Refs gone wild: a place to complain about NBA referees and propose solutions to improving officiating

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
If anything, that slight brush would have been deemed incidental contact. And rightfully so. If we just focus on the shot attempt, a no-call was definitely the correct call
Of course, that’s your opinion..there’s nothing definite about it. In my opinion Tatum was off balance because Garland jumped into him and made contact with his leg. I also think Tatum was either fouled or pushed off on the ground.

At the end of the day the ref’ing was inconsistent all game.. KP was definitely fouled a few possessions earlier and there’s the one point they needed to tie. The Celts have trouble, as I’m sure most teams would, when players are allowed to use two hands and body to control drives with no foul calls.. Tatum probably didn’t drive because all game a ton of contact was let go in the lane.

Zarba just likes to hear himself talk.,, I would guess that he probably overturns more calls than any other ref in the league, but I’m not sure how to look that up.
 

Gene Conleys Plane Ticket

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
3,380
If anything, that slight brush would have been deemed incidental contact. And rightfully so. If we just focus on the shot attempt, a no-call was definitely the correct call
Not even Zarba said it was "definitely" the correct call. He literally said it was "our opinion." In the NBA, as in all sports that use video, the call on the floor (or field, or ice) is supposed to take precedence -- unless there is "clear and conclusive" evidence to change it. That's not a matter of opinion, as Zarba seemed to claim. "Clear and conclusive" means what it says. Was there "clear and conclusive" evidence to overturn that call? Not even Zarba seems to think so, based on his own statement. So why not take the simpler route, which is to let the call stand and allow the players to decide the outcome of the game.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,698
The other thing to remember is the review posture: this was a challenge, so whether or not one feels the contact should have resulted in a foul, one was called on the floor. Thus, not only does that call have to be wrong, it has to be proven wrong by 'clear and conclusive visual evidence'

I think it's a stretch to say that there is clear and conclusive visual evidence that is not Tatum's natural leg motion, and him falling on the floor makes it very challenging to call it clear and conclusive the contact was marginal.

I get that one can argue it shouldn't be a foul---several of us suggested as much in game thread---but the bar to reverse it on a challenge is a lot higher than that, adding another layer to the inadquacy of the decision.

(Guess GCPT wrote that while I was typing!)
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
11,345
It’s definitely a staple for a Hollywood Zarba crew to have no consistency with how they call the game. Its got to be insanely frustrating for players to deal with
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
No one is talking about the only reason Cleveland had a challenge at the end: Zarba overturned the obvious whack of JB's follow-through on the 3 in the 3rd quarter. Literally just making shit up on the fly.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,128
Saint Paul, MN
No one is talking about the only reason Cleveland had a challenge at the end: Zarba overturned the obvious whack of JB's follow-through on the 3 in the 3rd quarter. Literally just making shit up on the fly.
That is also a very odd challenge by Cleveland. It worked out, obviously, but you definitely shouldn't risk losing your challenge over at worst 1 extra point for Boston at the end of the 3rd
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
That is also a very odd challenge by Cleveland. It worked out, obviously, but you definitely shouldn't risk losing your challenge over at worst 1 extra point for Boston at the end of the 3rd
They also wanted Garland to not pick up his 4th or 5th, iirc.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
32,048
Not even Zarba said it was "definitely" the correct call. He literally said it was "our opinion." In the NBA, as in all sports that use video, the call on the floor (or field, or ice) is supposed to take precedence -- unless there is "clear and conclusive" evidence to change it. That's not a matter of opinion, as Zarba seemed to claim. "Clear and conclusive" means what it says. Was there "clear and conclusive" evidence to overturn that call? Not even Zarba seems to think so, based on his own statement. So why not take the simpler route, which is to let the call stand and allow the players to decide the outcome of the game.
Here's one problem with replay that really should get the attention of league officials across all sports, not just the NBA. And it's a concept that first year law students have to understand.

With regards to what we call "standards of proof," there is a big difference (as you point out) between the statement "There is clear and convincing evidence" and the statement "In our opinion, there is clear and convincing evidence." The latter is something reasonable minds can disagree on and the former is typically not something reasonable minds can disagree on.

