nah, they didn't. but thanks for letting everyone know you listen to Skip. if you can't defend a player like James Harden, then fouling him isn't a bad option, sometimes it's the best you're gonna get. in this case, they completely cheated Harden out of his fouls. if you hate him because he's good at drawing fouls from the 3 or in the driving lane, fine. but you can't just call fouls on Harden because he's able to draw fouls. you don't get fouls just because you fall down, and the Celts have been doing that all night against Rockets.
Do you like that Harden relies heavily on drawing fouls to be successful? Do you like this style of play?
Now that he is out for a while, Will you miss his foul calls drawing ability? It wins games, gets other team in foul trouble
i love it -- i only hate it when he tries to draw fouls in the clutch, esp during the playoffs. however, IMO, he's already cut a lot of that. and they only foul because he's already ridic filthy. his ability to draw fouls makes him impossible to guard. the only problem is that teams have been following that, and they've been trying hard to take advantage. i think it's the coach's job to tell Harden not to draw fouls if they're preparing for it.
None of that matters. Officials are suppose to go to “jail house rules” of on blood no foul at the final 2-minute mark. Instead the officials went with the “p***y willow rules” and allowed a guy to do a professional wrestling trick of kicking out your feet from beneath you and fall to the ground. Consistency is all the players and fans are asking for. Let’s see if a Rockets player gets to kick out their feet and fall to the ground twice in the final 2 minutes of a game and get the calls. Refs will just say get up and play on.
Smart absolutely did embellish those plays. But Harden definitely pushed off as well. Unfortunately if Smart had not embellished then the two-minute report would have included two non-calls that should have been calls. IOW, the refs would have overlooked those rule book fouls if Smart had not embellished.
First one was bad, second was correct though definitely a case of a ref making it about himself. Harden should have just ran the other away and instead lost his cool and or tried to show Tony up. Watch the Area 21 guys and they you 100% what it is. I will say this though, while the NBA is not the WWE, you have to remember it is in the end about TV, ratings and entertainment. A call to give the opponent a shot to win the game is good TV. Second thing is that with a flop it’s like acting which is not discouraged and in line with falling down they often make the call based on what it looks like, reactionary so Harden pushing.
Disagree on the first one, maybe on the 2nd one. First one was typical two guys grabbing at each other vying for an inbound pass. Not typically called a foul either way.
"Not typically called a foul" has nothing to do with the rule book definition of a foul. Of course, if we were going by the rule book, Smart would have been out with 6 fouls long before we got to the two calls on Harden. My great #NBA frustration.
It’s always a non call when the Rockets face Kawhi (any Spur for that matter) or Curry or Durant or Marc Gasol
Wrong. Skip Bayless is an idiot, you can't bear hug anyone before the inbounds pass. Tony Brothers has his "look at me" moment for the season.They were awful calls and obvious flops by Smart.
How would that work, though? They would have exactly the same pitfalls the refs do, if not more. For one, the refs are right there in the play; the people watching from Secaucus are not. It's be like a security guard looking at a live feed of security footage versus the security guard that's actively on the scene. The security guard in the booth can zoom in, out, pan around all he wants, but there's no way he has the visual clarity that the security guard on-site, does. I highly doubt the people will catch fouls in real-time from Secaucus, vs refs in-game. Secondly, there'd be less accountability for the refs / people in secaucus. When the refs call something (or don't call something), players usually voice their displeasure, and the crowd boos, etc. There's never going to be complete confidence, in any system. However, even if it's imperfect, the human brain (imo) is still faster at determining what is contact (and what isn't) than a computer, at least in the game of basketball.
