League Baseball"
-Tom Hicks 4/8/2008
by Jayslick on May 29, 2008 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
uhh
i do believe a guys feet has to be on the floor to get a charge call. i think a charge cannot be called if a guy is moving. at least that is the way it is called everywhere but the NBA.
by mo on May 29, 2008 7:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
no...
they call charges all the time when the defender is moving. It happened a lot to Devin Harris when he would wildly drive the lane.
by Apes and Androids on May 29, 2008 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are Incorrect!
it was foul. It wasn’t a shooting foul, bu a foul on the floor. If you go look at the replay you see Barry pump-fake, Fisher jumps into the air and as Barry tries to take a dribble in order to get an open shot, Fisher (while in the air) impedes Barry from moving into an open shot. It was a foul. For you to say it wasn’t is kind of crazy. I’m not saying the refs should have called it, cause Barry didn’t sell it. But it was a foul.
by Agreen07 on May 29, 2008 8:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I stopped watching NBA basketball
after the 06 finals. that was enough to turn me off for a very long time. now that the mavericks are about to start a decade long decline, it should only get easier.
by clark on May 29, 2008 8:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Calls get blown occassionally in the NBA
I’m shocked.
It’s probably the hardest professional sport to officiate, and mistakes happen, how completely unheard of.
Good teams get past it. Other teams whine about it.
Sharky said it, I believe it, that settles it
by DJCahill on May 29, 2008 9:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
No it's not
Basketball is not more difficult to officiate than other sports. The NBA is just the only league that places other goals for its refs on an even or greater level compared with actually getting a call correct. The more confusing and grey they can make things the easier for them to get the sorts of results they want (i.e. good players should get calls, attractive teams win games).
Also, this flopping mandate is a joke. They are releasing this to appease disillusioned fans, not because they want anything to change in the end. Think about the timing of the announcement.
by Brett Perryman on May 29, 2008 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
If you say it, it must be true…
Why are you so dismissive of the idea that it’s one of the harder games to officiate?
Oh, right, cause you’ve already determined that they have “other goals”.
Gotcha.
by brettgardner on May 29, 2008 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe it's one both
One of the hardest games to officiate, because of the speed/tempo of the game and the nature of the rules, and I also believe the refs have other goals.
I just don’t know how else you can explain the wild vacillations in the ways games are called, even within the same playoff series.
Ignore the ‘06 Finals for a moment, cause that’s one I’m admittedly very biased about, and look at the Pistons/Spurs Finals a few years back. That’s when I officially began to believe the NBA used the refs to help get the results they desired. In that series you could tell within the first two minutes who was going to win each game solely based on the way the refs were calling fouls in the paint. If the refs were letting Detroit manhandle Duncan with the Wallace Brothers, then Detroit was going to win. If the refs were calling fouls when the Wallace Brothers would manhandle Duncan down low, the Spurs were going to win.
I just can’t believe that those refs, the very best refs in the very best league in the world, would “accidentally” call three of those games in a way that behooved the underdog, and four of those games in a drastically different style that behooved th favorite.
The 40 trumps all!!!
by thedirkatron on May 29, 2008 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But then
You have to ask why. Are you suggesting that they were/are trying to influence the betting? Or just push any series to seven games under the mistaken belief that a 7-game series is necessarily good?
And do you think the refs huddle up before the game to figure out who gets screwed, or is it just an instinctive screw-job at the moment of contact? I just don’t get the argument. Not trying to be a combative dick or anything, but it doesn’t make much sense to me.
Also, I think-much like any conspiracy theory-this one assumes supreme competence, which isn’t necessarily a great assumption.
by brettgardner on May 29, 2008 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have answers to those questions
If I did you’d be seeing my ruggedly handsome, lumberjack-esque face on CNN right now exposing David Stern as a rat bastard.
But I honestly don’t know. I really don’t. The “why” is what I can’t figure out, and the “how” is obviously pretty tough, too.
I really can’t believe it’s due to betting, or at least I really hope not.
And David Stern has gone on record as saying seven game series are better. I can’t find the link now, but when he first took over the league he openly stated before the Finals that the league really wanted the series to go seven games, and Larry Bird (who was in the Finals) went absolutely nuts and ripped Stern a new one for saying shit like that. I don’t think that’s proof of a conspiracy.
But doesn’t the fact that the way games are reffed vacillates so greatly from game-to-game bother you? Do you believe it’s something that happens naturally? That the refs are trying their hardest but just happen to ref certain games in a way that blatantly favors one team or the other? Or do you not think that happens at all?
The 40 trumps all!!!
by thedirkatron on May 29, 2008 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
I don’t think that happens. At least, I don’t think that’s the general way it operates. I think any calls/games with bias, if they do exist, exist only on the fringe.
I just don’t believe that you can take any statistical meaning at all from refs. Number of calls, calls for/against just don’t capture the picture accurately enough.
