NBA '17

[StillAWarrior]

NBA officials have indicated that the reviews show it was a goaltend.

Refs totally screwed that up.  They should have called a goaltend.  Then reviewed the play to make sure.  If it wasn't a goaltend, they can overrule it.

But if they don't call it a goaltend, there is not possibility of review.

Gifted a win to the Cavs.

The Cavs would have still gotten the ball back, down two.  And they do have a player who has shown that he's capable of hitting a big shot every now and again.

Yes, it was a bad call.  No, we can't say that it decided the game.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

NBA officials have indicated that the reviews show it was a goaltend.

Refs totally screwed that up.  They should have called a goaltend.  Then reviewed the play to make sure.  If it wasn't a goaltend, they can overrule it.

But if they don't call it a goaltend, there is not possibility of review.

Gifted a win to the Cavs.

So you're assuming Lebron misses due to the pressure of trailing instead of being tied?

[lawdog77]

1. I believe they cannot advance the ball to halfcourt due to a goaltending call
2. Even so, the Pacer's defense would have been much different

It absolutely decided the game...
there was a foul on LeBron on the drive as well, but we won't go there

[lawdog77]

NBA officials have indicated that the reviews show it was a goaltend.

Refs totally screwed that up.  They should have called a goaltend.  Then reviewed the play to make sure.  If it wasn't a goaltend, they can overrule it.

But if they don't call it a goaltend, there is not possibility of review.

Gifted a win to the Cavs.

Still not sure why they cannot review it...the rule now is like the ancient rule of determining if a person is a witch...it they do not drown, they are a witch...if they do drown, they are not a witch...

[GGGG]

Still not sure why they cannot review it...the rule now is like the ancient rule of determining if a person is a witch...it they do not drown, they are a witch...if they do drown, they are not a witch...

Just like the shot-clock violation rule that hurt the Bucks earlier this week, my guess is that the NBA requires a call to be made before it can be reviewed.  Since no call was made, nothing can be reviewed.

[MU82]

On the very play before the goaltend no-call, Indiana was awarded the ball even though it clearly went out of bounds off a Pacers player. Not sure why they didn't review it.

Stuff happens. There are bad calls. The rule that wouldn't let them review the goaltend is stupid.

Had goaltending been called, the Cavs absolutely could have advanced the ball to inbound it in the frontcourt with a timeout - just as if the basket had gone in.

They would have inbounded it from the exact same place and the ball would have gone to the exact same player, the Pacers would have defended it the exact same way, and he would have taken the exact same shot.

Whether the result would have been the same, we'll never know.

One thing we do know for certain: The play that "decided" the game was the last one. It was the 3-pointer that the best player on the planet swished.

[StillAWarrior]

On the very play before the goaltend no-call, Indiana was awarded the ball even though it clearly went out of bounds off a Pacers player. Not sure why they didn't review it.

True.  Also worth noting, the player who "vociferously argues on seemingly every call" didn't argue.

One thing we do know for certain: The play that "decided" the game was the last one. It was the 3-pointer that the best player on the planet swished.

Also true.

[lawdog77]

On the very play before the goaltend no-call, Indiana was awarded the ball even though it clearly went out of bounds off a Pacers player. Not sure why they didn't review it.

Stuff happens. There are bad calls. The rule that wouldn't let them review the goaltend is stupid.

Had goaltending been called, the Cavs absolutely could have advanced the ball to inbound it in the frontcourt with a timeout - just as if the basket had gone in.

They would have inbounded it from the exact same place and the ball would have gone to the exact same player, the Pacers would have defended it the exact same way, and he would have taken the exact same shot.

Whether the result would have been the same, we'll never know.

One thing we do know for certain: The play that "decided" the game was the last one. It was the 3-pointer that the best player on the planet swished.

No way the Pacer's defend that the same way if they are up 2 with that amount of time...they do not allow a 3 by LeBron...they let him drive and make him pass...granted he probable drives, makes the shot, and is fouled for the +1

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

1. I believe they cannot advance the ball to halfcourt due to a goaltending call
2. Even so, the Pacer's defense would have been much different

It absolutely decided the game...
there was a foul on LeBron on the drive as well, but we won't go there

On point one, I believe you are mistaken. As long as the Cavs call timeout before the ball is advanced, they can inbound in the front court.

On point two, I disagree that the no call decided the game. It changed the complexion of the game.  It gave the Cavs a better chance to win.  But we'll never know what would have happened.  The inbounds pass could have went to Kevin Love for a game winning corner 3.  Lebron could have caught the ball further from the basketball and hit a 35 footer.  The Cavs could've made a 2 and won in OT. Truth is that there were a lot of ways for the Cavs to still win, even if a goaltending is called.

[lawdog77]

What are the statistical probabilities to win, when down 2 with 3 seconds(?) left?  It's not a 100% guarantee of winning, of course, but pretty darn close..So, that is why I say it decided the game. 
I thought I heard on the radio that the ball could not be advanced after an officiating overturn/replay...didn't actually research it.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

What are the statistical probabilities to win, when down 2 with 3 seconds(?) left?  It's not a 100% guarantee of winning, of course, but pretty darn close..So, that is why I say it decided the game. 
I thought I heard on the radio that the ball could not be advanced after an officiating overturn/replay...didn't actually research it.

