How can a game be called evenly but completely effect the outcome of a game?

[tenn_smoothie]

The same argument can be made in reverse for the 2008 finals: the refs handed us the title, because they allowed a level of physical contact that the Lakers didn't like and weren't accustomed to.

what a load of crap - yeah right, the refs handed boston the '08 trophy on a silver platter - that's why we had to come from 24 points down on the road to win the key game of the series.

[rjsuperfly66]

The same argument can be made in reverse for the 2008 finals: the refs handed us the title, because they allowed a level of physical contact that the Lakers didn't like and weren't accustomed to.

what a load of crap - yeah right, the refs handed boston the '08 trophy on a silver platter - that's why we had to come from 24 points down on the road to win the key game of the series.

Easy does it Cowboy.

What he is saying is that the way a game is called can tilt towards one team or another without dictating the outcome. 

If the refs let more calls go, more touch stuff go, let more banging go underneath, it is going to favor the older, more-physical Boston.

If the refs call everything, little hand-checks, slight body bumps, it is going to favor the athletic/finesse Lakers.

What he is saying is that '08 was called "lighter".  They "let the boys play."  By doing that, the Celtics could impose their size and push around Gasol/Bryant, etc.  That is why they won the series, were able to come back, etc.  They were able to impose their will on the Lakers.

But last night was an example of a closely called game, fair nearly all the way around.  While the Celtics have good scorers, the Lakers have guys who can get to the net, such as Kobe, Odom, Gasol, etc.  When these guys are aggressive, clearly illegal contact will be made by the defense.  These bumps/hand-checks arent typically called, but when they are they will favor the more aggressive team, which were the Lakers.

Stephen A. Smith said today he thinks Game 2, the refs will "let the boys play." Clear advantage for the Celtics.  Thats what I am hoping.  I don't think the Celtics can win a tic-tak game like last night.

[LakerPete]

The same argument can be made in reverse for the 2008 finals: the refs handed us the title, because they allowed a level of physical contact that the Lakers didn't like and weren't accustomed to.

what a load of crap - yeah right, the refs handed boston the '08 trophy on a silver platter - that's why we had to come from 24 points down on the road to win the key game of the series.

The Celtics outshot the Lakers 38-10 from the free throw line in Game 2 of that series, which in my opinion was an even more key game in that series. Leon Powe shot more free throws than the entire Laker team.

The C's were clearly a better team that year and deserved the title, but if you're so inclined to blame the referees, you can point the finger in whatever direction you'd like.

[LakerPete]

The same argument can be made in reverse for the 2008 finals: the refs handed us the title, because they allowed a level of physical contact that the Lakers didn't like and weren't accustomed to.

what a load of crap - yeah right, the refs handed boston the '08 trophy on a silver platter - that's why we had to come from 24 points down on the road to win the key game of the series.

Easy does it Cowboy.

What he is saying is that the way a game is called can tilt towards one team or another without dictating the outcome. 

If the refs let more calls go, more touch stuff go, let more banging go underneath, it is going to favor the older, more-physical Boston.

If the refs call everything, little hand-checks, slight body bumps, it is going to favor the athletic/finesse Lakers.

What he is saying is that '08 was called "lighter".  They "let the boys play."  By doing that, the Celtics could impose their size and push around Gasol/Bryant, etc.  That is why they won the series, were able to come back, etc.  They were able to impose their will on the Lakers.

But last night was an example of a closely called game, fair nearly all the way around.  While the Celtics have good scorers, the Lakers have guys who can get to the net, such as Kobe, Odom, Gasol, etc.  When these guys are aggressive, clearly illegal contact will be made by the defense.  These bumps/hand-checks arent typically called, but when they are they will favor the more aggressive team, which were the Lakers.

Stephen A. Smith said today he thinks Game 2, the refs will "let the boys play." Clear advantage for the Celtics.  Thats what I am hoping.  I don't think the Celtics can win a tic-tak game like last night.

I disagree that "letting the boys play" benefits the Celtics. The Lakers are the more physical team. I certainly hope that the refs call the game like this, because the Lakers will be able to utilize one of their greatest assets if this is the case.

[ejk3489]

I disagree that "letting the boys play" benefits the Celtics. The Lakers are the more physical team. I certainly hope that the refs call the game like this, because the Lakers will be able to utilize one of their greatest assets if this is the case.

Come on, you don't think that "letting them play" benefits the Celtics at all? They are a physical team that likes to get underneath your skin...Phil Jackson has said it, Pau Gasol, ect.