Of course, it’s a subjective exercise, and I think they have to use judgement with their whistles. The whole “if it’s a foul, it’s a foul” crowd just misses the bigger picture, in my opinion. Like in any sport, if every foul were called, it’d be a 5-hour whistle-off occasionally interrupted by basketball. So yeah, there’s subjectivity. And I don’t doubt that these guys, being human, get angry or pissed off about one thing or another and take it out on a guy occasionally. I don’t think, though, that it follows that a bigger-picture conspiracy is at hand.
And I think the only way most people deduce a conspiracy is by looking at end-of-game calls, which is incredibly short-sighted. What about the 45 minutes before?
Finally, I just think it’s odd that the fortunes of the big-market teams seems inexorably linked to the level of talent they currently possess, which, you would think in a conspiracy, wouldn’t matter so much. See, e.g., NY, Boston, LA the last 5 years.
by brettgardner on May 29, 2008 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
considering I've seen
Baseball umps closing in on 3 bills in the past, and I don’t see a lot of fat Basketball refs, I’m going to say they have it tougher trying to get in position for a call.
Sharky said it, I believe it, that settles it
by DJCahill on May 29, 2008 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe harder physical strain
but then hockey probably takes the cake for that.
i dunno, i don’t agree with Z but I don’t necessarily think that any sport is easier to call than another. They all require really subjective decisions. But, NFL might be hardest just because of the number of moving parts. In the NBA, you rarely get off the ball calls and you can just focus on two people. NFL, one guy is responsible for all of the offensive linemen.
also, bavetta is pretty old
Rare Gnats Sex
by ab03 on May 29, 2008 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offensive linemen
Could you imagine how much longer an NFL game would take if holding was properly called each and every time? It hurts to think about that.
I mean, that’d be like the NBA whistling travelling violations whenever they occur—the games wouldn’t ever end. You might consider this too “purist,” but I really am disgusted by refs that swallow their whistles so somebody can take 3 steps on their way to a cool dunk. As an example, CP3 is a phenomenal player, but he travelled so much in the playoff games I’ve watched—only to have it ignored because of the sick ‘oops to Chandler.
"Chase. Dominguez is not really your liking" - Mr Santos
by Chase Irwin on May 29, 2008 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
officiating
I think it is obvious that basketball is harder to officiate than baseball, which is pretty easy to umpire. But I agree – arguments could be made that football and hockey are equally hard or harder to referee.
It should be pointed out though that the number of blown calls in those sports is large as well (practically every football play has a holding penalty somewhere, only the egregious and unlucky get penalized). There just doesn’t seem to be the prevailing tendency in those sports for blown calls to always benefit the team that will bring the league the most ratings or favor the stars. Certainly in hockey the refs err on not benefiting either team in overtime. In any sport, the refs can affect the game, it just seems like they do so more often in basketball than the other sports. And, fair or not, there is a perception that certain teams/players are helped by this.
by JBImaknee on May 29, 2008 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So
The past decade, which has brought us 4 Spurs championships, a Detroit and a Miami—did the league just suck at rigging it?
Were the refs taking a breather when San Antonio just snuck up and kicked them in the ass?
As for the lottery—did the league goof when the Bucks, Trailblazers, Raptors, Wizards, and Rockets won?
It’s so easy to say that the NBA is rigged. It gets harder when you actually have to watch the games. There are some terrible officials in the NBA. No question. That’s not proof, though, of a vast conspiracy to elevate New York, Boston and Los Angeles to the top of the league, or to make the best players more marketable. LeBron, for instance, does NOT benefit from his status as far as ratings go.
by brettgardner on May 29, 2008 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its probably not on the officials
as much as it is on the rules. NBA is getting to be like holding in the NFL, there’s almost always a foul to be called. But, the NFL gets away with it because who’s looking at the offensive linemen?
Rare Gnats Sex
by ab03 on May 29, 2008 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Read my post again
I never said the NBA is rigging it. I said that they have a perception that they are, and for whatever reason they haven’t been able to get rid of it. That perception comes from series like the 2006 Heat – Mavs, or the 2003 Kings – Lakers series. Whether it is true or not, they have a problem with legitimacy with casual fans – you shouldn’t have to watch every game of the year to know that the league is legit…
Also, just to throw this out there in order to get your riled up, remember the main argument about why Shoeless Joe actually threw the Black Sox series: if you are rigging something, you don’t make it blatantly obvious.
by JBImaknee on May 29, 2008 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know
You didn’t say that, I was putting it out there as a response to you, though not directly directed towards you.
by brettgardner on May 29, 2008 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Directly
Directed?
