Speaking physics the ball had to have hit the rim

[Carhole]

Why would I post that on a Magic forum? They're all convinced there's a league conspiracy against them.  Instead of considering a rule which would add clarity to a certain play, they'd be more likely to talk about how David Stern somehow buzzed the officials and told them to make the call.

If you're so adamant that the ball did hit the rim, then what is the harm in checking video to confirm the call? If it's the right call, then you have nothing to worry about as a Celtics fan.  All this brouhaha makes me believe that no one is really that convinced that it did hit the rim. Again, even some Celtics fans doubt that it drew iron, so there is confusion internally and externally.  It's not as clear as you're trying to make it.

Show me a clear cut screen shot of the ball drawing iron, not just your opinion that it hit because it barely changed direction, etc. That alone does not confirm nor disprove what happened.   

Can you answer me this: How can an object with that much mass and velocity just chang direction? The net is not solid enough to do that.

I was there and I watched the replay about 100 times. Maybe it hit the rim, but I have not seen any angle that does not make me feel fortunate the C's got that call. Those are the breaks and it broke our way.

Back to the point - and I have seen many people argue this - It is excedingly easy for the net to change he direction or rotation of the ball as can be seen all of the time when someone "swishes" a shot. A perfect shot touches no rim but once it hits the net almost suspends in air b/c of the rotation and the force of hitting the net which is anchored to a fixed structure aka the rim.

Yes if in the backyard you threw a ball and your friend threw a net and they collided in midair the ball would not be redirected but all of that changes (speaking as it relates to the physics of objects in motion) once you apply additional circumstances.

It is really a moot point the Celtics were already winning the game and Orlando had not scored in 4 minutes. Why all of the orlando fans are so sure they "magically" would have not played the next offensive set with their heads up their a**es like the did the 10 possessions before that is beyond me. Well actually it isnt, it is the hope allowed when you are grasping at straws as to why you are about to get put away by an injured depleted team that just wants it more then your guys.

[markketch]

Im sorry, but at this point this is borderline trolling. Whenever someone points out that your ideas for rule changes would not have mattered yesterday you say that you are just talking about changes for the future, and then the next post you go back about how they should have done something different yesterday. And you are not even consistent with your rule changes, which go from jumpball to replay...

So a difference of opinion is borderline trolling? That makes no sense. Should I come to the conclusion that your posts constitute baiting?

I've not changed my stance once, rather several posters here keep referring to the play the other day when I'm trying to address a hypothetical. I'm trying to address those posters, too, while emphasizing what I'm actually referring to. That's created confusion, but is through no fault of just my own.

I've never said they should have actually called the play differently two days ago, I've simply said if a new element was introduced to that play (where they felt like they couldn't make a call), then a review process would make sense. 

Time after time you're missing this point, and this is what you keep coming back to. You even acknowledged several posts up that I was speaking of a different situation (see your "got it" post), but now you've reverted back to your initial standing ground. If the goalposts are moving, then you're hanging on one side and wiggling back and forth. 

Here is the thing that pretty much sums it up:
- two of the refs yesterday were certain that the ball hit the rim. So any of the rule changes you propose wouldn't have mattered even if the exact situation repeated itself in the future.

I've addressed this exact same post by you probably 5+ times and as noted above, and you've acknowledged that I'm talking about something different.  I'm not talking about the exact situation.  I'm talking about a hypothetical situation like the play, but where no clear judgment can be made. Why you choose to continue to ignore this, when I've made it clear, is beyond me.

Let it go. You rule ideas would not solve anything, and would simply add another layer of questionable decisions to the game.

If you don't want to respond, go right ahead.  My opinion is that it would add a layer of clarity because the most correct call would be made. Maybe you need to "let it go"?

And, for what it is worth, the idea that THAT play decided the game is ludicrous.

Did I ever say anything remotely like this? No.  Orlando lost that game for many reasons outside of this.  Not once have I said this game had ANYTHING to do with the outcome. 

what do you call the constant moving of goal posts? In fact, what is his opinion at all? Did the ball hit the rim or not?

I addressed this above.  Several posters in this thread, and now you included, continue to draw this conversation to the actual play itself.  I've been trying to discuss something different, but I cannot do so if these posters continue to discuss something different.

My opinion is that, from what I saw TV, it's not conclusive that the ball did or did not hit the rim.  I think that has been clearly emphasized in several posts in this thread.  It has somehow managed to escape you - but yes, it is there.

When someone shows him that his ideas would not have made a difference yesterday, he says that its not about yesterday, but about some future call... and then in the very next post he is back at how his new rule would have changed yesterday. This shifting goal posts make it impossible to actually engage in debate.

Address what I'm talking about - a hypothetical.  You continue to go back to the actual (the play itself), when I've been trying to discuss a situation where a proposed rule would be beneficial.

For the last time: I've never said to change the actual call. I've said that *if* on the call a decision could not have been made, then video replay would be a fit option. *If* the video is inconclusive and the officials cannot make a call, then it would be a jump ball.

Hypothetical.

