Reply With Quote
Mav fan grew it now they complain about the taste? Nah uh not on my watch. Chew it
Chalmers was already IN THE AIR when he caught the pass. I do understand how the rule works now thank you for posting the exact verbage but according to (1) neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt when he catches that pass.
Mav fan grew it now they complain about the taste? Nah uh not on my watch. Chew it
I just posted how the Chalmer's play wasn't a violation. I am just an impartial observer here. You see, I don't make knee jerk reactions to free throw attempts and snap judgments based on popular opinions of the masses. I actually watch the games and make up my own mind. So far you've provided literally nothing to prove your theory other than "cuz mavfan said so it must be true". Well guess what, the only mav fan that I see in this thread (stretch) doesn't agree with you either. So off already.
I still haven't seen a good view of Chalmers' feet on the 1st quarter buzzer-beater, but in real time it looked to me as if he hadn't established position in the front court when he caught the ball, which would make it a violation. It's a really nuanced thing, but the rulebook (RULE 4, Section V) says that frontcourt position is not attained until a player with the ball has established a positive position in either half during a time when the ball is loose (i.e., as it's being passed). To me, that means the player must have already been fully in the front court before the catch -- being in the process of jumping from the backcourt to the frontcourt is technically not enough. I can actually remember seeing the rule called that way a couple of times, but clearly it's not always called that way. Again, I haven't seen a replay that definitively shows the location of Chalmers' feet before the catch, but my perception was that he (at best) jumped from backcourt to frontcourt in the process of making the catch (and hadn't established frontcourt position before the catch), which means it should have been a backcourt violation.
I think Foster was right to call the double-dribble on James in the 4th, but I also think that's a really tough call given that Crawford had clearly signaled (even if erroneously) that the ball had been tipped; if Crawford makes that signal (and, I would guess, offers a verbal signal to the same effect) at some point, James is en led to rely upon it. Obviously, Foster was correct in a real sense and, ultimately, the call made no difference in the outcome.
I also don't think there's any doubt that Kidd traveled on the foul he drew near the arc in the first half, but nobody's (apparently) going to call that, since he did exactly the same thing on a virtually identical play in Oklahoma City in the last round without anyone even bothering to mention it. I hate that call -- particularly where the shooter leans into a leaping defender -- if only because it is frequently given without regard to the principle of verticality, but obviously, the shooter is always going to get that call.
You got ONE thing right. You sir, are indeed a bitter, unfunny,
thank you, I enjoy having that le and take pride in it.
Dude you were the one who said you didn't know 100 % how the ruling was on that situation so I posted it. Now apparently you do. That's ok.
About the play if you pause at 32 seconds on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym_M1oYF1KY& you can see he had the foot on the line when he catches it, even the announcer said so. Anyway it's not an outrageous call or anything like that, just a missed call and I'm sure Mavs fans won't put the blame on the loss for this.
So the fact that I created the thread to point out the poor officiating job means I'm following the mass and going by what Mavs fans think?
Are you re ed?
Dude get some shut eye. You being in front of a computer screen for far too long.
Seems there was/is still uncertainty here. You believe Chalmers caught the ball while his feet were still touching the court, whereas I think he had already jumped into the air (and passed the line). That is why we are still not in agreemnent.
Now according to FWD, Chalmers needed to establish position in the frontcourt (IE feet landing) prior to the catch. So if true, then this would appear to be a violation, but not for the same reason as you gave.
If I was to make a thread ing about bad officiating (and I have before in the past), I'd at least provide 5 concrete examples of bad/missed calls (plus 5-10 other questionable calls) if I wanted to be taken seriously. So far, the only concrete thing anyone here has provided is Kidd's travel and a handful of other questionable bull that I wouldn't even consider questionable. I wouldn't exactly call that a slam dunk thread, in fact I would call it a complete FAIL of a thread.
There you go. You said it yourself.
When the refs are blatantly handing the home team calls making a list of fouls is pointless as it is very obvious.
