Series Thread: Warriors and the Pelicans Series, 2014-15

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

The Warriors need to lower the boom by putting their foot firmly on the Pelicans' throats and not relenting or showing a shred of mercy. They should play the aggressor early & often and go into non stop attack mode to demoralize them and take the N.O. home crowd out of it.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

The Pelicans are on the threatened list right now..and if the Dubs take game 3 they'll be an endangered species.

 

[GregWarriorsfan]

"The Pelicans are on the threatened list right now..and if the Dubs take game 3 they'll be an endangered species."

Well, yeah, what with the BP oil leak....

I remember when N.O. decided to change their name to the Pelicans. I thought "how are people going to feel about calling their teams 'The Pelicans'?" You get used to it fast.

When I took my nephew to a Warrior/Pelicans game (N.O.) a few years ago, when we got up to our section, there were two Pelican cheerleaders greeting people. I got them to allow me to take a picture with my nephew. They were really nice (and pretty). I think Michael will remember this stroke of luck until the day he dies. He was about 15 then.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

"The Pelicans are on the threatened list right now..and if the Dubs take game 3 they'll be an endangered species."

Well, yeah, what with the BP oil leak....

I remember when N.O. decided to change their name to the Pelicans. I thought "how are people going to feel about calling their teams 'The Pelicans'?" You get used to it fast.

When I took my nephew to a Warrior/Pelicans game (N.O.) a few years ago, when we got up to our section, there were two Pelican cheerleaders greeting people. I got them to allow me to take a picture with my nephew. They were really nice (and pretty). I think Michael will remember this stroke of luck until the day he dies. He was about 15 then.

It's the state bird of Louisiana.

 

[Montalban]

Looks like the Dubs decided they weren't going to play defense tonight and would just jack up threes on offense. When they play like this their game is very ugly.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

OMG!!!!!

Steph drains a 3 at the buzzer....and we're going to OT!!!!

108-108

WOW!!!

 

[GregWarriorsfan]

Dubs win it!!!!!!!!!!!

Boy had I given up on this one. Curry...10 for 29 ???

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

Unbelievable!!!
123-119 win....
to grab a commanding 3-0 series lead.

 

[GregWarriorsfan]

Boy did you really one up me on the Warriors logo!

 

[GregWarriorsfan]

I know that the pelican is the state bird of Louisiana. When the BP spill happened, we had countless oily pelicans everywhere with people trying to save their lives by cleaning them. I was making a comment regarding your "endangered species" comment.

 

[Montalban]

OMG!!!!!

Steph drains a 3 at the buzzer....and we're going to OT!!!!

108-108

WOW!!!

The thing that stands out most to me on that shot was he was hammered on the play and it clearly should have been a foul with a follow-on free throw which would have won the game in regulation. It was the most egregious officiating error since the Seattle-Green Bay fiasco with the replacement refs. I can only assume that even the refs got caught up in the drama of the moment.

 

[GregWarriorsfan]

Refs aren't supposed to get "caught up in the moment." They're not fans or players. I think that they didn't want to be burdened with "affecting the outcome of the game" by calling the foul with only 2 seconds left, something that would have given the Warriors the game while in New Orleans. I also think that the game was reffed in favor of the Dubs....just my opinion. Maybe it was a make-up call, or "non-call".

Has anyone noticed that this year especially the refs are allowing for one man to foul another one and to then wait and see if the bucket goes in or out to decide whether or not to call the foul? If the guy misses the shot, they blow the whistle about 1-2 seconds after the foul. Possibly the reason why they're doing this is to prevent too many FTs, i.e., "stoppages" of the game. If the foul is "iffy", they wait to see if the ball drops in. If it does, no foul is called. If it doesn't, they blow the whistle. I actually sort of like it, but the purist in me doesn't like it.

 

[CitySushi]

Refs aren't supposed to get "caught up in the moment." They're not fans or players. I think that they didn't want to be burdened with "affecting the outcome of the game" by calling the foul with only 2 seconds left, something that would have given the Warriors the game while in New Orleans. I also think that the game was reffed in favor of the Dubs....just my opinion. Maybe it was a make-up call, or "non-call".

Has anyone noticed that this year especially the refs are allowing for one man to foul another one and to then wait and see if the bucket goes in or out to decide whether or not to call the foul? If the guy misses the shot, they blow the whistle about 1-2 seconds after the foul. Possibly the reason why they're doing this is to prevent too many FTs, i.e., "stoppages" of the game. If the foul is "iffy", they wait to see if the ball drops in. If it does, no foul is called. If it doesn't, they blow the whistle. I actually sort of like it, but the purist in me doesn't like it.

I think the reffing was inconsistent both ways, but I definitely wouldn't agree that it favored the Warriors. Steph gets literally no calls for being a superstar.

I don't like the "wait and see" approach. Either it's a foul or not. I understand why some refs do hold off on calling it, but I feel like as long as it's consistent it really shouldn't matter. If they call it on both ends, fine. If they don't call it on either, that's also fine too.

