Was pierce's foul on hinrich the worst call in the history of sports?

[youcanthandlethetruth113]

I've been wondering about this play.  I didn't get a good look at it at the game, and I haven't had a chance to watch it again.  All i saw was Hinrich out in the open fall down. 

The call I would say was the worst was the double tech on Perk.  What did he do to warrant a T?  From what I saw he just held his shoulder and turned around. I didn't even see him say anything.   I'm not even sure that Miller deserved a T on that play (though he probably did), but I can't figure out how Perk got one too. 

Isn't Perkins in some Technical Foul trouble? Doesn't his T's from the regular season carry over into the playoffs?

[ACF]

This should be locked, as you can see
on the replay that Pierce (inadvertently)
hits Hinrich's foot with his right foot.
(Thanks, fairweatherfan.)

[CDawg834]

I've been wondering about this play.  I didn't get a good look at it at the game, and I haven't had a chance to watch it again.  All i saw was Hinrich out in the open fall down. 

The call I would say was the worst was the double tech on Perk.  What did he do to warrant a T?  From what I saw he just held his shoulder and turned around. I didn't even see him say anything.   I'm not even sure that Miller deserved a T on that play (though he probably did), but I can't figure out how Perk got one too. 

Isn't Perkins in some Technical Foul trouble? Doesn't his T's from the regular season carry over into the playoffs?

He was early in the year, but he toned it down, and a couple were rescinded by the league (quietly, I might add).  I imagine the one from Game 7 will be rescinded too.  But to answer your question, they do carry over, unless the rule was recently changed.

[Roy Hobbs]

Isn't Perkins in some Technical Foul trouble? Doesn't his T's from the regular season carry over into the playoffs?

They don't carry over.  Here are the penalties related to the playoffs:

(2) PLAYOFFS
Technical Fouls 1-2: $1,000 fine each
Technical Fouls 3-4: $1,500 fine each
Technical Fouls 5-6: $2,000 fine each (with a warning letter sent when the violator reaches his 5th technical foul)
Technical Foul 7: $2,500 fine plus one-game suspension
Each Additional Technical Foul: $2,500 fine
Each Two Additional Technical Fouls (9, 11, 13, etc.): $2,500 fine plus one-game suspension

http://www.nba.com/media/rule_book_2007-08.pdf

[Neurotic Guy]

I believe this award was retired after the 6-opposing-men-on-the-court basket which was allowed to stand against us in a game at Portland earlier in the season where the three zebras managed to make it through the explanation to Doc with a straight face. The basketball was actually bronzed and sent on to Springfield where it resides next to the gold-plated leaked  memo that the NBA was watching KG's antics, also a first in the annals of the NBA.

good point. and good point by all those who bring up the perk technical during the game.

i thought about this portland game when the refs added a point to chicago's total midway through the 4th quarter. gordon's shot earlier in the game was clearly a three, but when that portland game went down, one of the explanations the nba gave was that you could not go back and undo what had already happened. they had no problem helping out the bulls in that regard saturday night.

Hey -- Thanks for this (TP)!  I was watching at a bar with no sound and they came back from a break up 5 and I could have sworn they went into the break up six (may have been 4 and 5). Obviously, I could hear no explanation.  My friend was sure I was mistaken, and I begrudgingly accepted that I must have been incorrect.  Thanks for clearing this up for me.

[Hoops]

I put the 3 ridiculous calls mentioned in this thread and uploaded the video on Youtube. You can see it in this thread.

Thanks for those clips. Again, I don't know why there is any debate about Pierce tripping Hinrich. Watching it again, it's more obvious than I remember. Pierce clearly catches Hinrich's foot. End of debate.

I hadn't forgotten the Pierce offensive foul against Detroit. But I had forgotten just how egregious that call was. It gets my vote as the worst call in the history of professional basketball, that's for sure.

[soap07]

I hadn't forgotten the Pierce offensive foul against Detroit. But I had forgotten just how egregious that call was. It gets my vote as the worst call in the history of professional basketball, that's for sure.

How about LJ's 4 point play? Or MJ's pushoff? The C's atleast won the series in question. Those two...legit changed the course of NBA championship history.

[Hoops]

I hadn't forgotten the Pierce offensive foul against Detroit. But I had forgotten just how egregious that call was. It gets my vote as the worst call in the history of professional basketball, that's for sure.

How about LJ's 4 point play? Or MJ's pushoff? The C's atleast won the series in question. Those two...legit changed the course of NBA championship history.

Well, you're now talking about calls with the biggest impact. Sure, those calls affected championship outcomes. But the calls themselves were fairly typical. People push off all the time and don't get called for it. People get called for touch fouls or even phantom fouls all the time too.

But on that Pierce shot (if you ignore the travel), the right call should have been a shooting foul on Detroit. It would have been a bad call if there had been a no-call on the play. But rather than making the correct call or merely making a no-call, the refs called Pierce for an offensive foul. How does a defender fall for a pump fake out on the 3 pt. line, jump at the shooter, knock the shooter backwards as he's trying to get the shot off, and draw an offensive foul? To me, it's inconceivable. But you know, that's just me. I guess the argument against it is that Pierce leaned into the guy. If he did, it was slight and if anything, it should have been a no-call. But I think it was the worst call ever.

[Roy Hobbs]

The offensive foul call was certainly a unique one, that you never see called.  However, are we so sure that it's *not* an offensive foul?

