The one on Arenas should've been a no-call. Just because the defender is within the circle doesn't mean that he should always get called for the foul. Arenas got there first, so it should've been considered purely incidental contact underneath the basket. I hate how referees never give the defender the benefit of the doubt whenever he's somewhere inside that circle.
Yeh I don't like that foul call either... The pick and roll play impressed me more than the dunk on KG, tho. Then there was another nifty backdoor alley-oop the next play. Seems like Utah have some nice offense. But maybe it's just the poor Minny defense.
That was no foul. Gilbert was there to say hi with both his hands up then Boozer had to rudely push him down. how Rude!
Oh how badass the Cavs would have been if they didn't 1. Let Boozer become an unrestricted FA because they had a verbal agreement 2. Think about lowballing him on his extension Cleveland might be a pretty good team right now.
They let him become a restricted free agent, meaning they could match any offer but... They lowballed him because they were strapped salary cap wise, and matching Utah's offer meant they would go over the cap and incur tax. Regarding the charge, what's been told is that if your inside the circle it's a blocking foul, no matter if you've established position.
That's untrue according to Ronnie Nunn, director of NBA officials. Supposedly, on a block/charge situation, if the offensive action starts outside the blocks, then the defender will be called for a blocking foul if he is set up inside the circle. However, if the action starts inside the blocks, then a set defender inside the circle would get a no call. Now, I think the referees are extremely inconsistent with these rules. Ronnie Nunn himself states that the biggest problems refs have today are distinguishing among block, charge, and no-call.
Correct. Boozer backed out on the good faith deal, which Cleveland didn't have to offer in the first place. There was no intentional low balling. Of course, it's business and he can do whatever he wants. But make no mistake it was Boozer who left Cleveland high and dry, not the other way around.
Boozer is a beast, but if he does that to Hayes, hard foul to be sure. Somebody could get hurt. Hayes is not mean, but would probably undercut him trying to stop the drive.
i think booze will be the main reason if da rockets will have another 1st round exit. PF is one of our weaknessed and howard and hayes will have their hands full, if not getting obliterated.
This has been beaten to death in here before, but a binding agreement would have clearly been against the rules (see the Joe Smith fiasco in Minnesota). Is Boozer's decision to back out on a good faith deal any worse than the Cavs violation of the spirit of the league's barginning rules in place at the time? I say, screw 'em both....
I don't think the Cavs had the option of matching his contract because Boozer had only been in the league 2 years making him an unresitricted free-agent (much in the way that the Warriors couldn't match the offer that Arenas received from the Wizards after he completed 2 year contract expired).
