Yes, because it was an awful call.

I'm sure that played a part. But the Techs against both Howard and JR Smith for taunting were in the rules, but stupid. If you are going neck and neck with someone, getting hammered and then make a great play, you should be able to be human for 4-5 seconds and taunt a bit. As long as you don't push the player, I don't see the big deal. There's nothing worse than a team making a great play, then having the momentum completely stop as the other team shoots a free throw for a taunt. I agree with Simmons, this just kills the flow and ability of these players to 100% complete without fear that every step gets scrutinized.

I think this post and this attitude pretty much describes why I don't like the NBA anymore. "You need to foul big players harder because they're bigger"? How about "you need to play defense". If you've gotten beat to the point where you need to foul hard to prevent a basket, you failed. Hard fouls should be called intentional with free-throws and the ball...if intentional fouls still exist in the NBA.

that Rodney Rogers segment tore me up :(

I have seen Cleveland do this dance before hopefully they will play a complete game and blow out Orlando.

All I'll say is that both sides were due for a quarter like that one.

...and here it comes.

9 point game, with an eternity left.

So, I guess you are turned off by the NFL because offensive linemen sometimes do blatant holds on defensive ends when they get beat?

So, if you get beat going to the basket up 2 with 5 seconds left, you just let the guy dunk it and say "My bad, you beat me"? There's a difference between fouling someone hard to make sure they don't hit a shot (wrap them up, slap hard at the ball) and making a play with intent to injure. And, you are going to need to foul Shaq or Howard harder than you need to foul Kirk Heinrich because they are much stronger and will still score with a weak attempt. It's just as much a part of the game as fouling late in the game when down.

I'm not turned off by that since football players rarely get away with blatant holds and the only thing they gain by it is maybe protecting their QB from an injury. Really, nothing good comes of the penalty. The NBA is different. There, fouling has become an active strategy. If you get beat, just wrap the guy up. If you accidentally take the guy down, no problem since really "you didn't mean it". If I want to see that kind of action, I will watch the NFL.


No, I'm going to try to play defense. Whether that means an attempted steal from behind or a block from behind, I don't know. I've not even that unhappy with a foul if you are going for the ball. Slapping hard at the ball isn't so bad since it is still an attempt on the ball. Wrapping someone up or grabbing an arm and pulling is not defense and I'd like to see the penalty be more harsh...like free-throws and the ball. You are basically asking for an intentional foul without the penalty of an intentional foul. Same thing goes with fouling late in the game. Going for an aggressive steal with the possibility of a foul...fine. Just grabbing someone to stop the clock is lame.

Basically I would love to see basketball go back to a fluid game. It was never as fluid as soccer or hockey, but it used to be closer to those sports than it was to football. That is no longer the case.

So, does cleveland just automatically stop playing with 5 minutes left in the half, or does mike brown have to remind them? I mean, they're playing team basketball and good defense, then they decide to go lebron on 5 and stop playing d.

I don't know, is it the lack of playoff experience by guys like Mo Williams and Delonte West? Seems like as soon as the Magic start a run, the Cavs as a team just panic and stop playing.

Uh, they called a two-shot foul on Varejao and Howard got free throws. It's not like Cleveland grabbed Howard during a layup attempt, grabbed the rebound and ran down the other floor without consequence (something that happens with regularity for OL holding DL in the NFL). Are you saying that a hard "hold" should be penalized more in the NFL (ie, 25 yards) than a normal hold?

Or preventing a fumble or interception - which I would say is "good", wouldn't you?

If you are a good foul shooter, it's much more of a detriment in the NBA. If you foul too soft, the player may get the basket and a free throw (3 points). If you are too obvious and hack a player in the face, they may get 2 free throws and the ball. There are a lot of bad results from fouling someone in the NBA. In the NFL, you can blatantly hold a DE and have nothing happen to you at all. Worst case, you go from 1st and 10 to 1st and 20.

If you smack a guy in the face or have an obvious intent to injure, it will be (and should be) a flagrant. I just don't like the Bynum "hit the ball hard" flagrant or the taunting flagrant.