Don't get me started on win probabilities. They represent what has happened in the past, not what will happen in the future.  They have no bearing on the outcome of the game.

As far as the rules question, I'm giving the best answer from what rules I could find online.  But this is definitely a unique situation so, yes, we need an NBA rules expert to break down the point of order.

[MUBBau]

The goaltending was not the only missed call. Both teams benefited.

[MU82]

No way the Pacer's defend that the same way if they are up 2 with that amount of time...they do not allow a 3 by LeBron...they let him drive and make him pass...granted he probable drives, makes the shot, and is fouled for the +1

We'll never know, but there is no reason to think the Pacers would have worked any harder to prevent LeBron from getting the ball 35 feet from the basket.

As for the rule, had goaltending been called, it would have been treated the exact same as a made basket. The Cavs could have called timeout and gotten the ball in the frontcourt.

Trying to rewrite history is always a fool's errand. The best player on the planet made the winning play. Actually, 2 - because goaltending wasn't called. If he hadn't made that block, as 99% of the players wouldn't have, there would be no call to debate.

[forgetful]

No way the Pacer's defend that the same way if they are up 2 with that amount of time...they do not allow a 3 by LeBron...they let him drive and make him pass...granted he probable drives, makes the shot, and is fouled for the +1

This. 

The defense would have been different if they were up 2.  The Cavs offensive plan would have also been different, they would have gone to the rim and tried to score, or get a foul.  They wouldn't settle for a contested 3. 

Could, the Cavs still have won, yes.  But the officials took control of the game and made a bad call.  They then put the Cavs in a low pressure situation, where if they score, they win, if not, overtime.  That is a massive gift.

I never said the Cavs couldn't have won; people take verbiage way too literally on Scoop.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

This. 

The defense would have been different if they were up 2.  The Cavs offensive plan would have also been different, they would have gone to the rim and tried to score, or get a foul.  They wouldn't settle for a contested 3. 

Could, the Cavs still have won, yes.  But the officials took control of the game and made a bad call.  They then put the Cavs in a low pressure situation, where if they score, they win, if not, overtime.  That is a massive gift.

I never said the Cavs couldn't have won; people take verbiage way too literally on Scoop.

Well, I won't take this post literally then. So you really mean the defense would have been exactly the same and the Cavs would have settled for a contested three. 

[GGGG]

I mean I love the Bucks and all, but this "offense" is just a pile of sh**.

[MU82]

The defense would have been different if they were up 2.  The Cavs offensive plan would have also been different, they would have gone to the rim and tried to score, or get a foul.  They wouldn't settle for a contested 3. 

Could, the Cavs still have won, yes.  But the officials took control of the game and made a bad call.  They then put the Cavs in a low pressure situation, where if they score, they win, if not, overtime.  That is a massive gift.

I never said the Cavs couldn't have won; people take verbiage way too literally on Scoop.

Opinion. That's cool; we all have them. Certainly not fact.

There were 3 seconds left, not 6. My opinion is that LeBron would have taken the exact same shot.

Neither of our opinions matter.

LeBron won, as he usually does in the playoffs.

[forgetful]

Well, I won't take this post literally then. So you really mean the defense would have been exactly the same and the Cavs would have settled for a contested three. 

Well played. 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Ok Donovan Mitchell...

[Jockey]

Ok Donovan Mitchell...

A young D Wade.

[Jockey]

Paul George 2-16 from the floor with 6 TOs,

I guess Westbrook cost OKC another game.

[wadesworld]

Paul George 2-16 from the floor with 6 TOs,

I guess Westbrook cost OKC another game.

I think any coach in NBA history would be just fine with the opponent's point guard shooting 46% of his team's shots in a Playoff game. Especially if they're going to have 5 turnovers to go with those 43(!) shots.

https://es.pn/2FnzM3j

At least the guy kept his cool following his 3 missed shots down 3 inside a minute left. Because this guy is the only NBA fan who has ever reached out for a high 5 as players left the court and headed to the locker rooms...

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Westbrook was the only reason they were in that game. PG13 was awful and Melo wanted no part of that game. You talk a lot about shots and I know +/- by itself is a horrible stat, but Melo took 7 shots and was a team worst -19.

Adams is a beast though, never thought he would have turned out as good as he has after watching him play for Pitt.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Also, if you want a good laugh go to twitter and look at all the people complaining that there should have been a foul called on Paul George's last shot. The dude tried to lean into Gobert and still there was almost zero contact. The worst attempt of a Rowsey I've ever seen.

[Jockey]

At least the guy kept his cool following his 3 missed shots down 3 inside a minute left. Because this guy is the only NBA fan who has ever reached out for a high 5 as players left the court and headed to the locker rooms...

Um... he wasn't trying for a high 5