Printable View
Agreed, Kori. They weren't going to call either of those situations. I just think Kings fans are funny for failing to aknowledge that what Bibby did (touching the net with the ball on the rim) is a violation, after SCREAMING at the tops of their lungs about a moving screen.
With the ball on the rim? You bet your ASS it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Well I think it could be considered vibrating the rim or basket (or however that part of the interference rule goes).Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
There's no way they would call that in a situation like that, ever. Frankly I'd be embarrassed for the nba if they did, you don't want to win like that.
No, merely touching the net is never interfernece. If you pull the net and it moves the rim, then it becomes interference, but nowhere in the NBA's rulebook does it even mention the net. The only thing mentioned is the rim and the backboard.
Incidental contact on the net while the shot is up is not interference. I leave open the possibility that I missed the rule, but someones going to have to link me to it and show me where it says that touching the net is a violation.
No Kings fan on this board were screaming about the moving screen. I simply brought it up to counter this so called goaltending. Both would have been ticky tack if called, and I'm glad they weren't called.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
No, you are right; touching it isn't an automatic violation. But touching it while the ball is on the rim could easily be ruled as the part about vibrating the rim or whatever. It's subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
I agree, they would never call it in a situation like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnipeg_Spur
Pulling on the net is a violation, but i haven't seen a replay so i don't know if it really made a difference. But yeah the refs aren't going to make that call unless it's extremely obvious that it effected the shot.
I agree with that. I also think that if you look at the replay, there is almost 100% certainty that the way Bibby touched the net was no where near enough to effect the rim which is why I hate to see so many fans reaching for something so weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kori Ellis
I think its safe to say that we all hate seeing our team win on some technicality.
Agreed. The Spurs should have never let it get to that point to begin with. Sacto earned Game 3. The Spurs need to go get Game 4.Quote:
There's no way they would call that in a situation like that, ever. Frankly I'd be embarrassed for the nba if they did, you don't want to win like that
I saw bibby breathing near the rim!!! THat must be offensive goaltending!
Get over it, Manu and Pop fucked up the last play, the only decent player of the night was duncan
If they called THAT, it would officially be the lamest call of all time.
I think everyone agrees (except maybe the thread starter).Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshPrince22
Weak.
But unlike Adelman and the pick what are the chances Pop would mention it? Less than zero?
Yea, they must've paid them...Quote:
Originally Posted by GO SPurs Go
24 fouls on the Spurs
24 fouls on the Kings
What an injustice... :smokin
Well, the pick actually had an effect on the game. Still not something you should complain about considering there is no possible way to change the result, but it's a different situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by picnroll
I like you guys. Some dumbshit starts a thread like this and you all call him on his bullshit. I only wish more King's fans were like this.
Whether he touched the net or tried to completely pull it down ... doesnt matter. Spurs played like crap (except for TD) and blew the game in the last 10 seconds. The Kings outplayed the Spurs and deserved the game.
Now, let it go and let the Spurs beat the crap out of them in Game 4.
Horse shit. Even if Duncan moved Bibby wouldn't have gotten close to Barry to effect the shot. Mavs and Pistons fans seem desperate making up fantasy reasons why the Spurs shouldn't advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshPrince22
Not to mention the Kings' coach.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName
Another dumbass who thinks all fouls are equal. The number you should be looking at is FTA: 33 Sacto 22 SA. There were at least two CLEAR cases of continuation for Duncan in the 4th where he was making his move and never put the ball down after the whistle, and that dumbfuck Salvatore called on the floor fouls. The disparity in regulation in game 2 (+8 ___ramento) was almost as large, evening out in OT. Copngratulations, ___ramento: if you get a double digit or near double digit disparity at the FT line, you can hang. Good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by LEONARD
Finley...Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperManu!!!
Let's say there is a game in which both teams get 20 fouls. Wouldn't you say there's a huge difference between 1 team picking up 5 fouls a quarter and the other team getting all 20 in one quarter? Obviously this is exaggerated, but hopefully you get my point. The Spurs were in the freaking penalty by the 8 minute mark of the FOURTH QUARTER.Quote:
Originally Posted by LEONARD
And anyway, going by your logic, the Spurs got a lot less FTAs. In a game decided by 1 point, this makes a huge difference.
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Kori Ellis
some fans just need to realize, THE GAMES OVER, move on. Thats why its a 7 game series, the best team always prevails. What are we expected to do, submit a plea to the league to review a non-call on a offensive goaltending? :rolleyes
Why so much complaining?Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Sacramento was taking it to the hoop in games 2 and 3. San Antonio was not. Simply look at the points in the paint those two games.