I'm sorry you cant conprehend that.
As I was watching Gametime on NBATV even Brent Barry mentioned how the Mavs were getting all the calls.
I'm going radio silence. Enjoy your denial.
Spurfan continues their proud tradition of grown men sobbing about officiating. Just a mentally weak, excuse-ridden fanbase with a massive inferiority complex.
This is generally speaking of course, because there are a few non-whiney spurfans on this site (you know who you are). It's just too bad the other ones procreate at such a rapid rate
Ye your right, the doubt is if he was in mid air when he caught it or not. It seems to me he was but can't be 100 % sure.
Anyway we're kind of discussing technicalities after watching 100 replays so imagine how hard it is for the refs to get it right in real time, so I'm gonna give it a rest now.
About what FWD said I don't think it applies in this case because the front court position (as in the overall team position) is already established by Haslem, now it's just a matter of knowing if Chalmers was on the backcourt when he catches it or not.
I'm not sure the part of the rule that I posted concerns team positioning other than to definitively say that Haslem was in the front court and that any player he passed to must have also established position in the frontcourt to legally receive the pass. From the replay, it appears clear to me that Chalmers was in the backcourt either because his left foot was still there when he made the catch or because he hadn't fully established position in the front court before making the catch. Either way, it seems clear to me (with the benefit of seeing the play slowed down) that he has not established frontcourt position prior to making the catch.
But I absolutely agree with the notion that officiating that call is monumentally difficult. We benefit from having a premium viewing angle right at halfcourt, the opportunity to see the play repeatedly, and the chance to slow the play and even stop it. Foster, Crawford, and Stafford have none of those benefits and are trying to keep track of multiple other details in a fast-moving play. Had any of them called it, I don't think there would be a hue and cry about it. But the fact that none of them called it is understandable to me.
Eh? I said nothing backing up any of your vague claims. You have 1 solid concrete thing to about (Kidd's travel). Other than that you have a handful of questionable bull (courtesy EIC's vague ramblings off the top of his head) most of which I debunked into oblivion already.
As for Barry I would hold him accountable just as I'm holding you accountable to provide evidence. Did he provide any in his dialogues or did he say something you perhaps took out of context? Kind of hard to give it any credence at all when you don't mention any details about what he said other than the same vague bull you've been spewing throughout the entire thread.
Ye I understand what you were saying. I thought of that initially as well but looking at the actual rule of the back court violation:
Rule 10 section X
a. A player shall not be the first to touch a ball which he or a teammate caused to go from frontcourt to backcourt while his team was in control of the ball.
So Haslem establishes the team in the frontcourt. To happen a violation he must cause the ball to go from the frontcourt to the backcourt. That means Chalmers must hold the ball in the backcourt for that happen. If he was on the air when he caught it he was technically in the frontcourt, if he was stepping on the line he was on the backcourt.
Fact is, officiating was bad overall, and favored both teams at times, not neccesarily with the intent to favor, as opposed to incompetence.
The reason the Mavs lost was because of brainless turnovers. If they simply had one less turnover that lead to a Miami bucket, the outcome may have been different. Can't have so many unforced errors as they had, and expect to win. Some of them were due to Miami's good defense, but others just made no sense at all and had no business being turnovers if the players were focused.
So there we have it. My gut ended up being right to begin with, it was a backcourt violation that cost the mavs a momentum killing 3 ball to end a quarter. But I guess bad calls that go against the mavs don't matter in this discussion thread, the only ones that do are the countless blatantly obvious bad calls favoring the mavs that shall remain anonymous and unspoken.
What does it say about you that die hard Mavs fans in the forum are less butthurt about last night than you are?
There's no butthurt here. I'm sorry the mavs couldn't step up and take advantage of the opportunities they had to win last night but I'm not stewing about it. The series is far from over, they have two more home games in Dallas to look forward to, so there position isn't as bleak as you are insinuating it is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions