|
Post by allenreed on Dec 26, 2013 14:15:19 GMT -5
I don't know about Jackson's X and O acumen. The W's seem to run some nice stuff, especially out of bounds plays. They seem to play pretty good D when they're focused. The problem I see with the W's this year is that the concentration seems to drift alot. Too many turnovers, poor free throwing, not always playing up to their capabilities, especially early in games, then trying to turn it on towards the end. This would seem to fall on the coach, though I do realize it's a long season and you can't be using the whip all the time. It just seems that there's alot of incredibly stupid play, and Barnett seems to know what to do to fix it. If Jackson also knows, he apparently hasn't used that knowledge. I know the media has suggested Barnett for the Warrior job when it has been available, I think he might be better suited to the college level. Maybe not the right personality to deal with the egos at the pro level. Maybe he likes the announcer gig. Another guy who I thought would have been an excellent coach is Matt Millen. I watched a special about him on NFL Network. I think he made a real mistake taking the front office job in Detroit. The guy knows football, and seems to be a good motivator. He complained that his job in Detroit involved too much non-football stuff. He might have made better use of his time coaching.
|
|
|
Post by alreed on Jan 2, 2014 22:48:30 GMT -5
Rolling now. Seven in a row. Beat Miami tonight, despite all efforts by officials to bail the Heat out.
Here's one Rog. Perhaps you can lend some insight here. Miami's Morris Cole is dribbling the ball upcourt. He's fouled by Klay Thompson, but it isn't called. Missed call one. Cole then throws the ball out of bounds, yet the ball is given back to Miami. Missed call two. Now, when the officials should be looking for a place to hide, they further highlight their incompetence by teeing up Warrior coach Mark Jackson, for having the nerve to question why Miami should get the ball when they threw it out of bounds. I admire Mark's restraint. I would have gotten the second T real fast.
Also, LeBron's a very good player. No doubt about that. Possibly the most physically dominant player since Wilt. But the game has to be alot easier when you are allowed to operate virtually unencumbered by defenders, and can be as physical as you please on defense.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 4, 2014 11:40:27 GMT -5
Allen -- Here's one Rog. Perhaps you can lend some insight here. Miami's Morris Cole is dribbling the ball upcourt. He's fouled by Klay Thompson, but it isn't called. Missed call one. Cole then throws the ball out of bounds, yet the ball is given back to Miami. Missed call two. Now, when the officials should be looking for a place to hide, they further highlight their incompetence by teeing up Warrior coach Mark Jackson, for having the nerve to question why Miami should get the ball when they threw it out of bounds. I admire Mark's restraint. I would have gotten the second T real fast. Rog -- I didn't see this, but let's look at the events, one by one, and assume you are right in your interpretation of each of them. Cole is fouled by Klay Thompson, but it isn't called. Missed call #1 goes to the advantage of the Warriors. The ball goes out of bounds, yet the ball is incorrectly given to the Heat. Advantage Heat. Jackson complains after remaining silent on the missed call that benefited the Warriors. Hypocricy. Jackson is T'd for complaining about the missed call that benefited the Heat. Perhaps the refs did compound their mistake; perhaps Jackson deserved the T. I would say Jackson seldom deserves a T, but I certainly don't know all the circumstances involved, and you likely don't. As for getting the second technical, which you say would have happened to you, what is the advantage in that? It likely gets an extra point for the Heat, so it would be a mistake on your part. I realize there are emotions involved, so I don't expect the coaches and players to remain silent. But would it be right for the referee to go up to a coach and criticize his strategy or a player and criticize the player for missing a free throw? Of course those things would be wrong. Likewise it is wrong for a coach to criticize a referee's call, although no ref in the world expects it not to happen, and happen fairly often. By the way, it isn't wrong for a coach or player to ask for an explanation of a call. It's not wrong for him to reply that he saw the play completely differently. Such an approach earns a referee's respect. Consciously he tries not to let that -- or the opposite -- to affect his call. Subconsciously, who knows? In your town in a high school playoff game, Allen, I once went over to a coach (and former college player) who was complaining and told her that I realized all the close calls seemed to be going against her team, but that it would likely even itself out. I wasn't telling her I or my partner(s) would favor her team in order to "even things up." Rather, I was telling her that the law of averages would almost certainly result in some of the close calls going her team's way. Not surprisingly, that happened. Also not surprisingly, her heavily favored team came from behind for what I recall turned out to be a fairly easy win. Here is a problem with a coach's criticizing a referee's call at the time it happens. Often play goes on, meaning if the ref pays attention to the coach, he risks losing his