[LakerPete]

I disagree that "letting the boys play" benefits the Celtics. The Lakers are the more physical team. I certainly hope that the refs call the game like this, because the Lakers will be able to utilize one of their greatest assets if this is the case.

Come on, you don't think that "letting them play" benefits the Celtics at all? They are a physical team that likes to get underneath your skin...Phil Jackson has said it, Pau Gasol, ect.

I agree that the Celtics are a physical team that likes to get under your skin. But so are the Lakers. From reading this board, this is the most common misconception about this Laker squad.

The Lakers are physical at the PG, SG, SF, & C positions. The only matchup in which the Celtics are have an advantage here is Gasol/KG. Perhaps Bynum & Perkins/Wallace is a push, but Bynum has a length advantage.

[More Banners]

Boston's system works better when the rules of the game are not enforced as stringently as they can be. It works better when referees see incidental contact and not fouls. If the games will all be called extremely tight and "by the book" that type of officiated game favors the Lakers and it is my belief if that happens it will be tough for the Celtics to win.. Can the Celtics adjust? Sure. Can they adjust in time to win four games before they lose three more, we will see.

Well that's it, isn't it?  The "system" needs some ref cooperation to work?  I never would have imagined an officiating critique based on the officials doing a mostly good job.  FWIW, I never would have imagined a discussion of a well officiated game in the NBA, either...

With the hand-check rules, combined with The Superstar Effect, stopping Kobe in the Finals is nearly impossible when he attacks the basket...or even just when he's on the move with the ball.  That's the way it is.  We know that whoever gets that assignment will pick up fouls.

And we know (and has been oft discussed here in the Forum) that TA's lack of shooting hurts, especially paired with Rondo.  So with Ray in the expected foul trouble, and Finley completely incompetent defensively, we're looking at a defense that will be able to pack it in on us, mostly, leaving Pierce guarded by Artest (a tough matchup) and KG's shot challenged by a couple of the few players that are long enough to challenge his jumper.

I guess the point is that, more than the officiating style favoring LA, our problem is that we need to recognize that type of game and respond by doing, essentially, what LA did:  1) attack the basket w/wings to draw fouls, and 2) always line up shooters all over the floor to spread it out so we can do #1.

To me, that means the keys to the series (or at least game 1) are Nate and Sheed, rather than TA's defense and BBD's hustle.

LA won't get a lot of fouls on the perimeter if they get to sag off, and our bigs won't beat theirs if ours get doubled and theirs don't, and our ball movement won't be as good as theirs if they get to keep a defender (Rondo's) in the passing lanes.  That made more of a difference in Game 1 than the style of the game as officiated.  We needed to adjust (and play better, as Doc always diagnoses) to the Lakers more than the officials, IMO.

[LakerPete]

Boston's system works better when the rules of the game are not enforced as stringently as they can be. It works better when referees see incidental contact and not fouls. If the games will all be called extremely tight and "by the book" that type of officiated game favors the Lakers and it is my belief if that happens it will be tough for the Celtics to win.. Can the Celtics adjust? Sure. Can they adjust in time to win four games before they lose three more, we will see.

Well that's it, isn't it?  The "system" needs some ref cooperation to work?  I never would have imagined an officiating critique based on the officials doing a mostly good job.  FWIW, I never would have imagined a discussion of a well officiated game in the NBA, either...

With the hand-check rules, combined with The Superstar Effect, stopping Kobe in the Finals is nearly impossible when he attacks the basket...or even just when he's on the move with the ball.  That's the way it is.  We know that whoever gets that assignment will pick up fouls.

And we know (and has been oft discussed here in the Forum) that TA's lack of shooting hurts, especially paired with Rondo.  So with Ray in the expected foul trouble, and Finley completely incompetent defensively, we're looking at a defense that will be able to pack it in on us, mostly, leaving Pierce guarded by Artest (a tough matchup) and KG's shot challenged by a couple of the few players that are long enough to challenge his jumper.

I guess the point is that, more than the officiating style favoring LA, our problem is that we need to recognize that type of game and respond by doing, essentially, what LA did:  1) attack the basket w/wings to draw fouls, and 2) always line up shooters all over the floor to spread it out so we can do #1.

To me, that means the keys to the series (or at least game 1) are Nate and Sheed, rather than TA's defense and BBD's hustle.

