Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 229

Thread: 2017-18 NBA season

  1. #181
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    agree with Santos, but you are right here - the rule says you can review it. bad rule. the problem is that it wasn't conclusive. and to your point about Javie just saying that to support the refs, he maintained it was a charge 30 minutes after the game ended - completely going against what the refs ultimately decided. he said you don't have to be still, that LeBron planted his left foot and at that point did enough to draw the charge. whether you disagree or not, it points to the fact it wasn't conclusive.
    Hmmm. Maybe,. So are you just saying the refs made a subjective call with which you disagree or are you saying thqt this is evidence, somehow, of a desire to throw the game to GS? Btw, I never liked Javie when he was a ref. He inserted himself into games all the time, even ejecting a mascot once.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  2. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Hmmm. Maybe,. So are you just saying the refs made a subjective call with which you disagree or are you saying thqt this is evidence, somehow, of a desire to throw the game to GS? Btw, I never liked Javie when he was a ref. He inserted himself into games all the time, even ejecting a mascot once.
    what i'm saying is they overturned the call on the court despite the fact it wasn't conclusive. has nothing to do with whether I agree. you shouldn't overturn a call unless there is evidence is conclusive that the call on the court (or field) was wrong. I've never been a conspiracy guy and I won't start now. it was just a piss poor decision and one that should never happen. definitely not saying they had nefarious motives - rather made what I consider to be an inexcusable error that turned the game and possibly the series. its a shame.
    Last edited by smokymountainrain; 06-01-2018 at 09:53 AM.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  3. #183
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    what i'm saying is they overturned the call on the court despite the fact it wasn't conclusive. has nothing to do with whether I agree. you shouldn't overturn a call unless it is evidence is conclusive that the call on the court (or field) was wrong. I've never been a conspiracy guy and I won't start now. it was just a piss poor decision and one that should never happen. definitely not saying they had nefarious motives - rather made what I consider to be an inexcusable error that turned the game and possibly the series. its a shame.
    Except it was not that conclusive. The refs disagreed in real time. The ref behind the play deferred to the ref in front of the play for the call, but in this instance the margin of support for the call is razor thin because they had to pick ONE call in order to even begin the review process. Then, after reviewing the call, they concluded there was sufficient evidence to reverse the call, which conclusion I agreed with. I thought ti was an obvious block. So your beef is not the rule or the call but merely that they subjectively erred in making a subjective evaluation of the quantum of evidence necessary to reverse a call. The two guys go to the monitor, look at it and the one guy says "You know, you';re right, it WAS a block." That is pretty hard to complain about, really. Unless you think they got it wrong (which you don't seem to be arguing here).
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  4. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Except it was not that conclusive. The refs disagreed in real time. The ref behind the play deferred to the ref in front of the play for the call, but in this instance the margin of support for the call is razor thin because they had to pick ONE call in order to even begin the review process. Then, after reviewing the call, they concluded there was sufficient evidence to reverse the call, which conclusion I agreed with. I thought ti was an obvious block. So your beef is not the rule or the call but merely that they subjectively erred in making a subjective evaluation of the quantum of evidence necessary to reverse a call. The two guys go to the monitor, look at it and the one guy says "You know, you';re right, it WAS a block." That is pretty hard to complain about, really. Unless you think they got it wrong (which you don't seem to be arguing here).
    my opinion is that I don't know - initially I thought it was a block, but I've seen explanations since that lead me to believe there is gray area, that a charge could have been appropriate. your argument about them disagreeing in real time is solid, but the fact is, the ref who called the charge got the call. it was indeed a called charge. they overturned the call. where you and I disagree is that you think there was sufficient evidence, I do not. if it can go either way, they shouldn't overturn the call on the court - that is where I stand.

    too many people are getting hung up on it being the "right call" - that's just their opinion and you shouldn't overturn calls on opinion. there has to be conclusive - perhaps incontrovertible is a better word - evidence. if it can be disputed - and it can - they should leave it as is.

    but to avoid going around in circles, if you want to argue there was no real call on the court - while I disagree - I can't argue that because my entire argument is built on the fact a call was made on the court.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  5. #185

    Default 2017-18 NBA season

    its not that complicated. Review shouldnít be used for calls that require subjective interpretation. Whether a foot is on a line is objective, but whether someone is in a legal guarding position and at what point in time they are in the position relative to another player is completely subjective.

    Itís stupid that the rule allows that, but its even stupider that they reviewed the play and felt like they could conclusively determine something subjective like legal guarding position after the fact based on that evidence.

