Western Conference Semifinals: (2) Oklahoma City vs. (3) LA Clippers

He's very smart. Going off like this to hides the fact that like his team, he stopped coaching. He was fine with his team jacking up ridiculous jumpshots.

 

I can't really feel sorry for the clippers with Paul and Griffin's constant flopping, whining about missed calls. As many have already pointed out, the clippers getting "screwed" by not benefiting from a missed call is a pretty poor excuse when being rewarded the ball would have meant the Thunder got screwed on the no foul call. So the the Thunder are supposed to just live with the bad call, but the Clippers aren't?



Besides did no one notice the illegal screen Griffin did on the last play? Even NFL refs would call holding on that... He has Durant in a bear hug by the end.

[youtube]7-af9ALfEdk[/youtube]

 

Bunch of crybabies lmaoooooo

 

Yea, it's quite unbelievable. To the point where you think CP3 had some money in the game. just j/k.

 

They probably applied a variation of below rule to justify. It is justified, IMHO.

Rule 8, Section 2C of the NBA’s rulebook (just copied this-not sure of veracity)

“If a player has his hand in contact with the ball and an opponent hits the hand causing the ball to go out-of-bounds, the team whose player had his hand on the ball will retain possession.”

 

Why should it have been a foul on Barnes? The hand is part of the ball. It was a clean strip. Had the ball gone out of bounds immediately after Barnes dislodged it, it should've been OKC ball. However, it looked like Reggie Jackson hit the ball with his right hand after the ball was initially dislodged. If he did, the Clippers should've gotten the ball.

 

Even Doc Rivers admitted it was a foul.

 

And what does the rule book say? Which has greater authority....Doc Rivers or the rule book?

 

Its a foul on the rulebook.

 

The wrist is part of the ball?

 

The hand is part of the ball. Are you saying that Barnes hit Jackson's wrist and not his hand?

 

Both. Thus it was a foul.

 

http://www.nba.com/features/misunderstoodrules_051128.html

 

That doesn't apply in this case, contact wasn't even with the hand which had the ball

 

Are we talking about the same play? The one with 11 seconds left in the game?

 

If Barnes hit the ball as well as Jackson's hand, why wouldn't you consider the wrist to be incidental contact?

 

The thing is, he didn't hit any part of the ball. It was a foul period.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/q2CoiBaTb5k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I suggest you watch the video again, especially from the 25 second mark. It looks like Barnes' fingertips hit the ball, but he primarily gets Jackson's hand. It doesn't even look like he hits Jackson's wrist, but even if he did, why wouldn't that be considered incidental contact?

 

If we're thinking about the out-of-bounds rule, does it matter if his other hand hit the ball? The opponent hitting his hand caused it to go out-of-bounds, so it's out on him. It doesn't say anything there about who last touched the ball:

“If a player has his hand in contact with the ball and an opponent hits the hand causing the ball to go out-of-bounds, the team whose player had his hand on the ball will retain possession.”

 

Incorrect. If the ball hit Jackson's right hand before going out of bounds, then Jackson's right hand caused the ball to go out of bounds. At that point, it wouldn't matter that Barnes had initially dislodged it.