Mavericks file protest over loss to Pacers

[mavs>spurs2]

Cuban, he's a whiny little and hes making the organization look bad pulling stunts like this

That said, the reason Harris didn't shoot the ball is because it looked like he was shoved in the back in the act of going up and tried to catch his balance.

[ElNono]

Cuban sure ain't filing protests for every Diop goaltend. He seems to have at least one every game. He had yet another one last night against the Bucks right in the 4th quarter. The other team ain't getting those two points back either.
And the whole Salvatore crusade is a bull excuse. Even with bad calls, if the Mavs win that game you can bet there's no protest. You know that, I know that.
It's like AJ defending Josh Howard for going after Brad Miller in the preseason in order to 'send a message'... Well, I got news for you, you just got punked by Indiana and Milwaukee... That's some message.

[whottt]

@ Spurs fans defending Salvator's calls.


Salvator is the worst ref in all of pro sports and the worst in NBA history.


I enjoy seeing the Mavs gets ed as much as the next guy....but not enough to excuse Salvator's incompetence.


Hopefully Cuban will get Salvator fired...and his non-stop whining will have finally accomplished something that benefits the entire NBA.



As for the Mavs fans whining...you're pathetic, don't a one of you ever call a fan of any other team a ref whiner...you have no room to do that if you have Mavs under your team name. Any other fan of any other team can call you a whiner though...and be justified in doing so.

[atxrocker]

As for the Mavs fans whining...you're pathetic, don't a one of you ever call a fan of any other team a ref whiner...you have no room to do that if you have Mavs under your team name. Any other fan of any other team can call you a whiner though...and be justified in doing so.

[Cry Havoc]

Cuban sure ain't filing protests for every Diop goaltend.

Hey now. SHHH!!! My fantasy team depends on those goaltends!

[CubanMustGo]

@ Spurs fans defending Salvator's calls.


Salvator is the worst ref in all of pro sports and the worst in NBA history.


I enjoy seeing the Mavs gets ed as much as the next guy....but not enough to excuse Salvator's incompetence.


Hopefully Cuban will get Salvator fired...and his non-stop whining will have finally accomplished something that benefits the entire NBA.



As for the Mavs fans whining...you're pathetic, don't a one of you ever call a fan of any other team a ref whiner...you have no room to do that if you have Mavs under your team name. Any other fan of any other team can call you a whiner though...and be justified in doing so.

Salvator is a pretty decent German bier.

Salvatore is a pretty ty NBA ref.

Let's not confuse the two unnecessarily, OK?

[K-State Spur]

The Mavs aren't filing protests every time they lose.

Just 25% of the time.

[whottt]

Salvator is a pretty decent German bier.

Salvatore is a pretty ty NBA ref.

Let's not confuse the two unnecessarily, OK?

Let's not call others out when jokes go over our heads, ok?


Think about it...

[FromWayDowntown]

Here's what I don't get about this protest: the call under protest is the screw up on Murphy's alleged 3 point shot. The authority saying that the call was erroneous, though, isn't an official -- it's the game's scorer. I have no idea how the official scorer could be vested with authority to advise the game officials about whether their calls were correct or not. Suppose that the situation were somewhat different -- suppose that the shot had been scored a 2, but the official scorer told the game officials that it should have been a 3. Should the official scorer's word count in that cir stance? If not then, I'm not sure why it should count in this cir stance.

As far as I know, when a scoring decision is changed on the floor, it's because one of the officials advises the other officials that the scoring decision announced was incorrect. If you're going to claim that the mistake in this case was correctable, the only way to provide objective proof of that mistake to the game officials -- so that they're not relying on scorers who (I'm fairly sure) have some affiliation with the home team -- is to go to replay. But those pesky rules don't allow for replay review of such plays. Given that truth, Cuban's protest is more one to change the rules, either to allow game officials to rely on the assertions of the official scorer (problematic, I think) or to expand replay. There's nothing in the existing rules of the game to permit the correction that Cuban is lobbying for.

And, as an aside for all the Spurs fans blasting Cuban for lodging this protest, I should remind you of this: NBA Denies Spurs' Protest. Ironically, the Spurs are also the authors of one of the few NBA protests to ever be upheld -- in 1982.

[monosylab1k]

this thread had the potential to be a decent Mavs-Spurs smackfest, but da_suns_fan__ had to come in and it all up.