We'll just have to agree to disagree. As much fun as it would be to watch a team with a 3-point lead just shoot free throws and get the ball back for the final 20 seconds, I'd like to actually have some strategy (and when/how to foul is as much of a strategy as whether or not to run a pick play on offense or hold a WR on defense in football).

That's not because of the 2-3 "hard fouls" a game. It's because every time someone is touched the whistle blows and the refs anticipate contact. Even more reason to loosen up on some of these quick foul or intentional foul calls.

You don't find that argument at all disingenuous? You can name any number of intentional fouls that lead to the same situation. Guys hooking the arm of a rebounder so they can't jump leading to an easy offensive board...hard picks on the guy guarding the ball-handler doing the same thing. We can both cherry-pick examples, that isn't the point. Fouling has become an active strategy with guys trying to be caught to make players "earn their points" as evidenced by the hack-a-Shaq strategy and others like it.


It isn't causing something good, it is preventing something bad. Your blatant hold example doesn't directly lead to anything better than a 10-yard loss. A blatant foul - not even a hard foul - at worst results in the 2 points the player would have gotten anyway. See the difference?


You just gave examples of two things I have no problem with and never claimed to have problems with. My whole issue is with the intentional/hard fouls which comprise so many of the NBA fouls. I saw one get called in the game tonight as a "clear-path" foul which all of the announcers complained about. Most of the time these fouls are not only not called intentional, but are actively praised as a good foul.


I don't think we've ever had a disagreement here. I just think the obvious intent to foul should be treated as such and penalized as intentional.


That is what you got from my comment? Really? As a basketball player, what would you do down 3 with the other guy having the ball? You grab both of his arms to get the foul...free-throws and possession to the other team. So if you know the intentional foul is coming, what are you going to do....maybe make a play on the ball? Imagine that, playing defense on the ball in a game of basketball. That doesn't mean you can't still foul during the process, but at least you are still playing the game.


Inconsistent refs are another part of the current game that annoys me, but that is a different discussion. Calling more intentional fouls would result in players playing more basketball and committing fewer hard fouls...which would allow the refs to not have to anticipate contact to keep the game under control and curtail escalation by the players.

Arles, this whole exchange is probably not terribly constructive. I'm not out to try to fix the NBA, I was just trying to explain why I've lost most of my interest in it. You can decide that you don't agree with my reasoning and I'm OK with that. You are obviously getting plenty of enjoyment out of the league and I think that is great.

Lebron wins, I mean Cleveland wins game 5.

good performance, except the turnovers.

One more win Cleveland!

Lebron vs. Kobe is still alive.

My feeling is that if you can't make a play on the ball you let him dunk. Just because the guy is a physical beast doesn't mean its open season on him. What if it were Steve Nash? Let's say Nash has a one on one and beats his man. Should the defender just stick his foot out and trip him? Or lets say Lebron is on a fast break and the defender trailing him knows he can't catch him - does he just give him a two handed shove hoping Lebron lands in the photogs rather than face first into the base of the hoop? All it takes is for Howard to land awkwardly after being yanked down from mid air to injure even someone of that size. Once he's being tackled he doesn't have much control over how he lands and no team should possibly lose a player over one basket.

I have no problem with slapping at the ball hard or even the occassional accident that will happen when the guy actually did try to go for the ball and miss but as a player you shouldn't have to play with a fear that you never know what might happen to you. I don't even have a problem with the occassional elbow to the face that happens like when Lebron caught Pietrus - I'm not looking for no contact - I just think the answer to how to stop an uncontested dunk is to a) put more pressure on the ball handler, b) play better top side defense and c) play better help defense from the weakside...not tackle a player.

I see a small problem with your basic premise.

The NBA has no such call as an intentional foul, therefore they cannot call more.

Refs can call fouls, technical fouls, flagrant fouls, clear path fouls, and fouls in the last two minutes of each half. They cannot call intentional fouls that result in the fouled team getting two shots and the ball. That is a college rule.