concentration and perhaps missing (another?) call. Anyway, Allen, there were two things in your scenario that were stupid, if perhaps not to be unexpected. Those were the technical foul Jackson got and the second one you say you would have. Referees are going to miss calls. It is humanly impossible for that not to happen. But coaches don't have to get technicals. By the way, I rarely gave out a T. But I certainly did so when I believed a coach or player had clearly crossed the line. Particularly on calls where I didn't have a great look, I gave a lot of leeway. But there are certain words, for instance, that are quite deserving of a technical foul. One time in a baseball game involving high school kids, one of those kids said something he shouldn't have said to me. I walked over to his dugout and calmly said, "You're lucky my ears aren't as good as my eyes." Coincidentally, that one was in your town, as well. I'm not defending any of the calls you said were missed. I didn't see them, so I don't know whether you are correct or not. Likely you are, but I don't know that for sure. What I will tell you though is that those "missed" calls won't be the last ones the officials miss. Again tying in another post, that's part of the luck of the game. I wish those missed calls didn't exist, but I can assure you that the referees work many hours to avoid making them. You hope you luck out and don't miss any in a game, and above all you hope that when you do it doesn't affect the outcome. I don't know that I ever missed a call that did affect the outcome of a game, other than to say that I worked enough that it no doubt happened several times. About that, I am saddened. But I do take solace in saying that I worked very hard both on and off the court not to have it happen. A player hopes he never misses a free throw that costs his team the game, but it happens. A coach hopes he never makes a wrong play call that costs his team the game, but it happens. A ref hopes he never misses a call that affects the outcome. But that happens too. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#ixzz2pRltV3qj
|
|
|
Post by alreed on Jan 4, 2014 13:36:52 GMT -5
Who gains the advantage is irrelevant. My point is how do three supposedly trained officials miss a rather obvious foul, and then all award the ball to the wrong team on an even more obvious out of bounds play? Then, why would you punish the coach for pointing out your incompetence? Hell, even admitting all three of you missed both calls would be better than that. Obviously, getting the second tech would be stupid, but one can only take so much incompetence, and then when the official punishes your team further for bringing it up, that's just too much. These were two pretty obvious calls, and the fact that three officials would miss both doesn't speak well for NBA officiating.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 4, 2014 16:41:07 GMT -5
Allen -- Who gains the advantage is irrelevant. Rog -- You're right. But have you ever heard a coach complain when a bad call went his way? Apparently the coaches DO think which teams gets the advantage is relevant. Allen -- My point is how do three supposedly trained officials miss a rather obvious foul, and then all award the ball to the wrong team on an even more obvious out of bounds play? Rog -- A couple of points here. First, only one referee has the responsibility for making the out of bounds call. You perhaps forget that the idea of having more than one official is that so more things can be watched on the court. How can a second official be looking at the sideline and still seeing his own responsibility on the court? Second, mistakes happen, sometimes when it just doesn't seem like it could happen. Remember, Allen, these guys are the best available in the minds of those who hire them. I spoke on the phone to an NBA ref about 20 years ago and said to him that there must be pressure on an official to keep his job. He replied, that there is indeed a lot. NBA referees do get fired. Allen -- Then, why would you punish the coach for pointing out your incompetence? Rog -- I can't believe the naivete here, Allen. Do you think the official would have missed the call if he knew it was wrong? So how is he supposed to know that he is punishing the coach for his incompetence? In reality, what he's punishing the coach for is what the coach has done and/or said. Would you tolerate insubordination from a child or employee even if unknowingly you had contributed to (or even caused) the situation? I guess it's simply because you haven't officiated much if any and don't understand the situation, but I'm surprised you haven't thought this through. Allen -- Hell, even admitting all three of you missed both calls would be better than that. Rog -- How is the ref to know he missed both calls? Get real here, Allen. If he knew he was missing them, he wouldn't miss them. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#ixzz2pT3Ho4ba
|
|
|
Post by alreed on Jan 4, 2014 18:20:07 GMT -5
Not relevant to the issue at hand. Which is the poor quality of officiating.
In this case the ball was thrown out of bounds from about half court. No one on the Warriors came close to touching it, or even really made a move towards it. Officials overrule each other all the time, and often call things that cannot be in their jurisdiction. Nope, can't give them that excuse here. Missing this call would be like missing whether the ball went through the hoop or not.
