David Stern and the NBA made it a point that they wanted higher scoring games this season. The numbers are up, but I've noticed that refs are holding the whistle on foul calls. Instead of calling a foul when it occurs, it seems the refs are waiting to see if the basket is made BEFORE they make the call. This is NOT how it's supposed to be, and <font color="Red">IT'S VERY ANNOYING TO WATCH.</font> The Worst Example occured during today's game Vs. Boston: Dwyane Wade shot the ball, missed, Udonis Haslem grabbed the rebound and went to shot, THEN the refs blew the whistle and called the foul ON THE WADE SHOT !!! I go to all Heat home games and have seen this throughout the season. I'm wondering if this occurs throughout the league. <font color="Red">Any thoughts?</font>
I agree that the call on that play was putrid, but keep in mind that it was also an overrule by the head official, which could explain it's lateness. If you want to complain about a travesty of a call, how about assessing a Flagrant 2 on Ricky Davis on the Wade foul. What a joke. Everyone knows that Davis can elevate with anyone in the league. He made a poor judgement in trying to block Wade's dunk attempt, but there was no way that play deserved an ejection. What a joke of a call.
Totally agree. I'm sick of this kind of call. There're a lots and a lots recently, especially at the last few minutes of the second quarter and the last quarter of the game. This is really ridiculous. I couldn't name which games I've seen this kind of calls because there're too many I've seen. When the wistle blows, I was wondering what's wrong with the play, but like what you've said, it was the play before...that's toooooooooooooo LATE!!!!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting hagrid:</div><div class="quote_post"> If you want to complain about a travesty of a call, how about assessing a Flagrant 2 on Ricky Davis on the Wade foul. What a joke. Everyone knows that Davis can elevate with anyone in the league. He made a poor judgement in trying to block Wade's dunk attempt, but there was no way that play deserved an ejection. What a joke of a call.</div> I completely agree. I saw the play on Sportscenter a few times and it was definetly no where near the lines of a Flagrant 2. I think it was a borderline foul/ possible Flagrant 1 but there was nothing in the replay to even indicate intent to harm on Davis's part. He went for the ball and it was nothing more than a hard foul. Bad call by the officials.
Agreed with Hunter here. He was just making a fair attempt at the ball, even if there was no chance of getting a block, it is legal to try. Bad call by the officials on that one. Going back to the original post, well, it happened in the Wolves/Cavs game last night to. Jeff McInnis was driving to the lane, he went up and took sort of a crazy layup, and it rolled on the rim for a couple seconds. Garnett then went up and got the rebound, and the second he touched the ball they called a foul on Eddie Griffin.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Hunter:</div><div class="quote_post">I completely agree. I saw the play on Sportscenter a few times and it was definetly no where near the lines of a Flagrant 2. I think it was a borderline foul/ possible Flagrant 1 but there was nothing in the replay to even indicate intent to harm on Davis's part. He went for the ball and it was nothing more than a hard foul. Bad call by the officials. </div> <div class="quote_poster">Quoting hagrid:</div><div class="quote_post">If you want to complain about a travesty of a call, how about assessing a Flagrant 2 on Ricky Davis on the Wade foul. What a joke. Everyone knows that Davis can elevate with anyone in the league. He made a poor judgement in trying to block Wade's dunk attempt, but there was no way that play deserved an ejection. What a joke of a call.</div> <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Pure:</div><div class="quote_post">Agreed with Hunter here. He was just making a fair attempt at the ball, even if there was no chance of getting a block, it is legal to try. Bad call by the officials on that one. Going back to the original post, well, it happened in the Wolves/Cavs game last night to. Jeff McInnis was driving to the lane, he went up and took sort of a crazy layup, and it rolled on the rim for a couple seconds. Garnett then went up and got the rebound, and the second he touched the ball they called a foul on Eddie Griffin.</div> Do you think that reciever who was clotheslined by that defender in that nfl game should've been ejected? It might've not been his intent to cause harm but the guy could've been seriously injured. For Christ's sake he was temporarily paralyzed. You may not agree with the call but these are HUMAN BEINGS that are playing here and HUMAN BEINGS health at risks. Just because you don't acknowledge their being doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to live a healthy life and play in their respective sports. Great call by the refs to cut down on those type of fouls that put a human being's life and health at risk. Shame on those who think that these people don't have family friends and lives and a right to enjoy them like the rest of us. Great call refs, keep up the great work
Since when did Ricky Davis going for a block put someones life at risk? I agree, it was a dumb play by Davis, and he deserved to be ejected. But, in no way is he putting anyones life at risk, that is a huge exaggeration. I'm pretty sure that in basketball your life is never really at risk. There has only been one injury I have seen that could have been threatening, and that was Jamal Crawford landing on his neck. Don't make me sound like basketball is perfectly safe, but the refs are never making calls to try to protect someones life.
