I'm Done With the NBA

[droopdog7]

When the ref reviews a replay, he is only allowed to look if the shot got off in time? Correct?

Not allowed to check to see if the shot clock started again in time. Even, if it clearly didn't, if it was late, they are not allowed do anything.

Do I have that right?

You are absolutely correct in this situation.  The only thing the refs were looking at was whether the ball was released before the red light.  And it clearly was.

They likely would have been able to review whether the clock started appropriately but in this case, they had little basis to go on.  In other words, if there was a tenth count, you might be able to see that on the clock.  Or, if there had been multiple seconds left, you could also gauge whether time is running off the clock. 

But wit one second (and no tenth count), they would have had to pull out a stop watch to see whether there was a delay.  And they weren't going there first of all.  And it probably is not within the rules anyway.

[vinnie]

When the ref reviews a replay, he is only allowed to look if the shot got off in time? Correct?

Not allowed to check to see if the shot clock started again in time. Even, if it clearly didn't, if it was late, they are not allowed do anything.

Do I have that right?

You are 100 percent right.

[kgiessler]

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=38059.msg767598#msg767598

[Bankshot]

When the ref reviews a replay, he is only allowed to look if the shot got off in time? Correct?

Not allowed to check to see if the shot clock started again in time. Even, if it clearly didn't, if it was late, they are not allowed do anything.

Do I have that right?

You are 100 percent right.

I didn't know that.  Why couldn't they check to see if the clock started?  That's the whole reason he got the shot off in time.

[kozlodoev]

When the ref reviews a replay, he is only allowed to look if the shot got off in time? Correct?

Not allowed to check to see if the shot clock started again in time. Even, if it clearly didn't, if it was late, they are not allowed do anything.

Do I have that right?

You are 100 percent right.

I didn't know that.  Why couldn't they check to see if the clock started?  That's the whole reason he got the shot off in time.

Because you can't tell from the tape when exactly the button was pressed (it's not necessarily at the point when you first observe a change on the shot clock, although it _is_ no latter than that point).

[mmbaby]

I was a little bothered by the refs allowing that basket after reviewing it because they had to make a conscious decision to ignore the facts to allow that call to stand.  

I have been extremely bothered about the refs' selective enforcing of the new technical rules.   In the Miami game, the camera followed LeBron up the court complaining and making faces and gestures about his unhappiness with a call.  The camera also caught Wade complaining about a call.  They were not given technicals.   In the Cleveland game,  Varejao was jumping up and down and complaining about an out of bounds call.  No technical.  But let a Celtic calmly approach a ref during a stoppage to ask a question and he gets a T.  Let a Celtic raise an eyebrow in surprise over one of the many terrible calls and he gets a T.    The refs are selectively deciding when to enforce the new rules and when not to.  How is that respecting the league?  

Agreed, FlCelts fan. That's exactly what bothers me. If you do it for one, you must do it for the other. Seems simple, but that's not how they do it. Why?

[Chris]

I was a little bothered by the refs allowing that basket after reviewing it because they had to make a conscious decision to ignore the facts to allow that call to stand.  

I have been extremely bothered about the refs' selective enforcing of the new technical rules.   In the Miami game, the camera followed LeBron up the court complaining and making faces and gestures about his unhappiness with a call.  The camera also caught Wade complaining about a call.  They were not given technicals.   In the Cleveland game,  Varejao was jumping up and down and complaining about an out of bounds call.  No technical.  But let a Celtic calmly approach a ref during a stoppage to ask a question and he gets a T.  Let a Celtic raise an eyebrow in surprise over one of the many terrible calls and he gets a T.    The refs are selectively deciding when to enforce the new rules and when not to.  How is that respecting the league?  

Agreed, FlCelts fan. That's exactly what bothers me. If you do it for one, you must do it for the other. Seems simple, but that's not how they do it. Why?

Heres my problem with this argument right now:

1. Do you know what Shaq "calmly asked the ref"?  I have a hard time believing he was asking for a clarification, since Nate dropkicked the defender, and the ref made that clear when he demonstrated what Nate was being T'ed up for.  While Shaq may be have been innocent there, I think you are making a leap of faith in that argument.

2. The eyebrow in surprise thing was in the preseason, when the league was making a statement.  It is just like in previous years when they decide to crack down on handchecking or something and call 50 fouls a game in the preseason.  No one on the C's has gotten a T for making faces since the games have counted, so lets wait and see on that one.

[SamuelAdams]

Don't quit on the NBA over this mate.  The same thing happens at the Garden. 

[Bankshot]

Don't quit on the NBA over this mate.  The same thing happens at the Garden. 

That doesn't make it right.  I'd like to see games called as fair as possible across the board.  No preferential treatment.

[guava_wrench]

I'll watch my beloved Celtics only.  I'm so sick of Stern and his league!  That Anthony Parker 3 was the last straw for me.  By itself, it's not a big deal, but giving the refs more power with this technical business banning upside down headbands when there are more serious problems plaguing the league?  What is wrong with this guy?