The one major gripe I have is that there should be absolutely no change in definition of fouls from the opening tip to the last 2 minutes of the game. If you call a foul in the 2nd quarter, it better be a foul in the 4th.

 

[GregWarriorsfan]

"The one major gripe I have is that there should be absolutely no change in definition of fouls from the opening tip to the last 2 minutes of the game. If you call a foul in the 2nd quarter, it better be a foul in the 4th."

Definitely agree with this. However, I will speak to a game I reffed in intramural college. I was chosen to ref the finals of the highest "grade" of the finals game along with another guy. The game was a really good game, and we had great control of it with solid reffing. But, the rules of OT (the game went to OT) was that the first team to score won. There was a pick set at the top of the key and there was some contact between the picker and the person trying to get around/over/through the pick. I didn't call anything because any foul at this point would put the guy on the foul line shooting 2 FTs. The other ref called a foul, and we all knew immediately that this was not how we wanted this game to end...such a good game...such good play and a well-called game. The guy drilled the first FT and it was over with. A hollow win.

But, it was the different because of the particular rules of our intramural game. But, it is similar in that a ref can call a close call a foul at the end of the game and it leads to FTs and the game is over with. But, that's how it should be.

Now, you think that Curry gets "no-calls" when he shoots? I don't really think so. He waves his arms and legs around a lot trying to draw fouls, especially on his contested threes (which, I think cause him to miss many of these shots), but I think that the refs protect him pretty well on the court.

 

[GregWarriorsfan]

NBA says Warriors guard Stephen Curry was fouled on tying 3-pointer in Game 3

Here's proof about the foul against Curry. At least this isn't a sad story since Curry's team went on to win.

 

[CitySushi]

"The one major gripe I have is that there should be absolutely no change in definition of fouls from the opening tip to the last 2 minutes of the game. If you call a foul in the 2nd quarter, it better be a foul in the 4th."

Definitely agree with this. However, I will speak to a game I reffed in intramural college. I was chosen to ref the finals of the highest "grade" of the finals game along with another guy. The game was a really good game, and we had great control of it with solid reffing. But, the rules of OT (the game went to OT) was that the first team to score won. There was a pick set at the top of the key and there was some contact between the picker and the person trying to get around/over/through the pick. I didn't call anything because any foul at this point would put the guy on the foul line shooting 2 FTs. The other ref called a foul, and we all knew immediately that this was not how we wanted this game to end...such a good game...such good play and a well-called game. The guy drilled the first FT and it was over with. A hollow win.

But, it was the different because of the particular rules of our intramural game. But, it is similar in that a ref can call a close call a foul at the end of the game and it leads to FTs and the game is over with. But, that's how it should be.

Now, you think that Curry gets "no-calls" when he shoots? I don't really think so. He waves his arms and legs around a lot trying to draw fouls, especially on his contested threes (which, I think cause him to miss many of these shots), but I think that the refs protect him pretty well on the court.

I'm not talking about purely his shot. He is not getting those calls when he throws his arms and legs out, ala Reggie Miller, and rightfully so.

I'm talking about the constant hand checking and physical play against him. You can reference any Clippers game to see the assaults CP3 puts on him. I'm also talking about his drives to the rim. He takes a ton of contact under and near the hoop. I've seen a dozen times or more this year where there are clear and-1 potential shots and not get any sort of calls from the refs.

There is a clear distinction in the type of calls Wade and Harden get versus Curry. I'm not saying the refs should bail him out, but when there is a foul, they need to call it.

 

[GregWarriorsfan]

"I've seen a dozen times or more this year where there are clear and-1 potential shots"

Did you use the words you intended on using? I'm not understanding you.

 

[CitySushi]

"I've seen a dozen times or more this year where there are clear and-1 potential shots"

Did you use the words you intended on using? I'm not understanding you.

And-1 potential shots, meaning that Curry made the basket while taking a ton of contact, yet a foul was not called. The refs were waiting to see if it went in first. I would figure a ref like yourself would have been able to decipher that.

 

[GregWarriorsfan]

When I reffed in college, it was about 30 years ago. The "And-1" was not a phrase that was used, though I am keenly aware of the phrase now. Also, I'm not used to seeing it written.

I hear people yell it during the game all the time when they feel like they are fouled. However, much of the time they miss the shot. Draymond does it all the time. It's funny to me because there is no "and" because they missed the shot. They might want to stick with "foul" to keep from assuming that their shot was going to drop.

I wasn't inferring that you weren't communicating properly earlier. I just simply did not understand what you were saying.

 

[CitySushi]

When I reffed in college, it was about 30 years ago. The "And-1" was not a phrase that was used, though I am keenly aware of the phrase now. Also, I'm not used to seeing it written.

I hear people yell it during the game all the time when they feel like they are fouled. However, much of the time they miss the shot. Draymond does it all the time. It's funny to me because there is no "and" because they missed the shot. They might want to stick with "foul" to keep from assuming that their shot was going to drop.

I wasn't inferring that you weren't communicating properly earlier. I just simply did not understand what you were saying.

Understood.