I`ve been noticing this also. When the 76ers vs Wizards, I remember seeing Green go up for a layup, hacked, 6-7 seconds later, the whistle blew. But it seems to be improving. I haven`t heard a late call in a long time.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">HUMAN BEINGS health at risks.</div> LOL. Every time you step on the floor, either in a game or in practice, YOUR HEALTH IS AT RISK. I thought that was common sense, but apparently not. Wade could have a career ending injury from coming down in the paint on top of someone's foot and breaking an ankle. It's part of everyday game/practice hazards. Risking your health is part of the reason these guys get compensated so well. What Ricky Davis did, was part of the game. What he did (trying for the block) was not beyond his physical limitations and there was no clear intent to injure, which is a manadatory element of a Flagrant 2 foul. There was no reason for Davis to even try to hurt or even intimidate Wade. Not to mention that DAVIS TRIED TO HELP WADE UP, and would have had he not been pushed aside by an overzealous referree trying to be part of the show, instead of simply doing his job. If you want more evidence of that, think about how many times were there overrules and late calls in this game? No one's trying to say that it didn't merit a flagrant foul, but the ejection was over the top, particularly when a key element for an ejection is clearly missing.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Miami's Finest:</div><div class="quote_post">Do you think that reciever who was clotheslined by that defender in that nfl game should've been ejected? It might've not been his intent to cause harm but the guy could've been seriously injured. For Christ's sake he was temporarily paralyzed. You may not agree with the call but these are HUMAN BEINGS that are playing here and HUMAN BEINGS health at risks. Just because you don't acknowledge their being doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to live a healthy life and play in their respective sports. Great call by the refs to cut down on those type of fouls that put a human being's life and health at risk. Shame on those who think that these people don't have family friends and lives and a right to enjoy them like the rest of us. Great call refs, keep up the great work </div> Yeah, I somewhat agree except that Ricky did not INTEND TO HARM Wade. That much was obvious. If there is no intent, than by definition it is only a flagrant-1 foul. Also, it is amazing to me how much of a one-sided view of the situation you have. Davis put himself in just as much danger as he did Wade. It was a hustle play, and often with hustle plays there is some element of danger involved. If the league is so concerned about the health of their players, and they eject and suspend somebody for a play like that, than why not eject people diving for loose balls or even taking a charge? Yeah, it sounds ridiculous but it's justifiable by your set of standards. Basically what it all comes down to was who commited the foul and who was the recipient. I guarantee if it was the other way around, Wade would not have been ejected nor suspended. The only reason Davis is being punished is because his name is Ricky Davis. EDIT-Just to further prove my point: On the Celtics broadcast, they just mentioned that after review, the league has changed the foul in the books from a Flagrant-2 to a Flagrant-1.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">EDIT-Just to further prove my point: On the Celtics broadcast, they just mentioned that after review, the league has changed the foul in the books from a Flagrant-2 to a Flagrant-1.</div> Beat me to it 44! RD Plays tonight, without having to sit out any other games because of the wrongly applied call.
Referee's making late calls happen all over the world, and in every sport. For example I was playing school volleyball about a month ago and a player on my team made a blatant double touch on the ball, but it went right to our big spiker, who smashed it down. The call was made about 5 seconds after the spike was made. I couldn't believe it, we lost because of that play. I, myself coach basketball, and make late calls sometimes, because we want to see how the play ends before making a quick call. If a player is driving to the hoop and gets fouled, I usually wait a second to see if the ball is going to go in or not, then make the call, because I have to watch for continuation and everything else that is happening. Referee's have lots of responsibilities, and sometimes blowing the whistle takes the back seat to watching the end of the play. Don't get me wrong, I hate to watch it, but you have to understand the referee's position.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Streetball2k5:</div><div class="quote_post"> I, myself coach basketball, and make late calls sometimes, because we want to see how the play ends before making a quick call. If a player is driving to the hoop and gets fouled, I usually wait a second to see if the ball is going to go in or not, then make the call, because I have to watch for continuation and everything else that is happening. Referee's have lots of responsibilities, and sometimes blowing the whistle takes the back seat to watching the end of the play.</div> No that's the point of this post. Referees shouldn't make a call which is dependent on a result, if they do, then that is biased. If someone drives and gets hacked, they have to call that foul, whether the shot goes in or not. If they make the call dependent on what happens next, then that is biased. Basketball isn't a sport where you can 'play the advantage' or anything, and violations have to be called as soon as they are made.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dimch:</div><div class="quote_post">No that's the point of this post. Referees shouldn't make a call which is dependent on a result, if they do, then that is biased. If someone drives and gets hacked, they have to call that foul, whether the shot goes in or not. If they make the call dependent on what happens next, then that is biased. Basketball isn't a sport where you can 'play the advantage' or anything, and violations have to be called as soon as they are made.</div> I know what you mean here Dimch, but put yourself in the referee's position. He/She has to watch the play to it's entirety, so he can see all violations. Sometimes a referee is forced to wait a second before blowing the whistle, because he wants to see the outcome. I agree that it is very annoying and to a point biased, but if you aren't sure whether it was a foul or not, why not wait to see if it goes in or not? If it goes it, let the play continue, if not, call the foul, that way it's a little more fair. Don't get me wrong here, I don't agree with this method of referee'ing whatsoever, but if you are put in the same situation, I'm sure you'd understand. The ref is trying to make the game fair, and sometimes waiting to see the outcome of a play before making/not making a call is the right choice, so it will be fair.