As I have heard it, the purpose of replay is simply to make sure no egregious calls are missed, not to make sure the officials "get it right" - and that's because "getting it right" is too often subjective. In other words, calls during the play are upheld unless there is evidence that every reasonable person would agree shows it's a mistake, not when a three (or four) reasonable people believe is a mistake.

The really confusing thing is that some officials use one standard and the others (like Zarba apparently) use the other. And part of it is the way leagues message replay. Replay shouldn't be there "to make sure the calls are correct." Leagues should point out that officials make hundreds of decisions every game and no one is 100% correct but replay is there to buttress the best officials in the world and to prevent egregious errors, not to "solve" debatable calls. I mean the idea in the NFL that officials change the way they call games because they know that certain calls will be reviewed is kind of dumb to me.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,330
If anything, that slight brush would have been deemed incidental contact. And rightfully so. If we just focus on the shot attempt, a no-call was definitely the correct call
Absolutely. You’re allowed that type of contact, Tatum did kick his leg into Garland’s space and overturning was correct as that part of the play was certainly not a foul.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,657
Maine
The next Zerba Game the celts have JT should go to him just before or after tip off and say "Hey Zack.....F*CK YOU".
Go Shower and chill. Load management plus being heard.
After the game when some reporter asks what happened JT tells them "I simply asked him what rules we were playing by today."

JT can afford it.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,530
With regards to what we call "standards of proof," there is a big difference (as you point out) between the statement "There is clear and convincing evidence" and the statement "In our opinion, there is clear and convincing evidence." The latter is something reasonable minds can disagree on and the former is typically not something reasonable minds can disagree on.



The really confusing thing is that some officials use one standard and the others (like Zarba apparently) use the other. And part of it is the way leagues message replay. Replay shouldn't be there "to make sure the calls are correct." Leagues should point out that officials make hundreds of decisions every game and no one is 100% correct but replay is there to buttress the best officials in the world and to prevent egregious errors, not to "solve" debatable calls. I mean the idea in the NFL that officials change the way they call games because they know that certain calls will be reviewed is kind of dumb to me.
My guess is that the refs would say they're the same, and that the words "in our opinion" are just window dressing because "of course it's our opinion, we're the ones doing it."

Silver, an actual lawyer, might understand your point.
 

Gene Conleys Plane Ticket

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
3,380
Here's one problem with replay that really should get the attention of league officials across all sports, not just the NBA. And it's a concept that first year law students have to understand.

With regards to what we call "standards of proof," there is a big difference (as you point out) between the statement "There is clear and convincing evidence" and the statement "In our opinion, there is clear and convincing evidence." The latter is something reasonable minds can disagree on and the former is typically not something reasonable minds can disagree on.

As I have heard it, the purpose of replay is simply to make sure no egregious calls are missed, not to make sure the officials "get it right" - and that's because "getting it right" is too often subjective. In other words, calls during the play are upheld unless there is evidence that every reasonable person would agree shows it's a mistake, not when a three (or four) reasonable people believe is a mistake.
Yes, this is exactly what I always thought replay was intended to do. It's probably a topic for a whole separate thread, but replay has gotten WAY out of hand in all U.S. sports. In any event, the replay rules were designed to have a high standard of proof. "Clear and conclusive," as I understood it, was more analogous to the criminal standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," as opposed to the civil standard of a "preponderance of the evidence."

And a call like the Garland-Tatum call didn't even meet the "preponderance" standard, imho. That aside, it's impossible to believe that any reasonable person would look at that play and conclude that it was not a foul. So, stick with the play as called.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,916
Honolulu HI
My guess is that the refs would say they're the same, and that the words "in our opinion" are just window dressing because "of course it's our opinion, we're the ones doing it."

Silver, an actual lawyer, might understand your point.
The money they pay for refs they should be able to hire actual lawyers..lol
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
Yes, this is exactly what I always thought replay was intended to do. It's probably a topic for a whole separate thread, but replay has gotten WAY out of hand in all U.S. sports. In any event, the replay rules were designed to have a high standard of proof. "Clear and conclusive," as I understood it, was more analogous to the criminal standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," as opposed to the civil standard of a "preponderance of the evidence."