To me this is a different situation not because of what it prevents or the penalty associated with it but because of the expectations. I would equate this to grabbing a guy's jersey when he's got you beat on a cut or something. I think a more apt comparison would be a WR has lept into the air and will clearly catch the ball and the DB knows he can't stop it so he just shoves or tackles the WR instead. The difference is that the penalty for that could be huge if it was a really long pass or on a 3rd or even 4th down - that could be a game changing penalty and the risk for injury is there since the player has left his feet. In the NBA its an advantage to do that because instead of an easy 2 you're forcing a usually bad free throw shooter to make two FTs. Which is why I agree with BrianD - if you want to let them do what Varejao did then call it an intentional foul since he did not attempt to go for the ball and give Orlando the two shots plus the ball back.




Also just to clarify what I said even though this was from your response to Brian - I think you do want to foul in this situation and not give him a free dunk but I think that you need to make an attempt for the ball in committing that foul whether its trying to strip the ball or block the dunk. If you're so far out of position and so beaten that you can do neither then you really shouldn't be allowed to resort to whatever you can do in order to stop it.

I said upthread that I didn't know if the NBA had intentional fouls. It doesn't really surprise me that they don't since the intentional foul has become such a viable strategy. My enjoyment of the NBA would be much greater if they had intentional fouls and took away that strategy.

After reading the last few posts, I think we're arguing for the state of argument's sake ;)

I'll rephrase what I've posted in hopes it makes more sense (and is a little more inline with what Gary is saying above):

A. If a player fouls another player hard, but does not attempt to injure and makes some sort of play for the ball - it's fine.

B. If a player fouls in an obviously dangerous manner (undercut in the air, smack the face, push from behind while in the air - a la Jones on Kobe) then it should be 2 free throws and the ball.

The only real spot of contention I see with Gary and BrianD's posts are in the situations of an obvious foul late in the game (where someone wraps up a dribbler to get the quick foul for free throws) and a hard grab on someone with a layup that won't result in injury - but isn't really a play on the ball. I don't have a problem with these two instances being included in scenario A above as there's little risk for injury and it seems part of the game. Now, I don't like the Hack-A-Shaq plays were a team like San Antonio just fouls a player away from the ball as you are entering the offensive zone. Fouling at the end of the game to give yourself a chance to catchup or taking a hard foul (without intent or action to injure) on a person with a dunk/layup are parts of the game. Hack-A-Shaq seems to go against the flow/spirit of the game.

I agree - I can't stand the idea that you're going to foul a guy who doesn't have the ball. If they want to foul Shaq when he gets it that's fine by me - Shaq should learn to make free throws if he doesn't want to get hacked when he catches the ball. I don't have a problem either when guys just wrap the guy up to get a foul and stop the clock. Nobody is likely to get injured in that situation.

My thing is what if Howard lands funny because Varejao is pulling him down and he gets hurt? Does whether he gets injured or not change how ok we are with what he did? You can't expect the guy with the ball to give up the play because he's being hacked either. I agree Varejao needs to foul in that situation - you are right, its part of the game. Of course if there was a weakside help defender where he should have been HE could have fouled Howard from the front side where Howard would be expecting the contact and be able to brace himself. I'm not arguing the strategy here - I just think it would suck for any team to lose a player to injury, especially in the playoffs - because of it.

This is a real good question. My statement would be that "Yes, it does". There are so many plays that could potentially result in injury that trying to prevent all from happening would result in a ton of technical fouls and make players less willing to play the game hard. I think the league needs a policy of "Hey, if you grab someone and they don't get hurt - that's fine. But, if you pull on someone and they break their ankle - you will get suspended. It's up to you to decide whether the chance for injury is worth the foul."

I think what this does is allow the 90% of hard, somewhat clean fouls that don't cause injury to go as normal. But, for the 5-10% that do, there's more of a penalty. The hope here is that players will make more of a play on the ball/safe play on the man as they don't want a suspension if the player gets hurt.

Agreed, and I also don't think the league can allow Varejao a hard foul on Howard - but not allow him to celebrate (or even taunt a bit) if the ball goes in. The play we are referencing was bad because the league called a tech on Howard, not because they didn't call a tech/flagrant on Varejao.