LA won't get a lot of fouls on the perimeter if they get to sag off, and our bigs won't beat theirs if ours get doubled and theirs don't, and our ball movement won't be as good as theirs if they get to keep a defender (Rondo's) in the passing lanes.  That made more of a difference in Game 1 than the style of the game as officiated.  We needed to adjust (and play better, as Doc always diagnoses) to the Lakers more than the officials, IMO.

But you guys did attack the basket, to the tune of 36 free throw attempts. Did the officiating really favor the Lakers?

[More Banners]

Boston's system works better when the rules of the game are not enforced as stringently as they can be. It works better when referees see incidental contact and not fouls. If the games will all be called extremely tight and "by the book" that type of officiated game favors the Lakers and it is my belief if that happens it will be tough for the Celtics to win.. Can the Celtics adjust? Sure. Can they adjust in time to win four games before they lose three more, we will see.

Well that's it, isn't it?  The "system" needs some ref cooperation to work?  I never would have imagined an officiating critique based on the officials doing a mostly good job.  FWIW, I never would have imagined a discussion of a well officiated game in the NBA, either...

With the hand-check rules, combined with The Superstar Effect, stopping Kobe in the Finals is nearly impossible when he attacks the basket...or even just when he's on the move with the ball.  That's the way it is.  We know that whoever gets that assignment will pick up fouls.

And we know (and has been oft discussed here in the Forum) that TA's lack of shooting hurts, especially paired with Rondo.  So with Ray in the expected foul trouble, and Finley completely incompetent defensively, we're looking at a defense that will be able to pack it in on us, mostly, leaving Pierce guarded by Artest (a tough matchup) and KG's shot challenged by a couple of the few players that are long enough to challenge his jumper.

I guess the point is that, more than the officiating style favoring LA, our problem is that we need to recognize that type of game and respond by doing, essentially, what LA did:  1) attack the basket w/wings to draw fouls, and 2) always line up shooters all over the floor to spread it out so we can do #1.

To me, that means the keys to the series (or at least game 1) are Nate and Sheed, rather than TA's defense and BBD's hustle.

LA won't get a lot of fouls on the perimeter if they get to sag off, and our bigs won't beat theirs if ours get doubled and theirs don't, and our ball movement won't be as good as theirs if they get to keep a defender (Rondo's) in the passing lanes.  That made more of a difference in Game 1 than the style of the game as officiated.  We needed to adjust (and play better, as Doc always diagnoses) to the Lakers more than the officials, IMO.

But you guys did attack the basket, to the tune of 36 free throw attempts. Did the officiating really favor the Lakers?

Welcome to Celticsblog, LakerPete.  I hope a huge earthquake consumes your favorite sports team whole, while amazingly causing no other collateral damage or loss of life.

Yes, the C's made an effort to attack the rim, but with the defense already collapsed, too few shooters were on the court to kick out to, and the passing lanes were clogged by the sagging defenders, inhibiting the kick-out.  No good.

Did the ref's affect the outcome?  By calling a game evenly and fairly consistently?  Ridiculous.  The inability of the C's to make adjustments affected the outcome, which is the way games should be decided.

[Mike-Dub]

Well, we almost saw how tonight.

We didn't, but we almost did. We lost tonight because of a lack of offense and lack of defense and a lack of effort and a lack of focus. let me make that clear from the start. The Celtics players lost this game and the Lakers players won it.

But what we definitely saw in the first half and for part of the third quarter was a completely evenly called game being called ridiculously tight, that definitely swung the game completely in one team's favor and out of another team's favor.

By calling the game extra tight with a lot of non shooting fouls and concentrating some of those calls on certain players, the refs completely took the Celtics out of their game. If Ray Allen is going to be sitting down riding pine in foul trouble for over 9 minutes of the third and first quarters and Tony Allen has to play extended minutes with the starting unit, the Celtics are at a clear disadvantage.

If then Tony Allen is called for fast fouls and is put in foul trouble quickly due to more extremely ticky tack fouls, the Celtics are now reaching into their 10th and 11th men on the depth chart to try to win playoff games.

Once players see that the game is going to be called a certain way, the Celtics then have to back off their aggressive contact driven defensive style and that plays into the hands of the Lakers length because if the Celtics can't be physical so that they can move the Lakers off their spots for fear of getting fouls, the Lakers athleticism and length in the post will start to show itself.

That is pretty much what happened for long periods of the most important parts of this game.

It's no excuse for this loss as the Celtics just got outplayed, plain and simple. KG and Rondo look hurt. Ray due to the above mentioned foul trouble and way the game was called never got into any type of rhythm. Paul put up numbers but only kept the Celtics in the game and never did anything to help them win the game. And the bench played 69 total minutes and except for about 12 good minutes from Rasheed, was putrid.

