I Agree with Everything Barkley Just Said

by

The ref should not have called that offensive foul on Garnett, even though it was a foul, because they hadn’t called it all playoffs or season or for his entire career in Boston.  He’s been leaning and elbowing on screens forever.  That’s like if Robert Parish made his patented three quick shuffle step rainbow in the lane to win a playoff game in 1989, and the refs called him for traveling after ignoring the travel for 14 years.

BUT – as Charles also said – the Celtics absolutely deserved to lose that game.  The effort wasn’t there.  The concentration wasn’t there.  I don’t know how you sleep on a team that you beat by 1 point in game one after making an 11 point fourth quarter comeback, but Boston slept on Phili tonight.  Tip of the hat to the Sixers for making them pay.

The first quarter of game 1 of the Thunder vs. the Lakers is on right now, and the OKC crowd is outstanding.  Execution has been good on both sides.  This should be a fun series.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “I Agree with Everything Barkley Just Said”

  1. boyer Says:

    That doesn’t really make sense. If it’s a foul, then it’s a foul, call it. Previous games and seasons are moot. But, I would say what was and wasn’t called in last night’s game is important for future calls in the game. But, the refs often smartly call it tighter when certain games start gettting chippy. However, KG’s moving screen wasn’t just a slight moving screen, it was obvious and blatant. And he set 2 screens on the play, and they both looked like moving screens. This wasn’t just a slight moving screen, it was blatant, and had to be called, but shouldn’t be singled out for costing the c’s the game.

    And I’ve seen KG called for moving screens many times. But, just because they miss the call sometimes doesn’t make sense that they should be miss the call every time.

    • jpalumbo Says:

      I don’t disagree with the premise of what you’re saying, and obviously I exaggerate for comedic value when I say the refs never call KG for moving screens. But given how often they let them go and how rough the game had been to that point, the call their definitely felt out of place. Big props to Iggie for fighting thru instead of flopping!

      • boyer Says:

        That’s why I say it was blatantly obvious it was a moving screen, there was no gray area there, the ref had to call it. If nothing, we should be applauding the refs for not swallowing their whistles in a late-game situation. I thought that call was fantastic officiating. Obviously, there has been some atrocious officiating this season and in the playoffs at times, but not in this circumstance.

        Instead of blaming the officials for a great call, we should be calling out KG for making a bonehead move. He might get away with one moving screen and thrown elbow, which he did, but not 2, especially when the 2nd one was obvious.

      • jpalumbo Says:

        You’re definitely not wrong. I still don’t think that call fit in the officiating style of this game. If you listen to the NBA Today podcast, Bruce Bowen does a much better job of explaining why that call was out of place than Charles or I could. You are absolutely technically correct though.

      • boyer Says:

        Yea, there’s a problem here, and this involves most people. It’s obviously the right call, but some people don’t like that it was called. Sometimes I see a play, and I’m glad they didn’t blow the whistle, but in reality the officials should’ve intervened. But, a lot of these calls that I’m fine with the incorrect call sometimes aren’t as obvious as KG’s moving screen. Pierce was absolutely wide open, and this was basically entirely because KG fouled Iggy. You’re absolutely shafting the Sixers if you let KG get away with this. I think they commentators were saying that Collins was screaming for moving screen calls all game long, and eventually it paid off. These are often hard to call, but when it’s absolutely obvious, then it’s an easy call. And often guys are flopping on screens, and the officials have no idea what to call, so they just let it go. Even with replay, it’s hard to know what the correct call is sometimes.

        So, I entirely disagree that just because no moving screens were called earlier in the game that that one should’ve also been allowed. If you can find me as blatant a moving screen as KG did at the end of the game, then maybe I see your pt., but I doubt you can, though it would still be wrong for the officials to allow it.

      • jpalumbo Says:

        I think the point that Russillo, Bowen, Barkley and I were trying to get across was more that the whole game was very physical with a lot of blatant fouls not being called, and then this one was called at a time when moving screens are usually ignored. Bowen (I think it was him) mentioned when Hawes grabbed Garnett’s jersey as KG went up for a layup, and the ref standing right there let it go. That’s fine, but it sets a tone. I thought when KG had Turner on his back and Turner swiped down for the strip that it should have been whistled a foul. To me that was clearly a hack – and in fact later that night Kobe went to the line on a lighter hit from Sefolosha in a similar position. That’s a different officiating crew calling a tighter game.

