i agree 100%. i see nash got there and had his feet planted..but that doesnt mean jack. when the hell did standing outside the circle automatically get u a charge?? kobe literally jumped higher when he saw nash. nash should get a foul for being a moron to come under kobe when he is about to dunk on ur ass. if u really look..nash just flopped right when kobe's nuts was his face.
You don't reward a flop and mess up a great play. So I have to give kudos to Crawford for making that great call.
Blocking foul, if anything. Nash never has his set feet. He's there, but he's already leaning back anticipating the charge.
It's a charge or no call. He was there in time (barely), but it was close enough to where I think a no call is warranted.
According to how they've been calling things these last few years in the NBA that's a charge. But really it shouldn't be, many of the posters here are right in that Nash moved in quickly after Kobe already made his move. I don't know who started this type of defense, Bruce Bowen or Jason Kidd, but that stuff should be called a charge everytime. It's cheap and dangerous.
I thought it was a block at first, but after they showed replays on TV, I agreed with the announcers and thought it was a charge. The Lakers really got bailed out with that call and the other one where Raja Bell got knocked over getting to the loose ball.. I can understand if some of you think that it was a blocking foul, but how can you think that it's a flop? If you have a 6'6" 220lb dude trying to dunk over you when your feet outside the restricted circle, unless you are VC in the olympics, you are gonna fall backwards.
I agree -- it should have been a no call. Nash did get there, however, it looked like he wasn't truly perpendicular to the floor and was kind of leaning back before the contact. After the contact, I think there was some acting by Nash as he flew and slid across the floor.
according to the "upward motion" in the rules, i would say it's a block. kobe was already pushing off and on the way up (though not off the ground) by the time nash really got there. i've always been of the opinion that calls like this go to the defender far too often. drawing a charge should be about decisively beating someone to a spot, the offensive player being out of control, and the offensive player just barreling over the defender. sliding in a split second before the offensive player gets there even though he was making a perfectly controlled move just doesn't seem fair. the "upward motion" part of the rule at least tries to make it fairer as you can't get in position after the shooter is essentially already committed to leaving the ground. as for crawford changing the call, where does that happen? the only movements i see from him are the "count it" signal (which sort of looks like the "charge" signal so maybe that's what you saw) and then the "blocking" signal.
the charge/block call is the most blown call in the history of refeering IMO I don't like the way the rule is worded. IMHO, I don't think a defender should be permitted to move in front of a dribbler once he has picked up his dribble to make a move towards the goal. Anytime before that, I think it should be a charge if the defender is set. Once the offensive player picks up his dribble and moves towards shooting, its almost impossible for him to make contact with the defender, even if he passes the ball off.
yeah nash barely got touched in then executed the reverse plancha. Sorry steve-o, if you want to take a charge, you've got to actually take the charge.
block or no call. summarizing reasons others stated that i agree with: a) Nash's feet weren't set when kobe took off, he was shuffling into position b) Nash leaned back anticipating the contact c) kobe's "upward motion" had started, if those are the rules in the book d) kobe was going clearly about to elevate when nash RAN in and tried to get set real fast. That's not a charge. You hafta be there in time, anticipating...not just run over because a guy is about to elevate from really far out, therefore giving you more time to get to the spot. e) slight flop, though I dont' think it's as much of one as ppl are saying Last, I agree w/the poster that Crawford shouldn't have been basing the call on in/out of the circle, cause that clearly wasn't the issue at hand. IF he was basing it on that and saying Nash was in the circle, then he was wrong.
Who cares? You can't call a charge on a play like that. Kobe got fouled in the end of game 1 and didn't get the call so what goes around comes around.
Definitely a facial, but Nash should get props for putting himself there to begin with. Many players would've half-assed it across the lane and ducked underneath just to avoid the possibility of, well, Kobe dunking on them. I give alot of respect to any man who instinctively does something to try to win the game, even if it ends up with your mug on a poster. I feel the same way about Yao. He may get dunked on an inordinate number of times, but it's because the man is trying to challenge at the rim. Gotta respect that.
Lol, I see what youre saying but you have to mention something about the fact that Shawn Bradley got owned by T-Mac last year and it was hella nice! No defense there, that was straight up pimpage. And sure as hell, his face is on thousands of posters cause of that! Heh
