[Grades] Grades v. Cheaters 1/13/15

[kupman]

I really enjoyed watching this game. I thought the Kings showed some toughness as a team when 1/3 of the Big 3 went down early. We could have easily won this game and maybe we would have if Chandler had not come-up with his excellent flop move. Hats off to him. If you are going to have your lunch eaten by Boogie, beat him the only way you can - put him on the bench.

Boogie continues to make progress under Corbin's leadership. He has looked like an MVP candidate in the past few weeks.

I hope that we can start to get some production outside of the Big 3. If just 1-2 more players could step it up I think it would make a really big difference for us.

This team is fun to watch and I think that this is a very exciting time for the franchise.

Just a couple of points of clarification on my earlier post:

1) I did not copy it. I typed it out with my 10 fingers this morning. I really do not have time in my life to look back through posts made earlier in the season.

2) I am not embarrassed. It is my opinion that DMC has continued to make progress - especially in his passing game and also his emotional regulation. This progress has continued under Corbin's leadership.

Peace.

 

[randymoss1881]

Corbin's a ****ing idiot no and ifs or buts about it. Why would a team take a quick shot if they are up 1 did this idiot think they'd go 2 for 1. Man so stupid.

 

[rainmaker]

Corbin's a ****ing idiot no and ifs or buts about it. Why would a team take a quick shot if they are up 1 did this idiot think they'd go 2 for 1. Man so stupid.

He appears to think that due to the nonsense PDA and Vivek are spewing, that other teams will also follow that incompetence, rush up the floor and jack up a quick shot at any time.

It's as if all anyone in our organization is thinking about is pace. Getting up shots. To the point they think a team like Dallas under Carlisle is dumb enough to share the same through process.

 

[Fear the Putin]

I'm sorry, but that ref needs to be suspended. Why is it that players only get the axe (a puny fine at that) for flopping and not the refs? We supposedly have these grade A professional refs, who make judgment calls late in the game on a god damn reaction. Not on contact...on a reaction.

We need to start issuing warnings to refs and suspend them as well. That is if the NBA actually wants to cure this league of this pathetic and rotten disease of flopping.

 

[ArcoKings]

Very disappointing loss for the Kings last night. It seems that the Kings ALWAYS get the short end of the stick in dramatic fashion. DMC was fantastic. It's unfortunate he didn't get to finish the game. Had he been on the court until the end I like our chances. The flop was hilarious. An Oscar Award winning performance. Best Actor. If a Kings player would have flopped this bad he doesn't get the call. That's the way it is for the Kings. Corbin made a big mistake. Precious time was wasted. He gambled and lost. The missed 3s hurt. If they're not falling in don't you think a different approach must be taken? The T.O.s continue to be an issue for the team. You would think by this point of the season that the TOs would be down. Mediocrity sucks. The fans deserve more. Hope springs eternal.

 

[KingMilz]

It's strange refs can review flagrants (or what they deem to be a flagrant) but can't review (in the final 2 min's at least) if something is foul or not. But the NBA only has itself to blame it has not stamped out flopping and players are falling on jumpers on every other shot and the amount of exaggerating on contact is fairly pitiful.

Again the NBA needs to have a zero tolerance policy to flopping, the results should be 2 shots and a foul and a ejection to stamp it out.

 

[kingjatt]

I had forgotten about that piece. Bucher said something similar recently and got rightfully panned for being Bucher, but Woj is solid, and I remember hearing that Bruski was recenly reporting that there are conflicts among the FO as well. There were also reports back when he bought the team that Vivek came on board (toward the last minute, remember?) once he received assurances he would have input in player personnel decisions. There's enough rumblings for me to read that firing PDA simply would not change anything.

Kind of related to this but PDA did say the first thing Vivek TOLD me to do as a GM was get Rudy Gay, What else has Vivek told his basketball people to do? It surely didnt stop with Rudy. Thats what is most likely holding up the coaching search in that Vivek does NOT want a guy who wont take any input from him. Ric Buchers a hack but there is some evidance out there that Vivek is taking meddling to the extreme.

