Garnett Replay From Game 3

[bordelais7]

Question from last night's game:

Near the end of the game when the ball was knocked out of Garnett's hand and the call went to instant replay, everyone was pretty much in agreement that the ball was clearly touched by Garnett last.

Wouldn't that be true, though, 95% of the time that the ball is knocked out of someone's hands? If you slow down the replay to watch who had the last contact with the ball, generally the "knocker" has dislodged the ball and the "knockee" who is losing control is the last one, technically, to touch the ball as it slides out of his hands. Yet the ball will almost always be awarded to the knockee.

Is instant replay changing the rules of the game?

 

[Hopper]

Is instant replay changing the rules of the game?

What's to change, Bordy? If you have the ball, completely off the court, but still in the air, and can manage to throw it offa guy's head before you hit the floor, and it goes outta bounds, your ball. No different if you're inbounds when you pull the same trick, eh?

 

[UGLI baby]

Question from last night's game:

Near the end of the game when the ball was knocked out of Garnett's hand and the call went to instant replay, everyone was pretty much in agreement that the ball was clearly touched by Garnett last.

Wouldn't that be true, though, 95% of the time that the ball is knocked out of someone's hands? If you slow down the replay to watch who had the last contact with the ball, generally the "knocker" has dislodged the ball and the "knockee" who is losing control is the last one, technically, to touch the ball as it slides out of his hands. Yet the ball will almost always be awarded to the knockee.

Is instant replay changing the rules of the game?

My thoughts exactly.

I was going nuts about this during the game last night.

 

[Hopper]

I forgotten which one right now, but in a recent Jazz game a Jazz player basically threw the ball away. However, it landed on an opposing player who was just layin there, out of bounds, after flopping. The ref first called possession for the other team, but when Williams and others pointed out the circumstances (and the rules), they changed the call. The Jazz got a lucky break, sure, but rulez is rulez, ya know?

 

[bordelais7]

What's to change, Bordy? If you have the ball, completely off the court, but still in the air, and can manage to throw it offa guy's head before you hit the floor, and it goes outta bounds, your ball. No different if you're inbounds when you pull the same trick, eh?

I'm not arguing what the rule SHOULD be. I'm observing how similar plays are generally called, and how slow motion replay dramatically changes that.

Remember all the times that Karl Malone slapped the ball out of someone's hands? In those circumstances if the ball went out of bounds, the ball was given back to the other team, of course. In the world of slo-mo re-play, however, the Jazz would gain possession.

Of course, none of this addresses the fact that I'm responding to HopperNuthin, and that the subsequent response will be nonsensical and/or will not address the point.

 

[Hopper]

Of course, none of this addresses the fact that I'm responding to HopperNuthin, and that the subsequent response will be nonsensical and/or will not address the point.

Well, Bordy, I don't see where we disagree on anything, now, then. Your initial post suggested that the "rules of the game" had been changed.

The whole point of the replays is to "get the call right." The fact that an inordinate number of such plays were incorrectly called in the past would only seem to enhance the desirability of the replays, ya know?

 

[dantheman]

I had the same thoughts while watching the game last night. It does seem like a large portion of the time, the knockee is the last to touch the ball, yet his team will be rewarded the ball. I found it interesting that both of the calls reviewed were overturned, things evened out, and would have without instant replay (albeit backwards).

 

[gregbroncs]

This is a very interesting question. Because if you look at every play that the ball is knocked out of somebody's hand it will probably go off of the guy who had the ball the vast majority of the time. But the calls in the NBA go the other way at a similar rate. Does this mean that the NBA has been making the wrong call for years? Or is it that the rule is actually changing? Or is the rule only changing for the last 2 minutes of the game and OT?

 

[Hopper]

I didn't see the play in question, but the fact that they had to review it suggests that it was not readily apparent who touched the ball last. Probably the last obvious thing a ref sees is the player slapping the ball. If it goes downward (as it probably usually does), it could go off anyone's foot or knee that is in the area. I have seen plays like that where the ball actually kinda goes around like a pinball, bouncin first off one guy's foot, then taking a new direction and rolling over to hit another guys shoe, etc. There are times when the guy who swiped at the ball does indeed knock it straight out of bounds or else knocks it off the player who had the ball, only to have it then bounce offa him before it goes outta bounds.

It's probably just a hard play to call because it all happens so fast, and, at floor level, is not within the natural view of the refs. When in doubt, the refs seem to give the benefit of that doubt to the player who last had the ball in many cases, maybe because the last player they "know" touched the ball was the defender. I tend to doubt that the refs know the ball went off player A, but pretend like it didn't.

 

[sirkickyass]

I didn't see the play in question

Trust me when I say that this is why you're missing the point.