Being able to pass, shoot and dribble are pretty fundamental to the playing of basketball. There is nothing I've seen in women's college basketball/WNBA that would suggest they perform these tasks in a manner that is better and/or more consistently than I've seen in men's college basketball/NBA.

You're using two different definitions of fundamental, I think.

Yes, being able to make passes and shots is "fundamental" in the sense that those things are reallly important.

But when people talk about fundamentals in sports, they're usually talking about things you learn mentally about a game.

Like in basketball, the "fundamentals" would include boxing out, guarding the right person on defense, proper footwork, etc.

I have no idea if the women's game has more of that though, I've never watched a women's basketball game.

The most recent discussions about the officiating are the most intelligent I have ever seen around here. Please continue on. I wish the Board of Governors and the Rules Committee had similar discussions

I fully expect the Nuggets to not hold anything back and be very physical (borderline thuggish) with the Lakers tonight.

Wow.

The Lakers have just been utterly dominating tonight. The Nuggets didn't stand a chance.

Triple Dola

NBA Finals, here we come.

What a difference for the Lakers when Kobe is on the floor. Although he doesn't get the calls 'Melo does, I don't think I have ever seen a marquis player who gets hacked so much without getting going to the foul line.

My nephew was named after Kobe Bryant, yet I still hate the lakers

What the hell are you Laker fans smoking. To say any Nugetts goes to the line more than the Lakers especially Kobe are you fucking kid!

Congrats, and the reason the Lakers won was 80% zero effort from the Nuggets
if not for that there would be a game 7. I am though not a Nugget fan actually stunned how they played early on no effort at all real poor.

Kobe had 72 free throw attempts, Melo had 75 in the series. Melo and Kobe are pretty much tied in FTA for the entire playoffs, Melo averaged 9 attempts, Kobe 8.5.

Now, LeBron is an entirely different matter, hes putting up an average of 14.5 attempts a game. Thats just silly. 5.5 more than Dwight Howard?

These intentional wrap-up fouls you are complaining about (and I mostly agree with) are the antithesis of a hard foul. Really, what happens in my games and should happen in NBA games, is that the weakside defender comes over and goes for the block but still delivers a legitimately hard foul - go back to Bill Simmons column and watch playoffs from 1980-1995. Those are now not allowed by the NBA, so to ensure that the offensive player does not get an and-1, the "correct" way is to wrap up his arms and prevent a shot. (NBA-sanctioned after that team lost because of an uncalled touch foul beyond the 3-pt line.)

At the end of games, it makes sense. I was playing intramurals down 5 with a minute left and we were clearly trying to foul. I did a little touch on the kid I was guarding, it was uncalled, my friend slapped his guy, uncalled, it came back to my guy and I clotheslined him and sent him flying. I mean, I immediately went over to help him up and apologize, but I had to injure a kid because the refs weren't calling the touch fouls. So in that situations where it is a tacit strategy I can understand why you allow the wrap-up and call touch foul.

Going to the basket, I don't think wrap-ups should be allowed, but that would necessitate allowing the hard fouls that were a halycon of playoffs past. By no means do I want a return to Miami-New York, but I enjoy players playing with emotion and as long as there is no physical contact I don't see anything wrong with occasionally getting in someone's face like what happens 80 times a game in hockey or after almost every play in football.

Why is it silly that LeBron would get 5.5 more than Howard? Hasn't there been plenty of discussion throughout the playoffs that Howard doesn't get the ball enough?

I think he's talking about all the times Lebron goes to the line when someone breathes on him too hard.

But that wasn't the comment. He was talking about the statistics. To me, a player that always has the ball getting 5 more FT attempts a game than a player who is complaining he doesn't get it enough makes perfect sense.

We can argue all day about the calls that LeBron gets, but I don't see why anyone would have trouble beleiving that he would get more FT's than Howard, even if they called it fair.

Well, statistically Howard is @ his season average for attempts in the playoffs, just slightly under with 12 a game, compared to 12.4 for the season. He's gone down 2 shots in the Cavs series though.