The more pertinent question here would be how could all three not know it was wrong. This was not a difficult call, which is probably why Jackson blew a fuse.If he didn't know he missed it, he should turn in his whistle post haste. Jackson is neither a child, nor an employee of the official. He's certainly not subordinate to a damn official. He's a man who's job depends on his ability to win games. Difficult enough without dealing with blatant incompetence from the officials. Here he's going against a team that is chock full of stars, and thus (according to NBA directive) gets most of the calls anyway. I guess he thought giving the ball to them after their player obviously threw it out of bounds was a bit much. Again, if the ref could watch these plays, and not know he missed them both, he has no business being an official.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 4, 2014 19:49:36 GMT -5
Allen -- In this case the ball was thrown out of bounds from about half court. No one on the Warriors came close to touching it, or even really made a move towards it. Officials overrule each other all the time, and often call things that cannot be in their jurisdiction. Rog -- Could be different in the NBA, but in high school (and I believe in college), the calling official changes his call. The same thing, basically, except that the calling official first asks for help and then changes or keeps his decision based on the added information. But the point I wanted to make is that another official doesn't overrule without being asked. Only in the case of an egregious error about which the other official is certain would the other official be the one to go to the calling official, rather than the other way around. My point is that officials DON'T overrule each other all the time. Nor do they always have information outside their own coverage area. But since the areas often touch if not overlap by a small amount, another official may be in position to see another area. Think about it tough, Allen. In the old days with two officials, one was one the ball and the other was off. There were 10 players to watch and two sets of eyes to do so. That is why the third official was added. Now we've got three sets of eyes watching 10 players. Unfortunately, try as they might, officials will miss some things -- and certainly won't always be able to see another official's calling area. In the halfcourt set, the officials watch something like 1500 square feet. In transition, the area can be up to doubled. This stuff isn't as easy as you think, or you would be doing it yourself. You would be making more money (I'm pretty certain) and doing so in the sporting world we love. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#ixzz2pTohHoiW
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 4, 2014 20:08:38 GMT -5
Allen -- Again, if the ref could watch these plays, and not know he missed them both, he has no business being an official. Rog -- Let's look at this logically. You have said that the official missed the call. We can be pretty sure that had he known he missed it, he wouldn't have missed it (and made a different call). And we know that the NBA signs the best officials it can find according to its evaluation. So what you're saying is that this official, chosen by the NBA, has no business being an official. What you're saying is that you, who don't referee, know more about what makes an official than the NBA and its referee supervisors. Is that logical? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#scrollTo=18233#ixzz2pTryO6Bt
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 4, 2014 22:00:19 GMT -5
I think your comments would be better informed had you seen the play. To draw a baseball comparison this would be like a player hitting a routine grounder to second, being thrown out routinely by 10 feet (no issues with the throw) and the umpire calling him safe, then getting mad when the manager came out to complain.
What I'm saying is if this guy couldn't call this play correctly, he's either dishonest (always a possibility in the NBA, perhaps dishonest at the league's behest). not paying attention or not capable of doing the job. His partners should certainly have pointed his mistake out to him, and he also had replay at his disposal, not that he should have needed it. You could have seen this play from Sarasota. The only other thing I can think of is he was making up for missing the Thompson foul, which is of course, also wrong. This call would require no training whatsoever. Only the knowledge of the rule that the team who touched the ball last loses posession. Let me stress this to you. The call was beyond obvious. You spoke of an egregious error. This was definitely one, if not two.
What we also know is that by it's own Comissioner's admission, the officials in the league are required by the league to be crooked, favoring the star players and elite teams.It's also pretty much accepted as fact that the home team usually gets the benefit of the officials. Perhaps this is what the official was up to. In that case he should probably have been a little more subtle and picked a less obvious call.