[El Jefe]

Here's what I don't get about this protest: the call under protest is the screw up on Murphy's alleged 3 point shot. The authority saying that the call was erroneous, though, isn't an official -- it's the game's scorer. I have no idea how the official scorer could be vested with authority to advise the game officials about whether their calls were correct or not. Suppose that the situation were somewhat different -- suppose that the shot had been scored a 2, but the official scorer told the game officials that it should have been a 3. Should the official scorer's word count in that cir stance? If not then, I'm not sure why it should count in this cir stance.

I'm not sure exactly who screwed up. But looking at the video, neither Palmer nor Salvatore signalled a 3 point shot. I can only see three possibilities.

1)The 3rd ref called a 3 point shot.....from across the floor. I doubt that one.

2)Palmer or Salvatore signalled a 3 pointer, but after the play occured, or after timeout was called by Dallas, and thus did so off camera. Possible, but again I doubt it. Refs raise one arm on the attempt, and then raise the second (think touchdown) on a 3 point make. Neither Palmer nor Salvatore raise a hand, both simply run back the other way.

3)The official scorer simply scored it a 3 without looking for an indication from the ref. Murphy was in rough proximity of the 3 point line, and it was in a delayed transition situation. I can understand someone courtside looking up just in time to see the shot, and not having a clear view of Murphy's feet (which again were well inside the line)

Now why it didn't get corrected later, I have no idea. It's definitely not a case of Salvatore trying to screw the Mavs over with an erroneous 3 pointer, but it may be a case of Salvatore not listening later on when someone says "Hey, I think I made a mistake with the score" Not sure where the break down was, but it should absolutely be investigated.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

this thread had the potential to be a decent Mavs-Spurs smackfest, but da_suns_fan__ had to come in and it all up.

[PoleSmoking]

I don't think this is about sore loserism so much as it is that Bennett Salvatore is a ty in' ref, and all 30 teams would benefit from him not officiating games anymore. Not that Stern would ever discipline or punish a ref, Crawford-Duncan aside.

I totally agree. Here's my favorite quote from Salvatore (from the recent TruHoops interview series):

"The point of the story here is to tell you that it's not necessarily true that what you see on the court that is happening is actually happening."

That weak excuse pretty much sums up his officiating. According to him, all the famously bad calls that we've seen him make over the years didn't really happen. They only appeared to be bad calls. And you're right about another thing: there's not a single team that Salvatore hasn't screwed with his incompetent calls at some point, and nobody would be sad to see him fired.

[Findog]

I totally agree. Here's my favorite quote from Salvatore (from the recent TruHoops interview series):

"The point of the story here is to tell you that it's not necessarily true that what you see on the court that is happening is actually happening."

That weak excuse pretty much sums up his officiating. According to him, all the famously bad calls that we've seen him make over the years didn't really happen. They only appeared to be bad calls. And you're right about another thing: there's not a single team that Salvatore hasn't screwed with his incompetent calls at some point, and nobody would be sad to see him fired.

Yeah, according to Salvatore, none of those high-profile calls were the wrong ones, the Knicks indeed called a timeout, Nash indeed allowed himself to get tied up on a jumpball, and Dirk hacked the out of Wade at the end of G5.

[Findog]

As for the Mavs fans whining...you're pathetic, don't a one of you ever call a fan of any other team a ref whiner...you have no room to do that if you have Mavs under your team name. Any other fan of any other team can call you a whiner though...and be justified in doing so.

This from a guy who claims his team never loses fair and square, it's always horrible officiating. I remember your running commentary in the last Mavs-Spurs tilt, it was the refs and not the Spurs mailing it in that resulted in an L.

It's not about being cheated out of a W, the Mavs did that themselves with their ty defense. It's about Salvatore. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Like PoleSmoking noted downthread, there's not a team in the League that hasn't been ed over by his incompetence.

[whottt]

This from a guy who claims his team never loses fair and square, it's always horrible officiating. I remember your running commentary in the last Mavs-Spurs tilt, it was the refs and not the Spurs mailing it in that resulted in an L.

Doesn't matter...you still willingly root for a team that puts any and all whining done by anyone else to shame.


If I whine about every Spurs loss for the next 10 years...I still will not equal the whining output of your teams owner, which you, and every member of the Mavs, wholeheartedly endorse every time you pull for a Mavs win.

