2024 Playoffs Eastern Conference First Round: (2) New York Knicks vs (7) Philadelphia 76ers - The Danse Macabre

[ManicCompression]

View: https://twitter.com/NBCSPhilly/status/1782610896226812137


Or maybe Nurse has a point.

You Massholes should really check yourselves. Go look at how much crowing about an unfinished season you've already done, and whining about the lack of respect Tatum gets that have been posted over the past few months here. Well, your team has already put a historic regular season, and thanks to injuries to your potential opponents' superstars (Embiid, Giannis, Butler, Randle), the ECF is set up as a potential cakewalk for your team, so no excuses.

Because, of course, nothing could go wrong with their inevitable rise to a finally adding another banner to the increasingly dusty collection hanging in your rafters. Just like last year, when your hockey team also had a historic regular season and cruised to another championship. Please feel free to share in your inevitable vituperative responses all the pictures you took at last year's Bruins' Stanley Cup parade. Were you able to get a picture of the Cup? Hold it? Sip out of it? Please don't hold back a single instance of your joy on that day.

If your coach had been ignored like that while trying to call a timeout in a key situation at the end of the game, this board would have exploded in outrage over the injustice. Of course, that would be after it got over the shock of your coach actually trying to call a timeout in a key situation at the end of the game, which if I learned anything from my rare sojourns into this forum, is something he apparently lacks the sense to do.

There's obviously a difference between how fans on a messageboard react to bad reffing and how an entire organization reacts to bad reffing. We're making fun of the way that Morey treats on court basketball as a grift. He's used players like Harden and Embiid to manipulate the refs into bad calls as a deliberate team-building strategy for a decade, and then he calls mom and dad at the league office whenever things don't go his way. What're the stats on Morey teams vs. Non-Morey teams trying to get games overturned for bad reffing? I bet he on his own outpaces the 29 other front offices.

Yes, it's very fair to laugh at these whiny jokers while acknowledging that we, personally, get angry at bad calls against our team.

 

[tims4wins]

Here's the final few minutes. Go to the ~4:50 mark to see the sequence. Nurse doesn't call timeout before the ball is inbounded. He is then late in calling timeout with the ball on the ground. They have no argument here IMO.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VUvcuHwgtw

 

[jayhoz]

It’s not clear to me that Nurse actually called time out prior to the ball being inbounded. He looks poised and ready to call one, but I’m not convinced he actually called it.

If Nurse was trying to call the timeout prior to the inbound, why was he standing like a statue when doing so, and why did he quickly pull his hands apart when Lowry managed to get the ball inbounded? (0:18 seconds in the video below.) Clearly Nurse did not want to have to use his timeout there for some reason.

View: https://youtu.be/6-wYiJSqwmI?si=rFNz0eb1HD3xs9gi

 

[Light-Tower-Power]

 

[tims4wins]

View attachment 81403

This proves nothing. He is holding his hands WAITING to call timeout. Watch the video. Only after the ball leaves (or is just about to leave) Lowry's hands does he actually put his hands together to call it.

 

[Remagellan]

You're just being obtuse.

 

[InstaFace]

Reminds me of when a certain now-Sixers-GM tried to litigate his way to a 2018 WCF win.

Should've just made a burner account on Twitter to complain about it.

 

[the moops]

You're just being obtuse.

It appears like he half assed tried to call that initial timeout. He should look to his right and scream in the officials face if he really wanted that before the inbounds. Or, you know do it immediately after the ball went through the hoop

 

[Light-Tower-Power]

After re-watching again I think @tims4wins and @the moops have points. I'm shocked that Nick Nurse wasn't on the court screaming for the TO on the inbounds and just casually half ass called it from the sideline. Still think he should have gotten it, but he didn't help himself.

 

[Cellar-Door]

View: https://twitter.com/KnicksMuse/status/1782605663627087920


Yeah, he did the hover waiting to see if it was gonna get to 5 seconds then tapped together too late ball was on it's way in. Nice little slo-mo in this tweet.

