Celtics (21-19) at Wizards (19-19) Game #41 1/16/16

[hwangjini_1]

That was one of the worst officiated end of games I've seen in years. Probably since that game against Atlanta in the big 3 era. Great win, I'm so happy for Crowder.

the two final fouls against smart were terrible calls. nearly cost the celtics the game.

The very last one was fine, he had Temple's arm locked up, Temple had the ball but couldn't wrap it up or move.  That's a legit foul, it was just maddening after all the ugly calls before it.

maybe, and i can see your point. but for me BOTH of them locked arms, but temple's arm was on top of smart's, meaning he had control of the situation. i might be wrong, but no foul would be the correct call there.

Those kinds of tie-ups are usually mutual, but when one guy has the ball it's the other guy's responsibility to get disengaged.  And it looked like the refs were going to let them play until Crowder got the ball away because Temple couldn't get both hands on it or turn around.  I've got no problem with that call.

okay, i see your point. tp for making clear and explaining it well. thanks.

[jpotter33]

That was one of the worst officiated end of games I've seen in years. Probably since that game against Atlanta in the big 3 era. Great win, I'm so happy for Crowder.

the two final fouls against smart were terrible calls. nearly cost the celtics the game.

The very last one was fine, he had Temple's arm locked up, Temple had the ball but couldn't wrap it up or move.  That's a legit foul, it was just maddening after all the ugly calls before it.

maybe, and i can see your point. but for me BOTH of them locked arms, but temple's arm was on top of smart's, meaning he had control of the situation. i might be wrong, but no foul would be the correct call there.

Those kinds of tie-ups are usually mutual, but when one guy has the ball it's the other guy's responsibility to get disengaged.  And it looked like the refs were going to let them play until Crowder got the ball away because Temple couldn't get both hands on it or turn around.  I've got no problem with that call.  It was just very frustrating after the sequence that had just happened.

And that's another issue that has really exploded in the last two years: most fouls are now contingent on the outcome of the play. You see it all the time. A guy goes up for a layup and gets hit, but the official doesn't call a foul until he sees the ball not go into the basket. It's really frustrating, because it questions the very integrity of officiating. That is, there is no objective thing as a foul, and the context of the action might affect whether or not it is called, which is troublesome when you think about other context-related calls - make-up calls, calls to even the foul/free throw numbers, etc.

[jpotter33]

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25452148

Wittman called Crowder soft and was cursing at him. Obviously he was a little butt-hurt, because I'm not sure there's any justification in calling Crowder soft. The dude would be playing in the NFL if he wasn't playing in the NBA lol

[fairweatherfan]

That was one of the worst officiated end of games I've seen in years. Probably since that game against Atlanta in the big 3 era. Great win, I'm so happy for Crowder.

the two final fouls against smart were terrible calls. nearly cost the celtics the game.

The very last one was fine, he had Temple's arm locked up, Temple had the ball but couldn't wrap it up or move.  That's a legit foul, it was just maddening after all the ugly calls before it.

maybe, and i can see your point. but for me BOTH of them locked arms, but temple's arm was on top of smart's, meaning he had control of the situation. i might be wrong, but no foul would be the correct call there.

Those kinds of tie-ups are usually mutual, but when one guy has the ball it's the other guy's responsibility to get disengaged.  And it looked like the refs were going to let them play until Crowder got the ball away because Temple couldn't get both hands on it or turn around.  I've got no problem with that call.  It was just very frustrating after the sequence that had just happened.

And that's another issue that has really exploded in the last two years: most fouls are now contingent on the outcome of the play. You see it all the time. A guy goes up for a layup and gets hit, but the official doesn't call a foul until he sees the ball not go into the basket. It's really frustrating, because it questions the very integrity of officiating. That is, there is no objective thing as a foul, and the context of the action might affect whether or not it is called, which is troublesome when you think about other context-related calls - make-up calls, calls to even the foul/free throw numbers, etc.

This isn't a new development, I've seen it for the ~30 years I've watched the league.  Refs always engage in game management over the letter of the law to some degree.  It's the same way that you can get away with more contact late in a close game than early on.  I see the same tendency in just about every sport I watch; maybe not baseball since every play is such a discrete thing, but any sport with flow has it.

Maybe it's because I played rugby where "advantage gained" is a real thing that separates violations from "play on"s, but I prefer it to the alternative of calling everything by the book at all times. 

