Speaking physics the ball had to have hit the rim

[dlpin]

I didn't say anything about video replay. I said it about your idea of how calls where there is doubt should be handled by a jump ball.

I'm talking about shot clock calls where they cannot arrive at a conclusion.  The intention is not to just jump it up because they're not sure, rather they'd have the liberty to get the call correct via video. If the video is inconclusive, then a jump ball makes sense.

If they can't determine who should have possession, what do you want them to do?

But in this case not only could they arrive at a conclusion, they actually did arrive at it. In fact, I don't remember a single case ever where they failed to arrive at a conclusion. Even when they missed the call, they did arrive at a conclusion during the game.

Now, if you are saying that there was enough doubt about whether they reached the right conclusion, and therefore they should have a jump ball rule, then we go back to the issue of actually complicating things even more with determining what is "enough doubt" about a call.

[sufferahsmusic]

edited

[star18]

It seems somebody has an obsession to discredit the Boston Celtics. Ball hit the rim, Celtics won, Celtics are World Champions, Starbury scored 12 points in the 4th. Game Over. STARBURY #18

[steve]

Perkins sold it.  If it didn't hit the rim, Perkin's reaction swayed one of the refs. 

[kenmaine]

This is so simple. The shot was a desperation, awful shot, BUT it did change direction, therefore it obviously hit the rim.
All this back and forth over this play is kind of silly- there were plenty of other questionable calls that could be argued and a few of them went Orlando's way, like Howard forgetting that you have to dribble the ball, or E. House being clobbered by a moving pick and getting called for the foul, etc.

[markketch]

But in this case not only could they arrive at a conclusion, they actually did arrive at it. In fact, I don't remember a single case ever where they failed to arrive at a conclusion. Even when they missed the call, they did arrive at a conclusion during the game.

I'm talking about situations where they could not arrive at a conclusion, not last night.  It's simply a point that should a situation like I described arise, and video and/or referees cannot tell, a jump ball would make sense.

[Drucci]

I haven't seen a replay, and it seemed to me that the ball didn't hit the rim. So what? If someone is to blame, it's the refs, not the Celtics, they are not the one who decided to have a new 24 possession (though they were very happy to have it ).

Plus the refs made questionable calls through the whole game (the Howard travel non called in the first quarter was stunning).

The Celtics never gave up, came alive in the 4th and they deserved to win. Guess what? They did, and you can't put their success on this referees' decision alone (are they responsible for Ray's huge three? for Turkoglu and Alston horrible shots down the stretch? for the crucial rebound after Ray's missed shot?). The Magic didn't complain when Pierce didn't get a foul (which he should have get) at the end of game 1.

[markketch]

****, I hope you are not talking about my post.  How much clearer could it be when I enlarge the font and bold it on the words that are supposed to have emphasis.  Too funny.  What are you, a Magic troll?

Did I quote you? No.  It was pretty clear that I was responding to Crownsy. "How much clearer could it be when I directly quote the person I'm responding to?"  

No, I'm not a Magic troll. I'm not arguing that this cost the Magic the game (heck, I was rooting for the Celtics).  I'm arguing that the league should implement some sort of review for 24 second violations in the even that there is uncertainty.

If anyone's posts aren't clear, it's yours.  You keep talking about how it "should have been" a jump ball, but then you take issue WHEN I SUGGEST that you mean to say that they should change the rules in a playoff game.  That's exactly what you said.  If you "think" it should have been a jump ball, then you "think" that in the last minute of a playoff game 5, the refs should have overruled the actual rule book and called a jump.

See what I put in all caps? I never said the officials should have changed the call during the game - you've suggested that and somehow turned that into what "I've said".  How you're implying that is beyond me, and quite comical. I think that, in an even a call cannot be made or there is obvious confusion as to what happened, then a rule to permit a jump ball makes sense.  I've never said the rules should have been changed last night, so please quit with that silly accusation.

If you are saying have replay next season, great, discuss.  But that is NOT what you said.  You said... tonight... that play should have resulted in a jump ball.

You might want to reread this thread. It is my opinion that a play like I described should have been a jump ball.  That in no way means I believe the officials should change the rules during a game.  That's a ridiculous assertion and is in no way what I've said.

