Reply With Quote
Here's the deal. In Game 1, there were a total of just 24 fouls called on both teams combined. That was a record for the fewest foul calls in Finals history. The two teams shot 35 FT's combined. That style of game benefits the Heat.
In Game 2, there were a total of 31 fouls called, which is still very low, and the two teams only shot 24 FT's combined.
The Heat play that belly-bumping, arm-pawing defense, and it gets them a lot of turnovers. And when the Heat get turnovers, they score a LOT of easy points. If the refs are "letting them play", it's going to be an uphill battle for the Spurs.
What I didn't like was when the league trotted Steve Javie out last game, to explain how Game 1 was played "very clean", so the refs "didn't have to call many fouls". That's horse , and anyone who understands the game knows that. The refs may decide to let them play, and not blow a lot of whistles, but Game 1 wasn't played any differently than most other games. It's insulting to pretend like the lack of whistles was because neither team committed many fouls.
The thing is, the calls don't have to be one-sided to benefit the Heat. As long as the foul count is low, the Heat will get a lot more turnovers, and a lot more easy points. I don't question the refs choice to swallow their whistles, but it does make me uncomfortable for the league to push a narrative about it.