And a call like the Garland-Tatum call didn't even meet the "preponderance" standard, imho. That aside, it's impossible to believe that any reasonable person would look at that play and conclude that it was not a foul. So, stick with the play as called.
If Harden were judged by that standard he would never get a landing zone call.. none of what Tatum did was unnatural.. and the replay shows that, not the opposite.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,128
Saint Paul, MN
And a call like the Garland-Tatum call didn't even meet the "preponderance" standard, imho. That aside, it's impossible to believe that any reasonable person would look at that play and conclude that it was not a foul. So, stick with the play as called.
Wait what? I think nearly every person who watched that play in real time would think that was not a foul.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,916
Honolulu HI
Wait what? I think nearly every person who watched that play in real time would think that was not a foul.
I might have agreed with you until I read @PedroKsBambino’s post earlier in this thread.
The ref stated that the "leg extension by Tatum created the marginal contact" but apparently per PKB “The rule does not ask who created the contact, it asks whether the extension of the leg was unnatural.”
It didn’t at all seem unnatural so, accordingly, it shouldn’t have mattered that he initiated the contact.
 
Last edited:

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
Wait what? I think nearly every person who watched that play in real time would think that was not a foul.
You have been pretty adamant about that.. but there was contact on the play and I'm not sure there's been a majority that agrees with you in this thread let alone 'nearly every person'.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
32,048
You have been pretty adamant about that.. but there was contact on the play and I'm not sure there's been a majority that agrees with you in this thread let alone 'nearly every person'.
I think the call could have gone either way but did not feel it was conclusive enough to overturn.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
I think the call could have gone either way but did not feel it was conclusive enough to overturn.
Given what they let go all second half I'm not sure what is and isn't a foul.. and as you said, given that a foul was called, there doesn't seem to be anything there to overturn... definitely not Tatum's legs kicking out in any unnatural way. Garland did jump into him as well.. so to say that the contact was entirely because of Tatum or somehow determining that he was more responsible than Garland just seems wholly arbitrary.

One thing I've been wondering though.. why was the jump ball at half court and not at the FT line? I've never thought about this or played organized basketball beyond rec leagues, so last night was the first time I wondered how the location of jump balls is determined.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,128
Saint Paul, MN
You have been pretty adamant about that.. but there was contact on the play and I'm not sure there's been a majority that agrees with you in this thread let alone 'nearly every person'.
If you asked 1000 non Celtic or Cav fans I think it would be overwhelming

Likewise if this was a Garland shot for the win and it was Tatum with this incidental contact and a foul was called the outrage would be on par with what we see here.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
If you asked 1000 non Celtic or Cav fans I think it would be overwhelming

Likewise if this was a Garland shot for the win and it was Tatum with this incidental contact and a foul was called the outrage would be on par with what we see here.
Again.. this is all your opinion once more stated as fact. Given what is and isn't called a foul I'm not sure how you're so confident. Given how many fouls weren't called against the Cavs in the fourth quarter.. if the shoe was on the other foot I'd feel pretty happy that a call was overturned based on a super flimsy reason given that my team had manhandled the other team for the last 16-20 minutes with very few calls.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,330
You have been pretty adamant about that.. but there was contact on the play and I'm not sure there's been a majority that agrees with you in this thread let alone 'nearly every person'.
Contact alone doesn’t not constitute a foul. Had Garlands contact been on Tatum’s shooting arm that is different than being grazed on the chest. The only potential foul on the shot could have been on the landing but the official ruled that when Tatum kicked his leg into Garland to initiate contact that affected the Garlands balance so he cannot be held responsible for being in Tatum’s landing spot. I agree with that.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,698
Contact alone doesn’t not constitute a foul. Had Garlands contact been on Tatum’s shooting arm that is different than being grazed on the chest. The only potential foul on the shot could have been on the landing but the official ruled that when Tatum kicked his leg into Garland to initiate contact that affected the Garlands balance so he cannot be held responsible for being in Tatum’s landing spot. I agree with that.
Yeah, but he misstated the rule. That doesn't mean he misapplied it, but with Zarba I do not see a reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There's two questions---did Tatum unnaturally kick his leg out, and if not was the contact marginal.

