They can review out of bound situations, can they?

[mudyez]

Not to complain about the refs, but after seeing refs review every obvious out of bounds situation in every single game these days, does anyone have an explanation about them not reviewing the Bogut situation (and also the one when Thompson hit a two with 1.6 left) when the Spurs obviously wanted them to?

#Sternlovessoundometer

We played like crap in OT and just because of that probably deserved to lose, but if we hit the gamewinner in regulation, nobody would complain and I guess our FG% would even be a little better than the one of the Dubs.
(I checked with about 5 minutes to go in regulation and it was like: fewer rebounds, worse FT%, worse 3P%, same amount of FGA, but 36.X to 32.X FG%. So it was the only thing to have us tied with them).

[chapnis]

Only when it suits the league I think.

[Zzakk's Garage]

At least they got the Manu/Curry one right on review.
Despite Hubie's best take the ball's spin clearly changed direction before Stephan waved his fingers at it.

We need to own this loss and move on/grow up.

[BatManu20]

"Under NBA rules, officials can review any out-of-bounds call with under two minutes in the fourth quarter or overtime, allowing them to award possession to the correct team in close, end-of-game situations."

[mudyez]

We need to own this loss and move on/grow up.

I agree, but watching the game with a shitty german Dubs fan commentator, i thought there was some explained reason for them not doing it (from what I read shitty Hubie probably would have made something up like "Bogut needs to gain posession of the ball").

So its no trolling the refs (we lost because we sucked) but a honest question.

#Sternlovessoundometer
(sorry couldn't resist ^^)

[Slippy]

Pop belatedly tryied to get it reviewed. Refs said no for some reason but they took like 10 replays when GS were up 9 in OT.

Is there a valid reason they chose not to earlier?

[jesterbobman]

There were twitter comments in Hpbasketball feed about the last play not actually going out of bounds/being called out, so it's not up for review. Don't know if that's true/the reason, but it's dumb not to review either way.

[Old School 44]

There were twitter comments in Hpbasketball feed about the last play not actually going out of bounds/being called out, so it's not up for review. Don't know if that's true/the reason, but it's dumb not to review either way.
Yes...I pretty sure that's it. Since at the time, the officials weren't questioning possession regarding out of bounds, there was nothing they could rule on.

[elbamba]

Yes...I pretty sure that's it. Since at the time, the officials weren't questioning possession regarding out of bounds, there was nothing they could rule on.

If that is the case then they should just do away with the dumb rule. Selective review makes no sense.

[King]

If that is the case then they should just do away with the dumb rule. Selective review makes no sense.

There's a reason they don't review everything (in any sport). Because it would add about three hours to every game. They'd be asked to review every seemingly questionable call throughout the game.

[Old School 44]

There's a reason they don't review everything (in any sport). Because it would add about three hours to every game. They'd be asked to review every seemingly questionable call throughout the game.
This. The rule worked perfectly on the out-of-bounds call on Manu. Reply showed Curry tipped the ball and the call was reversed.

[Captivus]

We need a guy like Cuban!

[mudyez]

There were twitter comments in Hpbasketball feed about the last play not actually going out of bounds/being called out, so it's not up for review. Don't know if that's true/the reason, but it's dumb not to review either way.

Read this like 20 times and still don't understand it.

What? They didn't call out of bounds? What?
Plz explain to someone that has english as a second language!

[mudyez]

...and what about the other failed call a little earlier (when we should have the inbound...then it goes out of bounds again with 1.6 on the shotclock and then Thompson scores)? was't das out of bounds too?

[Keepin' it real]

IIRC, the ruling on that play was time out GS. I doubt the officials were even thinking that anyone went out of bounds on that play. They were focused on possession being established then the call of the time out. So even if they technically could have reviewed it, they were not aware of any reason to do so. The ruling on the court was rebound GS followed by time out GS. No need to review that.

[mudyez]

ok thanks (if someone could review it, it would be fun...just like a footballteam snapping the ball just to make sure the other team doesnt challenge^^)!

...but still. what about the other play (I believe it was in the last 2 minutes too)?

[Keepin' it real]

ok thanks (if someone could review it, it would be fun...just like a footballteam snapping the ball just to make sure the other team doesnt challenge^^)!

...but still. what about the other play (I believe it was in the last 2 minutes too)?

That's actually a good idea to have a "replay official" as they do in the NFL and college football. I don't remember the other play.

[jbspurs]

Read this like 20 times and still don't understand it.

What? They didn't call out of bounds? What?
Plz explain to someone that has english as a second language!

I think he was referring to the play Timmy tried to save the ball going out of bounce and was called Out of bounce.

[elbamba]

Not calling for a review of every play. However, if you have a rule that you can review out of bounds with under two minutes and there is a potentially game changing out of bounds call that is missed, logic would say that you review the play. If you are going to have a selective review of this rule then just do away with the rule. With 16 seconds left in a tie game, making sure you get the call right seems like a reasonable review that will not unduly lengthen the game by three hours. Just my thoughts.

[dbreiden83080]

Yes...I pretty sure that's it. Since at the time, the officials weren't questioning possession regarding out of bounds, there was nothing they could rule on.

There was a thread on this yesterday and this was my guess. The official call was not out of bounds and Warriors ball it was Time Out GS. Or the refs just were sure of the call and refused to look at the replay..

[Poolboy5623]

The refs blew the bogut out of bounds call...plain an simple. Why they wouldn't look at that, especially with all the time they had to do so, is beyond me. I about last it in ot, when they went to the video, after the spurs were down 9 with a minute or so to go.