NBA IS Absolute Dog ****....Ginobli just hit a 3 that the refs didnt see, and they said they cant review it, i mean are you ****in kidding me?? They cant "review it" was the ruling and pop was just laughing. How can a professional organization have no common sense unless there is something going behind the scenes we dont know about
How would it work? Instead of three guys running around the floor blowing whistles and conferencing and overruling sometimes, purely based on something they saw (or didn't) in a split second... We would have three people watching every play from different camera angles, in closeup, and they would 'blow a whistle' to stop game action, just as it happens with on-the-floor refs. And then they would see if they're all in agreement and if they're not they'd take a few seconds (as live refs do) to conference. But they'd be conferencing over multiple closeup angles rather than conferencing about what each of them may or may not have seen, all based on memory while tape plays on the Jumbotron, from across the court in may cases. Conferencing over a closeup replay would make every difference. I mean, if the refs would even just look up to the Jumbotron they would get so many more calls right. Instead, the rule is for them to rely on memory. If we're going to have Instant Replay it can't be so randomly used or the outcomes of the games are questionable. The refs have decided too many games (not just for us but for every team) with bad calls and no recrimination. From the experience of watching games live from the floor or from a slightly higher perspective versus watching on television, I can tell you I get the calls right most of the time while watching TV. If I'm at the game I need to see the replay to be sure. That all goes to how much more reliable multiple refs, with multiple closeups, would make more reliable calls. And we would be rid of the 5-10 minute conferences or waiting or remote refs to weigh in when asked. In this system they wouldn't have to be asked. They'd be doing all they could to call the game in real time and would review so much more quickly than refs on the floor can. I wouldn't be arguing for this if it weren't for the refereeing being SO inconsistent this year that a Harden, for example, can get hammered 9/10 times he drives with no calls and then get called for ticky-tack touches for offensive fouls on him. But it isn't just Harden and it isn't just our team. On-floor refs are highly fallible and I'd estimate they get a call right about 65% of the time. Remote refs with TV closeups can get the calls right more like 99% of the time. If on-floor refs continue to call so incredibly inconsistently, I think I have to back away from the game until they can standardize their calls. Right now, they're not on the same page about how to address the rule changes, to the degree that they don't even agree with themselves from one play to the next. It has made the referees the center of any close game at the end of the 4th and that's so wrong. And there's a solution that the league is just failing to use. There's a reason they implemented it; they wanted more reliable calls. But they didn't go nearly far enough with it. If we have Instant Replay we should be able to use it. And if we need to stick with the current system, coaches should AT LEAST have a certain number of challenges to calls that they can use at any point in the game. That would also be satisfactory to me. Another thing that would NOT be satisfactory though, and is in current rules, is that refs can only review the call they whistled. So when they go to Instant Replay and see that there was a hard foul they missed, maybe even a flagrant, they aren't allowed to call it. That's just wrong. The instant replay rules in the NBA are just wrong.
Well, it's not like the refs get together to conference after every single play. nor to overrule each other, either. So this is essentially the same thing as refereeing...but this time, instead of being on the floor, they're behind a monitor. To me, every play from different camera angles may lead to more correct calls, but it also may lead to more disagreements. If cam referees A, B and C are watching a play, and C clearly sees something A and B don't, C will blow the whistle. A and B then, what...overrules C? Or does C convince A and B? Either way, this is the same situation as on the court. Also, if all 3 people are hyperfocused on a Harden drive to the rim, but they fail to see Tucker getting fouled away from the ball, that presents a problem. Conversely, if the 3 people act like refs and each monitor a different part of the court, that takes away from dedicating multiple refs to look at all the different camera angles of one play. So then the question becomes, do you "hire" more people to be refs? This is the exact same thing the refs are doing, and it would take way more time. The cam refs know that they can just rely on awesome camera work to make their calls, so what's stopping human bias from just whistling a play every time they think they see something, just so they can use the camera angles to prove or refute? The calls would be more correct, but this would suck the energy out of the building (and sometimes, the players). Back to my earlier point of a 2 hour game taking way longer. This could happen, since they have multiple angles to look at, which take more time than just a simple "did you see that foul? y/n." I'm glad you get the calls right. Sounds like you could be an NBA referee. These are numbers you're just pulling from thin air. This, I can definitely agree with. The system is flawed. While your proposed system has its merits, I don't think it is efficient enough to replace the current system.
IT asked if he watches Celtics games: "I watch them a lot. I like how they play. I love Brad Stevens. I love Marcus Smart even though he flops all the time. I love Rozier. I love the coaching staff."