Zarba's statement was that Tatum created the contact---that's simply not the relevant rule or standard (which L2M implicitly acknoweldges). Substantively, having watched a lot more Tatum jumpers than Zach Zarba has, arguing that Tatum unnaturally extended his leg (the actual standard in the rules) is not credible.....note also that the L2M noticeably distanced itself on that point too.

So, then we have a review of whether 'marginal contact' called a foul on the floor was correct. Given the review standard, that should have stood as a foul - it is somewhat marginal, but it is not 'clear and convincing' as such to me. And, I think consistent with what you are saying on the merits of that call, I also noted in gamethread that, in terms of what should have been called initially, I don't think it is often called a foul. But the review posture is different.

So what you and moops are doing is asking a different question (should it be called a foul?) than the rules allow Zarba to ask on replay (is it clear and convincing the foul call on the floor was wrong). Zarba got there by noting tatum created the contact. But that's not the right question--Tatum is allowed to do so, and the defense bears the risk of that happening, so long as it is his natural leg motion.

It's pretty complicated, but Zarba's explanation and how the L2M tries to defend it makes pretty clear to me that they blew the replay call here...even if (in a larger 'justice' sense, it shouldn't have been called in the first place).
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,330
Yeah, but he misstated the rule. That doesn't mean he misapplied it, but with Zarba I do not see a reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There's two questions---did Tatum unnaturally kick his leg out, and if not was the contact marginal.

Zarba's statement was that Tatum created the contact---that's simply not the relevant rule or standard (which L2M implicitly acknoweldges). Substantively, having watched a lot more Tatum jumpers than Zach Zarba has, arguing that Tatum unnaturally extended his leg (the actual standard in the rules) is not credible.....note also that the L2M noticeably distanced itself on that point too.

So, then we have a review of whether 'marginal contact' called a foul on the floor was correct. Given the review standard, that should have stood as a foul - it is somewhat marginal, but it is not 'clear and convincing' as such to me. And, I think consistent with what you are saying on the merits of that call, I also noted in gamethread that, in terms of what should have been called initially, I don't think it is often called a foul. But the review posture is different.

So what you and moops are doing is asking a different question (should it be called a foul?) than the rules allow Zarba to ask on replay (is it clear and convincing the foul call on the floor was wrong). Zarba got there by noting tatum created the contact. But that's not the right question--Tatum is allowed to do so, and the defense bears the risk of that happening, so long as it is his natural leg motion.

It's pretty complicated, but Zarba's explanation and how the L2M tries to defend it makes pretty clear to me that they blew the replay call here...even if (in a larger 'justice' sense, it shouldn't have been called in the first place).
I think maybe Zarba blew the explanation….but not the call. Is a contested Tatum jumper “naturally” result in him kicking his leg forward into the defenders space while making contact with him? I think the way “natural” is defined is that is the shooter going up with his shot in what is considered “natural” as a general term. There is no way you can say, “Yeah well Jayson always kicks his leg out into the defender so it’s natural.”
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,698
I think maybe Zarba blew the explanation….but not the call. Is a contested Tatum jumper “naturally” result in him kicking his leg forward into the defenders space while making contact with him? I think the way “natural” is defined is that is the shooter going up with his shot in what is considered “natural” as a general term. There is no way you can say, “Yeah well Jayson always kicks his leg out into the defender so it’s natural.”
The way the videos the NBA publishes along with the rules depicts this is what is disallowed as unnatural is the old Harden "kick your leg out at an angle designed to create contact" which Tatum simply did not do. I wonder if you're figuring in the above that he's falling back---part of why I dont' think this is close (on being 'unnatural') is that his leg is out farther because he's jumping backwards...not because he reached it out unnaturally. Big difference rules-wise.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,330
The way the videos the NBA publishes along with the rules depicts this is what is disallowed as unnatural is the old Harden "kick your leg out at an angle designed to create contact" which Tatum simply did not do. I wonder if you're figuring in the above that he's falling back---part of why I dont' think this is close (on being 'unnatural') is that his leg is out farther because he's jumping backwards...not because he reached it out unnaturally. Big difference rules-wise.
We won’t agree. His foot made contact with Garland nearly 2 feet from his landing spot and fully extended. That is never being called natural by an official reviewing.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,698
We won’t agree. His foot made contact with Garland nearly 2 feet from his landing spot and fully extended. That is never being called natural by an official reviewing.
I get that he's fully extended---but he does that on this kind of shot. And the kind of shot is key---it's a fallaway. By definition his landing spot is going to be behind where he takes off. And the replay shows clearly that the contact occurs behind where he took off, which is pretty important in assessing whether it's a foul here. So, the defender had to encroach past where he tookoff for that to happen - again, not definitely a foul but pretty different than you descirbe.