Why in the world would you think it's wrong for a coach to question a referee's call? This guy is making a mistake that could very likely affect your livelihood. IMO coaches aren't given enough leeway when protesting a call. In fact when a coach or manager gets ejected for protesting a call that the official did in fact miss, the official should pay the fine for the ejection, rather than the coach. After all, it was his incompetence that caused the problem. Same with our problem here. That ref should pay the fine for Jackson's technical. If he hadn't missed the call, Jackson would never have received the T.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 5, 2014 12:43:22 GMT -5
Allen -- What I'm saying is if this guy couldn't call this play correctly, he's either dishonest (always a possibility in the NBA, perhaps dishonest at the league's behest). not paying attention or not capable of doing the job. His partners should certainly have pointed his mistake out to him, and he also had replay at his disposal, not that he should have needed it. Rog -- The way you described it, there is absolutely no excuse for missing the play. But (obviously) it happens on occasion. Dishonest? Highly unlikely on such a play. Not paying attention? I'm guessing somehow that must have happened. I can only guess why. Incapable of doing the job? Obviously that isn't the case, and I'm not sure why you even brought it up. Given how clear the play must have been, I'm not sure why you would bring up dishonesty, either. Dishonesty would occur on closer plays. As for his partners, they very well may not have seen the play. I'm guessing the play was on the sidelines, in which case it is indeed possible the other referees weren't looking, since they have other responsibilities. I don't believe that play is replay-eligible. I had a play like that occur once. I thought I saw my partner call a ball that went briefly out of bounds, but I saw the play only out of the corner of my eye. I took a quick look to see if he was blocked, and at the time I looked, he wasn't. I discussed the play with my partner later, and he said that he HAD been blocked at the moment in question. He probably should have asked for help, but he likely didn't think I had even seen the play, based on where it occurred. Maybe I should have stopped play to talk to him, but since play continued on, it usually isn't good to interrupt play. I don't know WHAT happened on the play, but I can say with 99.9% sureness is wasn't dishonesty, and I can say with 100% sureness that it wasn't incompetence. If a guy is incompetent, he simply doesn't make it to that position. I know you are highly unlikely to agree with this, but NBA officiating is almost certainly better than it was when we were growing up. Better training, better nutrition, more competition and three referees instead of two. I don't have the answer here any more than you do. But I think the thing to have done was to mention it, wonder how it happened, and then let it go. As for some other comments you made, which I will soon address, you're out of your mind. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors#page=4#ixzz2pXuiLpuL
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 5, 2014 12:47:30 GMT -5
Allen -- That ref should pay the fine for Jackson's technical. If he hadn't missed the call, Jackson would never have received the T. Rog -- This is where you are out of your mind, Allen. The coach is responsible for his actions. If you think he was so wronged, why don't you send him money to help pay the fine? Put your money where your mouth is, or just let it go. Your logic would be kind of like saying that if I caused you to be in an accident and you were so upset you shot me, you would be justified in doing so. I don't understand how someone could think that way. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#scrollTo=18240#ixzz2pXz98CzV
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 5, 2014 15:24:30 GMT -5
Actually the ball was released pretty near center court, as I recall. I would say he was withing 10 feet or so of the jump circle. I've seen replay used often to determine who touched the ball last before it went out of bounds. On this play I doubt that any Warrior came within 10 feet of touching the ball.
Ir certainly seems as if the officiating should be better, for the reasons you name as well as the fact that there are three officials instead of two. I don't know if it's any worse, but it certainly doesn't seem to be any better. It's a shame too, because it's a wonderful game. I wish Stern would never had said that the refs cater to the elite players and elite teams. Every time I see a questionable call, that's the first thing I think of.
On the Jackson thing, you took my comment totally out of context. But OK, isn't the ref responsible for his actions? Isn't it his job to get the call right? Why should he be beyond questioning, especially when he's clearly wrong. In this case he already punished Jackson and his team by missing the call, why compound it with a T? Take your lumps like a man. Hell, admit you missed the call. But don't further penalize the already wronged coach for pointing out your mistake.
