WOW, The big Fix in game one.

[FallGuy]

The refs weren't great.

But to pretend that's why we lost...

When we have multiple examples of this kind of game all year (there are probably about 20 by now)...

That's silly.

We lost because we didn't match their energy in the second half, we didn't adjust to their defense after halftime, didn't play any defense in the third quarter, and we just plain missed shots.

We were - on the whole - pretty good.

They were better.

[vinnie]

Where were all you "the fix is in" guys in the first two games of the Miami series when teh Celtics took 55 foul shots and the Heat took 29?

Do the refs ever make bad calls in your world vinnie?

Guess you can't answer the question.

Ok Vinnie. In the first two games versus Miami, Boston went aggressively to the basket. They also had a nice advantage over Miami in points in the paint. Generally the team that does this gets more foul calls. Miami only has one player who really aggressively takes it to the basket (Wade), Haslem and Beasley tend to take jump shots limiting the amount of calls they receive and O'Neal couldn't buy a basket and he's Miami's best post player.

So care to answer my question?

Here is my answer -- for the 5-game series, the Celtis took 122 free throws to the Heat's 86. It was a perfectly reffed series.

[RebusRankin]

I see so refs never make mistakes and no I don't think you've answered my question Vinnie. Try again.

[Redz]

The biggest call of the game was the bull poop offensive on Rondo.  Never mind taking away the two points.  If that one wasn't called Rajon wouldn't have had to sit when he got his 4th and Mo wouldn't have gone nutty.

Bummer.

That's the only call that really bummed me out.

[Mizzy21390]

To those who have said that the celtics should have stuck to their game plan:

crashing the boards, harassing rebounders, and rondo being aggressive on offense are significantly harder when people have 4 or 5 fouls.

This is exactly how I feel. People on here are saying that we are making excuses and that the C's lost this game themselves because they choked, or that they sucked in this game. But people fail to see that, going to the post, and rebounding, and stealing that Rondo usually does, is harder when the refs pile on fouls on the whole starting lineup. How did almost everyone who played end up having at least two or more fouls? With them being in foul trouble?

I was at work and missed the game. I had to get the game recorded on my DVR. And I was frustrated to see that Mo and LBJ were able to go to the post so easily. I know our D is not that bad. But then I saw that the people who were allowing the Cavs to score so easily in the paint, were the ones in foul trouble. You can't effectively defend, when you are put in foul trouble, and know that touching LBJ will insue a foul call..

So to those who say the C's just outright sucked, you got it wrong. They were bounded by the foul trouble they were put in so early by the refs. And every decision they made, they had to do it with the foul trouble on their minds... And with that, they couldn't be as effective, and actually get shots in, and go to the paint more often...

[Bahku]

To those who have said that the celtics should have stuck to their game plan:

crashing the boards, harassing rebounders, and rondo being aggressive on offense are significantly harder when people have 4 or 5 fouls.

This is exactly how I feel. People on here are saying that we are making excuses and that the C's lost this game themselves because they choked, or that they sucked in this game. But people fail to see that, going to the post, and rebounding, and stealing that Rondo usually does, is harder when the refs pile on fouls on the whole starting lineup. How did almost everyone who played end up having at least two or more fouls? With them being in foul trouble?

I was at work and missed the game. I had to get the game recorded on my DVR. And I was frustrated to see that Mo and LBJ were able to go to the post so easily. I know our D is not that bad. But then I saw that the people who were allowing the Cavs to score so easily in the paint, were the ones in foul trouble. You can't effectively defend, when you are put in foul trouble, and know that touching LBJ will insue a foul call..

So to those who say the C's just outright sucked, you got it wrong. They were bounded by the foul trouble they were put in so early by the refs. And every decision they made, they had to do it with the foul trouble on their minds... And with that, they couldn't be as effective, and actually get shots in, and go to the paint more often...

They still could've won this game, (without their sloppy turnovers and missed lay-ups), but I don't see how anyone could watch that game and not say the refs were giving the Cavs preferential treatment.