    The spirit of the rule was violated by the interpretation, IMO. Sure they can justify it with the technical language of the rule, but I, like Javie, was super convinced that there is no way they would change the call based on that evidence.
    Last edited by Donuthole; 06-01-2018 at 10:40 AM.
    Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark ďegg on your faceĒ! -- Moss

    There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

  6. #186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    its not that complicated. Review shouldn’t be used for calls that require subjective interpretation. Whether a foot is on a line is objective, but whether someone is in a legal guarding position and at what point in time they are in the position relative to another player is completely subjective.

    It’s stupid that the rule allows that, but its even stupider that they reviewed the play and felt like they could conclusively determine something subjective like legal guarding position after the fact based on that evidence.

    The spirit of the rule was violated by the interpretation, IMO. Sure they can justify it with the technical language of the rule, but I, like Javie, was super convinced that there is no way they would change the call based on that evidence.
    Unfortunately the rules allow for them to review and overturn based on legal guarding position. They shouldn't, but they do. I don't know how they ever overturn a block/charge call due to its subjective nature (which is SMRs point) but they did. They should change the rule back to is he in the circle or is he out of the circle.
    Dyslexics are teople poo...

  7. #187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    agree with Santos, but you are right here - the rule says you can review it. bad rule. the problem is that it wasn't conclusive. and to your point about Javie just saying that to support the refs, he maintained it was a charge 30 minutes after the game ended - completely going against what the refs ultimately decided. he said you don't have to be still, that LeBron planted his left foot and at that point did enough to draw the charge. whether you disagree or not, it points to the fact it wasn't conclusive.
    That's how I saw it. My sense is that he tracks with the refs' calls most of the time. I was surprised because he seemed adamant it was a charge.

  8. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flystripper View Post
    Unfortunately the rules allow for them to review and overturn based on legal guarding position. They shouldn't, but they do. I don't know how they ever overturn a block/charge call due to its subjective nature (which is SMRs point) but they did. They should change the rule back to is he in the circle or is he out of the circle.
    Yes, I know the rules allow it. Iím saying a) itís dumb that that allow it, but b) just because they allow it doesnít mean the refs should have done it. The refs have discretion. They should have used that discretion to say ďthis is a judgment call which requires a lot of subjective interpretation. Given the game circumstances, the implications of overturning a call on the court, and most importantly, the fact that two of us three on-court refs saw things differently and initially made on-court conclusions which were 180 degrees of one another, this is probably something which is too subjective to make a clear conclusion. So because we have confirmed that LBjís feet were outside the the line, weíre going to leave the call as it was on the court.Ē
    Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark ďegg on your faceĒ! -- Moss

    There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

  9. #189
    Senior Member SteelBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    FarNorCal
    Posts
    6,370

    Default

    I remember semi-serious, mostly "hot take" talk of a Lebron finals MVP even as the loser in 2015. I wonder if he has multiple efforts like the one yesterday could this be the year they actually do something like award it to a losing player? He was quite obviously the best player on the court yesterday. If it feels that way every game, even in a 4 game sweep, would they ever pull that trigger?

  10. #190

    Default

    DH said that much better than I did. I believe we are in complete agreement!
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  11. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelBlue View Post
    I remember semi-serious, mostly "hot take" talk of a Lebron finals MVP even as the loser in 2015. I wonder if he has multiple efforts like the one yesterday could this be the year they actually do something like award it to a losing player? He was quite obviously the best player on the court yesterday. If it feels that way every game, even in a 4 game sweep, would they ever pull that trigger?
    I'm a LeBron apologist.

    having said that if the MVP really is for most valuable player, in my mind you can't give it to him if they lose. my argument being that if he didn't play in the series and was replaced by some average player, they still lose. lose with him, lose without him. where's the value?

    if MVP means best player of the series, sure give it to him. but change the name of the award.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  12. #192

    Default 2017-18 NBA season

    LeBron is definitely more valuable to his team than any of the Warriors are to their team. So yes, he should win it if he continues to perform even close to this level. Even in a sweep.

    The title of the award doesnít need to be changed, because the title says nothing about which team the player should come from.
    Last edited by Donuthole; 06-01-2018 at 12:39 PM.
    Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark ďegg on your faceĒ! -- Moss

    There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

  13. #193

    Default

    KD will likely be series MVP, and I think there's a chance KD might be the least valuable player on both teams, in terms of what he adds, which I think might be negative. I loved how they showed Kerr yelling at him in a timeout to share the ball in the nicest way possible so as not to offend your superstar. "Shoot the ball when you have a shot or make a move when you're deep in the shot clock, but early in the shot clock trust your teammates and share the ball." Next possession KD catches the ball with his back to basket 20 ft from basket with 15+ seconds on shot clock. Holds it for a couple seconds, squares, holds for a couple more seconds, jabs, dribbles for a few more seconds, then fall away jumper. Kerr is jumping up and down screaming PASS PASS in the background.