You cannot claim to have any right to judge anyone else a whiner, when you root for Mark Cuban's team.

It's not about being cheated out of a W, the Mavs did that themselves with their ty defense. It's about Salvatore. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Like PoleSmoking noted downthread, there's not a team in the League that hasn't been ed over by his incompetence.

Salvator is by far the most incomptetent ref.....that doesn't change the fact that the owner of your team is the biggest officiating whiner that has been born on this planet, and as long as he owns your team, and you root for it, you're going to be a pathetic joke of an asswipe anytime you even think about labeling someone else a whiner.


I'm not saying you can't root for the Mavs...I'm not even saying you can't whine about officiating...I'm just saying as long as you do root for the Mavs...you're a ing joke if you even think about calling anyone else a whiner.


It's like being married to pro and telling everyone else they married a ...just STFU.

[Findog]

Doesn't matter...you still willingly root for a team that puts any and all whining done by anyone else to shame.

I don't think Cuban's anti-ref jihad has been overly constructive, but I don't think it's about sour grapes just when the Mavs are the ones getting screwed. I really do believe it's about improving officiating across the board. Has he gone about it in a positive way for the most part? No. Are things like this going to result in rolled eyes and "here he goes again" commentary when he does raise a legitimate beef? Yes. You noted yourself that you can't defend Salvatore's calls here, so why can't Cuban make an issue of it? Because the past precedes whatever he might have to say here?

If I whine about every Spurs loss for the next 10 years...I still will not equal the whining output of your teams owner, which you, and every member of the Mavs, wholeheartedly endorse every time you pull for a Mavs win.

Specious reasoning. I don't believe bad officiating has cheated us out of anything. And I don't think Cuban believes that either. I don't "wholeheartedly endorse" everything Cuban does just because that's my team. I assume you root for the Spurs the same reason I root for the Mavs, because presumably you've spent a large part of your life in geographic proximity to your team. I don't like some of the things Cuban has done, such as badmouthing Steve Nash's agent on his blog, etc. Those things don't help the franchise.

Salvator is by far the most incomptetent ref.....that doesn't change the fact that the owner of your team is the biggest officiating whiner that has been born on this planet, and as long as he owns your team, and you root for it, you're going to be a pathetic joke of an asswipe anytime you even think about labeling someone else a whiner.

I didn't begin weighing in by calling out other teams fans. I am only responsible for my actions, if Cuban does X, it does not automatically follow that I endorse and applaud X as well. More specious reasoning.

I'm not saying you can't root for the Mavs...I'm not even saying you can't whine about officiating...I'm just saying as long as you do root for the Mavs...you're a ing joke if you even think about calling anyone else a whiner.

This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur, so uh, okay.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's about Salvatore. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Like PoleSmoking noted downthread, there's not a team in the League that hasn't been ed over by his incompetence.

That's what I don't get. The protest isn't about the call that Salvatore blew. It's about the fact that none of the officials on the floor caught that Murphy was inside the 3 point line -- a call that apparently was as much Violet Palmer's miss as Bennett Salvatore's.

Do you really think that it's on Salvatore for not blindly accepting the word of the official scorer? Do you really think that game officials should accept such statements as proof of an error? Can you point me to some rule that the officials violated in not taking such a statement as gospel?

[Findog]

That's what I don't get. The protest isn't about the call that Salvatore blew. It's about the fact that none of the officials on the floor caught that Murphy was inside the 3 point line -- a call that apparently was as much Violet Palmer's miss as Bennett Salvatore's.

Do you really think that it's on Salvatore for not blindly accepting the word of the official scorer? Do you really think that game officials should accept such statements as proof of an error? Can you point me to some rule that the officials violated in not taking such a statement as gospel?

Don't they have video they can review to confirm what the official scorer is telling them? How hard would it be to get it right? How bersome would it be to do that? The corrected call from the scorer is actually hurting the home team in a close game, how much more free of bias can you get?

[boutons_]

Cuban suffers from the egocentric, conceited mania to think his single "gotcha" protest
will improve the quality of officiating,
as if the refs weren't already aware of unhappiness with reffing, and
as if the refs and director of referring weren't continually monitoring themselves, watching game videos, etc, etc, etc.