It amazes me how LeBron can score in the thirties consistently, and yet so often come out of the game with only one foul, (or less). There are some here who just have no tolerance for ANY negative statements towards the officials, and I just don't get it.

It seems so easy for people to hand out the "blind optimist" moniker, and yet treat the NBA refs as if they can never make a mistake or issue a bad call. I'm a bit tired of the "Whatever you do, don't use the officials as an excuse" stuff ... it's got all the mileage it needs, I think. (TP, Mizzy)

[jdpapa3]

Of course. If the Celts get more foul shots then the refs are doing a great job. Just wanted to get a clarification on that. Thanks.

Pretty bad argument. And a pretty annoying tone you are using.

You are saying that because the Celtics got more foul shots, then the refs had to be bad or there was a conspiracy against the Heat. Every game is a different story. The Heat barely ever pressed the issue against the Celtics in the previous series. The Celtics were taking it inside a good amount tonight, getting fouled and not getting the whistles.

[FallGuy]

Of course. If the Celts get more foul shots then the refs are doing a great job. Just wanted to get a clarification on that. Thanks.

Pretty bad argument. And a pretty annoying tone you are using.

You are saying that because the Celtics got more foul shots, then the refs had to be bad or there was a conspiracy against the Heat. Every game is a different story. The Heat barely ever pressed the issue against the Celtics in the previous series. The Celtics were taking it inside a good amount tonight, getting fouled and not getting the whistles.

Okay, fair point. But for balance - when was the last time the Celtics won a game they shouldn't have because of assistance from the refs? Can you remember any at all?

[indeedproceed]

Refs weren't to blame in this game. Wasn't well officiated, but excuses are for the losers. I'd rather the Celtics were winners. The moment I knew this game was a possible loss? When there was a defensive rebound between Rasheed and BBD, and somehow Andersen Varejao wiggled his way in there, and forcibly ripped the ball from both thier hands. Those types of plays were the difference down the stretch. When our boys start making those types of plays on the reg then we'll start winning.

We got another chance on Monday to steal home court and prove we want this more, that's all that really matters. Screw the refs, players win and lose games.

[Bastone]

Everything is relative and relevant in Life and in Basketball!

Celtics could have won the game if they had just stuck to the game plan and been more aggressive defensively and pass the ball better in the 2nd half.  Having said that,  I jumped out of my sofa at least 3 times tonight yelling at the refs and I never do that! 

A few people mentioned the Rondo offensive foul, which was so blatantly a wrong call. That is in itself, seems like only 2 points. However, consider the ramifications of just one simple play.  With the correct call here, Rondo does not get into foul trouble in the 3rd with 4 fouls and Doc leaves him in the game and the Celtics perhaps avoid that big Cavs run. Or perhaps, Rondo plays more aggressively defensively on Williams because he is not any foul trouble.  So as I mentionned, everything is relative and relevant!

A few of the more blatant bad calls in this game are as follows:

1. Hickson steps on the sideline near the basket as he is driving and the referee is 10 feet away also on the sideline and does not make a call!  I saw it clearly from HD screen in slow motion as did Doc and most of the Celtics bench.

2. With Boston down a couple in the 4th quarter, Pierce drives to the basket and he Lebron bumps Pierce in mid air with all the weight of his body and forces Paul to shoot a wild shot off the backboard and there is no call!

3. Late in the 4th quarter with Boston down by 4, Rondo makes a hard pass to Perk near the basket and it goes off his hands and starts to go out of bounds. perk lunges for it as does Jamison. The ball and Perk are mving from left to right and you see that all of a sudden the ball changes direction and goes from right to left. Physics dictates only an object moving in that direction could cause the ball to change that direction - Jamison's hand.  Again this was so visible in slow motion on my HD screen. The referee was was 8 feet away.

I feel sick to my stomach right now.  I turned channels as soon as th game ended and refused to watch the post game interviews or announcer commentaries.  I feel like the invisible hand was at work tonight.

I do however think the Celtics will win game 2 in spite of the referees and they will be focused for the whole 48 minutes and and Paul will have a much better game as will the bench!