 

[LPKingsFan]

He appears to think that due to the nonsense PDA and Vivek are spewing, that other teams will also follow that incompetence, rush up the floor and jack up a quick shot at any time.

It's as if all anyone in our organization is thinking about is pace. Getting up shots. To the point they think a team like Dallas under Carlisle is dumb enough to share the same through process.

I don't know, he did the exact same thing in Utah.

 

[206Fan]

Lack of ball handlers and scoring hurt the team last night. Realistically, there are only 2-3 players that can create looks for their teammates. However, all 3 are inconsistent at it. Collison, Gay, and Cuz.

Collison is bad when he's the #2 option on any team. There was an article posted about how if Collison is your #3 option, you probably don't have a very good team. I see him more as a game manager like Alex Smith....Which is why I think the Kings need a very good back up PG. Ray isn't going to cut it.

Last night was on offense more than anything. Once DMC fouled out, there was literally no one that I trusted to have the ball in their hands in OT aside from Collison. That, alone is a problem.

Our roster is terrible up and down.

 

[twslam07]

It's strange refs can review flagrants (or what they deem to be a flagrant) but can't review (in the final 2 min's at least) if something is foul or not. But the NBA only has itself to blame it has not stamped out flopping and players are falling on jumpers on every other shot and the amount of exaggerating on contact is fairly pitiful.

Again the NBA needs to have a zero tolerance policy to flopping, the results should be 2 shots and a foul and a ejection to stamp it out.

It's actually not that strange at all when you think about it. The only time they review if it's a flagrant or what type of flagrant the should issue is when the whistle has been blown because of what just occurred on the floor. The play is dead and stopped making it practical to review if it was actually a flagrant and if it was a flagrant, was a flagrant 1 or 2.

When it comes to fouls, it can be a little more messy. If it's a questionable call and a ref blows his/her whistle to go see if it was a foul or not, the ref just disrupted a play that could still be going on depending on if it was a foul or not. Reviews are generally done when there are dead balls. You can really slow down and mess with the flow of a game if you're stopping play to review. In this case, you would only be able to review a foul call rather than both a foul call and no-call since the ref blowing the whistle for a foul has already caused the ball to be dead.

 

[kingsboi]

I can't fault the effort they put in. Collison was needed here to score but he didn't provide enough of it. Trying to figure out what happened to Ben's early shooting success and all of a sudden looking like rookie Ben shooting the ball, not sure how he is this bad in these last 5-6 games. DeMarcus obviously doesn't trust his team mates enough without Rudy out there because even when he was being trapped, he was trying to escape it with a dribble. The funniest moment for me had to be him coming off a screen from the left wing like a shooting guard...Corbin?

 

[Warhawk]

It's actually not that strange at all when you think about it. The only time they review if it's a flagrant or what type of flagrant the should issue is when the whistle has been blown because of what just occurred on the floor. The play is dead and stopped making it practical to review if it was actually a flagrant and if it was a flagrant, was a flagrant 1 or 2.

When it comes to fouls, it can be a little more messy. If it's a questionable call and a ref blows his/her whistle to go see if it was a foul or not, the ref just disrupted a play that could still be going on depending on if it was a foul or not. Reviews are generally done when there are dead balls. You can really slow down and mess with the flow of a game if you're stopping play to review. In this case, you would only be able to review a foul call rather than both a foul call and no-call since the ref blowing the whistle for a foul has already caused the ball to be dead.

I disagree. In this case, the foul was already called and play had stopped. Your discussion is whether to stop the play to see if a foul is a foul, which is not being suggested. The approach suggested follows up on the flagrant idea that if a whistle has already stopped the game, then play has already been interrupted. At that point why not review for flopping and dish out appropriate punishment right then? If it was determined that the play was a flop, why shouldn't the flopping team be penalized instead of the team that didn't commit the foul that was whistled?

 

[IfAt1st]

The approach suggested follows up on the flagrant idea that if a whistle has already stopped the game, then play has already been interrupted. At that point why not review for flopping and dish out appropriate punishment right then?

Ooh!
Treating flops like flagrant fouls, then assessing whether it's a Floppy 1 or (egregious) Floppy 2 could halt the practice within one season.

