Rome: Bron was fouled in act of shooting, but Cavs blew chances

........................I agree, except Bron wasnt in the act of shooting. :rolleyes

Why would any Spurs fan say it was in the act?

Lebron caught the ball, turned towards the hoop and was in motion. Classic case of continuation which is called all the time.

If that's continuation, then I expect every player from now on to launch a jump shot from wherever they are on the court when they are intentionally fouled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Why would any Spurs fan say it was in the act?

Lebron caught the ball, turned towards the hoop and was in motion. Classic case of continuation which is called all the time.

---

Why would any Cavs fan dare to say it wasn't in the act? And just admit that they lost?

Classic case of sore losers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lebomb

........................I agree, except Bron wasnt in the act of shooting. :rolleyes

---

Opinions are like assholes. You know the rest...

Rome is just a guy with an opinion. The refs were the only ones who's "opinions" matter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Why would any Spurs fan say it was in the act?

Lebron caught the ball, turned towards the hoop and was in motion. Classic case of continuation which is called all the time.

---

I always thought in the act was when your arms are up, moving thru the shot........not down by your side, stopping, turning, lifting the ball and then following thru.
:rolleyes Hell EVERYONE would be in the act of shooting if thats the case. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by td4mvp21

Why would any Cavs fan dare to say it wasn't in the act? And just admit that they lost?

Classic case of sore losers.

---

Are you blind? Where did I say the Cavs lost because of that shot? The Cavs lost because of their inability to hit open shots coupled with extremely good 3pt shooting from the Spurs.

Literally everyone in the media says he was fouled, and 85% of them say he should have been at the line shooting three.

Take off your homer glasses for a change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lebomb

I always thought in the act was when your arms are up, moving thru the shot........not down by your side, stopping, turning, lifting the ball and then following thru.
:rolleyes Hell EVERYONE would be in the act of shooting if thats the case. :rolleyes

---

So when a player is driving in the lane and is grabbed across the wrist with the ball by his waist and then makes the lay-up, that's not continuation? Or when a a player is spotting up a jump shot and draws contact, then takes the shot afterwards before even having the ball in his shooting form, that's not continuation? :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Why would any Spurs fan say it was in the act?

Lebron caught the ball, turned towards the hoop and was in motion. Classic case of continuation which is called all the time.

---

No, he caught the ball, turned and ran sideways where he was grabbed by Bowen, which he thought would put him on the line so he jacked up a shot. He was going to go a couple more steps before he shot. If he had more experience he would have been listening for the whistle instead of feeling for contact.

But yes, I think it should have been granted continuation and let him go to the line for three. It was still a boneheaded play on his part when he still had some time to get to the 3-pt line.

Rome is the same guy that said, "Spurs got this". "Spurs repeat in '08. Book it."

He should have just stuck with the fact that the Cavs couldn't capitalize at home.

steve kerr on now.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Are you blind? Where did I say the Cavs lost because of that shot? The Cavs lost because of their inability to hit open shots coupled with extremely good 3pt shooting from the Spurs.

Literally everyone in the media says he was fouled, and 85% of them say he should have been at the line shooting three.

Take off your homer glasses for a change.

---

He was fouled before the fucking shot, ESPN even did a freeze frame and when Bowen had his hands on James, James' feet were on the ground and James did not even have the ball in a shooting motion. He did a little hop step away from Bowen and then shot it. Take off your homer glasses. And if that didn't effect the loss, then why are you bitching about it?

Okay, let's give LJ 3 FT's after the fact. If he makes all 3 let's reverse the game for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

So when a player is driving in the lane and is grabbed across the wrist with the ball by his waist and then makes the lay-up, that's not continuation? Or when a a player is spotting up a jump shot and draws contact, then takes the shot afterwards before even having the ball in his shooting form, that's not continuation? :rolleyes

---

He was still dribbling when the contact took place. He didn't even try to pick up the ball until after Bowen made contact. If that's continuation then every time the player dribbling the ball is fouled it would merit free throws.

And he wasn't driving to the lane. He was looking for a jump shot.

No continuation.

LeBron was fouled. Officials may not want to call that foul in that situation unless it draws blood, but Bruce was trying to foul him. Since LeBron went immediately into his shooting motion after being fouled, it could have been called a continuation. LeBron justifiably could have gone to the line, where, based upon his season averages, there would have been roughly a 30% chance he'd hit all three free throws.

On the other hand, sometimes officials decide they just aren't going to bail out the offensive player in that situation.

