When will Wiggy next post?

[WiggyRuss]

Steve Javie, former NBA referee: "My first thing, now being out of officiating for five years and being in the replay center, I wanted to rewind it to make sure that it was legal. That's the first thing. Because I knew it was so close to being to the backboard, I wanted to see if he took it to the backboard or he took it off the backboard. So that was the first thing that I wanted to observe, and when I did observe it, then I just went like, 'Wow.' Just an incredible play because he did, even for people who are watching on TV, he came out of nowhere."

I always though Javie was one of the better refs with some of the most integrity when he was out there.

 

[Shanemansj13]

You think Trojan is butt hurt because he posted a rule and a photo, or isn't entitled to his opinion?

Isn't that what this forum is SUPPOSED to be about?

An opinion? But it clearly states in the rule if the you touch the ball before you pin it against the glass it isn't a goaltend and on the replay you can see the ball didn't touch the glass until after it is touched by Lebron. That isn't an opinion, that is a fact. The refs even said they had no missed calls in the last 2 minutes and reviewed that play specifically after game. It was the correct call. I didn't say you can't have an opinion, but it doesn't make sense you keep saying it looks like a goaltend. You can believe whatever you want if it makes you feel better LOL.

 

[WiggyRuss]

i think their is some ambiguity in the reading of the rule- agree with trojan there----but the league interpreted it in a specific way and said it was legal- hence resolving that ambiguity.

this is so much like the interpretation of a statute too- and the league office like the court...

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

An opinion? But it clearly states in the rule if the you touch the ball before you pin it against the glass it isn't a goaltend and on the replay you can see the ball didn't touch the glass until after it is touched by Lebron. That isn't an opinion, that is a fact. The refs even said they had no missed calls in the last 2 minutes and reviewed that play specifically after game. It was the correct call. I didn't say you can't have an opinion, but it doesn't make sense you keep saying it looks like a goaltend. You can believe whatever you want if it makes you feel better LOL.

I can believe?
I can feel better?
I never said it was.

#barkingupthewrongtree

 

[trojanfan12]

i think by the strict letter of the law it was not a goal tend though. If the Gordon quoted the rule correctly- the initial contact occurred and the ball was not on the backboard. As the rule is written - and as the NBA league office interrepreted it- it was by "the letter of the law" NOT a goal tend.

I disagree. Nowhere in the rule does it say anything about whether or not touching the ball before it hits the backboard makes it not a goaltend. If Lebron didn't pin it against the backboard, it couldn't havce rolled off to the right like it did. He brought the ball to the backboard. The rule clearly states "Hand, ball and backboard simultaneously" it does not add..."unless the player touched the ball before it hits the backboard." So, by the letter of the law, it is a goaltend. Interpretation is different than the letter of the law. Interpretation is why I said the call shouldn't/wouldn't have been made. But the letter of the law and interpretation are 2 different things. The interpretation of that call is similar to the interpretation of traveling. If referees went by the letter of the law, we would see traveling called a lot more often than we do.

but whatever---- if you are 12 years old right now you will be seeing that play in a Finals Montage of all time great plays until you are 90 y ears old.

True.

 

[trojanfan12]

But it clearly states in the rule if the you touch the ball before you pin it against the glass it isn't a goaltend

It literally does not say that anywhere in the rule. That's why it had to be interpreted.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

It literally does not say that anywhere in the rule. That's why it had to be interpreted.

Sorry I reopened that can of worms..

 

[WiggyRuss]

It literally does not say that anywhere in the rule. That's why it had to be interpreted.

well exactly. say its even 50/50 at that point- truly ambigious- the ruling from the league office tips it towards the "presumed legal" instead of the "presumed illegal" side as obviously they are the authority that is invested with the power to interpret the rules. I definitely see the ambiguity- but the league office resolved that ambiguity and interpreted it as legal- thats the only thing that matters.

hence it passes both the eye test--- he hit it before it touched the backboard--- and the legal test.

i mean whatever---- this is the kind of stuff i love to debate though-- statutory interpretation at its finest..