Great idea.

The only problem is - many flops are indistinguishable from hits/collisions in real time, so many times there won't be a stoppage of play when a flop occurs. Also, the way they call charges/blocks almost mandates that the players exaggerate contact. (e.g. If a large player actually stood his ground and took a charge from a smaller player (without falling back), the smaller player would likely be injured)

It's the lying aspect of a flop that does damage to the game.
The refs HAVE to uphold the rules of the game, and protect the players from illegal contact on the floor.
Flopping destroys this covenant by faking/exaggerating contact.

The only practical method for curtailing the epidemic of flopping is to fine harshly and widely, after the fact.
Currently, the NBA fines or even warns players so seldom that it is almost ignored by the players.
They really need to step up the assessing of warnings and fines if they are going to put a dent in the absurd flopping which is a detriment to the sport, and holds their superstar system down (in check).
When a singular talent like Demarcus can be taken out of tons of games in his career because of lesser players flopping and manufacturing fouls (and double-technicals!!) all over the court, it robs the fanbase from being able to see the stars they are paying the money to go see.

 

[Warhawk]

Ooh!
Treating flops like flagrant fouls, then assessing whether it's a Floppy 1 or (egregious) Floppy 2 could halt the practice within one season.

Great idea.

The only problem is - many flops are indistinguishable from hits/collisions in real time, so many times there won't be a stoppage of play when a flop occurs. Also, the way they call charges/blocks almost mandates that the players exaggerate contact. (e.g. If a large player actually stood his ground and took a charge from a smaller player (without falling back), the smaller player would likely be injured)

It's the lying aspect of a flop that does damage to the game.
The refs HAVE to uphold the rules of the game, and protect the players from illegal contact on the floor.
Flopping destroys this covenant by faking/exaggerating contact.

The only practical method for curtailing the epidemic of flopping is to fine harshly and widely, after the fact.
Currently, the NBA fines or even warns players so seldom that it is almost ignored by the players.
They really need to step up the assessing of warnings and fines if they are going to put a dent in the absurd flopping which is a detriment to the sport, and holds their superstar system down (in check).
When a singular talent like Demarcus can be taken out of tons of games in his career because of lesser players flopping and manufacturing fouls (and double-technicals!!) all over the court, it robs the fanbase from being able to see the stars they are paying the money to go see.

Again, if they think that a foul was committed and blew a whistle, play has already stopped. If someone flopped and no whistle blew, who cares? As you say, actual "flop" fines are pretty rare, at least that I hear of. Obviously there is some "acting" for charges, etc., that is already accounted for in the calls and existing review procedure, otherwise there would be a LOT of fines, and we just aren't seeing that. Maybe the coach can challenge a couple foul calls per game for flopping (if play is already stopped)? I realize that not every foul can be reviewed by instant replay for a flop, but "nipping it in the bud" at the time of committing the foul and creating on-court penalties would go a long way to stopping flopping from causing this kind of issue in the future. Just a thought.

 

[mac]

Again, if they think that a foul was committed and blew a whistle, play has already stopped. If someone flopped and no whistle blew, who cares? As you say, actual "flop" fines are pretty rare, at least that I hear of. Obviously there is some "acting" for charges, etc., that is already accounted for in the calls and existing review procedure, otherwise there would be a LOT of fines, and we just aren't seeing that. Maybe the coach can challenge a couple foul calls per game for flopping (if play is already stopped)? I realize that not every foul can be reviewed by instant replay for a flop, but "nipping it in the bud" at the time of committing the foul and creating on-court penalties would go a long way to stopping flopping from causing this kind of issue in the future. Just a thought.

Yea I think allowing for 2 challenges or something would be the best way. If you made it such that they could review every foul then the refs would be a lot more liberal with blowing the whistle

 

[VF21]

I think the whole team should get mohawks and grow out fu manchus. Time to get a little ****ing toughness around here.

DeMarcus would not be caught dead in a mohawk. It would mess with his headband.

 

[VF21]

Ooh!
Treating flops like flagrant fouls, then assessing whether it's a Floppy 1 or (egregious) Floppy 2 could halt the practice within one season.