 

[InstaFace]

Sixers cannot complain after that insane overturn on Lowry’s blatant foul. Wtf was that, anyway? Shit like that legitimately makes the league look doctored. There is zero defense for it.

I actually bought that overturn. I understand people trying to stand on "clear and conclusive evidence" principle, but the ball was knocked free cleanly imo, and then the contact that happened during the loose ball was well within what's allowed for a loose ball play.

But yes, they got the benefit of a very important and very close call. As they did when Embiid elbowed Hartenstein as he went up for a shot, and instead of an offensive foul, he got an and-1. There were suspect calls and close calls that went both ways last night, and it's just the nature of the game. Reffing an NBA game is like trying to catch the wind. I think Bob Dylan wrote that.

 

[tims4wins]

Another slo mo

View: https://twitter.com/SportzAssassin/status/1782607332460953739

 

[Ed Hillel]

I actually bought that overturn. I understand people trying to stand on "clear and conclusive evidence" principle, but the ball was knocked free cleanly imo, and then the contact that happened during the loose ball was well within what's allowed for a loose ball play.

Come on now:
View: https://twitter.com/tommybeer/status/1782590799034597723?s=46&t=11SXTvIYT-tl8b6e7iEUVQ

 

[InstaFace]

Yep. I stand by that statement. You'd need another angle to disprove the notion that Lowry knocked it free cleanly. As best I can see on that one, he did - chiefly because he's making a poking motion rather than the usual slap motion. Without even accounting for the fact that the amount of contact allowed without a foul call has gone way up, universally across all calls and all games.

And I HATE Kyle Lowry.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Yep. I stand by that statement. You'd need another angle to disprove the notion that Lowry knocked it free cleanly. As best I can see on that one, he did - chiefly because he's making a poking motion rather than the usual slap motion.

And I HATE Kyle Lowry.

Another angle to disprove the clear angle where he grabs his wrist and rips his arm from the ball lol. Lowry committed multiple fouls on the play. The overturn was insane.

If you want to argue “swallows your whistles and let them play!” I mean I guess, but replay cannot overturn that. It’s fucking ridiculous.

 

[tims4wins]

Better angle. This is definitive IMO that he commits a foul and didn't poke the ball out.

Edit: actually I'm not sure, his right hand hits DiVincenzo in the neck, but it's possible his left hand got the ball first.

But again, the call on the court was a foul. There should be definitive evidence that a foul was not committed to overturn. There is nothing close to conclusive evidence here.

View: https://twitter.com/TommyBeer/status/1782615117823164486

 

[Ed Hillel]

Better angle. This is definitive IMO that he commits a foul and didn't poke the ball out.

View: https://twitter.com/TommyBeer/status/1782615117823164486

Even if you poke it out first, you can’t grab someone’s wrist with your free hand and rip it from the area of the ball. It’s moot.

 

[Remagellan]

Another slo mo

View: https://twitter.com/SportzAssassin/status/1782607332460953739

We're each seeing different things, because I see Nurse calling timeout while Lowry still has the ball in his hands. But maybe you can find another video either with all the sound scrubbed out or blown up so we can see whether or not Nurse actually mouthed "timeout". Because maybe you have that time. I, however, have to go and vote because it is election day here in Philly.

 

[Ed Hillel]

The Nurse timeout thing was close enough you can’t complain about it imo, but fact is Maxey gets a call 99.9% of the time in the NBA. He was grabbed and then marginal contact with a guy falling is basically always called in that situation. Right/wrong it was just a very different standard than you normally see. The Q4 officiating was horrendous.

As I said before, though, Maxey definitely pushed off a defender to switch momentum before the inbounds. That does go uncalled pretty regularly, though.

 

[tims4wins]

We're each seeing different things, because I see Nurse calling timeout while Lowry still has the ball in his hands. But maybe you can find another video either with all the sound scrubbed out or blown up so we can see whether or not Nurse actually mouthed "timeout". Because maybe you have that time. I, however, have to go and vote because it is election day here in Philly.

