Refs cheated at end of OKC LA game

[Gurleyman]

The reaction to this is a microcosm of law in this country. The rules are clear - can't overturn foul/no foul call on replay. Can overturn out of bounds on replay. Refs used the out of bounds replay opportunity to reverse a non-reversible call. I think most reasonable viewers agree on that fact pattern. The difference is that some people believe that it's an abuse of the rules, and some think it's justice. I've always been an apply-the-rules guy. If you don't like the results, change the rules by the prescribed process. But don't circumvent the rules to try to arrive at a "just" result, because there are always unintended consequences. In this case, if they had not blown the no-call on the foul, and had instead called a shooting foul, OKC gets 2 free throws. At worst, the game is tied and Clips get a chance to win. Because the refs decided to make their own rules, OKC gets a 3 and gets a better result with the "end justifies the means" call than they would have otherwise. Unintended consequences. League needs to make a statement on this. If I was Silver, I'd suspend the refs involved in this decision for the rest of the playoffs and make clear to the public that the rules govern and the refs are required to apply the rules. We can forgive blown calls - it's part of the sport. We can't forgive intentional circumvention of the rules by any person, whether owner, player, or ref. On a side note, they oughtta make refs blow the whistle when a foul happens and not 2 seconds later when the shot attempt rolls out. I saw it several times in a Heat game, where the ref was clearly waiting to see if the layup was going in after the contact to decide whether to call a foul. The ball rolls off, whistle. If it had gone it, no whistle. It's about the integrity of the game. Apply the rules.

Your fact pattern has a big hole - they didn't reverse a call. It was called OKC ball and stayed that way. The way you wrote out your facts makes it sound like they used the replay to call a foul.

The rules also have some leeway in that they say if you hit someone's hand and knock the ball out, it is off you even if you don't touch the ball. Loose interpretation of that rule in this case, yes (since Barnes hit wrist and Jackson's other hand was the last on the ball), but it's an out for the referees to point to at least.

 

[EricLA]

Helen Keller also would have heard the slap on the wrist/hand and called that first…………

As they say No Harm No Foul…….LOL

LOL True - i'm sure her hearing was better than ordinary. Still, a colossal meltdown for the Clippers on every front, and OKC deserved the win for flat out being more tough down the stretch.

 

[Sleepy]

LOL True - i'm sure her hearing was better than ordinary. Still, a colossal meltdown for the Clippers on every front, and OKC deserved the win for flat out being more tough down the stretch.

I don't know about 'more tough', but rather 'less dumb' as Charles and Kenny were pointing out, the decision-making by both teams was horrendous.

 

[sparky]

The rule states that if a player hits the hand of the player and goes out of bounds the ball goes to the player who got hit. To blow a lead like the clippers did, it more than that play anyway. The refs got it right through replay.

 

[CallMeBruce]

The rule states that if a player hits the hand of the player and goes out of bounds the ball goes to the player who got hit.

Is that right? I assumed that the rule would call that a foul. Or is this one of those "your hand is part of the ball" things?

To blow a lead like the clippers did, it more than that play anyway. The refs got it right through replay.

This is really the issue for me. They completely collapsed, and they're bitching about the refs only cutting them a medium-sized break on a call, not a huge break.

 

[Palatine]

The idea that Brooks is going to get fired if the Thunder lose, and that Ollie is gone if he does, isn't supported by facts. His "connection" to OKC consists of one season when he was a rarely-used bench player, and a rumored assistant job that he turned down to be an assistant at UConn.

It may not be supported by the facts but an OKC victory makes the theory moot.

And OKC has three Huskies who would collect NBA championship rings with a title. The Clips employ no Huskies.

Husky fans have no reason to root for the Clips.

 

[Strummer]

I'm on the side of the just outcome.

Then why even have the silliness of pretending there are rules? Just let the refs administer justice. Because that's what they did here. They ignored the rules and applied their own concept of justice. In a nutshell, the thought process of "rules can be ignored if the correct outcome is reached" is a substantial contributor to the mess this country is in.

Your fact pattern has a big hole - they didn't reverse a call. It was called OKC ball and stayed that way. The way you wrote out your facts makes it sound like they used the replay to call a foul.

You've pointed out a distinction without a difference. There's no hole at all. They missed the foul call. They then went to review the OOB call. There was 100% clear evidence that the ball was out on OKC. They ignored the rule that they must then award the ball to LAC because they wanted to offset their blown foul call.

No reasonable person disagrees on those facts.

If the referees (judges) have the freedom to ignore the rules (laws) and apply their own concept of justice, then why have rules (laws) at all?

 

[Gurleyman]

Is that right? I assumed that the rule would call that a foul. Or is this one of those "your hand is part of the ball" things?



This is really the issue for me. They completely collapsed, and they're bitching about the refs only cutting them a medium-sized break on a call, not a huge break.

That's how the rule is written - it is meant to describe what you say. When your hand is on the ball, it isn't a foul to make contact with it.