Actually, in the analogy you used, a more accurate version would be if you caused me to get in an accident, I would be justified in making you pay for the accident, which is how I believe it's done. I didn't say Jackson should shoot the ref.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 6, 2014 10:30:26 GMT -5
Allen -- But OK, isn't the ref responsible for his actions? Rog -- Absolutely. Allen -- Isn't it his job to get the call right? Rog -- Absolutely. Allen -- Why should he be beyond questioning, especially when he's clearly wrong. Rog -- He shouldn't be. If we reviewed tapes immediately after all Cal basketball games -- as we did -- can you imagine how much tape study the NBA refs do? Allen -- In this case he already punished Jackson and his team by missing the call, why compound it with a T? Rog -- I'm not at all saying the ref should have missed the call, but how was he to know that he did? Allen -- Take your lumps like a man. Hell, admit you missed the call. Rog -- How can you admit what you don't know to be true? As I mentioned, when I reffed, I didn't give out many technicals -- especially if I was unsure of my call. But there are certain things a player or coach can't do, and perhaps Mark did one of them. I'm pretty sure Mark doesn't swear, so quite possibly the ref overreacted. But how was the ref to know he missed the call, Allen? If he knew he missed it, he wouldn't have missed it. Right? As for replay, I'm not sure it can be used for an out of bounds call except for late in a game. I have pretty much always favored replay, although it can interrupt the flow of a game. I've actually taken technology further than anyone I know in that I feel baseball could ultimately be officiated with sensors. I'm not sure that is what the fans want though. Then the only calls they would have to criticize would be those of the manager and third base coach. My point has never been that referees don't miss calls or that they should miss calls. What I have tried to do is explain WHY they might have missed calls and to show that the refs aren't incompetent, that there is tremendous competition for their jobs. When an umpire goes to the major league umpiring school, I'll bet his chances of making the big leagues are slimmer those of the average player taken in the high school/college draft. Very few umpires make the big time. Even amateur officials spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars to learn their trade and get exposure. They usually work for peanuts and sometimes volunteer their time. They know they are going to get yelled at and that most wouldn't touch their jobs with a 10-foot pole. You ask why they miss sometimes what seem to be obvious calls. I agree it is inexplicable. But I can tell you that it happens to even the best of officials. And obviously it gives the fans a lot to talk about. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#ixzz2pdD0Twgg
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 6, 2014 11:05:01 GMT -5
Again Rog, I'm sure you'd benefit if you saw the play. It wasn't a close or questionable call. There could be no doubt about it. Don't they have game replays on the CSNBA website? If he didn't know he missed this call, he must be blind. I'm sure as a ref you have made calls that you immediately know you missed. I've heard officials in all sports cop to that one.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 6, 2014 13:36:46 GMT -5
I was disgusted by the officiating--or rather the lack of--in the Niners game yesterday. Had the Niners lost it would have been fully on the officials for A) allowing the Packers secondary to hold and grab the Niners receivers on pretty much every play and the same with the O-line of the Pack. The worst was on 4th and 2, Ray McDonald had Rodgers in his grasp and the referee just stood there and watched the Packers lineman yank him right off so Rodgers could complete the pass play and convert the 4th down play. He never even made a move for his flag. How could that happen? And those morons in the tv booth didn't even mention it. They all just sung Rodgers' praises like he got away on his own. There should be more applications of replay so these morons can be held more accountable.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 6, 2014 16:35:49 GMT -5
Allen -- I'm sure as a ref you have made calls that you immediately know you missed. I've heard officials in all sports cop to that one. Rog -- Believe me, I missed plenty of calls, but I can think of only a very few occasions where I knew right away that I had missed the call. In those cases, I either yelled out "inadvertent whistle" to kill the play and negate my whistle or I realized I had somehow pointed the wrong way and changed the direction of my point. There were MANY times when I realized I might have missed the call, but precious few on which I realized right away that I had. And I reversed the known wrong calls as described above. One thing I did as a referee is hold my whistle back so I could see the whole play. That concept saved me many times from blowing my whistle unnecessarily. There is a saying, not practiced enough IMO, that goes "late but great." Not every call is great, of course, but by withholding the whistle until a ref has seen the whole play, his calls are more likely to be good, and his no-calls (not missed calls) can sometimes show even more that he's a good official. My goal as a basketball ref was to blow my whistle as FEW times as I could to keep the game fair and safe. That resulted in fewer breaks in the action, which most players, coaches and fans enjoyed. No one was there to hear me blow the whistle. If a referee knows right away that he blew a call, he can usually reverse it. But for every time I KNEW I had blown a call, there were thousands of times when I may have suspected it but had no reasonable way of knowing for sure. Believe me, when there were questions, I asked for help every chance I got. When my nephew played with both Marc Gasol and Jonny West, I jokingly told him to be respectful to the referee and call him "Your royal blindness." Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#ixzz2pejP0PFb