I've always thought the rule was to allow the team with possession to retain it when the motion or actions of the opposing team plainly caused the ball to go out of bounds. This comports with the way things are called generally because it feels more equitable to penalize the team that caused a violation to occur when it's not readily apparent which team touched the ball last. The replays we've seen in the finals don't focus on the cause of the violation at all and instead look towards 1/100ths of a second where incidental contact that does not determine the direction of the ball is the final contact with the ball.

The way the game is called in minutes 1-46 definitely relates to the intent of the parties in these close situations. Minutes 47-48 completely divorces that factor from the calculation and suddenly what matters is, frankly, whos arms are longer at the point of contact.

The issue isn't that the rules changed per se, the problem is that the interpretation of the rules changes in those last couple of minutes. Technically the rule is whomever touched it last, not who's motion or impact with the ball knocked the ball out of bounds. In the replay period suddenly results that make no sense occur, because, for example Pau Gasol has a finger poking through the gap between Garnett's fingers and therefore it's impossible to know who actually touched it last. Everyone who watches the game can tell that it was Garnett's motion that knocked the ball out of bounds.

And don't even get me started on the total artificaility of the play where it was apparent that Rondo's foul was the real determining factor but the foul's not reviewable so the foul gets rewarded by the replay process.

 

[dantheman]

Trust me when I say that this is why you're missing the point.

I've always thought the rule was to allow the team with possession to retain it when the motion or actions of the opposing team plainly caused the ball to go out of bounds. This comports with the way things are called generally because it feels more equitable to penalize the team that caused a violation to occur when it's not readily apparent which team touched the ball last. The replays we've seen in the finals don't focus on the cause of the violation at all and instead look towards 1/100ths of a second where incidental contact that does not determine the direction of the ball is the final contact with the ball.

The way the game is called in minutes 1-46 definitely relates to the intent of the parties in these close situations. Minutes 47-48 completely divorces that factor from the calculation and suddenly what matters is, frankly, whos arms are longer at the point of contact.

The issue isn't that the rules changed per se, the problem is that the interpretation of the rules changes in those last couple of minutes. Technically the rule is whomever touched it last, not who's motion or impact with the ball knocked the ball out of bounds. In the replay period suddenly results that make no sense occur, because, for example Pau Gasol has a finger poking through the gap between Garnett's fingers and therefore it's impossible to know who actually touched it last. Everyone who watches the game can tell that it was Garnett's motion that knocked the ball out of bounds.

And don't even get me started on the total artificaility of the play where it was apparent that Rondo's foul was the real determining factor but the foul's not reviewable so the foul gets rewarded by the replay process.

What he said. Also, I wonder if the league will ever institute a rule where calling a foul on Rondo after replay or allowing the Lakers to keep the ball in a situation like the Rondo\ Odom scenario. (Ball was clearly off Odom, but only as a result of him being fouled by Rondo) I just don't understand where they would draw the line or how the rule would read so it could be applicable and useful in most circumstances.

 

[UB]

The NBA is just the Jerry Springer Show in shorts and headbands.

 

[Hopper]

I wonder if the league will ever institute a rule where calling a foul on Rondo after replay or allowing the Lakers to keep the ball in a situation like the Rondo\ Odom scenario.

The league used to have a rule that a player who was out of bounds, but only because he got pushed, shoved, or bumped by an opposing player, would still be awarded the ball, even though, technically, he was the one out of bounds. The emphasis then seemed to be on who "caused" the ball to go out of bounds. Later, I guess they just decided that if a player was pushed out of bounds, it was simply a foul and should have no bearing on a "possession" call, which makes a lot more sense, really.

In most cases I've seen, the replay actually does help "get it right," even though "judgment calls" are not subject to review. Whether a made basket was a three-pointer or not, etc., that kinda thing. No matter what methods ya use (especially 100% reliance on the refs), it will never be perfect, and there will be cases where the method seems flawed or inadequate. What else is new?

 

[Hopper]

There's probably sumthin to be said for this approach, too:

"Odom isn’t appealing to the league, the rules or anything else. He envisions a different solution to prevent this issue next time. “I was mad at myself” he says. “I have to be a lot stronger with the basketball. Make my space. You have to do it with your elbows a little bit, to keep guys off you. That’s the way it is.”

Odom was grabbed on his right wrist, no doubt, but the way the ball then just went flying out of his left hand looked preventable. Ya gotta wonder if Odom was simply assuming that a foul would be called, especially if he "exaggerated" the effect of the foul.

 

[moevillini]

...Of course, none of this addresses the fact that I'm responding to HopperNuthin, and that the subsequent response will be nonsensical and/or will not address the point.

meh, HopperNuthinn is kinda weak - I think Aint Hoppin has more potential.

kinda like Utahman just wouldn't have had the same cachet as Simpleheel, ya know?