Whether or not he called timeout in time, I think we can agree that he wasn't 100% sure he wanted to take a timeout until the last possible second, yes? In other words, he was waiting to see if Lowry would be able to inbound it. If he wanted a timeout immediately, he would have made that obvious. Do you disagree with that?

Also, not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your last two sentences. Sports aren't important, but we enjoy discussing them here. If you have more important things to do, go do them. No one is forcing you to post your takes here.

 

[lovegtm]

If Nurse were a punt returner, he'd have gotten flagged for an invalid fair catch signal.

 

[Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache]

Nurse intended to call timeout but then Jrue pushed him in the back

 

[themuddychicken]

Wow, before seeing the Nurse timeout video I assumed it was just another incident of poor refereeing, but I should have known better that it is just Philly and their fans complaining that they lost a game.

Nurse raises his hands and clearly holds them apart, ready to call timeout but never actually committing. When he thinks the ball is successfully inbounded he quickly tears them apart for fear that the refs will see his hands and grant a timeout. He then doesn't actually call a timeout until Maxey is on the floor and the ball is loose.

There's no other way for an honest person to see this. It's right there in the video. He was holding his hands up in preparation, to minimize the time it takes to complete the motion, without ever actually calling timeout until much later.

 

[tims4wins]

Nurse intended to call timeout but then Jrue pushed him in the back

This here is quality message boarding

 

[Euclis20]

Wow, before seeing the Nurse timeout video I assumed it was just another incident of poor refereeing, but I should have known better that it is just Philly and their fans complaining that they lost a game.

Nurse raises his hands and clearly holds them apart, ready to call timeout but never actually committing. When he thinks the ball is successfully inbounded he quickly tears them apart for fear that the refs will see his hands and grant a timeout. He then doesn't actually call a timeout until Maxey is on the floor and the ball is loose.

There's no other way for an honest person to see this. It's right there in the video. He was holding his hands up in preparation, to minimize the time it takes to complete the motion, without ever actually calling timeout until much later.

Yeah this is it. If Nurse had been granted the timeout before the ball was inbounded, he would've lost his shit because he clearly didn't want it. If he had been granted the timeout when Maxey was on the ground and the ball was bouncing around, it would've easily been the worst call of the night (among all three games). This challenge will be a really quick no. Maxey was definitely fouled during the inbound and Philly should be angry about that, but that shit happens. Maybe if Lowry wasn't busy keeling over or Embiid would grab a rebound, it wouldn't have mattered.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1782620556656775567

 

[JakeRae]

Whether or not he called timeout in time, I think we can agree that he wasn't 100% sure he wanted to take a timeout until the last possible second, yes? In other words, he was waiting to see if Lowry would be able to inbound it. If he wanted a timeout immediately, he would have made that obvious. Do you disagree with that?

Also, not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your last two sentences. Sports aren't important, but we enjoy discussing them here. If you have more important things to do, go do them. No one is forcing you to post your takes here.

He was trying to do exactly what a coach should be doing in that game scenario. He was ready to call the timeout to avoid a turnover and otherwise was going to let his players execute. If he calls timeout, there’s a foul and then a good chance his team is back in the exact same position without a timeout. The criticism of Nurse I’ve seen in some places for not immediately calling a timeout makes no sense.

As for the topic of your post, I don’t care enough to review the video in slow motion to try to figure out who is right. Also, given how apparently terrible Philly is at executing late game in bounds plays (like the end of the play-in game), I’m not sure it would’ve ultimately mattered.

 

[In Vino Vinatieri]

Nurse calling timeout while Lowry still has the ball in his hands

he wasn't 100% sure he wanted to take a timeout until the last possible second

On the inbounds Nurse has his arms up, ready to -- but not calling -- a timeout until after the pass was thrown. Arguably you could say this all occurs mid-air, but I think he's also calling it while Maxey catches it and the officials could have called a timeout there. After the ball is successfully inbounded he immediately and almost sheepishly stops calling for a TO and drops his hands.

