Oklahoma City just set an NBA record..

[jARS mEsH sEt]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "strawman". The "mere red flag" has to have a trip point, so what's the magic number? Is it that the Spurs settled for long range bricks by Diaw and a couple others, or the fact that Tim could not hold on to the ball in the paint, or was it that Tony just didn't really attack the rim at all?

There's no strawman here. Your complaint is folly enough. If the Spurs didn't play like a girls' JV, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Letting the Thunder get 4 or 5 offensive rebounds on some shots, including on missed free throws, that's just ty basketball. Don't try to play it off like there's a ref conspiracy afoot.

Let's add ad hominems and false dichotomies to the list. It is entirely possible for the winning team to receive net ref help and the losing team to play ty basketball simultaneously.

The "trip point" for when an absolute FTA disparity is a "red flag" is entirely arbitrary and varies from person to person. It doesn't matter what it is, because it doesn't affect anything of importance like the outcome of the game. I'm nothing more than a fan on a message board whining about reffing disparities. My arbitrary "trip point" is irrelevant, as is my assessment of which calls were dubious and which were not within any given game.

Gregg Popovich decided to intentionally foul the worst shooter on OKC twice in the 3rd quarter. Because Popovich decided to do that, littlecoyotecoin "lost credibility" with regards to complaining about FT disparities according to you. That absolutely is a non-sequitur. Why should Popovich's tactics have anything to do with littlecoyotecoin's "credibility?"

[DMC]

It didn't stick, then, and it doesn't make any more sense now. Committing two intentional fouls on their poorest FT shooter is within the rules. Engaging in this fair but, by some, frowned-upon practice in no way should disqualify a team from having a fairly reffed game called aginst them. Nor do those two fouls put a dent in the disparity. You're so far off base you may be in a different stadium.

Shooting two free throws when fouled in the bonus is within the rules. Not every foul was a shooting foul, but when you're in the bonus so early and the other team attacks, things happen. It's all within the rules. You just don't like it when the rules don't swing your way.

I've seen the Spurs get into the bonus with 9 minutes left to go and get maybe 1 or 2 trips to the line for the rest of the quarter because they settle for long jump shots instead of attacking.

[littlecoyotecoin]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "strawman". The "mere red flag" has to have a trip point, so what's the magic number? Is it that the Spurs settled for long range bricks by Diaw and a couple others, or the fact that Tim could not hold on to the ball in the paint, or was it that Tony just didn't really attack the rim at all?

There's no strawman here. Your complaint is folly enough. If the Spurs didn't play like a girls' JV, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Letting the Thunder get 4 or 5 offensive rebounds on some shots, including on missed free throws, that's just ty basketball. Don't try to play it off like there's a ref conspiracy afoot.

Again, I have not seen anyone claim that The Spurs played well. But, do you think The Spurs played worse than any team in NBA history? Because no team in NBA history received less respect from the refs in that second half. I have watched a lot of basketball games, and I have to say that despite The Spurs playing poorly, The Thunder weren't playing all that much better. The disparity in play was much less than the disparity in calls and it seemed pretty obvious that some of the former was caused by the latter.

Where you saw them not attack, I saw them attack, get hacked, mauled, pushed, and blocked with impunity. Literally. Impunity. 0. Go through that third quarter and see if you can't find a foul comparable to all of them OKC got. Count them up. It was a whole quarter. The refs swallowed their whistles for one team in winning time.

[littlecoyotecoin]

Shooting two free throws when fouled in the bonus is within the rules. Not every foul was a shooting foul, but when you're in the bonus so early and the other team attacks, things happen. It's all within the rules. You just don't like it when the rules don't swing your way.

I've seen the Spurs get into the bonus with 9 minutes left to go and get maybe 1 or 2 trips to the line for the rest of the quarter because they settle for long jump shots instead of attacking.

You keep making a mountain out of a molehill with those two fouls. So, those two were intentional? OMIT them, re-tally, and The Spurs were STILL fouled zero times during the pivotal quarter. Possible, but definitely more convenient than possible.

[jARS mEsH sEt]

I'll actually take it a step further. DMC used Popovich's decision to intentionally foul Steven Adams as a reason for undermining littlecoyotecoin's credibility. Not only is this a non-sequitur, it's actually irrelevant.

DMC should be addressing coyote's actual argument - not coyote's perceived lack of credibility that DMC puzzlingly ascribes to Gregg Popovich's hack-a-Shaq tactics.

[DMC]

Let's add ad hominems and false dichotomies to the list. It is entirely possible for the winning team to receive net ref help and the losing team to play ty basketball simultaneously.

But you haven't proven one, while the other is absolutely certain. Just because something is possible doesn't make it true.

The "trip point" for when an absolute FTA disparity is a "red flag" is entirely arbitrary and varies from person to person. It doesn't matter what it is, because it doesn't affect anything of importance like the outcome of the game. I'm nothing more than a fan on a message board whining about reffing disparities. My arbitrary "trip point" is irrelevant, as is my assessment of which calls were dubious and which were not within any given game.

So what's your point then?