But, if the officials call the series the exact same way the game was called for the first 30 minutes or so, the Lakers will end this in 4 or 5 games. It will be good by the book officiating. It will be called evenly on both sides. And, it will definitely play to the Lakers advantage.

Nick I agree with you 110%.  My brother was saying this same exact thing last night and I completely agree with both of you have said, that is why I really don't have much to add lol. 

Except it is not worth reuting your point to everyone because most people when they see something said about the refs conclude right away that you are blaming the game on them and don't even think through what actually was written.

TP Nick!

[Mike-Dub]

The same argument can be made in reverse for the 2008 finals: the refs handed us the title, because they allowed a level of physical contact that the Lakers didn't like and weren't accustomed to.

NO IT CANNOT!!!... We won in '08 because we were the better team!

And proved that decsicively in game 6!

[More Banners]

But what we definitely saw in the first half and for part of the third quarter was a completely evenly called game being called ridiculously tight, that definitely swung the game completely in one team's favor and out of another team's favor.

By calling the game extra tight with a lot of non shooting fouls and concentrating some of those calls on certain players, the refs completely took the Celtics out of their game. If Ray Allen is going to be sitting down riding pine in foul trouble for over 9 minutes of the third and first quarters and Tony Allen has to play extended minutes with the starting unit, the Celtics are at a clear disadvantage.

If then Tony Allen is called for fast fouls and is put in foul trouble quickly due to more extremely ticky tack fouls, the Celtics are now reaching into their 10th and 11th men on the depth chart to try to win playoff games.

Okay...IMO, for a game called evenly and fairly consistently to affect the outcome is just ridiculous, and here [in quote]  is where to me, in Nick's argument, that the wheels fall off.

It's not the officials' fault that the NBA has a hand-check rule, that Kobe has the ball a lot (no surprise), or that he moves with it, drawing fouls.  Foul trouble for Kobe's defenders should't be a surprise.  It's something that we could probably have counted on in advance.  The league rules are made to make it hard to guard on the perimeter, and credit LA (pain!) for playing the NBA game, as designed, well.

It screwed our offense as much or more than our defense, IMO, as the packed-in defense hurt both our penetration, drive/dish plays, and our bigs (since we didn't have as many shooters on the floor with Rondo/TA/Perk playing together more).

It's not Joey Crawford's fault that Tony Allen can't shoot.  Or Rondo (though he's getting better).  Or that Quisy is perpetually hurt, impacting our wing depth.  Or that Finley can't play adequate defense.  We're really finding out what we already know:  we're a little thin at the wing spot off the bench, talent wise.  It's a major roster problem, but the officials can't be blamed for the quick dropoff in talent on our roster impacting how we can make adjustments.

The answer, or the only one we likely have, will be to play Nate and Sheed more to make up for having to play TA and, eventually, Quisy.  Perhaps Scal will play the 3 against Artest to get another shooter on the floor (and Artest is slow enough these days to make it plausible).  There were options, but Doc tried to stay the course and play through it at the wrong time.

[Jaycelt]

The same argument can be made in reverse for the 2008 finals: the refs handed us the title, because they allowed a level of physical contact that the Lakers didn't like and weren't accustomed to.

what a load of crap - yeah right, the refs handed boston the '08 trophy on a silver platter - that's why we had to come from 24 points down on the road to win the key game of the series.

But that 24 point comeback was in garbage time so it doesn't really count. 

[tenn_smoothie]

The same argument can be made in reverse for the 2008 finals: the refs handed us the title, because they allowed a level of physical contact that the Lakers didn't like and weren't accustomed to.

what a load of crap - yeah right, the refs handed boston the '08 trophy on a silver platter - that's why we had to come from 24 points down on the road to win the key game of the series.

But that 24 point comeback was in garbage time so it doesn't really count. 

thanks jay - all those Crown shots i had to drink to get thru the regular season this year have clouded my memory. now that i recall, Scalabrine led that comeback charge after the game had been decided.

[BigBaby]

Oh please we have no excuse for that embarrassment. The refs actually kept us in the game for the sake of the ratings. Pierce and Allen were flopping all over the place and getting bailed out just so they could put up mediocre numbers. Toward the end of the game we were blatantly fouling kobe on jumpshots and on drives and the refs tried to keep it close. If they called the game with less ticky tack fouls we would have been blown out by 30. We benefited by those soft calls by far. A very pathetic showing. Don't let your homer goggles mislead you.