Spoiler

1. hands up

2. TO

3. just kidding (with ball in Maxey's hands for more context)

The entire sequence happens in about 20 frames, so less than a second. Is this what people are even talking about? This could have been a TO but everyone was perfectly happy continuing play.

I had thought people were talking about his second TO call when Maxey was on the ground. When Maxey hits the floor, Nurse almost immediately turns his head, opens his mouth, and makes a TO signal, but it happens almost simultaneously with Maxey losing possession of the ball. It happens so quickly that it makes sense for refs not to have called it in realtime but technically being a TO in review or whatever. This happens in about 15 frames (at youtube's 30 fps) so about half a second.

Spoiler

No one can possibly be complaining about the inbounds TO, can they? There was 4 seconds of gameclock between Nurse giving up on the inbounds TO and calling the floor TO. Multiple eternities. Like the Cavs game where Mazzulla wasn't granted a timeout it seems like Nurse should be catching all the flak here for waiting too long if he actually wanted one.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Yeah this is it. If Nurse had been granted the timeout before the ball was inbounded, he would've lost his shit because he clearly didn't want it. If he had been granted the timeout when Maxey was on the ground and the ball was bouncing around, it would've easily been the worst call of the night (among all three games). This challenge will be a really quick no. Maxey was definitely fouled during the inbound and Philly should be angry about that, but that shit happens. Maybe if Lowry wasn't busy keeling over or Embiid would grab a rebound, it wouldn't have mattered.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1782620556656775567

Maxey actually had the ball there and just handed it over lol.

That Lowry flop was sublime, as well.

 

[In Vino Vinatieri]

adding to the confusion of this is that there is some kind of squeak that sounds like a whistle just about when Maxey is giving the ball away while on the floor. One of the trainers or an assistant right next to them is doing a funny clapping-into-TO motion when it happens which makes it look like he thought there was a foul until he looks at the refs not giving any signal. None of the players react to it at all which makes me think that's just a TV thing and couldn't have been a whistle

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Nurse intended to call timeout but then Jrue pushed him in the back

Comeback Poster of the Year right here!!!

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Even if you poke it out first, you can’t grab someone’s wrist with your free hand and rip it from the area of the ball. It’s moot.

I don't know if this is true. If the defender hits ball first, then apparently contact is allowed afterwards. Remember the Jaylen last second shot when that happened?

But again, the call on the court was a foul. There should be definitive evidence that a foul was not committed to overturn. There is nothing close to conclusive evidence here.

This gets back to what we talked about when the Jaylen foul was overturned. We the fans hear "clear and conclusive" evidence and we think of some sort of legal standard (especially us lawyers). However, at least some of the refs are trying to make the "correct" call - as if they are viewing the play in a vacuum. That's apparently why they overruled the JB foul call and apparently why they overruled the Lowry call.

I for one would like it a lot better if the leagues would give a whole lot more "deference" to the call made in real time and educate fans on how hard it is to ref these games, rather than using review like something we in the business call a "de novo appeal."

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I don't know if this is true. If the defender hits ball first, then apparently contact is allowed afterwards. Remember the Jaylen last second shot when that happened?


This gets back to what we talked about when the Jaylen foul was overturned. We the fans hear "clear and conclusive" evidence and we think of some sort of legal standard (especially us lawyers). However, at least some of the refs are trying to make the "correct" call - as if they are viewing the play in a vacuum. That's apparently why they overruled the JB foul call and apparently why they overruled the Lowry call.

I for one would like it a lot better if the leagues would give a whole lot more "deference" to the call made in real time and educate fans on how hard it is to ref these games, rather than using review like something we in the business call a "de novo appeal."

The reality I observe is two things, which combined make the review process almost completely unpredictable (and thus, to feel arbitrary):

1. The standard of review as you note does not appear to be standardized or consistently applied. In the NFL, you really see and hear them talking about the standard - did or didn't it merit changing the call on the field. They even consistently announce the ruling differently based on whether the call 'stands' (not enough evidence to overturn) or is 'confirmed' (review affirmatively supports the call on field). In the NBA, you only sometimes hear anything about it and when you do, it often is conflated with the substantive review. This is a mess, as I hear and observe it, in terms of consitency and process.