Anthony Parker had one second, but was given 2-3 second to catch the ball, wind up then shoot.  The play was reviewed and they still allowed it.  Remember Baby's 3?  They reviewed and it was not allowed. They were correct on Baby's 3.  But they were wrong on Parker's. No excuse for getting it wrong after reviewing it.

I don't blame the refs for the loss last night, because the Celtics let the Cavs hang around so that the refs were able to have an impact on the outcome of the game.

I'm just so sick of these refs and Stern.  While they may not be doing any fixing of games, they are so incompetent that it looks that way!

I'm done.

So long.

Just curious though. How the heck does banning upside-down headbands give refs more power?

[GreenEnvy]

I'll watch my beloved Celtics only.  I'm so sick of Stern and his league!  That Anthony Parker 3 was the last straw for me.  By itself, it's not a big deal, but giving the refs more power with this technical business banning upside down headbands when there are more serious problems plaguing the league?  What is wrong with this guy?

Anthony Parker had one second, but was given 2-3 second to catch the ball, wind up then shoot.  The play was reviewed and they still allowed it.  Remember Baby's 3?  They reviewed and it was not allowed. They were correct on Baby's 3.  But they were wrong on Parker's. No excuse for getting it wrong after reviewing it.

I don't blame the refs for the loss last night, because the Celtics let the Cavs hang around so that the refs were able to have an impact on the outcome of the game.

I'm just so sick of these refs and Stern.  While they may not be doing any fixing of games, they are so incompetent that it looks that way!

I'm done.

So long.

Just curious though. How the heck does banning upside-down headbands give refs more power?

I'm guessing he left out a comma or something.

Stern gave the refs more power with this technical business (of T-ing up a select players for looking at the ref after a questionable whistle), and banning upside-down headbands is on his to do list?

Stern is a whackjob.

As a fan, I much rather see players argue relentlessly - wearing upside-down headbands - about a close call than a game (or, I don't know, a Finals) decided/influenced by terrible officiating.

[guava_wrench]

I was a little bothered by the refs allowing that basket after reviewing it because they had to make a conscious decision to ignore the facts to allow that call to stand.   

I have been extremely bothered about the refs' selective enforcing of the new technical rules.   In the Miami game, the camera followed LeBron up the court complaining and making faces and gestures about his unhappiness with a call.  The camera also caught Wade complaining about a call.  They were not given technicals.   In the Cleveland game,  Varejao was jumping up and down and complaining about an out of bounds call.  No technical.  But let a Celtic calmly approach a ref during a stoppage to ask a question and he gets a T.  Let a Celtic raise an eyebrow in surprise over one of the many terrible calls and he gets a T.    The refs are selectively deciding when to enforce the new rules and when not to.  How is that respecting the league?   

Agreed, FlCelts fan. That's exactly what bothers me. If you do it for one, you must do it for the other. Seems simple, but that's not how they do it. Why?

Heres my problem with this argument right now:

1. Do you know what Shaq "calmly asked the ref"?  I have a hard time believing he was asking for a clarification, since Nate dropkicked the defender, and the ref made that clear when he demonstrated what Nate was being T'ed up for.  While Shaq may be have been innocent there, I think you are making a leap of faith in that argument.

2. The eyebrow in surprise thing was in the preseason, when the league was making a statement.  It is just like in previous years when they decide to crack down on handchecking or something and call 50 fouls a game in the preseason.  No one on the C's has gotten a T for making faces since the games have counted, so lets wait and see on that one.

It kills me when people act like they know what a player said to a ref.

There was no double standard whatsoever in the BBD vs Parker play. BBD's play was obvious.

There is no question that Parker shot the ball in less than 2 seconds after the catch. So the question is how many milliseconds were on the clock. It looks like he might have gotten it off in time.

Watch the play in real time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGDy5hSCpPI

CSN did a crap job by showing slow motion replays repeatedly. He shot is pretty quickly. All Parker did was swing the ball through and jump. Tommy just made it seem worse because Tommy is a horrible announcer.

[GreenEnvy]

I was a little bothered by the refs allowing that basket after reviewing it because they had to make a conscious decision to ignore the facts to allow that call to stand.   

I have been extremely bothered about the refs' selective enforcing of the new technical rules.   In the Miami game, the camera followed LeBron up the court complaining and making faces and gestures about his unhappiness with a call.  The camera also caught Wade complaining about a call.  They were not given technicals.   In the Cleveland game,  Varejao was jumping up and down and complaining about an out of bounds call.  No technical.  But let a Celtic calmly approach a ref during a stoppage to ask a question and he gets a T.  Let a Celtic raise an eyebrow in surprise over one of the many terrible calls and he gets a T.    The refs are selectively deciding when to enforce the new rules and when not to.  How is that respecting the league?   

Agreed, FlCelts fan. That's exactly what bothers me. If you do it for one, you must do it for the other. Seems simple, but that's not how they do it. Why?