        Again, that’s okay, but if it’s going to be one of those really tough, obvious contact being ignored type of playoff games, it’s jarring to have that moving screen called. The foul is the right call clearly but the jersey grab would also have been the right call, and the hack would have been the right call, and they weren’t whistling those earlier.

        Now you personally find that screen to be seriously egregious to the point where it can’t be ignored. I can respect that. From what Russillo said, it sounds like he got a lot of tweets and emails from fans who feel exactly the same way that you do. The ESPN and TNT commentators and I didn’t personally see it as quite that bad, probably because we’ve seen worse not get called in bigger spots. Check out the play that gets Stockton open for the game winner in Game 6 of the 1997 WC Finals. Karl Malone picks off Drexler like he’s starring in The Blind Side, basically walking him to the other side of the lane. Clyde doesn’t fall or go flying, but Malone pushes him completely out of the play and keeps him from recovering. There was no way any official was going to make a call like that and take away Utah’s last possession.

        Right or wrong that’s the way the end of game is usually called, and it has set a precedent.

        You’re probably right, and we’d all be better off if refs made by-the-book calls more often at the end of games, but it certainly hasn’t been the norm, especially in the playoffs.

      • boyer Says:

        I admit that I didn’t see much of this game. So, you could be right about some of these missed calls going in the sixers favor. But, I’m betting several missed calls went in the c’s favor as well. And each type of call is different. Just because the officials let a little extra bumping on the post doesn’t mean a little or big moving screen won’t be called. It’s a different type of call, and every game and every officiating crew is different in how they officiate the game, much like strike zones for umpires in mlb, etc.

        Basically, the debate is: are make-up calls good? The officials or umpires, depending on the sport, miss a call, but then get it right later on, or maybe make another bad call to even it out. In other words, try to keep the officiating as fair as possible. It’s impossible to make everyone happy, and there’s a potential half dozen or more calls that could be made on every possession in a game.

        And just because previous allowances in games like your 1997 example that are allowed doesn’t mean that that was a good non-call. Yes, it’s tough to consider some of these plays call since we have precedent, but if the officials did their job correctly in 1997, then no. It’s much like suspensions in the nba. There’s no rhyme or reason as to how the league suspends players sometimes. They’re often all over the place, but that doesn’t mean they’re unfair to someone if they actually give that person his appropriate suspension.

        Usually, refs swallow their whistles at the ends of games, which might be good, but maybe not. But, when it’s obvious, then it has to be called. I’ve seen lots of games with late-game whistles, too, so the swallowing the whistle is a little overblown sometimes. And KG and c’s shouldn’t have let it get that far. Nobody should be blaming the refs for costing them the game, especially when it was the right call.

      • jpalumbo Says:

        Not even as a make up call, just to provide a level of consistency throughout the game so that players, coaches, and fans know how much contact will be allowed. I subscribe to the notion that you can’t expect refs to be right every time, but you can hope that they maintain a consist, predictable level of physicality throughout each game.

        All that being said, Boston should have lost that game, and they did, so justice was served in the end.

      • boyer Says:

        I’m not saying it’s a makeup call, just that there’s differing opinions on makeup calls, and it all deals with consistency and fairness in officiating. Chris Ross has a nice article about consistency below that I read, and it makes sense. Also, being consistent doesn’t mean you’re being fair. I’m more concerned about having a fairly officiated game. Consistent is good, too, but consistent isn’t necessarily fair.

        And I still challenge you to find a screen during the game that was as bad as what KG did at the end of the game. Because that’s what we’re comparing to. In some situations, lots of body contact occurs, but no foul should be called, but in some situations, just the fainitest touch results in a foul called, which is the right call. If someone just barely grazes the elbow of a jump shooter, it’s a foul, but in every other situation in the game, that’s not a foul. And again, moving screen fouls are tough to call.

  2. Chris Ross Says:

    This is always an interesting subject because it brings up the question of whether the refs should be making the right call or one that they have made the whole game,. There’s valid arguments for both sides and you really do wonder why the ref chose that time to call Kevin Garnett for a foul. It is expected that people were to be upset but is it rightfully so? I’m not so sure it is but it depends on what your definition is of how a foul should be called. I think it’s something that doesn’t necessarily have a right answer but unquestionably deserves some serious looking into. Also, you think you could take a look at my blog cuz I’d love to hear what you have to say http://chrisross91.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/garnett-foul-reveals-illogical-reasoning/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: