Sacbee: Bibby may have gotten a break

Twix

Starter
Bibby may have gotten a break


By Martin McNeal -- Bee Staff Writer

Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, April 29, 2006


San Antonio Spurs guard Manu Ginobili had possession of the ball, and all of a sudden, he didn't.

And a few seconds later, the Spurs had seen a potentially commanding 3-0 series lead evaporate into a layup at the other end of the court by Kings guard Kevin Martin.

That layup off the glass over and around the outstretched arms of Spurs forward Tim Duncan at the buzzer gave the Kings a 94-93 victory over the Spurs and trimmed San Antonio's lead to 2-1 in the best-of-seven Western Conference playoff series.

The hard-fought contest may have been decided by a non-called foul by Mike Bibby, who reached in on Ginobili as he tried to turn the corner on a high pick-and-roll. Ginobili is a hard-driving left-hander.

Kings center Brad Miller moved to the outside of Duncan, who set the pick, but Ginobili still was able to get around him.

Bibby was waiting for Ginobili and reached in. The Kings guard definitely got some of the ball but appeared to get a large portion of Ginobili's arm as well.

"Who cares?" said Bibby, who like virtually each of the participants on both teams complained about the officiating. "Do you know how many times I got hit and nothing was called?"

Ginobili, who committed a game-high seven turnovers, did not complain about the play after the game.

"I don't know," he said when told replays appeared to show him getting fouled by Bibby. "I don't know. I really have to see it again. Players always think they get fouled."

Bibby recovered the ball following the strip and passed ahead to Martin, who was streaking down the court. All Martin had to do was score on Duncan, who clearly isn't totally healthy, but not the defender you'd pick to score a basket on to save your season.

And Duncan appeared to be in pretty good position to stop Martin.

"I had to ask the guys after the game how (Martin) got the shot up," the perennial All-Star said. "I went to block his right hand. I thought he was going to flip it up."

Martin, who rarely uses his left hand on drives to the basket, was able to lay the ball in with an unorthodox shot off the glass, where it bounced on the rim twice before finally dropping through.

Said Martin, "I went up with my right hand. Actually, I might have thrown it up with both. I really don't know."


 
This is why I can't stand most of the Bee sports writers. Why even write an article about this. If you are a true home time sports writer, let the fams and the players enjoy this. Besides, Mike may have gotten some hand, but he had ball first.
 
Don't think we got the break on Bibby's strip, but on Bibby's basket intererence. He clearly hits the net before the ball goes through the cylinder. Why would you even risk doing that??

Of course, Duncan probably did foul K-Mart as well. They just don't call stuff then. And we've been screwed plenty of times at the end of games by non-calls so I'm glad it finally went our way for once.
 
I actually rather appreciate that a "hometown" writer is willing to admit to some questions here. Rah rah is for cheerleaders, not reporters.

But there was nothing here really any more blatant than Duncan's moving screen in Game 2. Spurs have nobody to blame here but themselves -- or in true Bibbygoat fashion, Manu.
 
thanks mcneal for such a stupid article. they got away with duncan's screen so as far as i'm concerned we're even (if there was a foul). either way though there's no reason for an article like this. we won the game and his headline is that we got away with one. what a jerk.
 
This could be just one example of many, many examples of why I do not spend any of my time or money reading that paper.
 
I have no problem with article. The game is over. If the biggest thing Marty can find to write about is a possible missed call that should have gone against the Kings, that's on him.

I agree with Bibby:

"Who cares?" said Bibby, who like virtually each of the participants on both teams complained about the officiating. "Do you know how many times I got hit and nothing was called?"
 
VF21 said:
I have no problem with article. The game is over. If the biggest thing Marty can find to write about is a possible missed call that should have gone against the Kings, that's on him

Definitely agree w/ Bibby as well [regarding the host of no calls he suffers through] but the comment that really tickled me is Duncan wondering how in the hell Martin got that shot off. That was half the glory of it. Duncan was right in the hunt - dead set against destiny. To no avail...


"I had to ask the guys after the game how (Martin) got the shot up," the perennial All-Star said. "I went to block his right hand. I thought he was going to flip it up."
 
Nazman said:
Definitely agree w/ Bibby as well [regarding the host of no calls he suffers through] but the comment that really tickled me is Duncan wondering how in the hell Martin got that shot off. That was half the glory of it. Duncan was right in the hunt - dead set against destiny. To no avail...


"I had to ask the guys after the game how (Martin) got the shot up," the perennial All-Star said. "I went to block his right hand. I thought he was going to flip it up."


We saw the MVP Tim Duncan in game 3, although still slowed by his foot problems. I'm so happy KMart went up strong and finished over Duncan. It's about time things went our way and we win on a last second shot. If we don't win another game against the Spurs, this game and last second conversion will stay with us. GO KINGS!!!
 