I would hope any official who has taken a fallaway jumper in their life, or who has taken high school physics, would understand that the landing spot will always be behind the takeoff point on a fallaway. That may not include Zach Zarba, but includes a lot of us here.

I don't think the above is really likely what matters on the call. I think the question is whether the contact was marginal up against the replay standard
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,188
One would hope that they note the clock operator was really bad here---there's definitely no basis for stopping the clock when the shot hits the back rim, the foul was whistled a second or so earlier. It would have been easier for refs if they let it run out, or stopped on the whistle. part of what makes the below sequence so tough is the odd stoppage point.
Appreciate all the detailed explanation PKB. I generally think NBA refs are pretty terrible but I had a somewhat different interpretation on a few things.

--I think the clock stopped at the correct time (based on the refs actions), and had nothing to do with when the ball hit the rim. The whistle/arm raise for the foul call was a bit delayed and the clock stopped basically as quickly as possible after the ref did that, that's why it ended up at 0.7 seconds. Not much the clock operator can do about that.

-- I don't think that was a foul on Garland, that stuff happens just about every play. I don't think Tatum kicked his legs out intentionally, but it was a pretty typical defensive contest. Tatum just missed. (Garland did foul him earlier in the possession for sure).

-- Not sure if anyone thought otherwise, but KP definitely is not tipping that ball in before the buzzer if there is no foul call. Down 1, Tatum should have tried to get his shot off earlier for a potential rebound, so that was a big mental error on his part.

-- Overall, the Celtics blew that 4th quarter so badly and deserved to lose. Hopefully a learning moment.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
Appreciate all the detailed explanation PKB. I generally think NBA refs are pretty terrible but I had a somewhat different interpretation on a few things.

--I think the clock stopped at the correct time (based on the refs actions), and had nothing to do with when the ball hit the rim. The whistle/arm raise for the foul call was a bit delayed and the clock stopped basically as quickly as possible after the ref did that, that's why it ended up at 0.7 seconds. Not much the clock operator can do about that.

-- I don't think that was a foul on Garland, that stuff happens just about every play. I don't think Tatum kicked his legs out intentionally, but it was a pretty typical defensive contest. Tatum just missed. (Garland did foul him earlier in the possession for sure).

-- Not sure if anyone thought otherwise, but KP definitely is not tipping that ball in before the buzzer if there is no foul call. Down 1, Tatum should have tried to get his shot off earlier for a potential rebound, so that was a big mental error on his part.

-- Overall, the Celtics blew that 4th quarter so badly and deserved to lose. Hopefully a learning moment.
I don’t think you can say the Cs blew the game without the major asterisk that Cleveland was allowed to play more rugby than basketball on the defensive end.. which is one reason the Cs stopped scoring.. there was a ton of contact on a number of drives. If any of those are called then the game is either tied or the Celts win. The Cs also missed some shots.. and the Cavs went on fire.. but even on the last play Tatum was almost certainly fouled on the ground which also should’ve been called. If the other team is allowed to clutch and grab and body.. then it’s going to be hard to score. Cs also should have passed more, but they really only needed 2-4 more points and that game is over.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,188
I don’t think you can say the Cs blew the game without the major asterisk that Cleveland was allowed to play more rugby than basketball on the defensive end.. which is one reason the Cs stopped scoring.. there was a ton of contact on a number of drives. If any of those are called then the game is either tied or the Celts win. The Cs also missed some shots.. and the Cavs went on fire.. but even on the last play Tatum was almost certainly fouled on the ground which also should’ve been called. If the other team is allowed to clutch and grab and body.. then it’s going to be hard to score. Cs also should have passed more, but they really only needed 2-4 more points and that game is over.
Definitely a combination of factors, and I agree the refs overall were bad in the 4th.

