THOSE DANG REFS

[libermaniac]

It wasn't goaltending, but he sure was fouled.  I can't watch the replay now - strange limitations at work, but I was watching live, and the defender was riding him all the way in, clearly making contact on the drive to the basket. 

[fairweatherfan]

Why is this not reviewable?

Yeah if they're going back and reviewing three point shots throughout the game (and 24 shot clock violations) why can't they review goaltending calls?

Yeah, I understand why they can't turn a no-call into a goaltend on review, but they should be able to reverse a called goaltend during a stoppage of play.  Maybe it's seen as more ambiguous than a shot clock violation?

[mgent]

Why is this not reviewable?

Yeah if they're going back and reviewing three point shots throughout the game (and 24 shot clock violations) why can't they review goaltending calls?

ESPECIALLY in the last two minutes.  If they can review when two players simultaneously touch the ball going out of bounds, why not when a player and the backboard simultaneously touch the ball?  It's still a change of possession.

[mgent]

Why is this not reviewable?

Yeah if they're going back and reviewing three point shots throughout the game (and 24 shot clock violations) why can't they review goaltending calls?

Yeah, I understand why they can't turn a no-call into a goaltend on review, but they should be able to reverse a called goaltend during a stoppage of play.  Maybe it's seen as more ambiguous than a shot clock violation?

It's definitely not more ambiguous than a clear path foul and they can review those at any time.

[Fafnir]

Why is this not reviewable?

Yeah if they're going back and reviewing three point shots throughout the game (and 24 shot clock violations) why can't they review goaltending calls?

Yeah, I understand why they can't turn a no-call into a goaltend on review, but they should be able to reverse a called goaltend during a stoppage of play.  Maybe it's seen as more ambiguous than a shot clock violation?

It can't be more ambigious than a ball out of bounds call which they can review in the last two minutes.

[fairweatherfan]

Why is this not reviewable?

Yeah if they're going back and reviewing three point shots throughout the game (and 24 shot clock violations) why can't they review goaltending calls?

Yeah, I understand why they can't turn a no-call into a goaltend on review, but they should be able to reverse a called goaltend during a stoppage of play.  Maybe it's seen as more ambiguous than a shot clock violation?

It can't be more ambigious than a ball out of bounds call which they can review in the last two minutes.

I guess what I mean is that a reversed goaltend = what should've been a live ball, with no clear way to determine who would've gotten it in a lot of cases. 

Out of bounds, shot clocks, clear paths - the play is already dead either way, and it's easy to figure out who gets the ball after the review.  How do you determine who gets possession after a reversed goaltend?

[Fafnir]

Why is this not reviewable?

Yeah if they're going back and reviewing three point shots throughout the game (and 24 shot clock violations) why can't they review goaltending calls?

Yeah, I understand why they can't turn a no-call into a goaltend on review, but they should be able to reverse a called goaltend during a stoppage of play.  Maybe it's seen as more ambiguous than a shot clock violation?

It can't be more ambigious than a ball out of bounds call which they can review in the last two minutes.

I guess what I mean is that a reversed goaltend = what should've been a live ball, with no clear way to determine who would've gotten it in a lot of cases. 

Out of bounds, shot clocks, clear paths - the play is already dead either way, and it's easy to figure out who gets the ball after the review.  How do you determine who gets possession after a reversed goaltend?

Ah I see what you're saying, that makes some sense.

[guava_wrench]

Out of all of the miserable calls I have seen, I have a hard time with using this one as an example of the incompetence of NBA refs.  

That was 1) fast moving 2) a rather close call 3) a high pressure moment.  It sure would be nice though if there was some sort of reasonable review system for calls that occur in those types of situations.  Mistakes that are pivotal to outcomes suck.

I mean for pete's sake, we saw a Celtic 'turnover' a few weeks ago where an opponent got off of the bench to steal the ball and it went unnoticed by the refs.  That's a 'those dang refs' situation.

Was it the one against Orlando? They had 4 players on court so I think that's legal.

I suppose. The fact that they aren't allowed to review plays on video for goaltending is dumb. THOSE DANG RULES.

I am almost certain that is a violation if only because players are only allowed to check themselves into games at specific times.

He might have already been checked in, despite sitting on the bench. Players can sit on the bench while checked in. It is just stupid to do so. In such a case, there is nothing wrong with what the player did.

It is possible someone next to him said, 'dude, you are still in the game'.

Just further evidence that fans search for things to blame refs for.