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 6, 2014 16:51:41 GMT -5
Randy -- I was disgusted by the officiating--or rather the lack of--in the Niners game yesterday. Had the Niners lost it would have been fully on the officials for A) allowing the Packers secondary to hold and grab the Niners receivers on pretty much every play and the same with the O-line of the Pack. Rog -- Your comment here shows why I sometimes dislike criticism. I too thought the defensive backs in particular were allowed to get away with figurative murder. And maybe it happened against the 49ers more than the Packers. But it happened BOTH way, yet you mentioned only the calls going against the 49ers. If a referee were that non-impartial, you would likely crucify him -- and he would justifiably likely lose his job. It really hurt me last year when the 49ers lost the Super Bowl on a play on which Michael (almost wrote Eric again) Crabtree was held. I could see how it was missed, since is was cleverly disguised between the two bodies, but I would have hoped one of the officials (I would guess two were watching it) would have thought it was egregious enough to call it. Randy -- The worst was on 4th and 2, Ray McDonald had Rodgers in his grasp and the referee just stood there and watched the Packers lineman yank him right off so Rodgers could complete the pass play and convert the 4th down play. Rog -- I have to admit I missed that, although I was surprised that Aaron didn't fumble on the play. The ball was certainly exposed. And I do see a ton of holding that is missed (or simply allowed). I heard Ted Robinson talk about that hold on the radio this morning. So why did the referee (and I would guess it was the head referee's call) miss the call or simply allow it? My guess is that he had to focus on too many things at the same time. For one thing, he was likely focusing on more than one potential hold. One of the things he had to look for was whether in all the weirdness of the play, Rodgers might have fumbled or thrown an incomplete pass. Let's put it this way, Randy. In order to officiate the game, the referee had to be considered an above-average official. If he couldn't see the play from where he was, it is unlikely that any of us could have either. Randy -- He never even made a move for his flag. How could that happen? Rog -- One of two things, the former of which is more likely: Either he didn't see the foul, or he didn't view it as egregious enough to throw the flag. Maybe it was a combination of both. Perhaps he saw only part of the foul and not enough to call it for sure. If there is one thing I hope I have gotten across about officiating it would be that no matter how good the official and no matter how simple the call looks to us, a few are aggravatingly going to be missed. Guys miss free throws. Guys drop passes. Guys miss routine ground balls or fly balls. It is all part of the human element. It can be EXTREMELY aggravating, but, sadly, it is part of the equation. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4&scrollTo=18259#ixzz2pemEZ0zm
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 6, 2014 17:09:19 GMT -5
One thing about the secondary play: It seemed that the officials may have discussed simply letting them play. I don't think I've ever seen as much holding and "mugging" consistently going on as in that game.
I know in hockey they call only the most egregious of penalties during the playoffs. I don't like that philosophy, but I'm sure it stems from what I believe is a mistaken interpretation of the officials' not deciding the game.
It is my opinion that if the referees call what they see just as they do at other times in the season and during the game, they don't decide the game. It is when they insert themselves as God and call plays DIFFERENTLY that IMO they can unnecessarily decide the game.
Generally the concept of "let 'em play" is liked by the fans late in games. They don't want the game to be decided by a call. But what about when it is decided by a non-call?
The league can decide how the game will be played, what it will allow and not allow. But I don't think the time of the season or the time of the game should have much to do with that.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 6, 2014 17:35:50 GMT -5
The problem I have with different rules for playoffs and regular season is the refs then have to decide what is "bad enough" to be called and what isn't. That isn't how it should be. The rules should be the same. To me by making the rules less clear and more ambiguous and subjective in the playoffs, refs are actually deciding games more than if the rules stayed the same. Players know the rules...if they break them they should be penalized.
By the way, I'd have had no problem at all with the Niners being called for legitimate holding and PI calls defensively as long as it was called on both teams. But that isn't what I saw in the broadcast. That said, both teams getting away with it still isnt fair...one team always benefits more and based on the Niners winning all the earlier matchups against Rodgers and just being the better team overall, I would say the Packers had more to gain by cheating.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 7, 2014 9:42:33 GMT -5