2. On foul reviews, the squish-word 'marginal' has essentially swallowed the review standard and makes the process feel wholly subjective. I get the challenge that not ALL contact is actually a foul - but what I observe on reviews is that essentially they just decide what they want to call and use 'marginal' if they don't want to call a foul rather than applying any real standard around what is or is not marginal. Put a different way---I do not believe if you picked any 10 reviews of a challenged call and polled even NBA referees about whether the contact was 'marginal' or more that you'd get more than about 60% agreement (note that I limited it to challenged calls---obviously across ALL foul calls you'd get a much higher level of agreement).

Take those two together, and amplify by the acknoweldged mid-season shift in "application" of several things and it feels like the players aren't sure game to game/situation to sitaution what will and won't be called, and fans rightly do not see consistency in the live calls or the reviews. Referees job is tough---and the players are fast, as is the game, and many are very skilled grifters. It's not (for most refs at least) a lack of effort or mindset. But the end product also isn't all that great, imo.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

From a marketing perspective, the NBA is killing it. So many talking heads, so many slow motion replays, so many angles from tv and phone cameras. Debates on every platform and so much controversy.

It will mostly be in the rearview by opening tip for tonight's games and absolutely as soon as game three tips off.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

2. On foul reviews, the squish-word 'marginal' has essentially swallowed the review standard and makes the process feel wholly subjective. I get the challenge that not ALL contact is actually a foul - but what I observe on reviews is that essentially they just decide what they want to call and use 'marginal' if they don't want to call a foul rather than applying any real standard around what is or is not marginal. Put a different way---I do not believe if you picked any 10 reviews of a challenged call and polled even NBA referees about whether the contact was 'marginal' or more that you'd get more than about 60% agreement (note that I limited it to challenged calls---obviously across ALL foul calls you'd get a much higher level of agreement).

Not necessarily disagreeing with your post but of course the NBA has to rule that "marginal" contact isn't a foul otherwise defenders wouldn't be able to touch a player.

However, "marginal" by its definition is subjective and it seems to me that one of the problems that you're getting to is that the extent of contact may look much different on slo-motion replay versus real time. Which is one main reason IMO why everyone is pissed at replay.

Plus, I don't think the NBA does a great job at telling people what the rules actually are. Like on the JB call - a defender can hit the guy's head if he's hit the ball first? Didn't know that. Like during the MIA game, one of the announcers said that if a defender jumps on a pump fake, if he's back on the ground and the offensive player initiates contact, that's not a foul. Is that correct? Also, one of the announcers said that when JT got fouled on a 3P, if the a defender jumps on a pump fake, it's only a foul if the offensive player takes his normal shooting motion. But we see all of the time offensive players leaning into the defender. is that part of the natural shooting motion? Can the offensive player go forward but not to one (or the other) side?

Some of the fouls called take calls I'm particularly astonished by (like the time a guy was called for a take foul because his teammate was hurt and there didn't appear to be a fast break).

At any rate, to me it is what it is and hopefully the Cs win by enough that the calls won't matter (or they even out). But NBA officiating is hard to understand more often than it should.

 

[lovegtm]

Winning by 10+ so that crunchtime and officials don't matter is underrated.

Wrt "marginal" contact: one big issue is that the NBA called ticky fouls for so long, we're all used to *anything* being a foul. The letter of the law lets defenders do more, and the contrast is jarring, when that law is applied.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Winning by 10+ so that crunchtime and officials don't matter is underrated.

Wrt "marginal" contact: one big issue is that the NBA called ticky fouls for so long, we're all used to *anything* being a foul. The letter of the law lets defenders do more, and the contrast is jarring, when that law is applied.

For us old-timers, it was jarring when the NBA started calling the ticky-tack fouls because I can remember when taking someone down by the neck on a fast break was considered "physical play" (the late 1990s-early 2000s were particularly bad as the NBA basically turned into a wrestling match).