[FromWayDowntown]

Don't they have video they can review to confirm what the official scorer is telling them? How hard would it be to get it right? How bersome would it be to do that? The corrected call from the scorer is actually hurting the home team in a close game, how much more free of bias can you get?

But, again, point me to the rule that permits game officials to review video of such a call in that cir stance. There isn't such a rule. Replay is permitted only at end-of-quarter shots and, this year, to review flagrant fouls. The rules prohibit the use of replay to correct any other call during the course of a game.

Frankly, if Cuban is concerned with getting officiating right, the first concern should be with officials adhering to the rules of the game instead of insisting that the officials make up new rules on the fly.

[Findog]

But, again, point me to the rule that permits game officials to review video of such a call in that cir stance. There isn't such a rule. Replay is permitted only at end-of-quarter shots and, this year, to review flagrant fouls. The rules prohibit the use of replay to correct any other call during the course of a game.

Frankly, if Cuban is concerned with getting officiating right, the first concern should be with officials adhering to the rules of the game instead of insisting that the officials make up new rules on the fly.

Here is what I don't get. I've been watching NBA games for 20 years, and it's happened countless times, a shooter will initially be awarded a three for a long two, and then then call will be reversed. That didn't happen this time. Why? How does that process normally happen? The referee instructing the scorer, or the scorer notifying the ref his call is incorrect? Salvatore's crew clearly blew the call, the scorers notified them of the error, and nothing was done. Why? Because Salvatore should completely disregard and be su ious of what the official scorer is telling him, as you suggest? If Tim Donaghy is the lone bad apple, then shouldn't anybody entrusted with such a responsibility to run the official scoring for the game be trusted when he says a scoring error should be reversed? He's not telling Salvatore to reverse a call on the floor regarding fouls, it would seem to me that as offical scorer its well within his expertise to tell the refs a change needs to be made on the score.

[FromWayDowntown]

Just for reference, here's the black-and-white rule concerning replay:

RULE NO. 13—INSTANT REPLAY

Section I—Instant Replay Review Triggers

a. Instant replay would be triggered automatically in the following situations:

(1) A field goal made with no time remaining on the clock (0:00) at the end of the
fourth period or any overtime period that, if scored, would affect or potentially
could affect, the outcome of the game.

(2) A field goal made with no time remaining on the clock (0:00) at the end of the
first, second and third periods.

(3) A foul called with no time remaining on the clock (0:00) at the end of the fourth
period or any overtime period, provided that it could affect the outcome of the
game.

(4) A foul called with no time remaining on the clock (0:00) at the end of the first,
second or third periods.

(5) A flagrant foul/penalty 2 is called at any time during a game.

(6) A Player Altercation occurs. (For purposes of this instant replay rule only, a
Player Altercation shall mean a situation in which (i) two or more players are
engaged in (a) a fight or (b) a hostile physical interaction that is not part of normal
basketball play and that does not immediately resolve by itself or with the intervention of game officials or players, or (ii) one player commits a hostile act against another player that results in the offending player being ejected from the game—for example, when a player intentionally or recklessly harms or attempts to harm another player through the use of a punch, elbow, kick or blow to the head.)

b. Instant replay would NOT be used to check a successful basket in 1 and 2 above if
the throw-in, free throw attempt or jump ball started with .2 or .1 on the game clock. The officials will judge the legality of the basket in these situations based on the guidelines as set forth in Comments on the Rules L.

Section II—Reviewable Matters

a. If an instant replay review is triggered as described in Section I—a (1) and (2) above, the officials would review the video to determine only the following issues:

(1) Whether time on the game clock expired before the ball left the shooter’s hand.

(2) If the shot was timely, whether the successful field goal was scored correctly as a
two-point or three-point field goal.

(3) If the shot was timely, whether the shooter committed a boundary line violation.
For purposes of this review, the official would look only at the position of the
shooter’s feet at the moment they last touched the floor immediately prior to (or,
if applicable, during) the release of the shot.

(4) Whether the 24-second clock expired before the ball left the shooter’s hand.

(5) Whether an 8-second backcourt violation occurred before the ball left the
shooter’s hand.

b. If an instant replay review is triggered as described in Section I—a (3) and (4) above, the officials would review the video to determine only the following issue:

(1) Whether a called foul that is not committed on or by player in the act of shooting
occurred prior to the expiration of time on the game clock.