But the Celtics still missed a ton of open shots and the Cavs were on fire (plus got lots of open shots). Once the momentum was going in the wrong direction they just were not able to right the ship.

The refs certainly were not the primary reason the Celtics lost a 22 point 4th quarter lead.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,128
Saint Paul, MN
I don’t think you can say the Cs blew the game without the major asterisk that Cleveland was allowed to play more rugby than basketball on the defensive end.. which is one reason the Cs stopped scoring.. there was a ton of contact on a number of drives. If any of those are called then the game is either tied or the Celts win. The Cs also missed some shots.. and the Cavs went on fire.. but even on the last play Tatum was almost certainly fouled on the ground which also should’ve been called. If the other team is allowed to clutch and grab and body.. then it’s going to be hard to score. Cs also should have passed more, but they really only needed 2-4 more points and that game is over.
If the game is being called that way then Boston needs to reciprocate and not let Cleveland do whatever the hell they want on the offensive end
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,698
If the game is being called that way then Boston needs to reciprocate and not let Cleveland do whatever the hell they want on the offensive end
Agreed, I thought officiating was bad in 4th but ultimately the Celtics neither responded to that or elevated their game. There are games I feel are mostly about the officiating---this was not one of them (even though I hate the last sequnce of the game!)
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
If the game is being called that way then Boston needs to reciprocate and not let Cleveland do whatever the hell they want on the offensive end
The C's got called for a few touch fouls and the Cavs were also shooting threes so there was no way to respond in kind.. unless you wanted them to truck three point shooters? I never understand why it's always the Celts duty to do something rather than just admitting that sometimes refs suck and it's impossible for a team to just play differently or whatever. Sometimes it's truly beneficial to one team how a game is getting called.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
Agreed, I thought officiating was bad in 4th but ultimately the Celtics neither responded to that or elevated their game. There are games I feel are mostly about the officiating---this was not one of them (even though I hate the last sequnce of the game!)
The game was called fine until the fourth quarter.. after which the refs completely swallowed their whistles on some obviously egregious fouls. It allowed the Cavs to play defense with their three point shooters on the floor and completely keep the C's from going down the lane by playing some ridiculously physical defense. Even when KP scored he was fouled about five times trying to get to the hoop.. none of them called. That point was the difference in the game at the end. The Celts couldn't respond in kind really since the Cavs were mainly shooting from three. I'd rewatch the fourth to see all of the possessions, but I'd rather just forget about it.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
Definitely a combination of factors, and I agree the refs overall were bad in the 4th.

But the Celtics still missed a ton of open shots and the Cavs were on fire (plus got lots of open shots). Once the momentum was going in the wrong direction they just were not able to right the ship.

The refs certainly were not the primary reason the Celtics lost a 22 point 4th quarter lead.
Yeah.. but three points on FTs on fouls that weren't called basically seals it.

edit: I also said the refs were only one of the reasons and not the only reason.. the Celts also shot really poorly and Wade was pretty much unguarded it seemed. So I'm not dismissing that.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,883
Imaginationland
The C's got called for a few touch fouls and the Cavs were also shooting threes so there was no way to respond in kind.. unless you wanted them to truck three point shooters? I never understand why it's always the Celts duty to do something rather than just admitting that sometimes refs suck and it's impossible for a team to just play differently or whatever. Sometimes it's truly beneficial to one team how a game is getting called.
Cleveland took just 4 shots from 2 in the 4th quarter, and got to the line 8 times. Boston took 18 shots from 2 in the 4th quarter, and got to the line once. Whatever.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,401
The game was not being called the same way for both teams. The Celtics had four fouls called on them with something like four or five minutes left in the fourth quarter to the Cavs zero. I can’t recall if the Cavs actually got into the bonus by the time the officials called the first foul against them, but at one point it was definitely five fouls called on the Celtics to one on the Cavs. The Celtics *were* trying to play that style. It was a refereeing butcher job.

