The NBA openly admit incompetent are part of the game and every teams have plenty of chances to over come them in their opinion. That’s the NBA alright. Absolutely normal and expected that incompetent are a regular part of the game and each team will need to overcome them.
So much for them learning from that Spurs embarrassment Let the Kings walk in and punk us. This team just doesn’t know how to play a full 48 minutes.
How is that the Rockets being sensitive? I think everyone is getting this all backwards. The Rockets used an existing process to challenge a blatant error. That's it! I would argue that all of the casual NBA fans are being sensitive snowflakes, getting triggered by ESPN like the Rockets are making up fake news.
I meant all the extra stuff that is post game, let's face it, we won't be luved. From the owner, the GM, the coach all down to the players, even the player staff is not being liked. Plus fanbase. We just have to use it as fuel to go about work.
"NBA Mexico Games" start this week, Morey about to join Los Zetas or hop on the "Free El Chapo" bandwagon on twitter.
I am actually fine that they decided not to change the result of the game. But the explanation is just BS. They acknowledge that it was a mistake. But they did not acknowledge that the mistake had an effect on the result of the game. They basically say that it was the Rockets' problem for losing that game. Like @Deckard said in an earlier post, imagine if a team was deducted two points right at the beginning of the game and was told that it's their responsibility to overcome that deficit because they had the whole game to do so.
What should they have said to satisfy you? I think if they are not going to go back and change the result, then their explanation is really the only possible explanation that can be given. The Rockets were disadvantaged, but not so much that it warrants going back and changing the game is what it amounts to.
What you say here (bold part) is IMO better than what they said. What they said pretty much put the blame on the Rockets, which is like blaming the victim for the crime. Instead, they could have said that "my bad, but sorry, it wasn't enough to change the result."
Don’t really see the difference. It’s not that it wasn’t enough to change the result (it may very well have been). But that’s the wrong way to look at it. You don’t assess the disadvantage based on what the end result ends up being, but rather based on how it impacts the team’s chances of winning at the time the incident happened. The league is essentially arguing that the Rockets retained a very high probability of winning the game even with the error. In that sense, they were not strongly disadvantaged; there just wasn’t much of a probability shift.
What, is the NBA in the oddsmaking business now? Who are they to determine the probability that one team will beat another team and by how much? Losing 2 points is a huge disadvantage.
You’re wasting your breath, he believes this outcome is “fair” disputes the Rockets are disliked and targeted by the refs. He’s cool with the NBA just taking away made baskets at will. We should’ve overcame the screwing according to him.
There’s no other sensible way of making a ruling on this other than accounting for time and score, which determine the probability of who will win. We should all agree that if the play had negligible effect on the probability of who wins, it’s pointless to grant a replay. And if it completely swung the outcome of the game because it was at a high leverage moment, then you have a very strong case for granting a replay. A 15 vs 13 point lead with 8 minutes to go is not a big difference. If the team ends up blowing the lead they have due to sloppy play and bad luck, then after the fact we could say it would have made a difference. But should future events determine how much a team was disadvantaged? I would say no.
On the contrary, I'd say that past events influence future events. If the Rockets have 2 more points, it's almost 100% likely the game ends with a different score. Ergo, NBA was obligated to address this. By the way, a replay of the minutes following would have been a pretty equitable solution, as it's not just directly nullifying a San Antonio win - it's still giving them a chance to get it. (Of course, this time with the correct starting score.) But then they'd have 2 more points to cover - you'd say - the chances of them coming back from that deficit is not high, ergo they somehow deserve the deficit they did cover. Doesn't hold. Someone's arena could've made a few more $$ with the extra mini-game, too. But if the NBA would be well to have you as their defense attorney.
Score isn’t the relevant outcome. Who wins and who loses is the relevant outcome. And the question to be considered is how much the probability of a win for the Rockets shifted on this officiating error. That’s what I mean by “how much were the Rockets disadvantaged”. And the league needed to decide if the extent to which they were disadvantaged warranted a replay. They ruled it did not.