Great idea.

The only problem is - many flops are indistinguishable from hits/collisions in real time, so many times there won't be a stoppage of play when a flop occurs. Also, the way they call charges/blocks almost mandates that the players exaggerate contact. (e.g. If a large player actually stood his ground and took a charge from a smaller player (without falling back), the smaller player would likely be injured)

It's the lying aspect of a flop that does damage to the game.
The refs HAVE to uphold the rules of the game, and protect the players from illegal contact on the floor.
Flopping destroys this covenant by faking/exaggerating contact.

The only practical method for curtailing the epidemic of flopping is to fine harshly and widely, after the fact.
Currently, the NBA fines or even warns players so seldom that it is almost ignored by the players.
They really need to step up the assessing of warnings and fines if they are going to put a dent in the absurd flopping which is a detriment to the sport, and holds their superstar system down (in check).
When a singular talent like Demarcus can be taken out of tons of games in his career because of lesser players flopping and manufacturing fouls (and double-technicals!!) all over the court, it robs the fanbase from being able to see the stars they are paying the money to go see.

Flopping should result in a technical foul, assessed at the time or after the game. If you amass multiple flop technicals, you get suspended. The fine does nothing. Sitting out a game can cost your team a lot, especially in key games.

 

[King Baller]

Wow. That's the game right there.

I had to work late and missed the game, but I'm almost happy I did. Probably would have had to buy a new TV if I saw that live

Worst call of the year. Even worse than that one in Memphis

 

[King Baller]

Flopping should result in a technical foul, assessed at the time or after the game. If you amass multiple flop technicals, you get suspended. The fine does nothing. Sitting out a game can cost your team a lot, especially in key games.

I thought the NBA was going to fine floppers??? Or was that last season?

 

[VF21]

I thought the NBA was going to fine floppers??? Or was that last season?

Here's a list of all the fines assessed this season thus far:

http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/fines.html#14-15

 

[twslam07]

I disagree. In this case, the foul was already called and play had stopped. Your discussion is whether to stop the play to see if a foul is a foul, which is not being suggested. The approach suggested follows up on the flagrant idea that if a whistle has already stopped the game, then play has already been interrupted. At that point why not review for flopping and dish out appropriate punishment right then? If it was determined that the play was a flop, why shouldn't the flopping team be penalized instead of the team that didn't commit the foul that was whistled?

No, the discussion is around "if something is a foul or not." That statement includes foul calls and no calls. That's why I said reviewing no-calls could be problematic. If the play is stopped by a foul call, you will be able to review it (like I already suggested). Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. All you are doing is reiterating what I said besides the fact of analyzing why it wouldn't work for no calls...

 

[VF21]

No, the discussion is around "if something is a foul or not." That statement includes foul calls and no calls. That's why I said reviewing no-calls could be problematic. If the play is stopped by a foul call, you will be able to review it (like I already suggested). Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. All you are doing is reiterating what I said besides the fact of analyzing why it wouldn't work for no calls...

I think you guys are basically saying the same thing. I don't think anyone is actually promoting the idea of reviewing plays for "no calls".

 

[twslam07]

I think you guys are basically saying the same thing. I don't think anyone is actually promoting the idea of reviewing plays for "no calls".

Agree on the first part. My point was just around they probably don't do reviews for fouls because it's impractical to do reviews for wrong no-calls therefore they can't do reviews for fouls that are called.

Having the ability to review foul calls in the last 2 minutes could be useful, but will it get to the point where every foul is reviewed because the person who fouled him is lobbying that he didn't do anything? It could turn into a very long 2 minutes. However, it would be a 2 minutes with less mistakes.

 

[BonziFan]

I'm sorry, but that ref needs to be suspended. Why is it that players only get the axe (a puny fine at that) for flopping and not the refs? We supposedly have these grade A professional refs, who make judgment calls late in the game on a god damn reaction. Not on contact...on a reaction.

We need to start issuing warnings to refs and suspend them as well. That is if the NBA actually wants to cure this league of this pathetic and rotten disease of flopping.

