dude calm down why you getting so worked up about this
As I recall what David Stern's stance was for that game was that it happened really early on in the game and the Mavs had the opportunity to recover the one point error. Not that I agree with that, but I think that's what his rationale was and would be.
Let's go ahead and take away the free throws Wade was awarded for shoving Jason Terry to the ground. Now the series is 3-3. Let's get game 7 up and running.
"The NBA provided ESPN.com with an alternate angle of that play, didn't you catch the video about a month back" forum.
Because I don't understand the logic behind it. It's another mystifying decision from David Stern. Look, this aint Iraq or the economy, but it's just weird.
Didn't the Heat have a full minute to recover the error made in their game? That's my point, there's no logical consistency to it.
Oh yeah, the phantom push in the back by Dirk. Yeah, I saw the Salvatore series on TrueHoop.
Dallas lost that game by four points. I'm not sure how an incorrectly ruled three pointer makes a difference in the game, other than the fact that the team had to listen to Mark Cuban whining about it during every timeout. Since there's no rule that he has to do that it doesn't seem similar in any way at all.
Well, to be fair, Shaq was ejected incorrectly. So they could recover the error but the error forced Shaq to sit that remaining minute.
I don't really disagree with the principle of your argument. I'm just saying that's what Stern basically stated to differentiate the two cir stances.
The Mavs usually have no business winning more than 52 games nor advancing past the 2nd round.
You mean except in 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 (winning more than 52 games) or 2002-03 or 2005-06 (advancing past the 2nd round), right?
By the way, saying a team has "no business . . . advancing past the 2nd round" is hardly a reason to bash a team, since only 4 clubs can do that every year and it's never the same clubs, from year-to-year who reach that level. In fact, since 2001, 15 of the NBA's 30 clubs have reached the conference finals and only 5 teams (Detroit, LA, Phoenix, New Jersey, and Miami) have reached the conference finals in consecutive years (Detroit has been there 5 straight years, nobody else has made it beyond back-to-back appearances). It's not as if the Spurs have made an annual habit of going past Round 2.
oops. I forgot I'm trying to argue with the walking fallacy.
there was a foul anyway and its not like it affected the mavs becuase Dirk didnt foul out.
He gets to all of us sooner or later...
I think Stern made the right choice. Even though the Heat will likely lose again but by doing this it sends message to teams to be accurate in thier record keeping as to fouls. Can you imagine if this had happened in a Game 7 in the playoffs? By making an example of the Hawks now it will hopefully prevent any shennigans in the postseason. Because thats the last thing Stern needs another postseason mired in controversy.
the first team to win 2 games in one day? or lose 2 games...
-Mars
the league trying to save d wade's career LOL
Too little too late
i dont quite understand. did shaq really have 5 fouls when he "fouled out" or something??
No he really had 4 fouls when they incorrectly gave him a 5th foul that belonged to Haslem. In the OT period he would have had 5 instead of 6 if not for the scorer's error.
wtf!! thats really weird.
a one point error isn't as significant as losing a key player down the stretch.
Weird, I wonder how they're going to do it, right before the next time they play? Add a minute to the game?
They should just leave it how it is.
They will play the final 51 seconds before they start the next game.
Cool, I'll be at that game.
I disagree with that. They had to do it. What if this had happen to a team in a Game 7?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote