Celtics (28-7) at Pacers (20-15) Game #36 1/8/24

[bdm860]

What is imiminet possesion?

"3.2 4th Quarter – FOUL CHALLENGE – The crew communicated with the Replay Center and determined the foul challenged by the Pacers was overturned to no foul. At the time of the whistle, the Pacers had imminent possession."

It means the Pacers were set to secure thr rebound.  That's why they got the ball afterwards.

Don't kill the messenger and argue Porzongis was crashing, just saying what it means.

[liam]

What is imiminet possesion?

"3.2 4th Quarter – FOUL CHALLENGE – The crew communicated with the Replay Center and determined the foul challenged by the Pacers was overturned to no foul. At the time of the whistle, the Pacers had imminent possession."

It means the Pacers were set to secure thr rebound.  That's why they got the ball afterwards.

Don't kill the messenger and argue Porzongis was crashing, just saying what it means.

If the whistle doesn't blow anything could've happened. Saying a rebound is imminent is nonsense.

[Kernewek]

What is imiminet possesion?

"3.2 4th Quarter – FOUL CHALLENGE – The crew communicated with the Replay Center and determined the foul challenged by the Pacers was overturned to no foul. At the time of the whistle, the Pacers had imminent possession."

It means the Pacers were set to secure thr rebound.  That's why they got the ball afterwards.

Don't kill the messenger and argue Porzongis was crashing, just saying what it means.

If the whistle doesn't blow anything could've happened. Saying a rebound is imminent is nonsense.

Anything could have happened, but some outcomes are more likely than others.

[Goldstar88]

What gets me about this game is that the officials could have easily let it go to OT… If you are going to ultimately say that JB didn’t get fouled, then do the same for Matharin on the following possession. Be consistent. Maybe they had a reservation at St. Elmo’s?

[Donoghus]

What gets me about this game is that the officials could have easily let it go to OT… If you are going to ultimately say that JB didn’t get fouled, then do the same for Matharin on the following possession. Maybe they had a reservation at St. Elmo’s?

St. Elmo's is no joke.  That cocktail sauce will clean out your sinuses in a jiff.

[Yuckabuck33]

Did everyone forget the fast break they took away from us by calling a technical foul on a Pacer? Very dirty game!

[Donoghus]

Still no L2M report

[Goldstar88]

What gets me about this game is that the officials could have easily let it go to OT… If you are going to ultimately say that JB didn’t get fouled, then do the same for Matharin on the following possession. Maybe they had a reservation at St. Elmo’s?

St. Elmo's is no joke.  That cocktail sauce will clean out your sinuses in a jiff.

Mystery solved! 

[bdm860]

https://official.nba.com/l2m/L2MReport.html?gameId=0022300507

On replay review, the coach's challenge of the shooting foul called on Hield (IND) was deemed successful. The video clearly shows that Hield reaches forward and makes contact with the ball from behind Brown (BOS). While in contact with the ball, Hield also makes minimal contact with Brown's head, and on review that contact was correctly deemed incidental. As the rulebook makes clear, the mere fact that contact occurs does not necessarily constitute a foul; contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to defend an opponent, reach a loose ball, or perform normal defensive or offensive movements is not considered illegal. Play resumed with IND possession, since Nesmith (IND) had imminent possession at the point of interruption.

[Donoghus]

https://official.nba.com/l2m/L2MReport.html?gameId=0022300507

On replay review, the coach's challenge of the shooting foul called on Hield (IND) was deemed successful. The video clearly shows that Hield reaches forward and makes contact with the ball from behind Brown (BOS). While in contact with the ball, Hield also makes minimal contact with Brown's head, and on review that contact was correctly deemed incidental. As the rulebook makes clear, the mere fact that contact occurs does not necessarily constitute a foul; contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to defend an opponent, reach a loose ball, or perform normal defensive or offensive movements is not considered illegal. Play resumed with IND possession, since Nesmith (IND) had imminent possession at the point of interruption.