Despite all that, it really doesn't matter. It was not the first foul to be missed at the end of a Finals game, nor will it be the last. It certainly won't be the most famous, since NBA fans are trying as hard as they can to forget this series immediately. Jordan's push-off of Bryon Russell in 1998 will always be the most famous no-call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

LeBron was fouled. Officials may not want to call that foul in that situation unless it draws blood, but Bruce was trying to foul him. Since LeBron went immediately into his shooting motion after being fouled, it could have been called a continuation. LeBron justifiably could have gone to the line, where, based upon his season averages, there would have been roughly a 30% chance he'd hit all three free throws.

On the other hand, sometimes officials decide they just aren't going to bail out the offensive player in that situation.

Despite all that, it really doesn't matter. It was not the first foul to be missed at the end of a Finals game, nor will it be the last. It certainly won't be the most famous, since NBA fans are trying as hard as they can to forget this series immediately. Jordan's push-off of Bryon Russell in 1998 will always be the most famous no-call.

---

Yeah, but MJ had the Flu.

that was not a foul. I saw it 10 times. Bowen DID try to foul, but bronze moved away, and Bowen did not make contact.

Bronze is full of shit

Total bullshit that he was in the act. We're up 3-0 though so I don't care. Cavs suck.

I think it was a bad decision by Bruce Bowen -- unless you wrap Lebron up and don't even allow him to come close to making a shooting motion, you're better off just playing defense, I think . I suspect that if Bruce had that one to do over again, he wouldn't have even tried to take the foul there.

It was clearly a foul, but I'm not sure that it was a foul -- particularly in that situation -- that warrants a continuation call. Parker was intentionally fouled at the end of the first half while he was in the air and he wasn't awarded FT because Cleveland had a foul to give. Not an identical situation, but close enough to make me wonder why anyone thinks Lebron should have been treated differently.

Bowen fouled Lechoke set up his shot. For whatever reason, the ref swallowed his whistle.

Thank you for playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

So when a player is driving in the lane and is grabbed across the wrist with the ball by his waist and then makes the lay-up, that's not continuation? Or when a a player is spotting up a jump shot and draws contact, then takes the shot afterwards before even having the ball in his shooting form, that's not continuation? :rolleyes

---

Dude......the above is TOTALLY different than what actually happened to lebron.....sorry, but it was. I never said he didnt get fouled, but It WAS NOT in the act of shooting.

Bowen did foul LeBron but had a foul to give. LeBron had Bowen beat and thats why Bowen grabbed him from behind.

LeBron had two choices.

#1) Try to throw up an off balance shot after the foul from way too far out and hope the refs bailed him out with a continuation.

#2) With time on the clock he could have taken two more dribbles to the 3 point line, squared up and trusted his uncontested, much closer shot to fall.

LeBron made the decision to trust the refs bailing him out more than his shot.

Turned out to be the wrong decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Bowen did foul LeBron but had a foul to give. LeBron had Bowen beat and thats why Bowen grabbed him from behind.

LeBron had two choices.

#1) Try to throw up an off balance shot after the foul from way too far out and hope the refs bailed him out with a continuation.

#2) With time on the clock he could have taken two more dribbles to the 3 point line, squared up and trusted his uncontested, much closer shot to fall.

LeBron made the decision to trust the refs bailing him out more than his shot.

Turned out to be the wrong decision.

---

Ding-ding-ding.

We have a winner.

If Lebron had made the 3 pointer Spurs fans would be crying that the ref didn't call the intentional foul before he shot.

Reality is, the ref gave bronbron a break/chance to tie the game and he missed the shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Are you blind? Where did I say the Cavs lost because of that shot? The Cavs lost because of their inability to hit open shots coupled with extremely good 3pt shooting from the Spurs.

Literally everyone in the media says he was fouled, and 85% of them say he should have been at the line shooting three.

Take off your homer glasses for a change.

---

Where is this 85% you speak of? Take off YOUR homer glasses. Everyone who had played hoops before or been around it was saying last night in the post-game that it should have been a two shot foul - Bill Walton, Greg Anthony, Allan Houston, etc.

The only ones saying it should have been three FTs are the pencil pushing idiot sportswriters who call the Spurs boring because no one on the team is shooting guns outside strip clubs at 4 AM.

If that's your 'factual basis' for your weak ass argument, a bunch of dumbass hacks who never played hoops in their lives, I'd say you're the one with the homer vision going on.

Of course, if LeBron's shot HAD fallen and tied the game, and the refs decided to blow a late whistle to give him the "and 1" and he made the FT, we'd be bitching about it, too...but them's the breaks...you put it behind you and move on...

foul but no continuaiton.

Then I guess I am one of those wearing "homer glasses" because I thought he was fouled before he went into his shooting motion.

