Scholarship table
It’s legit by the rules to review if they step on lines.
Out of bounds calls are not automatically reviewed-only reviewed on a coaches challenge (pace of play rule). It was reviewed to see if it was a 2 or 3. Which is crazy because he was not even close to the line.
Common practice. If one official thinks the shot was questionable, they signal the scorers table to check it at the next time out.It’s almost always about whether a foot was on the 3 point line, though.
How many instances can you recall that the official, after review, waived off the shot.completely because someone stepped out of bounds. First time I have witnessed it. Its common to check for a two or three.
So are you suggesting that, in the review of the two or three, they shouldn’t change the call completely if he stepped out of bounds?
yes. To me it would be akin to them waiving it off if he travelled
So even though they have the means to get an objectively wrong call correct, they shouldn’t correct it? That makes no sense.
I agree.They should never be able to go back like that with a judgement call. But this was not that. Either a foot is on the line or it isn't.
I'm not a fan of the rule, but it is apparently the rule. The bigger problem is that to overturn the call on the court it needs to be clear. Lots of people have reviewed the video, slow motion, paused and zoomed in and most come to the conclusion that the video is inconclusive. And that although it appears that his heel may contact the line, even zoomed in they aren't sure.
Either all out of bounds calls are reviewable, or we should be looking for every "objectively wrong" missed travel, or out of bounds on made FGs. What if on review they realize he pushed off on a defender (offensive foul), took too many steps on a step back. If they are reviewing stepping on the line 2 vs 3, fine. But everything else should be left alone on review.
The NFL does this all the time. If a play is reviewed, everything objective is up to review. No judgement calls are. I think people are letting their rooting interests cloud their judgment.
Warriors in 5.
To be honest Golden State hasn't matched up with a team like Boston and have a huge size disadvantage. I hope you're right but the key is can the Dubs play their small line-up vs the Celtics? If they have to put both Green and Looney on the floor I think it's a potential problem. Boston should annihilate GS on the glass. My hope is Boston is forced to go small because Poole goes off like he did earlier in the playoffs.
Huge size disadvantage?Warriors top 7 goes 6'7, 6'2, 6'6, 6'6, 6'9, 6'8, and 6'4. Celtics top 7 goes 6'7, 6'3, 6'6, 6'9, 6'6, 6'8, and 6'4.Size includes weight. Seems pretty dang close to me. Especially since Horford isn't some big inside presence.Celtics have to ugly up the game and grind it out. They snuck past the Bucks without Middleton. They snuck past the Heat who got nothing from anyone not named Butler and who were quite banged up. Both were long exhausting series. Now they run into a pretty healthy Warriors team who is rested and clicking on all cylinders. I could easily see the Cs getting blitzed for stretches. Tatum is gonna have to be Superman.
Size includes weight
I have no rooting interest in this one at all. Just an overall opinion. And I disagree on there being no doubt. I haven't seen a conclusive video, and there are a lot of video analysts that have looked back over it and can't get a good shot showing definitively that his heel touched the line (as opposed to being hovering over it). I keep looking for a still shot definitively showing he stepped on the line, but can't find one. Instead most people say it looks like his heel never came down. Can you share a clear image of it?So to me it appears that the league office made a judgement call to overturn another judgement call. That's what I have a problem with.