  14. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    I'm a LeBron apologist.

    having said that if the MVP really is for most valuable player, in my mind you can't give it to him if they lose. my argument being that if he didn't play in the series and was replaced by some average player, they still lose. lose with him, lose without him. where's the value?

    if MVP means best player of the series, sure give it to him. but change the name of the award.
    Even as a LeBron James apologist you certainly cannot apologize for his awful beard, right?
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  15. #195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    I'm a LeBron apologist.

    having said that if the MVP really is for most valuable player, in my mind you can't give it to him if they lose. my argument being that if he didn't play in the series and was replaced by some average player, they still lose. lose with him, lose without him. where's the value?

    if MVP means best player of the series, sure give it to him. but change the name of the award.
    List 1:
    Johnson: $8
    Stevenson: $5
    Jackson: $4

    List 2:
    Thompson: $14
    Smith: $1
    Miller: $1

    Which name has the most value associated with it?

  16. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sizzle View Post
    List 1:
    Johnson: $8
    Stevenson: $5
    Jackson: $4

    List 2:
    Thompson: $14
    Smith: $1
    Miller: $1

    Which name has the most value associated with it?
    if the folks in list 1 gather their money and get the item, Johnson has the most value.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  17. #197
    Striving for mediocrity Art Vandelay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,978

    Default

    2 questions

    1)Other than the monkey from the Bay does anyone think the call should have been reversed? Not was it a charge or block or if the language allows for this idiocy, but given the context should this subjective call be overturned?

    2) would a similar call be overturned in the NFL or MLB? Was the video evidence so compelling to make the initial charge look blatantly wrong in retrospect.

    I canít recall the last time i was so annoyed, even a day later at a game that didnít involve BYU.

  18. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokymountainrain View Post
    if the folks in list 1 gather their money and get the item, Johnson has the most value.
    Since the award isn't "which collection of individuals have the most value" which would be the case for "who wins the series" and the award isn't "best player on the winning team" I feel comfortable giving the award to the player who adds the most "value."

    Webster defines value as:
    1) having value : worth a lot of money
    2) useful or important
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of%20value

    In last nights game, on either side, it was clear to me that the player who was both the most useful and the most important, was LeBron James.

    If you're talking about who has the most money, there is no debate that Jose Calderon would win that award.

  19. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Vandelay View Post
    2 questions

    1)Other than the monkey from the Bay does anyone think the call should have been reversed? Not was it a charge or block or if the language allows for this idiocy, but given the context should this subjective call be overturned?

    2) would a similar call be overturned in the NFL or MLB? Was the video evidence so compelling to make the initial charge look blatantly wrong in retrospect.

    I can’t recall the last time i was so annoyed, even a day later at a game that didn’t involve BYU.
    1) No way.
    2) No way.

  20. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Vandelay View Post
    2 questions

    1)Other than the monkey from the Bay does anyone think the call should have been reversed? Not was it a charge or block or if the language allows for this idiocy, but given the context should this subjective call be overturned?

    2) would a similar call be overturned in the NFL or MLB? Was the video evidence so compelling to make the initial charge look blatantly wrong in retrospect.

    I can’t recall the last time i was so annoyed, even a day later at a game that didn’t involve BYU.
    You must have missed the last decade of NFL playing "what's a catch".

  21. #201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sizzle View Post
    Since the award isn't "which collection of individuals have the most value" which would be the case for "who wins the series" and the award isn't "best player on the winning team" I feel comfortable giving the award to the player who adds the most "value."

    Webster defines value as:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of%20value

    In last nights game, on either side, it was clear to me that the player who was both the most useful and the most important, was LeBron James.

    If you're talking about who has the most money, there is no debate that Jose Calderon would win that award.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  22. #202
    Semper infra dignitatem PaloAltoCougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pleasanton, CA
    Posts
    11,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Vandelay View Post
    2 questions

    1)Other than the monkey from the Bay does anyone think the call should have been reversed? Not was it a charge or block or if the language allows for this idiocy, but given the context should this subjective call be overturned?

    2) would a similar call be overturned in the NFL or MLB? Was the video evidence so compelling to make the initial charge look blatantly wrong in retrospect.

    I canít recall the last time i was so annoyed, even a day later at a game that didnít involve BYU.
    Preliminarily, I think that if you showed that play to a group of neutral observers, without identifying either player, the score, or the time left on the clock, the vote on whether it was a charge or a block would run about 60:40 in favor of a block. That said, without regard to what the rules say regarding review, I'd say the play shouldn't have been reviewed or reversed (I'd guess there were at least a couple dozen instances in last night's game--indeed, in any game) where careful review of a play would lead to different officiating result. But...

    1. Once the refs decided to review the play to confirm the halo issue, they did what they were allowed to do and that was to correct what they determined was the wrong call.