(2) Whether a called foul that is committed on or by a player in the act of shooting,
where the shooter releases the ball prior to expiration of time on the game clock,
the foul should be administered regardless of whether it occurred prior to or after
the expiration of time.

(3) Whether the shooter fouled was attempting a two or three point field goal.

(4) Whether a player fouled committed a boundary line violation prior to the foul.
For purposes of this review, the official would look only at the position of the
player’s feet at the moment they last touched the floor immediately prior to (or, if
applicable, during) the foul.

(5) Whether the 24-second clock expired before the foul occurred.

(6) Whether an 8-second backcourt violation occurred before the player was fouled.
NOTE: The officials would be permitted to utilize instant replay to determine whether
(and how much) time should be put on the game clock but only when it is determined
through replay that (i) the player committed a boundary line violation, (ii) a 24-second violation occurred, (iii) an 8-second backcourt violation occurred, or (iv) a called foul occurred prior to the expiration of time on the game clock.

c. If an instant replay review is triggered as described in Section I—a (5) above, the
officials would review the video to determine only the following issues:

(1) Whether the flagrant foul/penalty 2 was called correctly or whether it should be
downgraded to a flagrant foul/penalty 1 or a personal foul.

(2) Whether any other players committed unsportsmanlike acts immediately prior to
and/or immediately following the flagrant foul/penalty 2.

d. If an instant replay review is triggered as described in Section I—a (6) above, the
officials would review the video to determine the following issues:

(1) The iden y of all players involved in the Player Altercation and the action
immediately prior to and immediately following.

(2) The level of involvement of each such player.

(3) The appropriate penalty to be assessed against each such player.

[Findog]

^ that's all well and good, but how does a correction to the score not get made? The crux of your argument is that Salavatore should pay no heed to what the official scorer is telling him, should completely disregard it.

[FromWayDowntown]

Here is what I don't get. I've been watching NBA games for 20 years, and it's happened countless times, a shooter will initially be awarded a three for a long two, and then then call will be reversed. That didn't happen this time. Why? How does that process normally happen? The referee instructing the scorer, or the scorer notifying the ref his call is incorrect?

In every instance in which I've ever seen that happen, it's one game official who tells the others that the scoring decision on the shot was wrong. If the game officials decide that the scoring decision was, in fact, wrong, they then advise the official scorer, who changes the score as necessary.

Salvatore's crew clearly blew the call, the scorers notified them of the error, and nothing was done. Why?

Because the official scorer is not a game official.

Because Salvatore should completely disregard and be su ious of what the official scorer is telling him, as you suggest? If Tim Donaghy is the lone bad apple, then shouldn't anybody entrusted with such a responsibility to run the official scoring for the game be trusted when he says a scoring error should be reversed?

If the league wants to ins ute a rule permitting the officials to look at a replay of a scoring decision brought to the game officials' attention by the official scorer that's one thing; such a rule, however, doesn't exist. As such, if you want Salvatore to take the action you're asking, you're necessarily asking him to either: (1) accept the word of the official scorer -- a bad policy, I think, because it could encourage shenanigans by the official scorers; or (2) indulge in a replay that is not permitted by the rules. In either instance, you're arguing for Salvatore to disregard the rules of the game.

He's not telling Salvatore to reverse a call on the floor regarding fouls, it would seem to me that as offical scorer its well within his expertise to tell the refs a change needs to be made on the score.

The official scorer's job is to record the scoring decisions of the officials with respect to points, fouls, and timeouts. The scorer doesn't make scoring decisions, though; he simply records those scoring decisions made by the officials. You're suggesting that the scorer's power should somehow exceed the express limits on his duties during a game:

Section VII—Duties of Scorers
a. The scorers shall record the field goals made, the free throws made and missed and shall keep a running summary of the points scored. They shall record the personal and technical fouls called on each player and shall notify the officials immediately when a sixth personal foul is called on any player. They shall record the timeouts charged to each team, shall notify a team and its coach through an official whenever that team takes a sixth charged timeout and shall notify the nearest official each time a team is granted a charged timeout in excess of the legal number. In case there is a question about an error in the scoring, the scorer shall check with the crew chief at once to find the discrepancy. If the error cannot be found, the official shall accept the record of the official scorer, unless he has knowledge that
forces him to decide otherwise.

http://www.nba.com/media/rule_book_2007-08.pdf