[Mizzy21390]

To those who have said that the celtics should have stuck to their game plan:

crashing the boards, harassing rebounders, and rondo being aggressive on offense are significantly harder when people have 4 or 5 fouls.

This is exactly how I feel. People on here are saying that we are making excuses and that the C's lost this game themselves because they choked, or that they sucked in this game. But people fail to see that, going to the post, and rebounding, and stealing that Rondo usually does, is harder when the refs pile on fouls on the whole starting lineup. How did almost everyone who played end up having at least two or more fouls? With them being in foul trouble?

I was at work and missed the game. I had to get the game recorded on my DVR. And I was frustrated to see that Mo and LBJ were able to go to the post so easily. I know our D is not that bad. But then I saw that the people who were allowing the Cavs to score so easily in the paint, were the ones in foul trouble. You can't effectively defend, when you are put in foul trouble, and know that touching LBJ will insue a foul call..

So to those who say the C's just outright sucked, you got it wrong. They were bounded by the foul trouble they were put in so early by the refs. And every decision they made, they had to do it with the foul trouble on their minds... And with that, they couldn't be as effective, and actually get shots in, and go to the paint more often...

They still could've won this game, (without their sloppy turnovers and missed lay-ups), but I don't see how anyone could watch that game and not say the refs were giving the Cavs preferential treatment.

It amazes me how LeBron can score in the thirties consistently, and yet so often come out of the game with only one foul, (or less). There are some here who just have no tolerance for ANY negative statements towards the officials, and I just don't get it.

It seems so easy for people to hand out the "blind optimist" moniker, and yet treat the NBA refs as if they can never make a mistake or issue a bad call. I'm a bit tired of the "Whatever you do, don't use the officials as an excuse" stuff ... it's got all the mileage it needs, I think. (TP, Mizzy)

Thanks! I'm really not trying to blame everything on the refs, because we made mistakes and missed easy shots. The refs are not the ones who are missing our shots. But when you are playing with 4 fouls riding on your back, you're less likely to play with intensity and go to the post, or defend someone who is going up for a layup, because you're scared to get that 5th foul, and eventually foul out in an important playoff game...

I don't think fans blame refs on everything. But when we do see many missed CRUCIAL calls, we will point it out. I don't like using the refs as scapegoat for not playing well, but I know for sure I don't have any green glasses on...

[Billz401]

its funny that i see the same ppl on here that are consistently trashing on the celtics and the fans on here (EJPLAYA, vinnie, guava to name a few) but they r blind to see the bad reffing... i kno some of us on here wear our green goggles (ill be the first to say i do) but to come on here and say you didnt see not 1 bad call is ridiculous... we did play poorly in the 2nd half but the refs kept them in the game in the 1st half and gave em the lead in the 2nd. ALOT of questionable calls, and non-calls. but it gets annoying when theres a handful of people that defend the refs and the opposing team constantly on the CELTICS blog. go somewhere else with that trash...

[guava_wrench]

To those who have said that the celtics should have stuck to their game plan:

crashing the boards, harassing rebounders, and rondo being aggressive on offense are significantly harder when people have 4 or 5 fouls.

This is exactly how I feel. People on here are saying that we are making excuses and that the C's lost this game themselves because they choked, or that they sucked in this game. But people fail to see that, going to the post, and rebounding, and stealing that Rondo usually does, is harder when the refs pile on fouls on the whole starting lineup. How did almost everyone who played end up having at least two or more fouls? With them being in foul trouble?

I was at work and missed the game. I had to get the game recorded on my DVR. And I was frustrated to see that Mo and LBJ were able to go to the post so easily. I know our D is not that bad. But then I saw that the people who were allowing the Cavs to score so easily in the paint, were the ones in foul trouble. You can't effectively defend, when you are put in foul trouble, and know that touching LBJ will insue a foul call..

So to those who say the C's just outright sucked, you got it wrong. They were bounded by the foul trouble they were put in so early by the refs. And every decision they made, they had to do it with the foul trouble on their minds... And with that, they couldn't be as effective, and actually get shots in, and go to the paint more often...