    2. You're comparing apples and catfish here, as the rule standards and the games themselves are so different. The NFL has a very clear standard that prohibits overturning a call unless there is clear and convincing evidence it was wrong. The difference between the NFL and NBA on this point seems comparable to the judgment standard in criminal ("beyond a reasonable doubt') and civil ("a preponderance of the evidence", essentially "more likely than not") cases. I'm open to changing the standard for review in the NBA, but what they did last night seems to fall within the current rules framework. And baseball is a different animal altogether, in that every call is essentially binary (unlike pass interference, holding, charging, etc. that involve judgment calls). And yet baseball hasn't gone to what would be a more just system for calling balls and strikes using [Dr. Evil finger quotes], LAY-zers, allowing umps to set own strike zones and retaining the human element which makes the game even more interesting. Like last night.

  23. #203
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,858

    Default

    The NBA game review said the officials did the right thing. Javie island: Population one.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  24. #204
    вот так штука CardiacCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The SLC
    Posts
    10,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    KD will likely be series MVP, and I think there's a chance KD might be the least valuable player on both teams, in terms of what he adds, which I think might be negative. I loved how they showed Kerr yelling at him in a timeout to share the ball in the nicest way possible so as not to offend your superstar. "Shoot the ball when you have a shot or make a move when you're deep in the shot clock, but early in the shot clock trust your teammates and share the ball." Next possession KD catches the ball with his back to basket 20 ft from basket with 15+ seconds on shot clock. Holds it for a couple seconds, squares, holds for a couple more seconds, jabs, dribbles for a few more seconds, then fall away jumper. Kerr is jumping up and down screaming PASS PASS in the background.
    KD is an excellent and underrated defender but I agree he takes some terrible shots.

    Down the stretch of game 4 of the WCF against Houston he outright panicked and tried some crazy, rushed shots.

  25. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    The NBA game review said the officials did the right thing. Javie island: Population one.
    Lol. No way! The NBA didnít admit they fíd up the most important sequence of the season? That should make the vast majority of pissed off fans feel better. Sure weíve never seen a call overturned like that but if they say itís correct then thereís no argument here.

  26. #206
    Semper infra dignitatem PaloAltoCougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pleasanton, CA
    Posts
    11,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YOhio View Post
    Lol. No way! The NBA didn’t admit they f’d up the most important sequence of the season? That should make the vast majority of pissed off fans feel better. Sure we’ve never seen a call overturned like that but if they say it’s correct then there’s no argument here.
    Now, now... Your sledgehammer wit would be more apt were it not for the fact that the same report noted that Draymond committed a lane violation on the missed free throw, and thus Hill should have been given another attempt. How dare you question the integrity of the NBA.

  27. #207
    Senior Member dabrockster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    8,477

    Default

    LOL.. You are joking right.. Admitting that has no bearing on the controversial reverse call and is strategically used to show they are not fully behind their refs..

    Do you think we are that stupid or are your GS tinted glasses that dark..


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  28. #208
    Local Character clackamascoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Frog Pond Grange
    Posts
    6,285

    Default

    Controversy aside... I'm really proud of LeBron. I was one of the people predicting a landslide sweep. Time after time he amazes me and leaves me breathless as he gives his all. I'm a GSW fanboy in Portland... but I was so disappointed that the Cav's didn't win the game. I love to watch greatness when I know greatness is unfolding right before my eyes.

    When poet puts pen to paper imagination breathes life, finding hearth and home.
    -Mid Summer's Night Dream


  29. #209
    Senior Member dabrockster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    8,477

    Default 2017-18 NBA season

    Quote Originally Posted by clackamascoug View Post
    Controversy aside... I'm really proud of LeBron. I was one of the people predicting a landslide sweep. Time after time he amazes me and leaves me breathless as he gives his all. I'm a GSW fanboy in Portland... but I was so disappointed that the Cav's didn't win the game. I love to watch greatness when I know greatness is unfolding right before my eyes.
    If I am LBJ, I am telling Lue that JR Smith needs to be sent home..

    He ruined it.. all the blood ( Actual real blood), sweat and effort was wasted by an idiot who truly should know the score and what to do on a rebound.

    Iím sorry, but the actions of GSW in OT and their arrogance was so off putting. Seriously.. your whole team almost got beat by one single man.. show some respect and humility for the greatness that took place..




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  30. #210
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dabrockster View Post
    If I am LBJ, I am telling Lue that JR Smith needs to be sent home..

    He ruined it.. all the blood ( Actual real blood), sweat and effort was wasted by an idiot who truly should know the score and what to do on a rebound.

    Iím sorry, but the actions of GSW in OT and their arrogance was so off putting. Seriously.. your whole team almost got beat by one single man.. show some respect and humility for the greatness that took place..
    Lol.

    Lighten up, Francis.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •