[Game] Kings @ Suns, 11/11/2024, 5pm PST/ 8 pm EST
- Thread starter sono
- Start date
- Status
I’m hoping the two MCs can get some run here and make spark a better shooting run. At this point it’s mostly Fox, Keegan, Lyles and Monk that we need to get going. Derozan is shooting a career high, Domas is fine and Kev is back. Keon has been solid most nights, actually I’d like him to take a few more. His shot looks pretty good
Exactly my complaint with the shooting is that yes Fox, Lyles, Monk and Keegs have started off slumping (though I dont expect it to last), but Keon hasnt been slumping with his shot. He has just NOT been shooting. I would like him to take more than 4 shots a night and I think longer burn than 20 min should be expected from inarguably the best defender on the team. I really think Keon, monk and Huerter should all get around 25 min per night. with Monk and Keon splitting time between PG and SG depending on the lineup. The man is almost always in the positives for +/-. Does so many little things on the court.
Hah I’m here pal. I actually reached out to the refs twitter account to get clarity. And I’m glad they responded. I never started anything over money (feel free to look back at the posts), I was genuinely curious what the specific rule on”holding” was. As it stands, the NBA refs association backed their refs but didn’t specify what constitutes possession which is what I was looking for. That said, even though I didn’t agree to any wager since you couldn’t confirm any of your funds, I will still happily donate $100 to any charity of your choice, under your name so you can take the tax benefit. So DM your info and email and I will make the contribution.
For those curious, I got the below response from my buddy who refs NCAA Div-1 games. College rules are different than NBA rules but he confirmed it would be a SC reset in college. Era got all sensitive when most of us were looking for what in Trey Lyles’ moment of having his back turned and flipping the ball over his shoulder makes that a “hold” and this possession. And he made it into a weird wager. When I seriously wanted to know the rule since I coach and know refs, and these grey areas interest me.
So definition of team control. Dribbling a live ball while inbounds.
Definition of a dribble. Ball movement caused by a player who bats, pushes, or taps the ball to the playing court once or several times.
That’s ncaa verbiage. So in ncaa rule books. The dribble is the controlled save onto the basketball court. Shot clock reset. Then turnover back to Phoenix it looks like. Reset again.
So definition of team control. Dribbling a live ball while inbounds.
Definition of a dribble. Ball movement caused by a player who bats, pushes, or taps the ball to the playing court once or several times.
That’s ncaa verbiage. So in ncaa rule books. The dribble is the controlled save onto the basketball court. Shot clock reset. Then turnover back to Phoenix it looks like. Reset again.
OK, so New Era was correct on this one. Credit his account with five points!
But still there are two things that don't sit right with me:
1) Either this situation is almost never adjudicated this way, or there's a pretty massive Mandela Effect going on. I mean, every single player and coach on the Kings' bench and three of the five on the floor were begging for a shot clock violation. A lot of us here were not alone in misunderstanding that rule - because we are convinced we've seen it adjudicated the other way many times. Maybe we haven't?
2) This seems to fly in the face of the timeout rule. This leads to situations where a team may have "possession" of the ball but not have the right to call a timeout. The rules can be as arbitrary as the league wants them to be, but this doesn't sit well with me. If you have possession, I think the rule should be that you are able to call a timeout. To make those consonant, I would change the possession rule (to what we all thought it was) rather than the timeout rule, but I would definitely change one of them.
But still there are two things that don't sit right with me:
1) Either this situation is almost never adjudicated this way, or there's a pretty massive Mandela Effect going on. I mean, every single player and coach on the Kings' bench and three of the five on the floor were begging for a shot clock violation. A lot of us here were not alone in misunderstanding that rule - because we are convinced we've seen it adjudicated the other way many times. Maybe we haven't?
2) This seems to fly in the face of the timeout rule. This leads to situations where a team may have "possession" of the ball but not have the right to call a timeout. The rules can be as arbitrary as the league wants them to be, but this doesn't sit well with me. If you have possession, I think the rule should be that you are able to call a timeout. To make those consonant, I would change the possession rule (to what we all thought it was) rather than the timeout rule, but I would definitely change one of them.
Yeah, I’ve seen many more instances where the defending team seemed to have much more “control” than Lyles did and for longer without it resetting the shot clock.
I understand it was correct based on those rules, but makes me wonder why the rules have never seemingly been followed until last night.
All around just really weird/bad officiating the past couple of games.
I understand it was correct based on those rules, but makes me wonder why the rules have never seemingly been followed until last night.
All around just really weird/bad officiating the past couple of games.
No you didn’t and you know you didn’t. You couldn’t even give me basic info to prove your end of the bargain since I don’t bet with people who don’t have the money to begin with. You got things twisted but that’s okay I deal with people like you all the time. Big mouth but when it’s time to buck up they get louder rather than actually follow through on any action
I will beg to differ and say I have seen countless times where a player is dribbling down the shot clock, has it poked away, ball goes into back court, another player on that team might get a touch before the original team recovers the possession and there is not a reset because the defending team never established a possession, but it did touch two defenders in the scuffle which seems to be where the NBA refs are drawing the line here...
If that's the rule fine, I never want to see it called any other way again because there isn't a single room for error, interpretation the way it was called last night.
If that's the rule fine, I never want to see it called any other way again because there isn't a single room for error, interpretation the way it was called last night.
Exactly. I even think the way it's written in the L2M report is disingenuous. He didn't catch the ball at all, he stopped it with one hand and flung it over his head all in one motion while flying out of bounds. It wasn't a catch, he was never holding the ball, and he didn't pass it either -- he just redirected it back toward the court to no one in particular. To call that a change of possession may be legally correct if we're splitting hairs, but I don't think it's in the spirit of the rule. And all the L2M reports are used for at this point is towing the company line since even when the call is ruled dead wrong on a play which determined the final outcome (like with Tyler Herro's illegal game winner last year) there are no changes made to the final score or negative repercussions for the team of officials who all signed off on a bad call. In fact, if this exact play were to occur in the playoffs even after reading this I'm 50/50 on whether it would be ruled as change of possession or not -- it will depend on the officials -- and I'm sure the L2M report will back them up in either case.
He was holding the ball for less time than Ja Morant holds it while dribbling. Technically he travels 40+ times a game if we're going to start calling everything by the letter of the law. There's still enough gray area in the interpretation of the rules as written for the officials to be blatantly biased and have the league office act like they're 100% calling it by the book.
The longer ref explanation/discourse on the twitter thread was actually that Kevin's strip/tip to Lyles constituted a steal and pass. That alone makes no sense, but if you take out Kevin's "steal" it makes even less sense because Lyles was not in a legal position to establish possession.
Show me some other examples of the call going like this because nobody can seem to point to any, but a save out of bounds like this happens in nearly every game.
Show me some other examples of the call going like this because nobody can seem to point to any, but a save out of bounds like this happens in nearly every game.
- Status