Sheesh

[bdm860]

https://official.nba.com/l2m/L2MReport.html?gameId=0022300507

On replay review, the coach's challenge of the shooting foul called on Hield (IND) was deemed successful. The video clearly shows that Hield reaches forward and makes contact with the ball from behind Brown (BOS). While in contact with the ball, Hield also makes minimal contact with Brown's head, and on review that contact was correctly deemed incidental. As the rulebook makes clear, the mere fact that contact occurs does not necessarily constitute a foul; contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to defend an opponent, reach a loose ball, or perform normal defensive or offensive movements is not considered illegal. Play resumed with IND possession, since Nesmith (IND) had imminent possession at the point of interruption.

Sheesh

For a further kick in the balls, it also says the Porzingis foul was the incorrect call.

In a sad bit of irony, we complain the refs didn't call it consistently for both teams, but they actually did, as they called an incorrect foul on both ends of the floor in the final seconds.  The difference was the Pacers had a challenge, the Celtics didn't.

[footey]

Did Porzingis hit Mathurin's arm at end of game? I could not see it on replay.   Refs on review claim he hit his arm.

L2M Report confirms the refs screwed up, said the contact was incidental and not a foul.

[footey]

https://official.nba.com/l2m/L2MReport.html?gameId=0022300507

On replay review, the coach's challenge of the shooting foul called on Hield (IND) was deemed successful. The video clearly shows that Hield reaches forward and makes contact with the ball from behind Brown (BOS). While in contact with the ball, Hield also makes minimal contact with Brown's head, and on review that contact was correctly deemed incidental. As the rulebook makes clear, the mere fact that contact occurs does not necessarily constitute a foul; contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to defend an opponent, reach a loose ball, or perform normal defensive or offensive movements is not considered illegal. Play resumed with IND possession, since Nesmith (IND) had imminent possession at the point of interruption.

Sheesh

For a further kick in the balls, it also says the Porzingis foul was the incorrect call.

In a sad bit of irony, we complain the refs didn't call it consistently for both teams, but they actually did, as they called an incorrect foul on both ends of the floor in the final seconds.  The difference was the Pacers had a challenge, the Celtics didn't.

Yeah, so I guess it was Joe's fault for using up his challenge earlier.

FIRE JOE!!!  (LOL)

[DefenseWinsChamps]

https://official.nba.com/l2m/L2MReport.html?gameId=0022300507

On replay review, the coach's challenge of the shooting foul called on Hield (IND) was deemed successful. The video clearly shows that Hield reaches forward and makes contact with the ball from behind Brown (BOS). While in contact with the ball, Hield also makes minimal contact with Brown's head, and on review that contact was correctly deemed incidental. As the rulebook makes clear, the mere fact that contact occurs does not necessarily constitute a foul; contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to defend an opponent, reach a loose ball, or perform normal defensive or offensive movements is not considered illegal. Play resumed with IND possession, since Nesmith (IND) had imminent possession at the point of interruption.

Sheesh

For a further kick in the balls, it also says the Porzingis foul was the incorrect call.

In a sad bit of irony, we complain the refs didn't call it consistently for both teams, but they actually did, as they called an incorrect foul on both ends of the floor in the final seconds.  The difference was the Pacers had a challenge, the Celtics didn't.

Yeah, so I guess it was Joe's fault for using up his challenge earlier.

FIRE JOE!!!  (LOL)

Interpreting the contact to Brown's had as "incidental" is ridiculous. It'd be a terrible look to admit both calls were incorrect. There has been less contact to a player's head that was correctly called a foul.

[jpotter33]

lol so they are really just going to continue propagandizing, eh?

They throw us a bone saying that we got screwed on two separate calls in favor of Indy, but the obvious foul was not a foul and correctly overturned to save them the embarrassment of admitting they got a call wrong even after it was reviewed.

Good grief. NBA officiating is so broke. Get rid of them all and start anew. Since when is head contact during a jump shot “incidental”? And even claiming it’s “incidental” is non-sense; you can see it move his actual head in the replay!