Randy -- one team always benefits more and based on the Niners winning all the earlier matchups against Rodgers and just being the better team overall, I would say the Packers had more to gain by cheating. Rog -- I too thought there was more holding by the Packers than the 49ers, although it is hard to tell something like that since we don't see every receiver on every play. That said, it may be hard to tell which team benefited more. Weren't you surprised that the Packers didn't seem to be able to get open downfield when guys like Jordy Nelson, James Jones and Randall Cobb are usually pretty good at that? I remember one ball in the end zone that Jones dropped on what would have been a very nice catch, but there certainly weren't many throws down the field. I'm not sure I've ever seen Rodgers throw that few deep passes. Part of that was pressure, which the 49ers are pretty darn good at, particularly from the outside linebackers and Justin Smith. But I wondered if there might have been a fair amount of secondary holding on the 49ers as well as the Packers. And since the Packers have more deep passing game than the 49ers, they might actually have been hurt as much. Your comment that one team always benefits more than the other is essentially untrue, at least at the level humans can analyze. At an infinite level, you are correct. By the way, I think the 49ers are the better team -- and not by just a little bit. I think the advantage the Packers gained by playing in horrible conditions they're more familiar with somewhat leveled out the game. I was rooting for the Packers, but I was going to root for whichever team won the game to go all the way. In that sense, it was likely better for me that the 49ers won, since being the better of the two teams gives them a better chance of going deeper into the playoffs. Regarding our previous discussion about the hands of Crabtree and Nelson, I thought Crabtree had one of the best games of his pro career and showed exceptional hands. That one-handed grab as he was being held was spectacular. There were a couple of balls he might have caught, but the defender was right there interfering with the catch. I thought Nelson had a very good hands game too. I mentioned one of his fortes being his ability to contort his body to catch deeper throws. That didn't happen, but he did show his vice-like grip on hard throws that he caught quite well with his hands. Based on that one game though, I would give Crabtree a slight edge in the hands department. I thought Michael played extremely well in just about every way. Certainly Kaepernick had a great game, and the most important play of the game might have been his long run. The guy on the outside for the Packers on that play essentially gave up the game by foolishly trying to go inside, although it is also possible Colin still might have been able to get by him enough to the get first down. It is clearly Colin's ability to run that separates him from most other quarterbacks. The best play of the game? I thought it was the brilliant read and recovery by the Packers' cornerback when he intercepted Kaepernick's pass, one of the most key plays for the Packers. The best player of the game? I thought it might have been Eric Reid, who was all over the field making tackles and hit the hardest I have seen him hit all season. He's really a prize rookie who should start getting more and more attention. No tackle he made was more important than being able to tackle Cobb at the 9-yard line on the Packers' final drive. The 49ers' subsequent drive would have taken on a different tact if they needed a touchdown instead of a field goal. One thing I didn't like on that last drive was waiting until there were four seconds left to call the 49ers' final time out. Maybe I was simply being paranoid, since this rarely happens, but had the 49ers committed a penalty on that final field goal attempt, there would have been a 10-second run-off on the clock, and the game would have gone to overtime. Anyway, I thought the game was an exceptional one and that the better team ultimately prevailed. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#ixzz2pipRueK5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 14, 2014 11:35:13 GMT -5
This last round of playoffs were interesting. I've always maintained that three teams (Broncos, Pats, Niners) for some reason get particularly benevolent treatment from the officials. Interesting that all three are in the final four. Watching the games, the Broncos game was called pretty fairly but the Niners, and particularly the Pats were definitely helped by the refs. Not that they needed it. All three teams were dominant and deserved to win. The Pats just get away with murder in pass coverage, and they get away with alot of holding on both sides of the ball.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 14, 2014 13:06:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 14, 2014 13:13:00 GMT -5
Allen -- Watching the games, the Broncos game was called pretty fairly but the Niners, and particularly the Pats were definitely helped by the refs. Rog -- And Randy was all upset a week ago by the play on which Ray McDonald was hauled down with no penalty being called. My point is that mistakes are made, but I doubt very much they are intended to favor one team or the other. Hey, I thought the tuck rule call that went against the Raiders and favored the Patriors was a horrible call too. Then I read the rule in the papers the next day and realized the play had been called in accordance with the rule. It was the RULE that was highly questionable, not the call. And I see nothing from the rules makers calling the tuck rule the "Patriots' Rule" when they designed it that would show any favoritism toward New England. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#scrollTo=18377#ixzz2qOhrXmhc
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 14, 2014 13:17:10 GMT -5
The tuck rule didn't even apply on that play. Brady wasn't even close to an action in which that rule would apply. That was just the closest thing they could find in the rulebook that would justify giving the Pats the game. The Raiders fan's name for the play is much more accurate. "The Snow Job".
