Series Thread: NBA Finals. Cleveland vs. Golden State...

[SJ76]

Refs are allowed to review these calls in under 2 minutes in the 4th/OT to see if a player is in the restricted circle or not. And during that time, they can also determine if the player had full defensive position. Tim Legler literally went on ESPN and praised the call saying that was a blocking call.

Issue was 1 ref called a charge and 1 a block. They got the call right imo and the Hill foul was a make up call.

 

[gordontrue]

Whether or not he was in the restricted area isn't the reason they're able to review it. It's the CLOCK & nature of the foul that allowed them to review it.

That's not correct.

To review it, it must be under 2 minutes and there must be doubt as to whether the player was in the restricted area or not.

 

[LAD]

That's not correct.

To review it, it must be under 2 minutes and there must be doubt as to whether the player was in the restricted area or not.

Well, I ALREADY said the CLOCK was one reason...and CLEARLY there was doubt of his position. SMH

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

now I'm interested in seeing if there's going to be any rulings tomorrow...

Now there almost has to be..but again,I still don't think much will come from any of it.

 

[gordontrue]

Don't know if you guys talked about this one, but by rule, Kevin Love should be suspended

Don't think they've enforced that rule in a while - not since it ruined the Spurs Suns series.

 

[LAD]

Now there almost has to be...

Because they can't review the skirmish without seeing that too.

 

[gordontrue]

Well, I ALREADY said the CLOCK was one reason...and CLEARLY there was doubt of his position. SMH

Apparently the refs thought so, but thats what bks was saying... he was so far out of the restricted area that there shouldn't have been any doubt.

 

[LAD]

Don't think they've enforced that rule in a while - not since it ruined the Spurs Suns series.

Um no. That very thing happened last year in a Washington game & there were suspensions handed down.

 

[LAD]

Apparently the refs thought so, but thats what bks was saying... he was so far out of the restricted area that there shouldn't have been any doubt.

And we were right, he was NOT in position.

Why is this an argument when the goal is to get the calls RIGHT?

 

[gordontrue]

Um no. That very thing happened last year in a Washington game & there were suspensions handed down.

Ok fair point, but those guys were way off the bench.

I could be wrong but I feel like every year theres a "oh look so and so stepped 1 foot onto the court should be suspended" and nothing ever comes of it.

 

[The Oldtimer]

Draymond Green such a punk for talking so much shit.

Also

Reggie Miller is a legend for talking so much shit.

Lol

You ever heard of Gary Payton?

 

[LAD]

Ok fair point, but those guys were way off the bench.

I could be wrong but I feel like every year theres a "oh look so and so stepped 1 foot onto the court should be suspended" and nothing ever comes of it.

Well honestly I hope they don't suspend him. Would hate to hear how "lucky" GS are to have to play without Love and/or TT.

 

[gordontrue]

And we were right, he was NOT in position.

Why is this an argument when the goal is to get the calls RIGHT?

You're not listening. Doubt about whether the player is in legal guarding position is NOT enough to legally review the play.

There has to be doubt about whether the player is in the restricted area or not. Its hard to understand how the refs could've had any doubt about that. IF they didn't, they legally are not allowed to review the replay regardless of any doubt about the legal guarding position.

 

[bksballer89]

Lol

 

[LAD]

You're not listening. Doubt about whether the player is in legal guarding position is NOT enough to legally review the play.

There has to be doubt about whether the player is in the restricted area or not. Its hard to understand how the refs could've had any doubt about that. IF they didn't, they legally are not allowed to review the replay regardless of any doubt about the legal guarding position.

You're not listening. POSITION is the reason. Whether that's inside or outside of the restricted area it's still considered POSITION. Once they reviewed it they were able to legally change the call to get it right. AND THEY DID.

 

[gohusk]

You're not listening. Doubt about whether the player is in legal guarding position is NOT enough to legally review the play.

There has to be doubt about whether the player is in the restricted area or not. Its hard to understand how the refs could've had any doubt about that. IF they didn't, they legally are not allowed to review the replay regardless of any doubt about the legal guarding position.

Really? That's what you're going with? Do you think they're looking at feet when a guy's driving through the lane like that in traffic? I

 

[cwalke3408]

 

[LAD]

You're not listening. Doubt about whether the player is in legal guarding position is NOT enough to legally review the play.

There has to be doubt about whether the player is in the restricted area or not. Its hard to understand how the refs could've had any doubt about that. IF they didn't, they legally are not allowed to review the replay regardless of any doubt about the legal guarding position.

I'm not sure why you all think the refs did something wrong because they tried to get the call right. Normally we get on the refs for bad calls. This is not a good look.

 

[wildturkey]

I understand the rule. My thing is LBJ was not close to the restricted circle so therefore the initial review to see if he was in or out was not needed.

I get once they decide to review then they can decide if it is a block or charge which I'm fine with. My problem is when a player is not close to the circle then why go to the review? Was it because you knew your refs likely missed a crucial call?

In real time, I thought A) it was a block and B) Lebron might have been close to the circle if it was a charge. Upon the review, its clear he was not. But in real time, I could see how a ref might think he was near it depending on the angle the ref had. They're going to review it in situations like that every time. There's plenty of calls, whether its block/charge or goal tend or possession that get reviewed under 2 mins where after the fact everyone is like "why they fuck did they review that?" when its clear that if there is just a tiny sniff of doubt, its getting reviewed. This was no different. It just happened to be in Game 1 of the Finals

 

[gordontrue]

Lol

Its a subjective call, its not a clear-cut block in my opinion.

Misconception that you aren't allowed to move laterally. I mean, steve Javy said during and after the game that he thought it was a charge and his job is to back up the refs.

I wouldn't have a problem with either call in live action, its a 50-50 play that could go either way.