Heres my problem with this argument right now:

1. Do you know what Shaq "calmly asked the ref"?  I have a hard time believing he was asking for a clarification, since Nate dropkicked the defender, and the ref made that clear when he demonstrated what Nate was being T'ed up for.  While Shaq may be have been innocent there, I think you are making a leap of faith in that argument.

2. The eyebrow in surprise thing was in the preseason, when the league was making a statement.  It is just like in previous years when they decide to crack down on handchecking or something and call 50 fouls a game in the preseason.  No one on the C's has gotten a T for making faces since the games have counted, so lets wait and see on that one.

It kills me when people act like they know what a player said to a ref.

There was no double standard whatsoever in the BBD vs Parker play. BBD's play was obvious.

There is no question that Parker shot the ball in less than 2 seconds after the catch. So the question is how many milliseconds were on the clock. It looks like he might have gotten it off in time.

Watch the play in real time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGDy5hSCpPI

CSN did a crap job by showing slow motion replays repeatedly. He shot is pretty quickly. All Parker did was swing the ball through and jump. Tommy just made it seem worse because Tommy is a horrible announcer.

Unfortunately I had to watch the Cavs broadcast, and they were too busy ejaculating to show replays (that I can remember).

The problem here is, when watching the video you posted, I accidentally froze it and there is still a second left on the clock when the ball is 10 feet out of Parker's hands. Now yes, there could have been 1.99 seconds left on the clock, but it certainly is conceivable that the timekeeper gave the Cavs a couple of extra counts.

This happens relatively often in the NBA, but with all of these new rules coming out that don't really help determine fair-play, why isn't this addressed?

[guava_wrench]

I was a little bothered by the refs allowing that basket after reviewing it because they had to make a conscious decision to ignore the facts to allow that call to stand.  

I have been extremely bothered about the refs' selective enforcing of the new technical rules.   In the Miami game, the camera followed LeBron up the court complaining and making faces and gestures about his unhappiness with a call.  The camera also caught Wade complaining about a call.  They were not given technicals.   In the Cleveland game,  Varejao was jumping up and down and complaining about an out of bounds call.  No technical.  But let a Celtic calmly approach a ref during a stoppage to ask a question and he gets a T.  Let a Celtic raise an eyebrow in surprise over one of the many terrible calls and he gets a T.    The refs are selectively deciding when to enforce the new rules and when not to.  How is that respecting the league?  

Agreed, FlCelts fan. That's exactly what bothers me. If you do it for one, you must do it for the other. Seems simple, but that's not how they do it. Why?

Heres my problem with this argument right now:

1. Do you know what Shaq "calmly asked the ref"?  I have a hard time believing he was asking for a clarification, since Nate dropkicked the defender, and the ref made that clear when he demonstrated what Nate was being T'ed up for.  While Shaq may be have been innocent there, I think you are making a leap of faith in that argument.

2. The eyebrow in surprise thing was in the preseason, when the league was making a statement.  It is just like in previous years when they decide to crack down on handchecking or something and call 50 fouls a game in the preseason.  No one on the C's has gotten a T for making faces since the games have counted, so lets wait and see on that one.

It kills me when people act like they know what a player said to a ref.

There was no double standard whatsoever in the BBD vs Parker play. BBD's play was obvious.

There is no question that Parker shot the ball in less than 2 seconds after the catch. So the question is how many milliseconds were on the clock. It looks like he might have gotten it off in time.

Watch the play in real time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGDy5hSCpPI

CSN did a crap job by showing slow motion replays repeatedly. He shot is pretty quickly. All Parker did was swing the ball through and jump. Tommy just made it seem worse because Tommy is a horrible announcer.

Unfortunately I had to watch the Cavs broadcast, and they were too busy ejaculating to show replays (that I can remember).

The problem here is, when watching the video you posted, I accidentally froze it and there is still a second left on the clock when the ball is 10 feet out of Parker's hands. Now yes, there could have been 1.99 seconds left on the clock, but it certainly is conceivable that the timekeeper gave the Cavs a couple of extra counts.

This happens relatively often in the NBA, but with all of these new rules coming out that don't really help determine fair-play, why isn't this addressed?

You were lucky. I was stuck listening to Tommy.

It does not make a difference if the clock was started late if the player released in time.

They added a rule to review when the clock was started after the Billups game winning shot fiasco in the playoffs for Denver like 2 years ago.

But there is nothing to overturn if the shot was released on time though the clock was late. So long as there is a running time on the video (not the actual shot clock) and a millisecond version of the shotclock, they can tell how long it took from the catch until the release. I do not know if they do or do not have that on the video.

But it seems the refs felt the shot was good and it very well may have been. So where is the rule problem? It sounds to me like fans bitter about losing and looking for someone to blame. Sometimes opponents make great shots.

[droopdog7]

For the last time, there could not have been 1.99 seconds left on the clock. The maximum was 1.00 and even that is unlikely. More than likely it was something under 1.0 seconds.