[Old School 44]

Not calling for a review of every play. However, if you have a rule that you can review out of bounds with under two minutes and there is a potentially game changing out of bounds call that is missed, logic would say that you review the play. If you are going to have a selective review of this rule then just do away with the rule. With 16 seconds left in a tie game, making sure you get the call right seems like a reasonable review that will not unduly lengthen the game by three hours. Just my thoughts.

That's the thing, at the time, there wasn't a call that Bogut was out of bounds, Warriors ball. If that were the case, the play would have been reviewed. Jack got the ball and called a timeout.

Think of it this way. If Tim was held in the last two minutes and no one saw it and no call was made on the play, can he go back to the officials and say "he held me, look at the replay"? If this were the case, everyone would be asking for reviews.

[gsmith78]

...and what about the other failed call a little earlier (when we should have the inbound...then it goes out of bounds again with 1.6 on the shotclock and then Thompson scores)? was't das out of bounds too?

That play had me irked as well. It was with ~2:38 or 2:48 left in the game though, so it was too early to be reviewed. As said up above they only review out of bounds plays in the last 2 minutes. Its just more annoying now that we know that flubbed call (and the 2 GS points) could have swung the game.

[Richie]

It was called a time out, not out of bounds, so was unreviewable.

Basically, you can't review an out of bounds play if the ball is never called out of bounds.

[Dunc n Dave]

The refs blew the bogut out of bounds call...plain an simple. Why they wouldn't look at that, especially with all the time they had to do so, is beyond me. I about last it in ot, when they went to the video, after the spurs were down 9 with a minute or so to go.

The REFS were NOT ALLOWED to review that play. They can only review plays where the call is OUT OF BOUNDS to see which team touched the ball last before it went out.

The call on the Bogut play was "TIME OUT - WARRIORS," since Jack gained possession of the ball (after the ball hit Bogut, and Green and Jack were wrestling for the ball). Yes, the ball hit Bogut (who was standing out of bounds) before the timeout was called and YES Bogut pulled Green off of Jack to keep him from getting a jump ball called. BUT, the refs didn't see either of those things and called the Jack timeout instead. That makes it a NON-REVIEWABLE call.

[Captivus]

Refs could have easily reviewed that play, regardless of the rules. As long as they get it right, no one will argue.
They didnt do it, because they know the Spurs wont do anything, just like when they rested their starters...blahblahblah...nothing.
The Spurs are treated like idiots...at some point you became one.

[Bill_Brasky]

It feels like they review every single call these days if there's even a smidgen of doubt.

That call was incredibly close to say the least, and the Spurs probably shoulda gotten the ball. And of course its the one time they dont review it.

Still not why they lost though.

[Horse]

Pop asked for a review that should be enough to get one. Replay is there to get shit right, if it's not why the fuck even have it.

[Dunc n Dave]

Refs could have easily reviewed that play, regardless of the rules. As long as they get it right, no one will argue.
They didnt do it, because they know the Spurs wont do anything, just like when they rested their starters...blahblahblah...nothing.
The Spurs are treated like idiots...at some point you became one.

Sure, they could have reviewed it... if they wanted to be fined or FIRED.

They are NOT ALLOWED to change a TIMEOUT play to an OUT OF BOUNDS play. Just like they can't change an out of bounds call to a foul even if the video (hypothetically speaking) shows the ball went out on Duncan because he was fouled on the arm. The TYPE of call made cannot change no matter what video evidence shows that happened BEFORE the call.

Yes, the refs missed the call (Bogut out of bounds) and missed the foul (Bogut pulling Green off of Jack to keep him from tying Jarrett Jack up), but once the ref signaled TIME OUT, they lost the ability to use replay to look at what happened BEFORE they called time out. A CALLED timeout cannot be changed to an out of bounds.

[mudyez]

Thanks everyone...because of the sucking german commentator (and gamesound at a minimum), I thought they called it out of bounds and after that GS took the timeout. If they never saw it, so be it. It sucks but I agree that they have to be careful with the replays and need to stick to these rules. Imagine if GS wouldn't have taken the timeout! SA can't take one at this point. After GS misses it (or makes it) they review it and replay the last 16 seconds?

Overall the system is far from perfect. Situations like that show you either shouln'd have replays at all (right now we have replays but refs make mistakes anyway) or there needs to me a better system using them (not sure how, but a football like challenge system for out of bounds and goaltending situation could be a foundation even though I don't know how to avoid situations like the one just discribed).

[TampaDude]

Meh...we probably would've missed the last shot in regulation anyway. :lol

[elbamba]

That's the thing, at the time, there wasn't a call that Bogut was out of bounds, Warriors ball. If that were the case, the play would have been reviewed. Jack got the ball and called a timeout.

Think of it this way. If Tim was held in the last two minutes and no one saw it and no call was made on the play, can he go back to the officials and say "he held me, look at the replay"? If this were the case, everyone would be asking for reviews.

If it were in any way part of the rules to review holds, then I would at least think it could be a valid argument. That is my point. I understand why they did not review it, however, at the end of the game, if the issue is raised, whether it was or not I do not know, it should have been reviewed. If the Spurs point it out, review it and then make a decision and give GS their time out back. That would not slow down the game. Right now, review is only allowed for a hand full of calls. There is no reason not to review the play, especially if the Spurs called attention to it. If they did not, then I don't care. I am not saying the Spurs would have won the game. Chances are they would have taken a bad shot like an unnecessary Manu three or a Tim Duncan fade away jumper from 18 feet out.