They still could've won this game, (without their sloppy turnovers and missed lay-ups), but I don't see how anyone could watch that game and not say the refs were giving the Cavs preferential treatment.

It amazes me how LeBron can score in the thirties consistently, and yet so often come out of the game with only one foul, (or less). There are some here who just have no tolerance for ANY negative statements towards the officials, and I just don't get it.

It seems so easy for people to hand out the "blind optimist" moniker, and yet treat the NBA refs as if they can never make a mistake or issue a bad call. I'm a bit tired of the "Whatever you do, don't use the officials as an excuse" stuff ... it's got all the mileage it needs, I think. (TP, Mizzy)

Refs blow many calls.

Complaining fans though typically miss far more calls in the games they are complaining about because they show extremely strong confirmation bias. The miss the plays their team benefits from, and they also claim many fine calls 'bad' due to their emotional engagement in the game.

You can see this especially in worthless statements regarding # of fouls called. There is no reason to expect these to be equal in most matchups.

Than you have the ridiculous conspiracy theorists.

This lack of reason is common in many things we do as humans. We do it in politics, and in so many other things. Sadly, we are quick to recognize the imperfections of the perceptions of other, while trusting our own perceptions when we shouldn't because of how heavily biased they are.

For those who want more refs to decrease missed calls (through limiting obligations of each ref like in football), I can respect that critique. The ref related cliches are getting old when we hear shockingly stupid statements like player X complaining that non-vet player Y was getting vet calls. Uh, idiot, this is evidence that the refs aren't concerned with whether you are a vet. Why do we never hear that recognized?

It is because people file away events based on the way they want to understand it. It is embarrassing when announcers babble about a missed out of bounds call being "home cooking" when 5 minutes before that a similar bad call went to the road team but no one pointed that out. Only the confirmations of the preconception is mentioned, and the disconfirmations aren't related to tbe preconceptions they disconfirm.

So what we have is a slew of fans who embrace their biases and apply this lopsided evaluation of data, inspiring them to start threads like this. This is not to say that those who feel we got the short end on missed and borderline calls are incorrect. Every team has games where they are on each side. Most complaining fans though are really bad judges of this -- thus repeated threads like this after ever close loss.

[guava_wrench]

its funny that i see the same ppl on here that are consistently trashing on the celtics and the fans on here (EJPLAYA, vinnie, guava to name a few) but they r blind to see the bad reffing... i kno some of us on here wear our green goggles (ill be the first to say i do) but to come on here and say you didnt see not 1 bad call is ridiculous... we did play poorly in the 2nd half but the refs kept them in the game in the 1st half and gave em the lead in the 2nd. ALOT of questionable calls, and non-calls. but it gets annoying when theres a handful of people that defend the refs and the opposing team constantly on the CELTICS blog. go somewhere else with that trash...

I am not blind to bad calls (FYI, this is different from bad reffing -- every game has missed calls). I see them happening against both teams. Some fans have victim mentalities, causing forums for both teams to have threads with fans complaining how their team was victimized.

I have in the past disagreed with those who said that games have never been decided by bad calls. They have. Ref scapegoating though isn't about that. It is about encouraging our own biases and making refs the scapegoat for our biased perceptions, even when we are mistaken.

Then we get nonsense about Stern hating the Celtics (even if we win a championship against his 'beloved' Lakers).

I am not even arguing about bad calls in this game. Just about how nonsensical is it to call it a fix. Heck, even Donoughy was allegedly just fixing over/under, not the winning team.

I am willing to accept that there ref calls could be influenced by the level of risk involved in a call. For example, if there is a difficult call to make, it is safer to call it in favor of a team down 2-3 since even if the call is wrong, it doesn't decide the series. In fact, studies of NCAA refs have shown their biases for making calls in favor of the team that is behind and evening out calls. This is likely not a conscious choice most of the time.

