Reply With Quote
Why would any Spurs fan say it was in the act?
Lebron caught the ball, turned towards the hoop and was in motion. Classic case of continuation which is called all the time.
........................I agree, except Bron wasnt in the act of shooting.
Why would any Spurs fan say it was in the act?
Lebron caught the ball, turned towards the hoop and was in motion. Classic case of continuation which is called all the time.
If that's continuation, then I expect every player from now on to launch a jump shot from wherever they are on the court when they are intentionally fouled.
Why would any Cavs fan dare to say it wasn't in the act? And just admit that they lost?
Classic case of sore losers.
Opinions are like assholes. You know the rest...........................I agree, except Bron wasnt in the act of shooting.
Rome is just a guy with an opinion. The refs were the only ones who's "opinions" matter
I always thought in the act was when your arms are up, moving thru the shot........not down by your side, stopping, turning, lifting the ball and then following thru.
Are you blind? Where did I say the Cavs lost because of that shot? The Cavs lost because of their inability to hit open shots coupled with extremely good 3pt shooting from the Spurs.
Literally everyone in the media says he was fouled, and 85% of them say he should have been at the line shooting three.
Take off your homer glasses for a change.
So when a player is driving in the lane and is grabbed across the wrist with the ball by his waist and then makes the lay-up, that's not continuation? Or when a a player is spotting up a jump shot and draws contact, then takes the shot afterwards before even having the ball in his shooting form, that's not continuation?I always thought in the act was when your arms are up, moving thru the shot........not down by your side, stopping, turning, lifting the ball and then following thru.
No, he caught the ball, turned and ran sideways where he was grabbed by Bowen, which he thought would put him on the line so he jacked up a shot. He was going to go a couple more steps before he shot. If he had more experience he would have been listening for the whistle instead of feeling for contact.
But yes, I think it should have been granted continuation and let him go to the line for three. It was still a boneheaded play on his part when he still had some time to get to the 3-pt line.
Rome is the same guy that said, "Spurs got this". "Spurs repeat in '08. Book it."
He should have just stuck with the fact that the Cavs couldn't capitalize at home.
steve kerr on now.....
He was fouled before the ing shot, ESPN even did a freeze frame and when Bowen had his hands on James, James' feet were on the ground and James did not even have the ball in a shooting motion. He did a little hop step away from Bowen and then shot it. Take off your homer glasses. And if that didn't effect the loss, then why are you ing about it?
Okay, let's give LJ 3 FT's after the fact. If he makes all 3 let's reverse the game for them.
He was still dribbling when the contact took place. He didn't even try to pick up the ball until after Bowen made contact. If that's continuation then every time the player dribbling the ball is fouled it would merit free throws.So when a player is driving in the lane and is grabbed across the wrist with the ball by his waist and then makes the lay-up, that's not continuation? Or when a a player is spotting up a jump shot and draws contact, then takes the shot afterwards before even having the ball in his shooting form, that's not continuation?
And he wasn't driving to the lane. He was looking for a jump shot.
No continuation.
LeBron was fouled. Officials may not want to call that foul in that situation unless it draws blood, but Bruce was trying to foul him. Since LeBron went immediately into his shooting motion after being fouled, it could have been called a continuation. LeBron justifiably could have gone to the line, where, based upon his season averages, there would have been roughly a 30% chance he'd hit all three free throws.
On the other hand, sometimes officials decide they just aren't going to bail out the offensive player in that situation.
Despite all that, it really doesn't matter. It was not the first foul to be missed at the end of a Finals game, nor will it be the last. It certainly won't be the most famous, since NBA fans are trying as hard as they can to forget this series immediately. Jordan's push-off of Bryon Russell in 1998 will always be the most famous no-call.
Yeah, but MJ had the Flu.
that was not a foul. I saw it 10 times. Bowen DID try to foul, but bronze moved away, and Bowen did not make contact.
Bronze is full of
Total bull that he was in the act. We're up 3-0 though so I don't care. Cavs suck.
I think it was a bad decision by Bruce Bowen -- unless you wrap Lebron up and don't even allow him to come close to making a shooting motion, you're better off just playing defense, I think . I suspect that if Bruce had that one to do over again, he wouldn't have even tried to take the foul there.
It was clearly a foul, but I'm not sure that it was a foul -- particularly in that situation -- that warrants a continuation call. Parker was intentionally fouled at the end of the first half while he was in the air and he wasn't awarded FT because Cleveland had a foul to give. Not an identical situation, but close enough to make me wonder why anyone thinks Lebron should have been treated differently.
Bowen fouled Lechoke set up his shot. For whatever reason, the ref swallowed his whistle.
Thank you for playing.
Dude......the above is TOTALLY different than what actually happened to lebron.....sorry, but it was. I never said he didnt get fouled, but It WAS NOT in the act of shooting.So when a player is driving in the lane and is grabbed across the wrist with the ball by his waist and then makes the lay-up, that's not continuation? Or when a a player is spotting up a jump shot and draws contact, then takes the shot afterwards before even having the ball in his shooting form, that's not continuation?
Bowen did foul LeBron but had a foul to give. LeBron had Bowen beat and thats why Bowen grabbed him from behind.
LeBron had two choices.
#1) Try to throw up an off balance shot after the foul from way too far out and hope the refs bailed him out with a continuation.
#2) With time on the clock he could have taken two more dribbles to the 3 point line, squared up and trusted his uncontested, much closer shot to fall.
LeBron made the decision to trust the refs bailing him out more than his shot.
Turned out to be the wrong decision.
Ding-ding-ding.
We have a winner.
If Lebron had made the 3 pointer Spurs fans would be crying that the ref didn't call the intentional foul before he shot.
Reality is, the ref gave bronbron a break/chance to tie the game and he missed the shot.
Where is this 85% you speak of? Take off YOUR homer glasses. Everyone who had played hoops before or been around it was saying last night in the post-game that it should have been a two shot foul - Bill Walton, Greg Anthony, Allan Houston, etc.
The only ones saying it should have been three FTs are the pencil pushing idiot sportswriters who call the Spurs boring because no one on the team is shooting guns outside strip clubs at 4 AM.
If that's your 'factual basis' for your weak ass argument, a bunch of dumbass hacks who never played hoops in their lives, I'd say you're the one with the homer vision going on.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