[mctyson]

That was one of the worst officiated end of games I've seen in years. Probably since that game against Atlanta in the big 3 era. Great win, I'm so happy for Crowder.

the two final fouls against smart were terrible calls. nearly cost the celtics the game.

The very last one was fine, he had Temple's arm locked up, Temple had the ball but couldn't wrap it up or move.  That's a legit foul, it was just maddening after all the ugly calls before it.

maybe, and i can see your point. but for me BOTH of them locked arms, but temple's arm was on top of smart's, meaning he had control of the situation. i might be wrong, but no foul would be the correct call there.

Those kinds of tie-ups are usually mutual, but when one guy has the ball it's the other guy's responsibility to get disengaged.  And it looked like the refs were going to let them play until Crowder got the ball away because Temple couldn't get both hands on it or turn around.  I've got no problem with that call.  It was just very frustrating after the sequence that had just happened.

And that's another issue that has really exploded in the last two years: most fouls are now contingent on the outcome of the play. You see it all the time. A guy goes up for a layup and gets hit, but the official doesn't call a foul until he sees the ball not go into the basket. It's really frustrating, because it questions the very integrity of officiating. That is, there is no objective thing as a foul, and the context of the action might affect whether or not it is called, which is troublesome when you think about other context-related calls - make-up calls, calls to even the foul/free throw numbers, etc.

This isn't a new development, I've seen it for the ~30 years I've watched the league.  Refs always engage in game management over the letter of the law to some degree.  It's the same way that you can get away with more contact late in a close game than early on.  I see the same tendency in just about every sport I watch; maybe not baseball since every play is such a discrete thing, but any sport with flow has it.

Maybe it's because I played rugby where "advantage gained" is a real thing that separates violations from "play on"s, but I prefer it to the alternative of calling everything by the book at all times.

I have no problems with the refs varying.  I have no problem with them letting fouls go.  If I was an NBA ref, I would rarely blow the whistle.

The problem is when you start to lay your judgment down, as a ref, you better be d*mn sure you can judge equally.  I just don't see enough refs who can do that.

[SHAQATTACK]

I missed it live.  ...dang. .....but got it on DVD     , will watch it tomorrow . 

Sounds like we almost lost to the refs.

[jpotter33]

That was one of the worst officiated end of games I've seen in years. Probably since that game against Atlanta in the big 3 era. Great win, I'm so happy for Crowder.

the two final fouls against smart were terrible calls. nearly cost the celtics the game.

The very last one was fine, he had Temple's arm locked up, Temple had the ball but couldn't wrap it up or move.  That's a legit foul, it was just maddening after all the ugly calls before it.

maybe, and i can see your point. but for me BOTH of them locked arms, but temple's arm was on top of smart's, meaning he had control of the situation. i might be wrong, but no foul would be the correct call there.

Those kinds of tie-ups are usually mutual, but when one guy has the ball it's the other guy's responsibility to get disengaged.  And it looked like the refs were going to let them play until Crowder got the ball away because Temple couldn't get both hands on it or turn around.  I've got no problem with that call.  It was just very frustrating after the sequence that had just happened.

And that's another issue that has really exploded in the last two years: most fouls are now contingent on the outcome of the play. You see it all the time. A guy goes up for a layup and gets hit, but the official doesn't call a foul until he sees the ball not go into the basket. It's really frustrating, because it questions the very integrity of officiating. That is, there is no objective thing as a foul, and the context of the action might affect whether or not it is called, which is troublesome when you think about other context-related calls - make-up calls, calls to even the foul/free throw numbers, etc.

This isn't a new development, I've seen it for the ~30 years I've watched the league.  Refs always engage in game management over the letter of the law to some degree.  It's the same way that you can get away with more contact late in a close game than early on.  I see the same tendency in just about every sport I watch; maybe not baseball since every play is such a discrete thing, but any sport with flow has it.

Maybe it's because I played rugby where "advantage gained" is a real thing that separates violations from "play on"s, but I prefer it to the alternative of calling everything by the book at all times.

I don't know. I crave consistency. I really wouldn't care if a game was called tight or soft, as long as it was consistent. At least with consistent officiating you know what to plan for and how to play.

I generally think that the NBA should trend towards a more physical game with less official involvement altogether. Due to the speed and play of the game and the amount of influence and control they have, refs are always going to play a large part in basketball. The best way to limit their influence is to let the players play and raise the threshold for those kinds of violations. If there's a higher threshold to meet, then calls will be less based on differences in interpretation and style from each ref.

