Why Foul on the Out of Bounds Play Was Not a Technical Foul

[Senninsage]

Trust me, I've slow mo'd the hell out of the play. The ref didn't make the call until after the ball was inbounded, so the right call was made.

[European NBA fan]

The specific rule is intended for teams trying to hack a bad free throw shooter, not for teams playing tough defense. So unless the foul disrupts the play, I think it will rarely be called before the ball is thrown.

[LB3533]

If the foul occurred before the inbound then any one of the Hawks could have shot the FT and Atlanta would retain possession....correct?

[Fafnir]

If the foul occurred before the inbound then any one of the Hawks could have shot the FT and Atlanta would retain possession....correct?

Yes.

[colincb]

I missed the last two minutes part of the rules, changes things from what I thought.

Section X—Away-From-The-Play Foul
a. During the last two minutes of the fourth period or overtime period(s) with the offensive
team in possession of the ball, all personal fouls which are assessed against the defensive
team prior to the ball being released on a throw-in and/or away-from-the-play, shall be
administered as follows:
(1) A personal foul and team foul shall be assessed and one free throw attempt shall
be awarded. The free throw may be attempted by any player in the game at the
time the personal foul was committed.
(2) If the foul occurs when the ball is inbounds, the offended team shall be awarded
the ball at the nearest point where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline
than the free throw line extended.
(3) If the foul occurs prior to the release on a throw-in, the offended team shall be
awarded the ball at the original throw-in spot, with all privileges, if any, remaining.

It'd have been one free throw and the ball.

If it wasn't in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter it'd just be two free throws per this rule:

two free throw attempts if a personal foul is committed by a defender prior to the
ball being released on a throw-in.

I had it wrong on Fratello who is arguing for two shots, (which is wrong), but most of the comments I was seeing elsewhere was referring to Section 10 which according to the NBA site: "This is to prevent teams from fouling players who are not the best free throw shooters as a strategy to gain an advantage in the critical part of a game." 

That's clearly not what is happening here. However, the rule seemingly could be interpreted as any player getting fouled would result in a technical foul.  So who knows? Looking at the play frame by frame and the ball is out before he makes his motion calling a foul.  How anyone can discern what the official saw when he blew the whistle is beyond me, but we do know how he interpreted it.

[Gruntled]

Trust me, I've slow mo'd the hell out of the play. The ref didn't make the call until after the ball was inbounded, so the right call was made.

I don't think it matters when the official blew the whistle.  All tht matters is whether the action he was blowing the whistle about happened before the ball was inbounded.  There is no time limit on how long an official has to call a foul after something happens.

That said, it's the officials discretion to say whether or not the foul happened before or after the inbound.  You can't review the tape to find out, and it was pretty clear the other official thought the first official was crazy for blowing the whistle in the first place,  There is no way they were going to say anything other than the foul happened after the inbound after they talked about it.  That sort of contact happens all the time at the end of the game, and it never gets called.

Once the whistle was blow, I thought we were in trouble, as most of the contact happened before the inbound, and it takes the official a little time to realize that there is a foul.  If he blew the whistle just after the inbound, the foul likely happened before the inbound.

I don't think it changed the outcome of the game, because in almost any other game, the foul never gets called in the first place.  Because of the penalty, you basically have to throw someone to the ground to make it a foul before the inbound.

[pork3]

Seems the NBA league offices agrees with me in that the refs called the foul later than they should've as Daniels was clearly all over Horford before the inbounds pass. We definitely got away with one there.

The referees in Game 6 of the Celtics first round series with the Hawks had the correct interpretation of a foul call against Marquis Daniels late in the fourth quarter, but the NBA said the refs made a mistake by not calling the foul sooner. Had they done so, the Hawks would have been granted a free throw and possession of the ball. The Celtics led 81-79 with 3.1 seconds left at the time of the call. Daniels again fouled Horford on the next play and Horford made only one of his two shots. [Watch the video here]
 
Here's the explanation from the league:
 
"During the last two minutes of the fourth period or overtime, if a personal foul is assessed against the defensive team prior to the ball being released on a throw-in, it is considered an Away-From-The-Play Foul and the offensive team is awarded one free throw and possession of the ball. With 3.1 seconds remaining in the the Boston-Atlanta game last night, a foul was called on the Celtics' Marquis Daniels after the Hawks' Marvin Williams had released the ball and therefore the foul was correctly treated as a common foul and not an Away-From-the-Play foul. With that said, however, the replay shows that the foul on Daniels should have been called sooner than it was by the officials, in which case it would have met the requirements of an Away-From-The-Play Foul."

-Jamman
  

[colincb]

Seems the NBA league offices agrees with me in that the refs called the foul later than they should've as Daniels was clearly all over Horford before the inbounds pass. We definitely got away with one there.

The referees in Game 6 of the Celtics first round series with the Hawks had the correct interpretation of a foul call against Marquis Daniels late in the fourth quarter, but the NBA said the refs made a mistake by not calling the foul sooner. Had they done so, the Hawks would have been granted a free throw and possession of the ball. The Celtics led 81-79 with 3.1 seconds left at the time of the call. Daniels again fouled Horford on the next play and Horford made only one of his two shots. [Watch the video here]
 
Here's the explanation from the league:
 
"During the last two minutes of the fourth period or overtime, if a personal foul is assessed against the defensive team prior to the ball being released on a throw-in, it is considered an Away-From-The-Play Foul and the offensive team is awarded one free throw and possession of the ball. With 3.1 seconds remaining in the the Boston-Atlanta game last night, a foul was called on the Celtics' Marquis Daniels after the Hawks' Marvin Williams had released the ball and therefore the foul was correctly treated as a common foul and not an Away-From-the-Play foul. With that said, however, the replay shows that the foul on Daniels should have been called sooner than it was by the officials, in which case it would have met the requirements of an Away-From-The-Play Foul."

-Jamman

That's a ridiculous thing for the NBA to do.  Basically the ref got the call right when he made it, but missed calling it earlier.  Officials miss calls all the time. Maybe they should go back and give us their feelings about the obvious missed out-of-bounds call that preceded the call that led to Rondo's ejection.

[LB3533]

The NBA making this public statement is basing their decision on replay and assuming that the official made the foul call on the initial hold/contact from Daniels.

No one can assume anything or what the official was seeing or judging what was the foul.

[j804]

EVERYTHING had to go our way for us to win that game last night and it did....officiating favoring us as you see this call going our way, Pierce with a huge block on Joe, Hollins of all people grabbing a crucial rebound, the KG play ran with perfect execution and him nailing it, Horford missing the free throw

[colincb]

The NBA making this public statement is basing their decision on replay and assuming that the official made the foul call on the initial hold/contact from Daniels.

No one can assume anything or what the official was seeing or judging what was the foul.

"...With 3.1 seconds remaining in the the Boston-Atlanta game last night, a foul was called on the Celtics' Marquis Daniels after the Hawks' Marvin Williams had released the ball and therefore the foul was correctly treated as a common foul and not an Away-From-the-Play foul. ..."

A common foul is what the official called. Why not assume that's the way he saw the foul since that's the simplest explanation. The NBA is second guessing him on a replay, but replay isn't available to the official to review even if he had any doubt as to when the ball was released. And unless we're into conspiracy nonsense, why wouldn't he call the foul if he saw it earlier?

[KGs Knee]

The NBA making this public statement is basing their decision on replay and assuming that the official made the foul call on the initial hold/contact from Daniels.

No one can assume anything or what the official was seeing or judging what was the foul.

"...With 3.1 seconds remaining in the the Boston-Atlanta game last night, a foul was called on the Celtics' Marquis Daniels after the Hawks' Marvin Williams had released the ball and therefore the foul was correctly treated as a common foul and not an Away-From-the-Play foul. ..."

A common foul is what the official called. Why not assume that's the way he saw the foul since that's the simplest explanation. The NBA is second guessing him on a replay, but replay isn't available to the official to review even if he had any doubt as to when the ball was released. And unless we're into conspiracy nonsense, why wouldn't he call the foul if he saw it earlier?

This just seems completely foolish to me, what the laegue is doing.

Sure, Quisy definitely comitted a foul prior to the inbounds pass.  Was it an egregious foul?  Hardly.  It is entriely possible the ref either didn't see the initial foul, which would have been an away from the play foul, or the ref didn't think the contact warranted a call.  We'll probably never know which is true.

Given that we'll never know whether or not the initial foul call was missed or the ref didn't see it as a foul, the league really is just fanning flames here.  The ref didn't call the contact the league is referring to, yet the league is stating the foul call was administered incorrectly, which isn't true.

[timpiker]

We got lucky and the refs blew it.  When there is a foul before the ball is in play - T.  Period.  And the T would have been shot by any Hawks player in the game at the time.

[LooseCannon]

It's close enough that there'd be a thread at least ten pages long if a call like was seen as costing the Celtics a playoff game against the Heat.

[LB3533]

Technically, a foul is a foul and a travel is a travel. But they only really mattered when the official calls them.

Even when there isn't a foul and the ref blows the whistler, then there actually "is" a foul.