[Roy Hobbs]

For the last time: I've never said to change the actual call. I've said that *if* on the call a decision could not have been made, then video replay would be a fit option. *If* the video is inconclusive and the officials cannot make a call, then it would be a jump ball.

Hypothetical.

Come on, man.  People aren't stupid.  Your first post was:

Even if it *did* hit rim, it should have been a jump ball, not side out Celtics.

That wasn't talking about a future situation.  That was talking about the situation in Game 5.  When people read you the rule book, you changed your mind, but don't act like everyone here is a moron and can't see that you changed your position.

By the way:  the league *has* called that situation a jump ball in the past.  For instance, in a Lakers/Nuggets game from 2004 that got a lot of publicity, the ball hit the rim but the ref called a 24-second violation and blew the play dead.  The other refs overruled the call, but ruled it an inadvertent whistle and called for a jump ball.  The ref blowing the call was given a 3 game suspension, that led to refs around the league protesting and wearing their uniforms inside out.

[crownsy]

For the last time: I've never said to change the actual call. I've said that *if* on the call a decision could not have been made, then video replay would be a fit option. *If* the video is inconclusive and the officials cannot make a call, then it would be a jump ball.

Hypothetical.

Come on, man.  People aren't stupid.  Your first post was:

Even if it *did* hit rim, it should have been a jump ball, not side out Celtics.

That wasn't talking about a future situation.  That was talking about the situation in Game 5.  When people read you the rule book, you changed your mind, but don't act like everyone here is a moron and can't see that you changed your position.

By the way:  the league *has* called that situation a jump ball in the past.  For instance, in a Lakers/Nuggets game from 2004 that got a lot of publicity, the ball hit the rim but the ref called a 24-second violation and blew the play dead.  The other refs overruled the call, but ruled it an inadvertent whistle and called for a jump ball.  The ref blowing the call was given a 3 game suspension, that led to refs around the league protesting and wearing their uniforms inside out.

tp4u, as dl said, its hard to debate when the debate premise changes every 3 posts.

[dlpin]

Come on, man.  People aren't stupid.  Your first post was:

That wasn't talking about a future situation.  That was talking about the situation in Game 5.  When people read you the rule book, you changed your mind, but don't act like everyone here is a moron and can't see that you changed your position.

By the way:  the league *has* called that situation a jump ball in the past.  For instance, in a Lakers/Nuggets game from 2004 that got a lot of publicity, the ball hit the rim but the ref called a 24-second violation and blew the play dead.  The other refs overruled the call, but ruled it an inadvertent whistle and called for a jump ball.  The ref blowing the call was given a 3 game suspension, that led to refs around the league protesting and wearing their uniforms inside out.

TP.

The difference between teh 2004 call and tuesday's is that no one had control in 2004. The rules say that when there is an inadvertent whistle, it's a jump ball if no one has possession.

[JSD]

For the last time: I've never said to change the actual call. I've said that *if* on the call a decision could not have been made, then video replay would be a fit option. *If* the video is inconclusive and the officials cannot make a call, then it would be a jump ball.

Hypothetical.

Come on, man.  People aren't stupid.  Your first post was:

Even if it *did* hit rim, it should have been a jump ball, not side out Celtics.

That wasn't talking about a future situation.  That was talking about the situation in Game 5.  When people read you the rule book, you changed your mind, but don't act like everyone here is a moron and can't see that you changed your position.

By the way:  the league *has* called that situation a jump ball in the past.  For instance, in a Lakers/Nuggets game from 2004 that got a lot of publicity, the ball hit the rim but the ref called a 24-second violation and blew the play dead.  The other refs overruled the call, but ruled it an inadvertent whistle and called for a jump ball.  The ref blowing the call was given a 3 game suspension, that led to refs around the league protesting and wearing their uniforms inside out.

The build up to Roy's knockout punch was very entertaining.

[markketch]

Come on, man.  People aren't stupid.  Your first post was:

Whoa, come on now Roy, read a little bit more into it - you completely missed my point.  I never said they should have changed the call during the game, I said what I think it *should* be in those types of situations. It might not seem clear, and that's understandble, but there is a difference in me saying what I think they should do. The call is fine, because they clearly felt that someone saw it hit the rim.

After that post I tried to clarify what I was talking about, and moved on to discussing the hypothetical situation that I've described several times. I was trying to explain that if the officials could not determine the call on the court, then it should have been at least a jump ball.

The discussion evolved from that, and from that point forward I've been referring to a situation where the call cannot be made on the court. I've made it very clear what I've been talking about, and that we've move forward after I clarified what I meant. This is how we got to talking about video replay, etc.

That wasn't talking about a future situation.  That was talking about the situation in Game 5.  When people read you the rule book, you changed your mind, but don't act like everyone here is a moron and can't see that you changed your position.

I didn't change my position, I clarified what I was talking about. I've gone on to clarify this time and time again.

[dlpin]

Come on, man.  People aren't stupid.  Your first post was:

Even if it *did* hit rim, it should have been a jump ball, not side out Celtics.