[slamtheking]

one thing that seems to be overlooked as a key the C's victory tonight -- finally hitting their FTs.  32-36.  lately they'd have been lucky to hit 27 out of 36 which would have resulted in a loss. 

[fairweatherfan]

That was one of the worst officiated end of games I've seen in years. Probably since that game against Atlanta in the big 3 era. Great win, I'm so happy for Crowder.

the two final fouls against smart were terrible calls. nearly cost the celtics the game.

The very last one was fine, he had Temple's arm locked up, Temple had the ball but couldn't wrap it up or move.  That's a legit foul, it was just maddening after all the ugly calls before it.

maybe, and i can see your point. but for me BOTH of them locked arms, but temple's arm was on top of smart's, meaning he had control of the situation. i might be wrong, but no foul would be the correct call there.

Those kinds of tie-ups are usually mutual, but when one guy has the ball it's the other guy's responsibility to get disengaged.  And it looked like the refs were going to let them play until Crowder got the ball away because Temple couldn't get both hands on it or turn around.  I've got no problem with that call.  It was just very frustrating after the sequence that had just happened.

And that's another issue that has really exploded in the last two years: most fouls are now contingent on the outcome of the play. You see it all the time. A guy goes up for a layup and gets hit, but the official doesn't call a foul until he sees the ball not go into the basket. It's really frustrating, because it questions the very integrity of officiating. That is, there is no objective thing as a foul, and the context of the action might affect whether or not it is called, which is troublesome when you think about other context-related calls - make-up calls, calls to even the foul/free throw numbers, etc.

This isn't a new development, I've seen it for the ~30 years I've watched the league.  Refs always engage in game management over the letter of the law to some degree.  It's the same way that you can get away with more contact late in a close game than early on.  I see the same tendency in just about every sport I watch; maybe not baseball since every play is such a discrete thing, but any sport with flow has it.

Maybe it's because I played rugby where "advantage gained" is a real thing that separates violations from "play on"s, but I prefer it to the alternative of calling everything by the book at all times.

I have no problems with the refs varying.  I have no problem with them letting fouls go.  If I was an NBA ref, I would rarely blow the whistle.

The problem is when you start to lay your judgment down, as a ref, you better be d*mn sure you can judge equally.  I just don't see enough refs who can do that.

I think it's at least as difficult to judge whether they're judging equally when we've got an emotional stake in the game.  When I watch games where I don't care who wins I rarely notice major inconsistencies in favor of one team.  When I watch the Celtics I see it against us all the time.  Either the Celtics are constantly being targeted for a screwjob or my bias is affecting how I interpret the calls.  Reading the other team's blogs and seeing their fans thinking the same thing about their team getting screwed supports my belief it's the latter.

[apc]

I got to say , that foul on Amir after the FT was really smart move by Wizeads, I haven't seen that before.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

I got to say , that foul on Amir after the FT was really smart move by Wizeads, I haven't seen that before.

you never watch clips games is my guess. it started with people fouling DJ. I have seen another team have it happen to them too b/c I remember commenting how it could get a player injured. it was a genius move by whoever started it though.

[Ogaju]

I got to say , that foul on Amir after the FT was really smart move by Wizeads, I haven't seen that before.

I think it was silly....it should be an intentional foul two free throws and the ball OR allow the team to decline the foul and inbound the ball like they do in football.

You should not be allowed to gain an advantage from intentionally jumping on another player's back.

[jpotter33]

I got to say , that foul on Amir after the FT was really smart move by Wizeads, I haven't seen that before.

you never watch clips games is my guess. it started with people fouling DJ. I have seen another team have it happen to them too b/c I remember commenting how it could get a player injured. it was a genius move by whoever started it though.

If I remember correctly, it was LAC doing it to Howard of the Rockets. I remember Paul jumping on Howard's back or something like that.

[Ogaju]

I got to say , that foul on Amir after the FT was really smart move by Wizeads, I haven't seen that before.

you never watch clips games is my guess. it started with people fouling DJ. I have seen another team have it happen to them too b/c I remember commenting how it could get a player injured. it was a genius move by whoever started it though.

If I remember correctly, it was LAC doing it to Howard of the Rockets. I remember Paul jumping on Howard's back or something like that.

Coach should instruct his big to throw to the ground the scrub that jumps on his back just like Nene through the Celtic player down in that last inbound pass and the idiot refs ignored the obvious foul.

[GratefulCs]

To everyone who thinks refs rigging is created by fans,




Do you seriously think donaghy was the only one?