Gregg Popovich decided to intentionally foul the worst shooter on OKC twice in the 3rd quarter. Because Popovich decided to do that, littlecoyotecoin "lost credibility" with regards to complaining about FT disparities according to you. That absolutely is a non-sequitur. Why should Popovich's tactics have anything to do with littlecoyotecoin's "credibility?"

Any Spurs fan loses credibility. Pop didn't mind the FT disparity, wanted it to be greater in fact, so he intentionally sent a Thunder player to the FT line. He was admitting that the Spurs could not stop the Thunder without fouling them. Why can't you?

[DMC]

I'll actually take it a step further. DMC used Popovich's decision to intentionally foul Steven Adams as a reason for undermining littlecoyotecoin's credibility. Not only is this a non-sequitur, it's actually irrelevant.

DMC should be addressing coyote's actual argument - not coyote's perceived lack of credibility that DMC puzzlingly ascribes to Gregg Popovich's hack-a-Shaq tactics.

I've explained it already. There's no evidence or even a decent case for foul play (no pun intended) on the FT disparity, while coach Pop didn't have his guys attack the rim, only had them fouling Adams intentionally. That's admitting you cannot stop the other team from scoring. It's admitting you'd rather them be on the FT line. It's admitting that you don't trust your team to get the job done without your intervention by using silly fouling tactics.

You or coyotecoin make a case that there's biased officiating before pretending you're some debating savant. Until you do that, I don't have any onus of proof nor do I have to disprove anything you've not openly made a case for. What I can do is say that your whining is unwarranted according to the coach and president of basketball operations for the Spurs.

[DMC]

You keep making a mountain out of a molehill with those two fouls. So, those two were intentional? OMIT them, re-tally, and The Spurs were STILL fouled zero times during the pivotal quarter. Possible, but definitely more convenient than possible.

Not true. There were at least 2 fouls against OKC but they were not shooting fouls.

Meanwhile, explain this:

76-81	Kevin Durant misses layup
0:41		76-81	Kevin Durant offensive rebound
0:41		76-81	Kevin Durant misses layup
0:40		76-81	Kevin Durant offensive rebound
0:36		76-81	Steven Adams misses layup
0:35		76-81	Steven Adams offensive rebound
0:35	Marco Belinelli shooting foul (Steven Adams draws the foul)	76-81

[jARS mEsH sEt]

I've explained it already. There's no evidence or even a decent case for foul play (no pun intended) on the FT disparity, while coach Pop didn't have his guys attack the rim, only had them fouling Adams intentionally. That's admitting you cannot stop the other team from scoring. It's admitting you'd rather them be on the FT line. It's admitting that you don't trust your team to get the job done without your intervention by using silly fouling tactics.

You or coyotecoin make a case that there's biased officiating before pretending you're some debating savant. Until you do that, I don't have any onus of proof nor do I have to disprove anything you've not openly made a case for. What I can do is say that your whining is unwarranted according to the coach and president of basketball operations for the Spurs.

Whenever I watch a game, I keep a running, mental tally of bull calls for or against both teams. In many cases, there is a huge grey area and therefore my criterion for assessing calls as "bull " or "legitimate" is entirely arbitrary. I then come on this board and vent my frustrations amongst a forum of people who either agree or disagree with my assessment. There's no ultimate "point" to any of this. This isn't a ing scientific forum where arguments need to be crafted under the same standards expected of publishable, peer-reviewed journal articles. There's no way to quantify legitimate vs illegitimate fouls in this game. This is necessarily the result of an admittedly arbitrary "eye test."

I see Marco getting to the free throw line during garbage time on ticky tack contact in game 3, and yet the refs fail to call that same level of contact in favor of Kevin Durant or Russell Westbrook during game 2 on at least 5 different occasions. Westbrook gets hit in the face at least twice in game 2 with no calls, and yet Marco gets bull free throws in garbage time on minimal contact. Kawhi Leonard gets hit in the face with Kevin Durant's elbow with no call, and yet Durant is awarded free throws on marginal contact several plays later. When I watch these games there's a clear inconsistency in reffing that's disconcerting to me, and I use this forum as a way to express my frustrations.

I'm not a debating savant but I sure as am not losing a pissing match to someone who doesn't understand what a "non-sequitur" or "straw man" is. You've attacked coyote's credibility on fallacious logic and called my complaint "folly." You've done nothing but contribute a series of logical fallacies to the discussion.

I don't know how littlecoyotecoin feels, but I've said several times that I thought OKC outplayed us in game 3. Your "box score" post above is utterly irrelevant to any biased reffing that may or may not have occurred during the game. What response are you looking for? OKC did a great job offensively rebounding the ball during that stretch, leading to a legitimate foul by Marco. So ing what?

My only point in this pissing match was to point out your series of logical fallacies.

[jARS mEsH sEt]

Incidentally, this is precisely what the refs are asked to do every game. The refs aren't privy to some magical "meter" that gives them a way to quantify whether or not contact on any given play is sufficient to call a foul or not. The refs necessarily rely on the same, arbitrary eye tests that fans use.