[markketch]

It seems somebody has an obsession to discredit the Boston Celtics. Ball hit the rim, Celtics won, Celtics are World Champions, Starbury scored 12 points in the 4th. Game Over. STARBURY #18

I'm rooting for the Celtics in this series, so not quite.  I've already posted that Boston won the game by staying competitive as the Orlando Panic did just that, panic. I've not said once that Boston should not have won the game (they most definitely should have, and did).  My discussion has been solely about implementing new procedures for 24 second violations when there isn't enough clarity.  Pretty simple.

[cordobes]

Difficult call for the refs. There was a blatant travel violation by Howard in the 1st half that they forgot to call. Referees just make mistakes.

There are blown calls every game, but do you not think that confusion on a 24 second call should at least resort to a jump ball? It wasn't like one official called it right away, they had to huddle for a bit to make the decision. 

In those types of cases, at that point in the game, a jump ball seems the most logical resolution.

Maybe, but it wasn't a solution refs had available to use yesterday, so it's a moot point. They had to decide one way or the other. I really don't think that uncertainty on 24 seconds violation situations is common enough to warrant a rules change. You're just being reactionary.

[markketch]

Maybe, but it wasn't a solution refs had available to use yesterday, so it's a moot point. They had to decide one way or the other. I really don't think that uncertainty on 24 seconds violation situations is common enough to warrant a rules change. You're just being reactionary.

I'm arguing that it's what they should do in the future, so it's not a moot point because I'm talking about future instances of such plays, not what yesterday. 

How commond does it need to be? It happened in the Hawks-Cavs series, albeit it was much more obvious on the replay, but on that play the officials incorrectly called it. Why not have a rule in the reserve just in case?  I'd rather have the call correct than the league to say "well, we don't allow the review so the incorrect play stood based on official error."

[cordobes]

Maybe, but it wasn't a solution refs had available to use yesterday, so it's a moot point. They had to decide one way or the other. I really don't think that uncertainty on 24 seconds violation situations is common enough to warrant a rules change. You're just being reactionary.

I'm arguing that it's what they should do in the future, so it's not a moot point because I'm talking about future instances of such plays, not what yesterday. 

How commond does it need to be? It happened in the Hawks-Cavs series, albeit it was much more obvious on the replay, but on that play the officials incorrectly called it. Why not have a rule in the reserve just in case?  I'd rather have the call correct than the league to say "well, we don't allow the review so the incorrect play stood based on official error."

It needs to be common to the point that a hard-core basketball fan who has been involved in the game for 2 decades, like myself, isn't reading that suggestion for the 1st time.

[Thruthelookingglass]

Great comment on the issue I picked off the comments from Foxports:

I'm an Orlando fan but I disagree with "refs are winning games for boston". If you're talking about the shot clock "violation" at the end, watch the replay. The ball would've dropped straight down if it had been an air ball and didn't touch rim. However, the ball moved to the left (if you're looking from behind the backboard). Unless ALL of the fans on that side of the court blew REALLY hard all at once to make the ball curve, then it touched rim.

[CoachCowens]

Maybe, but it wasn't a solution refs had available to use yesterday, so it's a moot point. They had to decide one way or the other. I really don't think that uncertainty on 24 seconds violation situations is common enough to warrant a rules change. You're just being reactionary.

I'm arguing that it's what they should do in the future, so it's not a moot point because I'm talking about future instances of such plays, not what yesterday. 

How commond does it need to be? It happened in the Hawks-Cavs series, albeit it was much more obvious on the replay, but on that play the officials incorrectly called it. Why not have a rule in the reserve just in case?  I'd rather have the call correct than the league to say "well, we don't allow the review so the incorrect play stood based on official error."

It needs to be common to the point that a hard-core basketball fan who has been involved in the game for 2 decades, like myself, isn't reading that suggestion for the 1st time.

if it clears up a tough call in the final minutes of a game it sounds like a good rule to me. Even if it only happens once every 2 decades.

[Fafnir]

Howard had at least 2 major traveling violations in the first quarter. Rondo got fouled before he fouled Howard and went to the bench with 4 fouls. Things even out, although it certainly looked like the ball changed directions.

These points have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  There are missed calls in every game, but this type of play is probably one that should either be reviewable or could possibly result in a jump ball if it's inconclusive.  Currently, both options does not exist.

I don't think that is a bad idea overall with inadvertent whistles when the ball is loose.

But in this situation it would have been unfair to the Celtics. After the shot came down Perk clearly had the rebound. If it wasn't a 24 second violation it needed to be Celtics ball. You could argue that the Magic didn't make a play to get the rebound as they thought it was already a violation, but they should still be trying for the ball!