 

[JCizzle]

Real shame that a team with Nick Nurse, Joel Embiid, and Kyle Lowry didn't get the benefit of a close call. A collection of the utmost professionals never looking to take advantage of officiating.

 

[the moops]

The criticism of Nurse I’ve seen in some places for not immediately calling a timeout makes no sense.

I don't know. I think taking the TO right after Brunson makes that three is a reasonable call. Calm the team down, advance the ball, call a play, all that stuff

 

[jon abbey]

MSG ran this graphic last night:



NY is only the second team ever to win even a single playoff game without a top 15 pick in the rotation (TOR in the bubble).

 

[Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache]

That graphic is a great testament to those players

It would be more of a testament to the Knicks organization if they'd drafted any of them other than Robinson

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Not necessarily disagreeing with your post but of course the NBA has to rule that "marginal" contact isn't a foul otherwise defenders wouldn't be able to touch a player.

However, "marginal" by its definition is subjective and it seems to me that one of the problems that you're getting to is that the extent of contact may look much different on slo-motion replay versus real time. Which is one main reason IMO why everyone is pissed at replay.

Plus, I don't think the NBA does a great job at telling people what the rules actually are. Like on the JB call - a defender can hit the guy's head if he's hit the ball first? Didn't know that. Like during the MIA game, one of the announcers said that if a defender jumps on a pump fake, if he's back on the ground and the offensive player initiates contact, that's not a foul. Is that correct? Also, one of the announcers said that when JT got fouled on a 3P, if the a defender jumps on a pump fake, it's only a foul if the offensive player takes his normal shooting motion. But we see all of the time offensive players leaning into the defender. is that part of the natural shooting motion? Can the offensive player go forward but not to one (or the other) side?

Some of the fouls called take calls I'm particularly astonished by (like the time a guy was called for a take foul because his teammate was hurt and there didn't appear to be a fast break).

At any rate, to me it is what it is and hopefully the Cs win by enough that the calls won't matter (or they even out). But NBA officiating is hard to understand more often than it should.

Yeah, the point is that 'marginal' is really not defined and so it means different things on different plays. That's a big issue in terms of consistency and thus perception.

But the other big one is they just get things wrong in reviews---on the Jaylen play, for example, they ruled that he hit the ball first But the replay showed, and still pictures confirm, that he actually hit head first even if only by a fraction. So not only do you have a relatively obscure rule in play, but when you explain the rule it doesn't really match what the play on the court showed. I don't think there's any conspiracy there--I think there's subjective assessments made under a lot of pressure and sometimes they get things wrong. But if you're going to have the review, and stop the game, and reverse what was called live....you need to get it right a very large % of the time. And the NBA is falling short of that, imo.

None of us are pefect, and perceptions about what occurs will vary. We see that in threads here - people taking absolute views on calls that many reasonable people (and natioanl commentators) land on both sides of. But the NBA is really in a bad place in terms of perception because they are getting this wrong at all levels---the rules are not super well defined; there's not consistency in application; and few who follow the game has great faith that the review process is accurate. It's bad. It is not clear to me the NBA is better off with review the way it all plays out today than simply trusting the initial calls on the court.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Yeah, the point is that 'marginal' is really not defined and so it means different things on different plays. That's a big issue in terms of consistency and thus perception.

But the other big one is they just get things wrong in reviews---on the Jaylen play, for example, they ruled that he hit the ball first But the replay showed, and still pictures confirm, that he actually hit head first even if only by a fraction. So not only do you have a relatively obscure rule in play, but when you explain the rule it doesn't really match what the play on the court showed. I don't think there's any conspiracy there--I think there's subjective assessments made under a lot of pressure and sometimes they get things wrong. But if you're going to have the review, and stop the game, and reverse what was called live....you need to get it right a very large % of the time. And the NBA is falling short of that, imo.