Whatever that means.
by brettgardner on May 29, 2008 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gosh, you're so explicit
=P
"Chase. Dominguez is not really your liking" - Mr Santos
by Chase Irwin on May 29, 2008 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In baseball
You have to be able to tell if a ball was an inch out of the strike zone or in it. You have to be able to tell if the player went all the way around or if he stopped just in time. You have to be able to tell whether the foot touched the bag before the fielder caught the ball in his glove. And all this is happens very, very quickly. All the NBA official has to do is pay attention to see if the 10 guys on the court made too much contact. Its pretty easy to see a shove take place rather than have to see if the guys elbow struck him right below the ribs but not more than 2 inches below the ribs.
by Gdawg on May 29, 2008 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the defenders feet aren't set..
it’s not a charge, especially if the defender is in the air…
by cmkelly29 on May 29, 2008 9:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The though that ...
... Barry could have been called on a charge is completely laughable. If you think it was not a foul or a good no-call, then say so. But don’t make stuff up.
by Melmart1 on May 29, 2008 10:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
UMM
you kind of shot yourself in the foot, your quote “dribbling into Fisher while Fisher is in the air” anytime you leave your feet you are technically out of control so it would have been a blocking foul. now thats all I’m saying on this go to a BBall blog
by blueballlefty on May 29, 2008 10:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
out of control?
He’s not considered out of control. Jumping to block is considered a defensive motion, not out of control. He established his position which is everything vertical too. The rules state that a charge can be called if the dribbler does not try to avoid the established position of the defender. Since Fisher established his position, executed a defensive movement, then a charge could have been called because Barry did not attempt to avoid the contact.
by Apes and Androids on May 29, 2008 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is absolutely out of control. You have lost your mind.
by dustym on May 29, 2008 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Almost landing on the guy
is not a defensive movement.
by Melmart1 on May 29, 2008 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn't that close
Go back and watch it from the different angles. Barry makes it closer than it looks. He made no attempt to avoid the contact.
by Apes and Androids on May 29, 2008 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn't have to
try to avoid the contact. Up in the air is not an established defensive position.
by Melmart1 on May 29, 2008 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So...
anytime a guy is jumping, the dribbler can just run into him and it’s a blocking foul? that’s not correct at all. look it up, if a defender’s feet leave the floor in a defensive movement (i.e. the block) he is entitled to the space above and below him.
by Apes and Androids on May 29, 2008 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The defender isn't entitled to anything
if he doesn’t have his feet set on the floor.
by Gdawg on May 29, 2008 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't land in the space above or below him.
He landed away from where he initially jumped. Not that it matters. Almost everyone in the world except you thinks that it was a foul, including the NBA. I am the biggest Spurs fan there is and think that that no-call didn’t cost the Spurs the game. Everything that came before it did. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was a foul.
by Melmart1 on May 29, 2008 12:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Everyone?
The Spurs didn’t think it was a foul.
by Apes and Androids on May 29, 2008 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said ...
ALMOST everyone. Nice try, though.
by Melmart1 on May 29, 2008 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NBA is a joke,
It is becoming so agenda driven and scripted. It reminds me of the WWF and NASCAR. The giving of Pau Gasol to yhe Lakers and KG to the Celtics is the best evidence of this yet. They want a finals they can market.
Worsh must stay!
by JTodd on May 29, 2008 1:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The C's
actually gave up a pretty good package for the Big Ticket. Al Jefferson is a beast. He’s not as good as KG, but you can never get true value for a superstar.
As for the Pau trade… I thin you have to blame that on Chris Wallace. He’s the dumbest, worst GM in the history of basketball, and I’m at a complete loss for how he got another job after his time in Boston. He’s so dumb. And why would Memphis agree to “give” Pau to the Lakers at the behest of the league? What are they going to get in return? Financial help for their cash-strapped franchise? I don’t know. They certainly didn’t get any Sternly help in the lottery. If Chris Wallace wasn’t involved I’d have a much easier time buying that theory. I don’t think Wallace is smart enough to collude.
The 40 trumps all!!!
by thedirkatron on May 29, 2008 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Al Jefferson
could be a superstar.
He is a 21 year old center already puting up 21/10
"No bear or disco for Juan" - Mr. Santos
by miles on May 29, 2008 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't know where else to put this...
If you didn’t see it…Sasha Vujacic took a shot as time expired (jackass move) which pushed the Laker lead from 5 points to 8 points.
The spread on the game was Lakers by 7 and a half. Think there are some angry/ecstatic gamblers out there??
by SaltyDawg on May 30, 2008 12:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You never forget the ones you lose
Sophomore year of college. Had a 4 team parlay at 100 bucks. 3 down, Ole Miss to go.
Up by 4 on a +1 spread with around 1:10 to go.
They have the ball.
On the opposing 30.
They go for the “insurance” field goal.
Guess wha happen?
"For the record, I did not and do not like the Volquez trade, even though Hamilton is awesome and our best player and I think he’s going to be one of the best players in baseball." philikid3
by Brian Thomas on May 31, 2008 7:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