To be extremely clear: no one is saying this is why the Celtics collapsed and ended up losing. That is on them. But the rules are still the rules, and the rules are still supposed to apply equally to both teams regardless of whether one team has a large lead or the other team is at home and galloping toward a big comeback.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,401
Sorry if I missed it in the thread, but did the league ever release its officiating report for the game?
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
Cleveland took just 4 shots from 2 in the 4th quarter, and got to the line 8 times. Boston took 18 shots from 2 in the 4th quarter, and got to the line once. Whatever.
And this isn't a case of "watch the game, nerd! The Cs weren't generating fouls!"

They were getting obviously mauled, repeatedly. There is no adjustment for that (except shoot jumpers, and those were missing too).
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
The game was not being called the same way for both teams. The Celtics had four fouls called on them with something like four or five minutes left in the fourth quarter to the Cavs zero. I can’t recall if the Cavs actually got into the bonus by the time the officials called the first foul against them, but at one point it was definitely five fouls called on the Celtics to one on the Cavs. The Celtics *were* trying to play that style. It was a refereeing butcher job.

To be extremely clear: no one is saying this is why the Celtics collapsed and ended up losing. That is on them. But the rules are still the rules, and the rules are still supposed to apply equally to both teams regardless of whether one team has a large lead or the other team is at home and galloping toward a big comeback.
but a huge part of a comeback is stopping the other team from scoring.. and getting to the line. If the C's had even had half the number of FTs the game almost certainly ends in a C's win. With FTs the ball stops, momentum drains and the team that's ahead can get the eastiest of points. If you don't call the foul and you don't get the FTs.. it means you're working twice as hard for normal offense... while the other team isn't doing close to the same. Everything had to go wrong for the C's to lose that kind of lead. Shooting was a huge part, but ref'ing was close to equal given how wide the gap was.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,128
Saint Paul, MN
And this isn't a case of "watch the game, nerd! The Cs weren't generating fouls!"

They were getting obviously mauled, repeatedly. There is no adjustment for that (except shoot jumpers, and those were missing too).
Meh. Boston took 8 threes. Cleveland took 11. Boston made zero. Cleveland made 8. That's why the lost
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
Meh. Boston took 8 threes. Cleveland took 11. Boston made zero. Cleveland made 8. That's why the lost
There's a lot of reasons you lose when you blow a 22 point lead with 9 minutes left.

Fewer 3s by Cleveland? Boston win.

More 3s by Boston? Boston win.

Cleveland isn't allowed to manhandle the Cs while they get touch fouls the other way? Boston win.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,160
Santa Monica
@benhogan Dare I say it? ;)
Ha. Yes. Let it rip, in your best Mark Jackson voice The NBA, it's a Make or Miss League!

Since you asked, shooting variance is definitely a reason and was the main culprit in Q4 that led to a devastating March loss*
Then again the Celtics did shoot 40% from 3 in that game:oops:

Mostly they were disinterested and lost focus to a CAVS team that was playing without 3 of their starters by the end. ALSO even though the CAVs are a 3 seed, it was a trap game to the Denver event.

I just have to push back when Make or Miss is used after every loss, we should just let HCs like Doc Rivers use that old tired excuse.

I will add that burning clock with a Tatum ISO pull-up fadeaway against a double team is a VERY low % attempt.
We'll be reading the phrase It's a Make or Miss League around here more often if that's the approach to late/close.

On the whole Mazzulla-ball leads to taking the best available/highest % shot and the reason it hasn't been uttered that much around here.

*just kidding/heavy on the sarcasm
 
Last edited:

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
23,393
I hate complaining about refs, but Jaylen's Tech in the first quarter for clapping was truly insane. There is really no standard for getting a tech for complaining about a foul in the NBA.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,330
I hate complaining about refs, but Jaylen's Tech in the first quarter for clapping was truly insane. There is really no standard for getting a tech for complaining about a foul in the NBA.
I will complement one official, was it Brothers, for not stopping a Celtics fast break to issue Jokic the obvious technical. He allowed the play to finish, we scored, and only then did he issue the T. Of course, if they simply called the forearm shiver that landed across Jokic’s face in the first place that never occurs.