It really doesn't matter because if a foul was called, shooting or not, it is still no guarantee of a Cavs win.

If LeBron and Gibson make 1 of the wide open 3's they missed...that play would never have happened or mattered.

I know Cav's fan pain. TD got fouled before OT in Game 7 last year, and it wasn't called. Thats much worse than this no call.

so lets ask Lebron out now 1:54pm and shoot 3 fts =)

no ref was going to give lebron the continuation on that play. he only took the shot because of the foul. he said it himself that he was going to shoot if he gets fouled. he should of had 2 free throws not 3. and the only reason for 2 freethrows is because i believe the spurs were over the limit. he was too far from the 3 point line with too much time on the clock. he could have drove to the 3 point line and took the shot but he was tring to get the ref to bail him out instead of winning it on his own. if the ref where to count that as 3 free throws then everytime a player is intentional fouled at half court or anywhere else and jack up a shot then they should get 3 free throws? the refs are a little smarter then that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Why would any Spurs fan say it was in the act?

Lebron caught the ball, turned towards the hoop and was in motion. Classic case of continuation which is called all the time.

---

Parker had one of these I believe in the third quarter where he was actually fouled going in for a layup (I believe in the 3rd quarter) and not catching a ball hit while he was dribbling away from the basket (a la LeBron) and TP didn't get FTs

Speaking of 3 point fouls, if you review Bruce's last 3 pointer LeBron clearly hit him on the WRIST/HANDS right as he released the ball from his fingertips...but the shot went in and it was a good no call.

He wasn't in the act, Bruce fouled him on his off arm before that hand even touched the ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Why would any Spurs fan say it was in the act?

Lebron caught the ball, turned towards the hoop and was in motion. Classic case of continuation which is called all the time.

---

lebron said that if he felt contact, then he was going to shoot. the contact occurred before he decided to shoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Are you blind? Where did I say the Cavs lost because of that shot? The Cavs lost because of their inability to hit open shots coupled with extremely good 3pt shooting from the Spurs.

Literally everyone in the media says he was fouled, and 85% of them say he should have been at the line shooting three.

Take off your homer glasses for a change.

---

What? So you think that the media will just state the obvious and move on without trying to create a story line for you whining crybabies to tune into.

If you put any cred into what those idiots are saying then your more of a loser than the Cavs are.

Just suck it up and GOODNITE NOW!

If Cleveland fans are pinning their hopes on a judgment call on an iffy shooting foul (iffy that it was a shooting foul; clearly, there was a foul) that was committed on a falling, fadeaway 28-footer in the last few seconds, then they clearly lost the game well before that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Are you blind? Where did I say the Cavs lost because of that shot? The Cavs lost because of their inability to hit open shots coupled with extremely good 3pt shooting from the Spurs.

Literally everyone in the media says he was fouled, and 85% of them say he should have been at the line shooting three.

Take off your homer glasses for a change.

---

So I suppose you have a link and explanation to the statistical analysis of 85% that you so knowingly quote. :donkey Wait a minute.......... Are you just spouting your opinion again? :lol

We really had a foul to give?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Are you blind? Where did I say the Cavs lost because of that shot? The Cavs lost because of their inability to hit open shots coupled with extremely good 3pt shooting from the Spurs.

Literally everyone in the media says he was fouled, and 85% of them say he should have been at the line shooting three.

Take off your homer glasses for a change.

---

If you look at the play again, when Bowen had his hands on James "trying" to foul him James had his shoulders perpendicular to the basket, and the ball was still being dribbled, he didn't even have the ball in both hands yet.

You MIGHT get a continuation call if you are lucky if one of those two are happening, but you will NEVER get a continuation call when your shoulders are perpendicular to the basket and the ball is not even secured in both hands at the time of contact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlatMan

Are you blind? Where did I say the Cavs lost because of that shot? The Cavs lost because of their inability to hit open shots coupled with extremely good 3pt shooting from the Spurs.

Literally everyone in the media says he was fouled, and 85% of them say he should have been at the line shooting three.

Take off your homer glasses for a change.

---

the unfortunate situation is like you said they lost the game prior to that desperation shot and it sucks that it had to come down to that one play to hopefully tie it. Funny 85% of the media says it was a foul but Lebron James says it was not, it was incidental contact.

It happened to the Spurs last year against dallas, it came down to one possession but worse, last game of the series and Manu did not convert. But the loss cannot be blamed on that ONE play. Spurs missed some critical free throws down the stretch.

The play with Varajao was pathetic decision making and I think that was more critical + not getting the time out that Mike Brown said he was trying to take.