Hoops

Perth v Melbourne Jan 20

Fair enough.

But having legal guarding position is completely separate to whether someone plays at the ball. I've seen guys swoop in from the side and almost hip check the ball handler, but stick out an arm toward the ball and it be called as a regular foul.

So does the rule say players must be both in legal guarding position and play at the ball, or something different?

Flop Warning, you wrote this in your post: "I don't have an issue when people get upset when a bad call is made, especially when it potentially influences a result. What I find odd is that people only get upset when a howler is made in the last two mins of a game.". I am with you on this, but I saw a discussion on ESPN's First Take, this morn regarding an NFL game and when should they use play-backs to get the "right" calls. All game for every call, right down to last few minutes only. Stephen A (not a fan of his!) made the point that late in the game was fine as there is less time for adjustments and to make up for what you lose with the bad call.

Also, there's always the chance of a bad call going your way, later on, given time in the game.

Late in the game, extreme case, last couple of secs, a bad call on your stud, his 5th PF. he's out of the game, wrongly, in crunch time, and you're a point down. They get the ball. Now that matters a lot more than the same stud getting that same bad call earlier.

Not a perfect outlook but has sense.
(I know we are not talking replays here but thought influence-on-outcome re last few minutes of game time is relevant.)

In layman's terms, to commit a foul late-game you need to be between your man and your defensive basket, then you are considered in defensive position.

If you think Weeks had 'defensive position' then I'd like you to find a definition for it. Weeks simply hugged Newbill from behind

People make mistakes and are inconsistent, it's human nature.

Well put, Flop. People can't possibly think that favouring judgement over black-and-white calls is better for the game in this instance.

What'd I say above, people think 'the rule is easy to follow. The refs will get it right'... until they don't. And it only takes once for it to come into question. It happened numerous times in one round

If you think Weeks had 'defensive position' then I'd like you to find a definition for it. Weeks simply hugged Newbill from behind

Weeks and Abercrombie both had defensive position. Ware didn't.

Abercrombie's opponent was facing him, so a little different, but he ran at the opponent at speed. You could argue he at least made an attempt at the ball though.

Weeks on the other hand, just made contact from behind with an opponent facing the other way

Not sure about Abercrombie but Weeks certainly made no attempt at the ball. I went back and watched it again

For those who were claiming the call on Casper is consistent with this year's NBL, why weren't Abercrombie (17 secs left in OT) and Weeks (10 secs left in OT) called for the same thing the next day?

Both had an intent to foul.

"How it taste?
Ware owes you dinner."

salty as!!

So what is the reaction going to be on the off chance Perth actually play well and win?

my betting account will take a big hit so my reaction will be shock and sadness at having to have 2 minute noodles for tea tonight

He must have eaten all Trevor's chocolate cake.

Yeah, he has really struggled this season. I was still surprised he wasn't at least given a chance yesterday though. Vague trying to guard Pledger was scaring the hell out of me. Having said that, it's still not a matchup we would have won by using Jervis instead, and at least going with mobile guys like Kay or Vague gives us the potential to exploit the mismatch at the other end.
Tommy is clearly deep in the doghouse right now. He must have eaten all Trevor's chocolate cake.

Jervis is terrible, guy is a mountain and decides to miss point blank lay ups non stop, dunk it you lanky prick! But yeah, he's not good...at all. Brandt needs his minutes upped too, happy to play Vague, but not at the 5 ffs.

Wow MF you don't like personal attacks but are happy to play along with them when directed at others... theres a word for that.

For all those talking about the USF call, it was the right call as interpreted all season, some may not like it, but them's the rules. When Ware blew by Martin for the open layup, Martin could've grabbed him then, but he knew that it would be called an USF, he even said that in the interview. Basketball IQ.

Loved how sheepish and lost for words Homicide was during the final commentary. Of course he doesn't say anything bagging out the Cats till he's on social media. Fake scum.

Exactly Luuuc, good rule, defend properly or pay the consequences.

I don't see why that scenario should change the rule. If you can make a play on the ball then just do that. If you aren't in a position to do so then you've been out-foxed / out-worked by your opponent. If you are in a position to do so but opt not to, then that's your own fault.
I get that it is a fundamental change to the game, but surely it is a good one. Grabbing a player is in no way a basketball play, even though somehow over time it has become an accepted one and people are now used to that.

It's a great rule without question, just not in the late-game intentional fouling situation

I get that in the heat of the moment someone can instinctively revert back to an old habit. That doesn't make the rule wrong though.
Basketball is a difficult sport to ref, so things that make it clearer will generally get a tick from me. This included. I think the rule teak has done a pretty good job at cleaning up the game this season.

Who is saying it, meaning LV and myself. Both of whom have poor approval ratings. However, I think we have a very strong argument

I'll just ignore Lovebroker in future like I do anons.

If the target of vitriol has a poor approval rating then that makes the jabs completely okay. Very sad. Playground behaviour. Thought I could call him out on it but never mind.