CLE/ORL Series - Howard: 10.3 FGA (12.4 season)
CLE/ORL Series - LeBron: 22.3 FGA (19.9 season)

CLE/ORL Series - Howard: 8.6 FTA (10.8 season)
CLE/ORL Series - LeBron: 13.8 FTA (9.4 season)

Just seemed odd to me that Howard who lead the NBA in FT attempts would be close to his norm (based on fg attempts), while LeBron is a good deal above his average. Not really reading too much into it, it is the playoffs after all and things can change up quite a bit. When I was looking over the Kobe/Melo stats, this Dwight/LeBron stat jumped out at me.

The overboard nature of those Detroit and New York teams actually made the game how it is. In the past, players handled their own business and things evened out (in a way like hockey and baseball). Someone put a hard foul on Jordan and Dominique would get a hard foul from Oakley. Teams knew there were consequences for a hard foul and were able to use it when appropriately.

This changed with the Pistons and eventually the Knicks. The Knicks especially since they weren't particularly talented. They'd just beat the crap out of you for 48 minutes. The fights that broke out started happening more frequently and becoming more violent. They are the reason we have such a retarded foul calling system. Just an overreaction by the NBA.

Kobe has largely become a jumpshooter now, that's why he doesn't get as many free throws as someone like Lebron, Carmelo or Wade in the postseason. Lebron, Carmelo and Wade take jumpers on around 63% of their total FG in 08-09. Kobe shot 80% jumpers.

What's amazing is that despite shooting 80% jumpers, Kobe still averaged 10 free throws per 48 minutes played (Lebron and Wade both ave 12, Anthony 10). That's almost unprecedented in the NBA. I think the previous high was Dirk with 8.5 FTA per 48 on around 82% jumpers. Just for reference, Paul Pierce only shot 70% jumpers and he had just 8.7 FT per 48. So, you could make a strong argument that Kobe easily gets the most calls in the NBA given the high jumpshot % and high number of free throws.

You might be right, but this does not factor in overall shots. If Kobe is shooting 80% jumpers on 30 shots, that would give him as many non jumpers as someone shooting 19 times or so with 65% jumpers. Then you add in the chance to still be fouled on a jumper and it doesn't look quite as much. Also not taken into consideration is the amount of times Kobe handles the ball at the end of games. A lot of his free throws end up being non shooting late game fouls.

Actually, this makes sense for Howard. Howard had 1 free throw attempt for every 1.15 FG attempts in season. In the Cleveland series, that ratio is 1.19.

Lebron, on the other hand, had 1 FT for every 2.1 FG in season and is at 1.6 in the playoffs. That is certainly a large difference, but most drive-to-the-basket "scorers" gets more FTA in the playoffs than in season. Just check the numbers for Wade, Pierce, Carmelo and Kobe in recent playoff runs.

Kobe averaged 20.5 FGA, Lebron 19.9, Wade 22 and Melo 18.5. It's not that much different (esp in comparison to Lebron). Also, all star players handle the ball at the end of the game (esp Lebron, Wade and Kobe). Again, when you factor in FGA, % of jumpers and FTA, the number show Kobe gets the most calls when compared to the other stars. So, at worst, he's on par with the other stars.

Yes, good points. Thats the main reason why I made mention of it.. as Kobe, Melo, Wade, Pierce went up on average of 2 FTA in the playoffs, where as LeBron is pushing 5 FTA more and barely averaging more shots than those four. This just might boil down to that LeBron is a freak of nature. :lol:

Great points which is why I think it is ridiculous that Laker fans think Kobe doesn't go to the line enough. He gets just as many questionable calls as anyone else.

lol

And you might be the only USC fan in the world who isnt a Lakers fan :)

Actually, there was a funny thread on the Peristyle about how a bunch of us were sick of all of the Lakers threads on there. There are tons of transplanted USC fans. I actually work with one at my clinic amid a horde of LSU fans :D

Edit: He really isn't a transplant. He grew up in Louisiana and just always liked USC :)