 

[trojanfan12]

well exactly. say its even 50/50 at that point- truly ambigious- the ruling from the league office tips it towards the "presumed legal" instead of the "presumed illegal" side as obviously they are the authority that is invested with the power to interpret the rules. I definitely see the ambiguity- but the league office resolved that ambiguity and interpreted it as legal- thats the only thing that matters.

hence it passes both the eye test--- he hit it before it touched the backboard--- and the legal test.

i mean whatever---- this is the kind of stuff i love to debate though-- statutory interpretation at its finest..

I agree. As you said in a previous post, it's ambiguous and therefore subject to the interpretation of the court. In this case, the NBA is the court and that is their interpretation, which is why it wasn't called. I've never claimed that it should have been called. I've just pointed out that by the letter of the law, it's a goaltend.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I agree. As you said in a previous post, it's ambiguous and therefore subject to the interpretation of the court. In this case, the NBA is the court and that is their interpretation, which is why it wasn't called. I've never claimed that it should have been called. I've just pointed out that by the letter of the law, it's a goaltend.

i dont understand how you can say that when a line before you said the rule was ambiguous. It cant be both ambiguous and a goal tend by the "letter of the law"...right?

 

[trojanfan12]

i dont understand how you can say that when a line before you said the rule was ambiguous. It cant be both ambiguous and a goal tend by the "letter of the law"...right?

Ambiguity may not be the right word. The rule clearly states, "hand, ball, backboard all in contact simultaneously" it doesn't say anything about when the ball was touched. So yes, by the letter of the law, it's a goaltend. However, the league chooses to interpret it differently than how it's written. So perhaps that's where the ambiguity is?

It's also possible that the league has always intended for the rule to not include when the ball is touched by the defender prior to it touching the backboard, but hasn't made the change to the wording yet. Thus, interpreting it the way it's intended to be written rather than what it actually says.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Ambiguity may not be the right word. The rule clearly states, "hand, ball, backboard all in contact simultaneously" it doesn't say anything about when the ball was touched. So yes, by the letter of the law, it's a goaltend. However, the league chooses to interpret it differently than how it's written. So perhaps that's where the ambiguity is?

It's also possible that the league has always intended for the rule to not include when the ball is touched by the defender prior to it touching the backboard, but hasn't made the change to the wording yet. Thus, interpreting it the way it's intended to be written rather than what it actually says.

so you are saying you think the league got it wrong?

 

[trojanfan12]

so you are saying you think the league got it wrong?

By the letter of the law...yes. By the intent...no.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Oh and btw...

NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavs VS Golden State Warriors

"Wiggy should get decimated about all the trolling he did re: the Cavs and their false dominance.

Accusing him of fabricating a death to earn sympathy points with a bunch of people who despise him, and shouldn't give him a inch when it comes to the Cavs, makes me think Shaq Daddy has delusions about her importance on this earth."

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Fuck him.
Who cares.
He'll eventually show up, honor his bets, then won't post during that time frame.
He now knows how far behind the Cavs are.
He now knows theres a great chance James leaves next summer.
He'll be looking for a friend and a new team soon enough.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Fuck him.
Who cares.
He'll eventually show up, honor his bets, then won't post during that time frame.
He now knows how far behind the Cavs are.
He now knows theres a great chance James leaves next summer.
He'll be looking for a friend and a new team soon enough.

I care. The kids are at school and i'm bored! That little pussy is entertaining!

 

[Black Adam]

Fuck him.
Who cares.
He'll eventually show up, honor his bets, then won't post during that time frame.
He now knows how far behind the Cavs are.
He now knows theres a great chance James leaves next summer.
He'll be looking for a friend and a new team soon enough.

TurnUp got it right...

LET the pathetic fuck hide for as long as he likes. tells you all you need to know about his true character...

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

Oh and btw...

NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavs VS Golden State Warriors

"Wiggy should get decimated about all the trolling he did re: the Cavs and their false dominance.

Accusing him of fabricating a death to earn sympathy points with a bunch of people who despise him, and shouldn't give him a inch when it comes to the Cavs, makes me think Shaq Daddy has delusions about her importance on this earth."

Not quoting the actual post so that person can respond back makes you as big a coward as @WiggyRuss .

Try adding intelligent content to a conversation instead of constantly trolling for a change.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Not quoting the actual post so that person can respond back makes you as big a coward as @WiggyRuss .

Try adding intelligent content to a conversation instead of constantly trolling for a change.

I couldn't quote it as it was a closed thread.

But i'll happily tag you next time if it upsets you so much.