Back to the actual topic, it baffles me as to why taking judgement (subjectivity) away from a ref is seen as a bad thing. It is a good thing, because refs cannot be trusted. I suspect people are looking at who's saying it rather than what is being said

Wow, all the characters have come out tonight to play.

Grow up, the both of you.

First one is nothing

I apologised for pretty much immediately after.

First one is nothing and the second one I apologised for pretty much immediately after. That was over the top.

I have recently said on this site that my goal had been to ignite a bit of fun banter, but it hasn't turned out that way. People just get bitter. So I've stopped being an agitator, if you've noticed.

But with you, Lovebroker, it's relentless. You should want to calm yourself down.

That's all I have to say mate

Pot....meet Kettle.

https://www.hoops.com.au/forum/44437-adelaide-v-illawarra-dec-9/#p721521

https://www.hoops.com.au/forum/44437-adelaide-v-illawarra-dec-9/#p721597

And Lovebroker's sniping is a bit extra. A bit over the top compared with anyone else I've seen on this site

Nothing egregious in isolation, but an accumulation of sniping over a long time. Sniping without any hint of meaningful contribution to the discussion. I attempted to call a truce in another thread but in response all Lovebroker did was continue to snipe.

Admins, I should have included that as a reason when submitting report. There it is

Reported him? What the hell for?

I've reported ya, Lovebroker. Hopefully your vitriolic days are numbered.

Have a good night mate

"LV seems like the kind of guy would would get caught for speeding and rushes to the speed limit sign and scream at it for not being 10kms more."

LOL brilliant, only thing you missed is that he already watched 20 other cars get done for speeding at the same spot and never had a problem with it then

LV said...
[blockquote]Allow referee discretion.[/blockquote]

Manu said...
[blockquote] Spot on with your last comment, LV[/blockquote]

Then in his nextg post...Manu said
[blockquote]Except allowing referee discretion is bad [/blockquote]

So Manu you either didn't read any of LV's post from the first sentence, or you are mentally challenged.

Which is it?

Clue : Those options are not mutually exclusive.

LV seems like the kind of guy would would get caught for speeding and rushes to the speed limit sign and scream at it for not being 10kms more.

Haha Christ, AD.

Well done mate. Now go to bed

No AD, you're wrong!!!! It's that simple!

This is why......

......

........


*Crickets chirping*

You're right, anon, in all respects. Wasn't deliberately blurring lines, just only half paying attention.

But it's separate to my argument

And the lines can be blurred between steal and foul. Because they're the only two options for the losing team.

[Is that the fault of the rule, or is that the fault of Casper Ware breaking the rule? ]

As Manu has pointed out multiple times, there are limited options for the losing team in situations like this. Often fouling makes the most sense. So, players will look to foul. The only remaining questions are how long it'll take them to commit a legitimate (looking) foul, and what complexities in the rules exist surrounding that opportunity to foul.

And yeah, as I said during the game, possession arrow is crap. Jump ball would've been better in that scenario

Of course Casper is at fault, Koberulz, but to LV's point, that's not the right questions to ask in the discussion we're having. We're talking big picture, concept.

Pretty sure people think, 'Oh well the rule is pretty black and white, I'd theoretically make the right decision every time so I'm sure referees will make the right decision every time'... until they don't. Then we're having this discussion yet again

Was that an exciting finish today?

There was no grabbing, he just reached out with two hands and made enough contact to get a foul.

It's baffling the approach that so many of you are taking.

We need to ask the right questions.

The question is NOT "Is this call fair, correct and consistent given current interpretstions?".

Look at this from the top down instead. Look at the outcomes. Consider the end goals of professional sporting leagues. Was that an exciting finish today? Are the rules facilitating an entertaining product? Yes or no? Why/why not?

By taking away the USF in this instance, you remove referee discretion.

The rule does its job when refs are consistent. They haven't been with this call.

Whether someone plays at the ball a sufficient amount for no USF to be called involved referee discretion. Seldom do players truly play at the ball when late-game fouling

"Everyone complains about referee discretion leading to inconsistency. You now are advocating that against a very black and white criteria. Which frankly makes no sense."

so much this.
asking for more ref discretion is insane. it is a clear sign of someone taking the piss. things are crystal clear right now. nothing needs to change just because some one eyed fan hasn't been keeping up. the intent of the rule is good for the game. the rule is easy to adjudicate. the rule has been doing its job all season.

Interesting that the USF rule is being mentioned with regards to "exciting finishes", yet no mention of the utterly moronic possession arrow.

Yeah, let's reward a defender for making a great play by.....giving it straight back to his opponent! At least a jump ball throws in more possibilities. I am still struggling to understand a single thing that it brings to the game. I don't like the USF foul, but I can see why some would think it's a good idea.

Except allowing referee discretion is bad

such bs. especially saying the game wasn't a close finish since it obviously was one. all season no one has had this big of a sook about this rule even though every team has copped some usf because of it. even in the early rounds when it was new people weren't sooking this much. if you can't adjust after 14 rounds then bad luck. there is nothing wrong with the rule at all.

Spot on with your last comment, LV