I for one do not like the article nor do I think it was necessary for the Sac paper to write. When it comes to the Kings if your local paper isn't in your corner then who will be? There are plenty of Kings critics to go around--why not let ESPN, TNT, Walton, etc. try to put a cloud on this win. The local paper doesn't have to be out right "cheerleaders" for the team but what about a little loyalty? Some things are better left unsaid by your hometown sports writers IMHO.
 
bibbinator said:
Manu's travel, that starts it all out?

No, but he went to the left, but Parker was there, and Bibby was cheating on the play.

Parker should have been the ball handler or out of the game(if he was there as a shooter). And put in Horry instead of Parker.

That spreads the floor more(assuming the hug Horry, Finley, Barry) and you have Duncan inside where you could have him post up also.

But instead they have Manu drive to the left, with Parker near by, in which Bibby is going to cheat(Parker as a shooter). You don't rely on a foul to bail you out in the last moments.
 
Variant said:
Don't think we got the break on Bibby's strip, but on Bibby's basket intererence. He clearly hits the net before the ball goes through the cylinder. Why would you even risk doing that??

Why? Because it's not interference if he touches the net. Only if he would have touched the ball, rim, imaginary cylinder or backboard then they'd be called basket interference.

http://aol.nba.com/analysis/rules_11.html?nav=ArticleList
RULE NO. 11-BASKETBALL INTERFERENCE-GOALTENDING
blank.gif


Section I-A Player Shall Not:
a. Touch the ball or the basket ring when the ball is using the basket ring as its lower base.
EXCEPTION: If a player near his own basket has his hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if his contact with the ball continues after the ball enters the cylinder, or if, in such action, he touches the basket.
b. Touch the ball when it is above the basket ring and within the imaginary cylinder.
c. For goaltending to occur, the ball, in the judgment of the official, must have a chance to score.
d. During a field goal attempt, touch a ball after it has touched any part of the backboard above ring level, whether the ball is considered on its upward or downward flight.
e. During a field goal attempt, touch a ball after it has touched the backboard below the ring level and while the ball is on its upward flight.
f. Trap the ball against the face of the backboard. (To be a trapped ball, three elements must exist simultaneously. The hand, the ball and the backboard must all occur at the same time. A batted ball against the backboard is not a trapped ball.)
g. Touch any live ball from within the playing area that is on its downward flight with an opportunity to touch the basket ring. This is considered to be a "field goal attempt" or trying for a goal.
h. Touch the ball at any time with a hand which is through the basket ring.
i. Vibrate the rim or backboard so as to cause the ball to make an unnatural bounce.
 
I thought maybe Bibby fouled Manu when the play happened live. In the replay, I didn't think so. Just Manu being Manu.

I could have sworn you technically aren't supposed to touch the net even. Not that anyone would call harmless incidental net contact.

Ja'kye is quite cute.
 
VF21 said:
I have no problem with article. The game is over. If the biggest thing Marty can find to write about is a possible missed call that should have gone against the Kings, that's on him.

I agree with Bibby:

Ditto again.
 
Manu was kinda out of control so it was a great non-call in my opinion. Kevin was fouled on the layup and the refs swallowed their whistles, so all is even.

Next game is crucial. Who knows how they're gonna call that one? Every game is an entity to itself as far as fouls are concerned.
 
if the officials missed a foul call on bibby, well that's part of the game.

it cracks me up when certain fans try to make it into a we really didn't get an advantage because manu traveled before and duncan fouled after and manu was out of control sort of thing. you really don't have to say anything unless you have immense amounts of guilt. even then, trying to rationalize it doesn't work.

it is what it is - a missed call among many missed calls in an nba game, not weighted any more or any less than the other missed foul calls. even ralph nader couldn't say who got the better end of it so why bother worrying about it? just let it go. only small people would try to make it seem like the kings got a freebie.
 
Games 2 & 3 are ancient history. Generally, in the first 3 games refs did a great job because they let the players determine the winner. Can't ask for more
 
Dave McNulla said:
if the officials missed a foul call on bibby, well that's part of the game.

it cracks me up when certain fans try to make it into a we really didn't get an advantage because manu traveled before and duncan fouled after and manu was out of control sort of thing. you really don't have to say anything unless you have immense amounts of guilt. even then, trying to rationalize it doesn't work.

it is what it is - a missed call among many missed calls in an nba game, not weighted any more or any less than the other missed foul calls. even ralph nader couldn't say who got the better end of it so why bother worrying about it? just let it go. only small people would try to make it seem like the kings got a freebie.

Word.
 
Back
Top