Yes. It was, live, a completely obvious foul and the replay only confirms how preposterous the overturn was.
No secret to most of us here, but the NBA has a major officiating issue. You can speculate on how much of that is the game is too fast, how much is the replay process creates a challenging situation for refs, how much is the (imo) unclear standards and interplay between Secaucus and game refs, but there's 1-2 replays a game where it is very clear they blew it. The NBA refs are the best in the world at what they do, and they are getting it wrong a bunch (perhaps unavoidable) but in a replay setting where it undercuts the game in several ways - flow-wise and credibility-wise
I historically have been a replay fan - and I'm coming to the conclsion the NBA would be better of with the imperfections of live calls than the only-slightly-more-accurate and disruptive reviews that occur today. They are getting things wrong either way, and I do think replay reduces the number of incorrect calls somewhat. But it also introduces more randomness (the absence of a credible review standard impacts this) and the delays and tactical use of challenges and such really impedes the players being at the center - which should always be the league's goal. As much as he likes the camera, no one is coming to the game to see Zarba look at a monitor.
if they don't change replay, they need to significantly clarify and standardize how they do reviews. Ones like the foul linked above are pretty clearly reviewed 'de novo' while many calls are reviewed with more deference to what's called live (imo, how it should be and is in the written rules).