Whoa, come on now Roy, read a little bit more into it - you completely missed my point.  After that post I immediately clarified what I was talking about, and moved on to discussing the hypothetical situation that I've described several time.

The discussion evolved from that, and from that point forward I've been referring to a situation where the call cannot be made on the court. I've made it very clear what I've been talking about, and that we've move forward after I clarified what I meant.

That wasn't talking about a future situation.  That was talking about the situation in Game 5.  When people read you the rule book, you changed your mind, but don't act like everyone here is a moron and can't see that you changed your position.

I didn't change my mind, I clarified what I was talking about. I've gone on to clarify this time and time again.

Oh, cmon, man. The thread is right here for everyone to see.
evolved from that? Clarified? So why did you say in the first post that you "never said" to change the call?

Here you are on post 79, just last page:

If you're so adamant that the ball did hit the rim, then what is the harm in checking video to confirm the call? If it's the right call, then you have nothing to worry about as a Celtics fan.  All this brouhaha makes me believe that no one is really that convinced that it did hit the rim. Again, even some Celtics fans doubt that it drew iron, so there is confusion internally and externally.  It's not as clear as you're trying to make it.

Show me a clear cut screen shot of the ball drawing iron, not just your opinion that it hit because it barely changed direction, etc. That alone does not confirm nor disprove what happened.   

Every other post you've made was about the call on game 5. So it seems clear to me that you've spent a lot of time discussing things that you claim you've "never said."

[markketch]

Oh, cmon, man. The thread is right here for everyone to see.
evolved from that? Clarified? So why did you say in the first post that you "never said" to change the call?

There's a difference between what I think the call should have been and what the officials think. I'm not trying to say they should have actually changed the call in the game, I'm trying to say that in instances like that (as we've gone on to discuss), other options should be explored. I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say, and I've tried to clarify that.

Every other post you've made was about the call on game 5. So it seems clear to me that you've spent a lot of time discussing things that you claim you've "never said."

I can't discuss things that other people have brought up?

[Roy Hobbs]

Come on, man.  People aren't stupid.  Your first post was:

Whoa, come on now Roy, read a little bit more into it - you completely missed my point.  I never said they should have changed the call during the game, I said what I think it *should* be in those types of situations. It might not seem clear, and that's understandble, but there is a difference in me saying what I think they should do. The call is fine, because they clearly felt that someone saw it hit the rim.

After that post I tried to clarify what I was talking about, and moved on to discussing the hypothetical situation that I've described several times. I was trying to explain that if the officials could not determine the call on the court, then it should have been at least a jump ball.

The discussion evolved from that, and from that point forward I've been referring to a situation where the call cannot be made on the court. I've made it very clear what I've been talking about, and that we've move forward after I clarified what I meant. This is how we got to talking about video replay, etc.

That wasn't talking about a future situation.  That was talking about the situation in Game 5.  When people read you the rule book, you changed your mind, but don't act like everyone here is a moron and can't see that you changed your position.

I didn't change my position, I clarified what I was talking about. I've gone on to clarify this time and time again.

Long story short:  you're lying.  Everyone can see that.  I don't know of a more concise or respectful way to say it, other than you're lying.  I'm not sure what your motivation is, but it's silly to continue this charade when everyone can see what's going on.

Now, regarding what your current point is, I have no problem with the refs using instant replay to look at calls like whether a shot hit the rim on a 24 second violation.  That's where this conversation has evolved to, and that's fine.  However, you were mistaken on the original call.  There's nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong, rather than backing yourself into a corner with the "I never said that" excuse.

[dlpin]

Oh, cmon, man. The thread is right here for everyone to see.
evolved from that? Clarified? So why did you say in the first post that you "never said" to change the call?

There's a difference between what I think the call should have been and what the officials think. I'm not trying to say they should have actually changed the call in the game, I'm trying to say that in instances like that (as we've gone on to discuss), other options should be explored. I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say, and I've tried to clarify that.

Every other post you've made was about the call on game 5. So it seems clear to me that you've spent a lot of time discussing things that you claim you've "never said."

I can't discuss things that other people have brought up?

No, you have not gone on to clarify anything. You've gone on to muddy the waters, and I think you are doing it knowing full well what you are doing. Otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that you never said something that is clear you said by looking at just 20 posts above yours.

You say the refs should have done this and that to address last game's call, and then you say that rules should be changed in this and that way to address plays like that. But when someone points out that, right or wrong, 2 of the refs had a clear opinion on what happened in that play, and how your "jump ball" proposal would never apply to that play because there was a decision reached, you claim it was "never" about that play, and then 2 posts later you are back at it, at how they should institute this or that so that that particular play has a different outcome. That is moving the goal posts. It makes it so it is impossible to discuss this with you, because if we discuss rule changes, you bring it back to the call in game 5, and if we discuss the call on game 5, you say that it has nothing to do with that...

[Roy Hobbs]

I think this particular thread has run it's course.  If somebody would like to start a thread on whether the NBA should amend its rules in regard to 24 second violations or instant replay, they may do so.  Those are interesting topics of discussion, but this thread is going in circles at this point.

Locked.