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 14, 2014 14:06:57 GMT -5
Allen -- The tuck rule didn't even apply on that play. Brady wasn't even close to an action in which that rule would apply. That was just the closest thing they could find in the rulebook that would justify giving the Pats the game. The Raiders fan's name for the play is much more accurate. "The Snow Job". Rog -- Your comment here sounds pretty unbiased to me. NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body The Tuck Rule was abolished, but only in the past year. Last March 20th the rule was abolished by a 29-1 vote. I have no idea what took them so long. I figured it would be abolished before the very next season after the Raiders/Patriots game. Let's be honest, Allen. You and I both thought it was a fumble. But neither of us knew the tuck rule. I don't know if this would be coincidence or irony, but I saw the play in a room for Haas Arena personnel after I had been involved in reviewing the refereeing for the Cal game played that day. Perhaps because it was the holiday season, they had some pizza for us, and I couldn't really resist the temptation. I saw the play on the TV in that small room and, while I'm not a Raiders fan any more, thought that indeed an injustice had been prepetrated. When I read the rule in the Oakland Tribune the next day, I still thought it was an injustice -- but by the rule itself, not the referees. And I didn't let the fact that referee Walt Coleman was wearing a Patriots hat as he later left the stadium influence me in the least. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#ixzz2qOrCb37O
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 14, 2014 15:07:23 GMT -5
Problem was, Brady's arm had not started forward when Woodson clocked him. Second problem. The rule had never been called that way before. I'll bet Coleman wasn't even aware of the rule. he called it a fumble. The league authorities in the booth prompted the change of the call. Wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 14, 2014 16:40:11 GMT -5
Allen -- After watching him pitch, he may have deserved worse than 4-14. He won one game in which he gave up six runs in 5.2 innings. He got a no decision in a game in which he gave up four runs in .1 innings, and another in which he gave up five runs in four innings. Could have had three more losses right there. Rog -- What you say is true. That's almost always been the case. But your comment that he deserved worse than his 4-14 record is ludicrous IMO. Hughes won one game in which he yielded six runs, as you indicated. He certainly didn't deserve that win. But other than one game, if he gave up more than one run, he either lost or received a no-decision. In one game, Hughes gave up no earned runs, yet lost the game on unearned runs. In another game, he gave up just one run, yet received another no-decision. In five outings, he gave up just two runs, yet received a loss and four no-decisions. You are right on the money that he most definitely didn't deserve the win when he gave up six runs. But to gain NO wins in five games in which he yielded only two runs was very poor luck. When a guy gets one "unfair" win in which he gives up six runs and yet doesn't received a single win in which he gives up one run once and two runs five times, it is foolish to say he deserves a worse record than he received. Let's look at Hughes in 2013 compared to Barry Zito in 2012. Barry did pitch a full run better than Hughes -- but enough to go 15-8 compared to Hughes' 4-14? Remember now, Hughes won only one game in which he gave up more than one run. Zito won nine! If you had said that Zito didn't deserve the 15-8 record, I'd be right behind you. But to say that Hughes may have deserved worse than his 4-14 record is ludicrious. Or perhaps you'd like to compare Hughes' 4-14 with Tim Lincecum's 10-15 in 2012. Tim's ERA was precisely 0.01 lower than Phil's. Did they each pitch very poorly? You bet. Tim fully deserved no better than his 10-15 record, if that. But did he deserve 4-14 or even worse as you say? No way, Allen. Why do you make such foolish statements as this? Have you lost your sense of reality? If Phil had gone 10-15 as Tim did and you had made your comment, I would have been right there with you. 10-15 probably isn't too far off, but it certainly isn't too HIGH. But to say that 4-14 might have been too high? Just doesn't agree with reality. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=1#ixzz2qPTwlX3W
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 14, 2014 16:56:00 GMT -5
Rog --IMO the Warriors can ill afford to be without Steph Curry, and an injury to Andrew Bogut would be quite damaging as well. Dood - yeah it absolutely killed them last night when Currie twisted his ankle and Bogut got an early 5th foul. Or, wait...they poured it on and increased the lead, didn't they? Rog -- The Warriors have gone 0-3 in games that Curry missed. The did win the game Bogut missed. The Warriors have gone 24-11 in the games both players played. So let me ask you this, Randy. Do you not think that an injury to Curry or Bogut would be damaging? If either went down for the rest of the season, how do you think the Wariors would perform in the season's second half? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#page=2#ixzz2qPZbyWLs
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 14, 2014 17:18:39 GMT -5
Curry's a confusing case. It seems like he's missing alot of threes this year, and becoming more of a volume shooter, but his stats still look Ok. One thing for sure, he turns the ball over way, way too much. He gets too dribble happy trying to create his own shot. Bogut's just awesome at protecting the rim, but he needs to play more until O'Neal or Ezili come back to protect the rim when he's out. Very disappointed in Harrison Barnes this year. He actually seems to have regressed. More than a little. Thompson needs to be much more consistent.Would like to see Iguodala be a little more assertive on offense. .
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 15, 2014 23:02:26 GMT -5
Allen -- Problem was, Brady's arm had not started forward when Woodson clocked him. Rog -- Go watch the video, Allen. It had been a long time, so I just did. I think you will retract the above statement. Hey, I didn't like the call either. But it was called in accordance with the rule, as near as I can tell. I think the rule was a horrible one (and am glad that it was finally revoked), but I think you're just being caught up in this ridiculous Raiders conspiracy theory. Remember the Holy Roller? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2072/warriors?page=4#ixzz2qWve7Oxb
|
|