Think of it in reverse:  if an offensive player jumps for a dunk, and a defensive player slides over to get in the path of that jumping player to create contact, it's a defensive foul.  Doesn't it make sense, then, that if a *defensive* player jumps, and an offensive player slides over to create contact, that it would be called an offensive foul?  After all, it's an offensive player initiating illegal contact with a defensive player.

It's certainly a novel call, and I agree that refs can't all of a sudden change the way the rules are interpreted midway through a series.  However, maybe this is the way officials *should* be calling games.

(As I remember the play, Pierce took a step to the right to make sure contact was created.  If he'd stayed in place, of course it's a defensive foul.)

[fairweatherfan]

The offensive foul call was certainly a unique one, that you never see called.  However, are we so sure that it's *not* an offensive foul?

Think of it in reverse:  if an offensive player jumps for a dunk, and a defensive player slides over to get in the path of that jumping player to create contact, it's a defensive foul.  Doesn't it make sense, then, that if a *defensive* player jumps, and an offensive player slides over to create contact, that it would be called an offensive foul?  After all, it's an offensive player initiating illegal contact with a defensive player.

It's certainly a novel call, and I agree that refs can't all of a sudden change the way the rules are interpreted midway through a series.  However, maybe this is the way officials *should* be calling games.

(As I remember the play, Pierce took a step to the right to make sure contact was created.  If he'd stayed in place, of course it's a defensive foul.)

Spoken like a true attorney  .  That's an interesting interpretation but it assumes the rules for what space you're entitled to is symmetrical between offense and defense.  An offensive player jumping forward is entitled to not be interfered with by a defender; this is only superceded if he hits a defensive player in an established position (not counting ward-off type offensive fouls).

A defensive player does NOT have the same rights - a player on defense jumping forward is not in an established defensive position, and isn't entitled to finish his jump without contact.  A defender jumping straight up has that right by the book though it's never called that way, but a defender jumping forward commits a foul by the letter of the law if he collides with an offensive player.  The rules of basketball, as I understand them, are generally geared toward the offensive player having the right to move about the court and the defensive player only having the right to hold an established spot.

Either way Pierce traveled before the contact was made, so if Salvatore wanted to call an infraction on him that would've been the proper ruling.  I still think it was a "creative" interpretation designed to say FU to the league for embarrassing Dick Bavetta the day before.

[GeoDim]

The offensive foul call was certainly a unique one, that you never see called.  However, are we so sure that it's *not* an offensive foul?

Think of it in reverse:  if an offensive player jumps for a dunk, and a defensive player slides over to get in the path of that jumping player to create contact, it's a defensive foul.  Doesn't it make sense, then, that if a *defensive* player jumps, and an offensive player slides over to create contact, that it would be called an offensive foul?  After all, it's an offensive player initiating illegal contact with a defensive player.

It's certainly a novel call, and I agree that refs can't all of a sudden change the way the rules are interpreted midway through a series.  However, maybe this is the way officials *should* be calling games.

(As I remember the play, Pierce took a step to the right to make sure contact was created.  If he'd stayed in place, of course it's a defensive foul.)

A defender should never be rewarded for losing control of their bodies in the air.  The shooter has every right to get a defender in the air and then shoot, thus creating contact.  This is a shooting foul.  If the shooter jumps to the side or does something ridiculous to initiate contact (Ben Gordon), this should be a no call.  The shooter is already at a disadvantage, due to the contact.  But at no point should the defender get the charge for biting on an up-fake.

[Hoops]

The offensive foul call was certainly a unique one, that you never see called.  However, are we so sure that it's *not* an offensive foul?

Think of it in reverse:  if an offensive player jumps for a dunk, and a defensive player slides over to get in the path of that jumping player to create contact, it's a defensive foul.  Doesn't it make sense, then, that if a *defensive* player jumps, and an offensive player slides over to create contact, that it would be called an offensive foul?  After all, it's an offensive player initiating illegal contact with a defensive player.

It's certainly a novel call, and I agree that refs can't all of a sudden change the way the rules are interpreted midway through a series.  However, maybe this is the way officials *should* be calling games.

(As I remember the play, Pierce took a step to the right to make sure contact was created.  If he'd stayed in place, of course it's a defensive foul.)

Spoken like a true attorney  .  That's an interesting interpretation but it assumes the rules for what space you're entitled to is symmetrical between offense and defense.  An offensive player jumping forward is entitled to not be interfered with by a defender; this is only superceded if he hits a defensive player in an established position (not counting ward-off type offensive fouls).

A defensive player does NOT have the same rights - a player on defense jumping forward is not in an established defensive position, and isn't entitled to finish his jump without contact.  A defender jumping straight up has that right by the book though it's never called that way, but a defender jumping forward commits a foul by the letter of the law if he collides with an offensive player.  The rules of basketball, as I understand them, are generally geared toward the offensive player having the right to move about the court and the defensive player only having the right to hold an established spot.

Either way Pierce traveled before the contact was made, so if Salvatore wanted to call an infraction on him that would've been the proper ruling.  I still think it was a "creative" interpretation designed to say FU to the league for embarrassing Dick Bavetta the day before.

Excellent points. You see it happen all the time where an offensive player pump fakes a defender in the air BEFORE using his dribble. The moment that defender is in the air, the offensive player simply dribbles left, right or forward to make sure that the defender makes contact when landing. That's about as routine a play as you'll ever see in the NBA. And I don't think there's any question that's a foul on the defender every time. Pierce's case was only different in that he didn't dribble to meet the defender - he simply leaned over. Should be the same call.