Are you comparing the two plays? I dont think theres any comparison. Kobe spun, and barreled through Bogut with his shoulder, and then put the ball up after traveling. It was two motions. I thought it was an easy call, quite clear - Bogut was there for an eternity it seemed. If that was Michael Redd barreling through Pau Gasol on the other end, all three referees would have blown their whistle simultaneously. And for what its worth, i have no problem with superstars getting the benefit of the doubt of a close call - but that was a 100% charge, and a 100% travel.
Horry on the other hand, that one could have gone either way - or three ways, a no call, block or charge. The key on that play was that he didnt make contact with the center of Hamilton's chest - he made contact on the side, which is grounds for a no call.
12-18-2009
TJastal
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
You know it's a bad call when Kobe's fans on ESPN television actually come out and say it's a bad call..
Laker fans are a pathetic lot, but what's even worse are the spurs fans in this thread actually trying to justify this as not a charge when Kobe clearly lowered the shoulder and plowed right into Bogut.
As I said before, there is no doubt whatsoever... NONE... if the teams were reversed this would have been an offensive foul on the bucks.
12-18-2009
DieMrBond
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by mystargtr34
Are you comparing the two plays? I dont think theres any comparison. Kobe spun, and barreled through Bogut with his shoulder, and then put the ball up after traveling. It was two motions. I thought it was an easy call, quite clear - Bogut was there for an eternity it seemed. If that was Michael Redd barreling through Pau Gasol on the other end, all three referees would have blown their whistle simultaneously. And for what its worth, i have no problem with superstars getting the benefit of the doubt of a close call - but that was a 100% charge, and a 100% travel.
Horry on the other hand, that one could have gone either way - or three ways, a no call, block or charge. The key on that play was that he didnt make contact with the center of Hamilton's chest - he made contact on the side, which is grounds for a no call.
I know the plays were different, but the little details relating to the blocking foul are the same... feet still moving, body not quite set.
Blocking foul.
12-18-2009
HarlemHeat37
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Completely different scenarios..
Horry was already in the air when Hamilton slid under him, that will be called a block 10 times out of 10..
12-18-2009
TJastal
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by DieMrBond
I know the plays were different, but the little details relating to the blocking foul are the same... feet still moving, body not quite set.
Blocking foul.
How many times does it have to be said .. the feet do not need to be completely set for there to be a charge.
12-18-2009
Fabbs
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
mods, could this stench on Kome please be moved where it belongs -NBA Forum.
Get this thread off the Spurs forum. I'm not gonna ask you again.
12-18-2009
Allanon
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
From the ESPN replays, it looked like a charge.
But from this video, you can see Bogut still shuffling to get in front of Kobe (18 seconds in, Bogut is still trying to get position).
You can move and draw a charge, but only if you're moving parallel with the other player; not perpendicularly like Bogut was.
12-18-2009
TJastal
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allanon
From the ESPN replays, it looked like a charge.
But from this video, you can see Bogut still shuffling to get in front of Kobe (18 seconds in, Bogut is still trying to get position).
You can move and draw a charge, but only if you're moving parallel with the other player; not perpendicularly like Bogut was.
Well, sorry to disagree with you, but it looks like Bogut is moving at an angle with Bryant after he spins (parallel). It's somewhere in between paralell and perpendicular.
Are you positive that's how the refs are supposed to look at it? Let's have proof if you have any. :blah
All I know is I've seen hundreds of collisions just like this one and 99% of them are always called charges. That's really all the proof I need.
12-18-2009
noob cake
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
1) It was a travel (4 steps)
2) It was a charge (ramming someone with your back is a automatic charge)
3) It was a semi-flop (because flopping is justified when you are really fouled)
12-18-2009
YoMamaIsCallin
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob cake
1) It was a travel (4 steps)
2) It was a charge (ramming someone with your back is a automatic charge)
3) It was a semi-flop (because flopping is justified when you are really fouled)
1) if there was a travel, it was a 3rd step not a 4th, and it was after the bump. So worst case it's no made basket, a foul, and 2 free throws.
2) ummm... what? You're making that up. The fact that it's his back makes no difference to whether it's a block or a charge.
3) I absolutely agree that just because the defender flops doesn't mean it's not a foul. However in this case I believe it was a foul on the defender.
12-18-2009
TJastal
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoMamaIsCallin
1) if there was a travel, it won't be called because it was Kome Bryant, who is secretly my idol. Shhh!!! So worst case it's no made basket, a foul, and 2 free throws.
2) ummm... what? You're making that up. The fact that it's a bucks player trying to take a charge on a laker player makes all the difference to whether it's a block or a charge.
3) I absolutely agree that just because the defender flops doesn't mean it's not a foul. I mean, who does he think he is, Derek Fisher? Of course in this case I believe it was a foul on the defender, only lakers should be allowed to flop and get a call
12-18-2009
Allanon
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Well, sorry to disagree with you, but it looks like Bogut is moving at an angle with Bryant after he spins (parallel). It's somewhere in between paralell and perpendicular.
There's nothing wrong with disagreement, that's why we're here to talk this stuff over. :lol
Quote:
All I know is I've seen hundreds of collisions just like this one and 99% of them are always called charges. That's really all the proof I need.
Show me ANY legit charge call while the defender is still moving perpendicular to the the other player. These perpendicular charges are only called when the defender has established his feet.
If Bogut didn't shuffle his feet, it would have been a charge. But Bogut was still moving. If you allow a moving player to draw a charge at a perpendicular angle, there would never be such thing as a charge.
You'll see that charges are only called in favor of "in-motion/not set" defending players when they are parallel with the other guy who jumps into them.
12-18-2009
iggypop123
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
i think also refs tend to avoid giving charges to bigs cause 7 footers arent supposed to do instead of guards who routinely do it. that probably played a role
12-18-2009
TDMVPDPOY
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
this guys a fkn tool, just like that PP from celtics, fake injury to make him look good playing through injury...fkn trying to pull a jordan epic performance or someshit...
12-18-2009
TJastal
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allanon
There's nothing wrong with disagreement, that's why we're here to talk this stuff over. :lol
Show me ANY legit charge call while the defender is still moving perpendicular to the the other player. These perpendicular charges are only called when the defender has established his feet.
If Bogut didn't shuffle his feet, it would have been a charge. But Bogut was still moving. If you allow a moving player to draw a charge at a perpendicular angle, there would never be such thing as a charge.
You'll see that charges are only called in favor of "in-motion/not set" defending players when they are parallel with the other guy who jumps into them.
To reiterate what I stated earlier: It looks like Bogut was sliding at an angle along with Kobe, who had spun 3/4 of a circle (without dribbling of course) and was coming in at an angle himself, not straight at the basket.
So both players were moving in a semi-parallel line together. It was not a perpendicular impact, and it's easy to see afterward Kobe's out of control momentum carries him through Bogut's vacated space.
12-18-2009
Allanon
Re: Kobe's bogus and-1 ... the real reason the Lakers beat the Bucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
To reiterate what I stated earlier: It looks like Bogut was sliding at an angle along with Kobe, who had spun 3/4 of a circle (without dribbling of course) and was coming in at an angle himself, not straight at the basket.
So both players were moving in a semi-parallel line together. It was not a perpendicular impact, and it's easy to see afterward Kobe's out of control momentum carries him through Bogut's vacated space.
To be honest, this isn't really worth arguing about. :lol