In this case, Barnes slapped wrist, and in doing so, dislodged Jackson's left hand from the ball so he lost control of it. The play here should have been a foul and the "hand is part of the ball" logic shouldn't apply. But they couldn't call a foul off of a replay. The rules verbiage probably gave the referees a convenient "out" to loosely enforce that rule to give the correct team the ball - they could say that they saw Barnes make contact with the hand and force the ball out.

In the case of the Chris Paul/Draymond Green play in the last round, Green never made contact with the hand, wrist or arm - it was body contact reaching in. So it isn't the exact same decision.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Then why even have the silliness of pretending there are rules? Just let the refs administer justice. Because that's what they did here. They ignored the rules and applied their own concept of justice. In a nutshell, the thought process of "rules can be ignored if the correct outcome is reached" is a substantial contributor to the mess this country is in.

If the referees (judges) have the freedom to ignore the rules (laws) and apply their own concept of justice, then why have rules (laws) at all?

C'mon now, I think it is a HUGE reach to argue a single call within a basketball game is either reflective or indicative of our society.

The opposite situation occurred with the ridiculous 'tuck rule' non-fumble call that led to the Tom Brady Patriots first Super Bowl win. There the officials cited letter of the law and enforced a stupid rule. Technically correct (much like you) but the outcome was unjust, so they changed the rule. So if you want to continue to over-legislate games all they have to do is allow post-facto foul calls. But the reason that isn't the rule is because then we'd have X times the number of replays and waste more time putting details in way of big picture and entertainment value of games. All our games are filled with endless replays trying to get every nitpicky detail right. I say sports is about learning you get some calls and you don't and I'm fine with human error. Officials ruled the ball off the Clippers because bball has always been played that if you slightly foul a guy and the ball goes out of bounds its off you without a foul. Keeps the game moving. Using replay to turn existing custom and justice into a strict black & white construction is antithetical to the game. And it is just that, a game.

 

[Strummer]

C'mon now, I think it is a HUGE reach to argue a single call within a basketball game is either reflective or indicative of our society.

It's the very profound thought behind the discussion, not the "single call."

To wit - the Constitution of the U.S. has been changed beyond recognition by supreme court judges. They take your approach, which is, that they are not bound by the rules that are written in the Constitution, but rather that they can change the law when they believe it will result in more or better justice.

It's more binary than spectrum. You either want clear rules that are consistently applied and changed only through the written, agreed upon procedure, or you want a single (or a handful) individual (judge/referee) to be able to ignore the rules to
mete out their particular form of justice.

I'm not sure that one of the two is inherently better than the other, morally. I do know this. We have been applying the "let the judges create their own law" method for a long time now, and I think tremendous damage to the rule of law has been done because of it, notwithstanding any better outcomes for individuals along the way.

 

[Dogdeacon]

It's the very profound thought behind the discussion, not the "single call."

To wit - the Constitution of the U.S. has been changed beyond recognition by supreme court judges. They take your approach, which is, that they are not bound by the rules that are written in the Constitution, but rather that they can change the law when they believe it will result in more or better justice.

It's more binary than spectrum. You either want clear rules that are consistently applied and changed only through the written, agreed upon procedure, or you want a single (or a handful) individual (judge/referee) to be able to ignore the rules to
mete out their particular form of justice.

I'm not sure that one of the two is inherently better than the other, morally. I do know this. We have been applying the "let the judges create their own law" method for a long time now, and I think tremendous damage to the rule of law has been done because of it, notwithstanding any better outcomes for individuals along the way.

Retort to that is simple, the limited review of what can be adjudicated via replay IS A CHANGE in the rules. I still don't think allowing replay or how its enforced is akin to re-writing the US Constitution and its a big leap to tie the two.

It is a flat out fail to say my bball existing custom/rules & just outcomes applies to the Constitution. It is similar in that technology mandates the need to create new rules and that can erode the original principal. So I've bent it to my argument; if they hadn't changed the rules the ball would have been awarded to OKC by rule consistent with the spirit of the game.

 

[freescooter]

Some of you guys are assuming NBA refs actually follow the rule book. There are numerous sets of rules,some that apply to the guys the league wants on tv and others that don't. Sometimes the refs forget which set applies in a given situation.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Some of you guys are assuming NBA refs actually follow the rule book. There are numerous sets of rules,some that apply to the guys the league wants on tv and others that don't. Sometimes the refs forget which set applies in a given situation.

Ah, the "I don't watch the NBA" crowd is here to explain how the NBA works.

 

[IHeartStairs]

Stopped watching the NBA after this

 

[4UConn]

I stopped watching the NBA after this travesty of officiating:

 

[ihatepants]

 

[alfonse]

NBA says it was the correct call http://www.sbnation.com/2014/5/14/5718868/thunder-clippers-call-reggie-jackson-nba

 

[sparky]

The foul was not called, because the foul was not called they got the ball. That call/non call did not lose the game the blowing of the big lead did.