None of us are pefect, and perceptions about what occurs will vary. We see that in threads here - people taking absolute views on calls that many reasonable people (and natioanl commentators) land on both sides of. But the NBA is really in a bad place in terms of perception because they are getting this wrong at all levels---the rules are not super well defined; there's not consistency in application; and few who follow the game has great faith that the review process is accurate. It's bad. It is not clear to me the NBA is better off with review the way it all plays out today than simply trusting the initial calls on the court.

I fundamentally do not understand the rule anymore. This post isn't directed at you PKB, just a jumping off point.

I completely understand that if you get ball first, and make contact with a shooter's hand or even their arm, it likely wouldn't (and shouldn't) be called. However, the interpretation of the rule last night and on Jaylen's play makes it sound as if it's open season on a offensive player if you get ball first, and that is most definitely not the case. If a guy is dribbling, and I come at him while running and tip the ball away while also running through him like a bulldozer, it's a foul. If I chase down and block a shot from behind and my momentum results in me landing on that player, that's a foul (or isn't it).

I could go on and on, but it would seem to me that the league is partially making this shit up as they go along. There is no consistency. If there's a play at the rim, and I get ball, how many times have we seen a guy get called for contact with an off arm or with the body even when the defender got a hand on the ball first.

An interesting side note about this "marginal contact" shit?

Unless I'm looking at an old version, the word "marginal" does not appear in the NBA rule book on fouls:

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-12-fouls-and-penalties/#foultypes

The word "incidental" does appear once, here "

1. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player’s speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm.

There is nothing I can find that says anything about whether the incidental contact happened before or after a defender gets ball, etc. What am I missing?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I fundamentally do not understand the rule anymore. This post isn't directed at you PKB, just a jumping off point.

I completely understand that if you get ball first, and make contact with a shooter's hand or even their arm, it likely wouldn't (and shouldn't) be called. However, the interpretation of the rule last night and on Jaylen's play makes it sound as if it's open season on a offensive player if you get ball first, and that is most definitely not the case. If a guy is dribbling, and I come at him while running and tip the ball away while also running through him like a bulldozer, it's a foul. If I chase down and block a shot from behind and my momentum results in me landing on that player, that's a foul (or isn't it).

I could go on and on, but it would seem to me that the league is partially making this shit up as they go along. There is no consistency. If there's a play at the rim, and I get ball, how many times have we seen a guy get called for contact with an off arm or with the body even when the defender got a hand on the ball first.

An interesting side note about this "marginal contact" shit?

Unless I'm looking at an old version, the word "marginal" does not appear in the NBA rule book on fouls:

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-12-fouls-and-penalties/#foultypes

The word "incidental" does appear once, here "

1. Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player’s speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm.

There is nothing I can find that says anything about whether the incidental contact happened before or after a defender gets ball, etc. What am I missing?

There's something in the "Talmud," I mean the comments to the rules here: https://official.nba.com/comments-on-the-rules/. I presume this is official.

Do a search on "incidental" and you'll find some commentary. You'll also find this:

A. CONTACT SITUATIONS​

​

1. Incidental Contact​

​

The mere fact that contact occurs does not necessarily constitute a foul. Contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to play an opponent, reach a loose ball, or perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal. If, however, a player attempts to play an opponent from a position where he has no reasonable chance to perform without making contact with his opponent, the responsibility is on the player in this position.​

​

The hand is considered “part of the ball” when it is in contact with the ball. Therefore, contact on that part of the hand by a defender while it is in contact with the ball is not illegal.​

 

[Deathofthebambino]

There's something in the "Talmud," I mean the comments to the rules here: https://official.nba.com/comments-on-the-rules/. I presume this is official.

Do a search on "incidental" and you'll find some commentary. You'll also find this:

A. CONTACT SITUATIONS​

​

1. Incidental Contact​

​

The mere fact that contact occurs does not necessarily constitute a foul. Contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to play an opponent, reach a loose ball, or perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal. If, however, a player attempts to play an opponent from a position where he has no reasonable chance to perform without making contact with his opponent, the responsibility is on the player in this position.​

​

The hand is considered “part of the ball” when it is in contact with the ball. Therefore, contact on that part of the hand by a defender while it is in contact with the ball is not illegal.​

Ok, so I guess as long as it's a basketball play, a defender who makes contact with the ball first is excused from any contact with the offensive player that occurs immediately thereafter as long as it was a normal defensive movement.