(With this problem existing in the NCAA, I do wonder where ref haters thing they will find replacement refs. I haven't heard anyone raving about European refs or FIFA refs.)

[Bahku]

To those who have said that the celtics should have stuck to their game plan:

crashing the boards, harassing rebounders, and rondo being aggressive on offense are significantly harder when people have 4 or 5 fouls.

This is exactly how I feel. People on here are saying that we are making excuses and that the C's lost this game themselves because they choked, or that they sucked in this game. But people fail to see that, going to the post, and rebounding, and stealing that Rondo usually does, is harder when the refs pile on fouls on the whole starting lineup. How did almost everyone who played end up having at least two or more fouls? With them being in foul trouble?

I was at work and missed the game. I had to get the game recorded on my DVR. And I was frustrated to see that Mo and LBJ were able to go to the post so easily. I know our D is not that bad. But then I saw that the people who were allowing the Cavs to score so easily in the paint, were the ones in foul trouble. You can't effectively defend, when you are put in foul trouble, and know that touching LBJ will insue a foul call..

So to those who say the C's just outright sucked, you got it wrong. They were bounded by the foul trouble they were put in so early by the refs. And every decision they made, they had to do it with the foul trouble on their minds... And with that, they couldn't be as effective, and actually get shots in, and go to the paint more often...

They still could've won this game, (without their sloppy turnovers and missed lay-ups), but I don't see how anyone could watch that game and not say the refs were giving the Cavs preferential treatment.

It amazes me how LeBron can score in the thirties consistently, and yet so often come out of the game with only one foul, (or less). There are some here who just have no tolerance for ANY negative statements towards the officials, and I just don't get it.

It seems so easy for people to hand out the "blind optimist" moniker, and yet treat the NBA refs as if they can never make a mistake or issue a bad call. I'm a bit tired of the "Whatever you do, don't use the officials as an excuse" stuff ... it's got all the mileage it needs, I think. (TP, Mizzy)

Refs blow many calls.

Complaining fans though typically miss far more calls in the games they are complaining about because they show extremely strong confirmation bias. The miss the plays their team benefits from, and they also claim many fine calls 'bad' due to their emotional engagement in the game.

You can see this especially in worthless statements regarding # of fouls called. There is no reason to expect these to be equal in most matchups.

Than you have the ridiculous conspiracy theorists.

This lack of reason is common in many things we do as humans. We do it in politics, and in so many other things. Sadly, we are quick to recognize the imperfections of the perceptions of other, while trusting our own perceptions when we shouldn't because of how heavily biased they are.

For those who want more refs to decrease missed calls (through limiting obligations of each ref like in football), I can respect that critique. The ref related cliches are getting old when we hear shockingly stupid statements like player X complaining that non-vet player Y was getting vet calls. Uh, idiot, this is evidence that the refs aren't concerned with whether you are a vet. Why do we never hear that recognized?

It is because people file away events based on the way they want to understand it. It is embarrassing when announcers babble about a missed out of bounds call being "home cooking" when 5 minutes before that a similar bad call went to the road team but no one pointed that out. Only the confirmations of the preconception is mentioned, and the disconfirmations aren't related to tbe preconceptions they disconfirm.

So what we have is a slew of fans who embrace their biases and apply this lopsided evaluation of data, inspiring them to start threads like this. This is not to say that those who feel we got the short end on missed and borderline calls are incorrect. Every team has games where they are on each side. Most complaining fans though are really bad judges of this -- thus repeated threads like this after ever close loss.

I get what you're saying here, and it's often true, but what bothers me are those who somehow feel that officials, because of their status or position, (or whatever litmus they embrace), are always above criticism or the same biases that we as humans all are subject to, and that it's somehow a crime for anyone to even suggest that they could have any affect on the outcomes of games.

To see LeBron and the immensely overwhelming benefit of calls (or no-calls) that he gets and say that he does not get preferential treatment, is not remotely in the realm of reality. And to think that the league, the officials, and it's governing powers, have absolutely no intent or influence or preference on the direction games take, or even the calls certain players get, is in the same ethereal neighborhood.