The refs are fined and suspended. We just don't here about it. The refs already take a lot with the proximity to the fans. If the public knew all the fines and suspensions, the refs would be in a worse position than they already are.

 

[VF21]

Agree on the first part. My point was just around they probably don't do reviews for fouls because it's impractical to do reviews for wrong no-calls therefore they can't do reviews for fouls that are called.

Having the ability to review foul calls in the last 2 minutes could be useful, but will it get to the point where every foul is reviewed because the person who fouled him is lobbying that he didn't do anything? It could turn into a very long 2 minutes. However, it would be a 2 minutes with less mistakes.

I don't think so. especially if the players aren't allowed to "lobby". If a coach is allowed, for example, one challenge per half and just like the NFL a failed challenge results in the loss of a time out, I think it would only be used in pretty blatant situations. It's not a perfect solution, but I think everyone is on the same page about needing something to be done.

We aren't the only team to be totally jobbed because of a idiot official. If the challenge is made, the determination would be made by the replay center with someone respected in the officiating world. I'd also like to see a time limit in that the center would only have a short period of time to examine the "foul" and either sustain or overturn the call on the court.

 

[VF21]

The refs are fined and suspended. We just don't here about it. The refs already take a lot with the proximity to the fans. If the public knew all the fines and suspensions, the refs would be in a worse position than they already are.

I'm sorry but I have to question that. How do you know they're fined and suspended?

 

[VF21]

Thanks to Fireplug for providing a link to the Referee Assignments. The page is updated every day at 9 a.m. EST.

I intend to keep an eye on it to see if Lauren Holtcamp's name shows up.

 

[jdbraver]

I don't think so. especially if the players aren't allowed to "lobby". If a coach is allowed, for example, one challenge per half and just like the NFL a failed challenge results in the loss of a time out, I think it would only be used in pretty blatant situations. It's not a perfect solution, but I think everyone is on the same page about needing something to be done.

We aren't the only team to be totally jobbed because of a idiot official. If the challenge is made, the determination would be made by the replay center with someone respected in the officiating world. I'd also like to see a time limit in that the center would only have a short period of time to examine the "foul" and either sustain or overturn the call on the court.

I'm of the opinion that replay would slow the game down way too much. It would kill momentum far worse in basketball than any other sport. Plus if your team is good enough it will overcome bad calls.
Also, unless it's blatant and happens over and over give the refs a break it is a tough job. They do get graded and talked to about every call/non-call.
Bottom line worry about the team and not the refs.

 

[TheJewishKing]

It's strange refs can review flagrants (or what they deem to be a flagrant) but can't review (in the final 2 min's at least) if something is foul or not. But the NBA only has itself to blame it has not stamped out flopping and players are falling on jumpers on every other shot and the amount of exaggerating on contact is fairly pitiful.

Again the NBA needs to have a zero tolerance policy to flopping, the results should be 2 shots and a foul and a ejection to stamp it out.

I definitely agree with you here, this possession was very crucial because DeMarcus Cousins could finish this game off if he was able to score against Tyson Chandler.

However though, Tyson flopped and was lucky enough to have the refs on his side and call DeMarcus Cousins for the offense of foul and make him finish his part in the basketball game for the Kings, in other words, It might be accurate to say that the refs decided the game with this very controversial call on DeMarcus Cousins.

Therefore, I agree that when the game reaches its most crucial moments of the game, hereinafter = the last two minutes of the game, every controversial call should be reviewed in order to be able to make the best calls and not force a team to lose due to bad officiating.

 

[Warhawk]

No, the discussion is around "if something is a foul or not." That statement includes foul calls and no calls. That's why I said reviewing no-calls could be problematic. If the play is stopped by a foul call, you will be able to review it (like I already suggested). Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. All you are doing is reiterating what I said besides the fact of analyzing why it wouldn't work for no calls...

My apologies if that was the case. I read the original statement to mean that after a whistle was blown, they can't review the play to see "if something was a foul or not" (flopping vs. a foul). Apparently you read it as still reviewing plays even if play wasn't stopped, and that didn't make sense to me (except, obviously, in the cases where a fine is levied later after NBA review for flopping). I misunderstood your response because I think we read the original post differently.