I would imagine that while watching the games tonight, I'll find a dozen examples where this is not how the rule is interpreted. I reach in, I get ball first, nothing else should matter. I go up for a block, I get ball first, nothing else should matter. Just got to make sure I made an actual defensive movement.

 

[lovegtm]

Ok, so I guess as long as it's a basketball play, a defender who makes contact with the ball first is excused from any contact with the offensive player that occurs immediately thereafter as long as it was a normal defensive movement.

I would imagine that while watching the games tonight, I'll find a dozen examples where this is not how the rule is interpreted. I reach in, I get ball first, nothing else should matter. I go up for a block, I get ball first, nothing else should matter. Just got to make sure I made an actual defensive movement.

Regarding the bolded: you're correct, but the league is very, very clearly trying to move things closer to the letter of the rule. This affects replays, but also definitely affects marginal propensity to call something a foul, which has had a clear effect on scoring.

It sucks that it's not yet consistent, but I think they actually are being reasonably consistent in trying to dramatically shift the rulebook as it is called, in a short span of time.

 

[ManicCompression]

I think Philly got what they wanted because we’re talking about rules and reffing minutia instead of Joel Embiid not bothering to box out hartenstein on the most critical play of the game or even having the effort to grab a single rebound the entire second half of the game. Injury or no, the pass that this guy gets from the media for disappearing when it counts is baffling.

 

[Auger34]

Real shame that a team with Nick Nurse, Joel Embiid, and Kyle Lowry didn't get the benefit of a close call. A collection of the utmost professionals never looking to take advantage of officiating.

Post of the thread.

From my vantage point, Maxey got fouled..the refs missed the call. However, I can't be too broken up about it when the Sixers GM whines about everything, their coach is basically doing performance art on the sideline and they have two of the biggest grifters in the NBA in their starting line up

 

[the moops]

I think Philly got what they wanted because we’re talking about rules and reffing minutia instead of Joel Embiid not bothering to box out hartenstein on the most critical play of the game or even having the effort to grab a single rebound the entire second half of the game. Injury or no, the pass that this guy gets from the media for disappearing when it counts is baffling.

Looks like it was a trio of Lowry not boxing out Hart, which led to Embiid sort of boxing out Hart but ignoring Hartenstein, and Batum just casually watching the whole thing unfold.

https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=650&GameID=0042300112&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Hartenstein REBOUND (Off:4 Def:4)

 

[lovegtm]

I think Philly got what they wanted because we’re talking about rules and reffing minutia instead of Joel Embiid not bothering to box out hartenstein on the most critical play of the game or even having the effort to grab a single rebound the entire second half of the game. Injury or no, the pass that this guy gets from the media for disappearing when it counts is baffling.

I don't think that @JakeRae was wrong to say Philly is the better team, nor was @the moops wrong to note that Philly was something like 31-8 with Embiid this year.

However, with Embiid, there's ALWAYS something. Something always goes wrong. I don't pretend to fully know why, but it seems to be in the same class of question as "why does X player always get injured, even when the injuries are in seemingly unrelated parts of the body?"

 

[Auger34]

I think Philly got what they wanted because we’re talking about rules and reffing minutia instead of Joel Embiid not bothering to box out hartenstein on the most critical play of the game or even having the effort to grab a single rebound the entire second half of the game. Injury or no, the pass that this guy gets from the media for disappearing when it counts is baffling.

I'm normally pro-media on this board but Embiid is really a baffling case.

IMO, it's because he's a great quote and has a great story. He's also just vulnerable enough with every reporter that they all each individually think that they've broken through his exterior and coaxed something out of him (something Kevin Durant is great at as well).

His teams have also been coached by whiners (Nick Nurse/Doc) or the teams have been circuses (Ben Simmons/Colangelo) so his whole act of throwing his teammates under the bus whenever possible gets glossed over