2021-22 NBA Thread: The Bucks are Reigning Champs

[JWags85]

I didn't listen to the whole pod, cause I'm not interested in having my ears bleed, but it was SUPER rich to hear a clip of Russillo on Bill Simmons complaining together about Kyle Lowry flopping too much and the refs screwing the Celtics.  You just made the NBA finals for the first time in over a decade, with a team that is predicated on "tough defense" yet guys like Smart and Grant Williams, built like tanks, flop constantly....yet you feel the need to still complain about officials and how everyone is against you.

Everything related to the Celtics STINKS...including otherwise incredible Tatum posting SUPPPPPEEEERR cringey pictures of texts he sent to Kobe's phone number before the game.

[lawdog77]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

Correct.  You stated this better than me because I tried to answer quickly on my phone.  If it is reviewed as a 2 or 3, that opens it up to a more full review.

[Jockey]

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.

[lawdog77]

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.

[MuggsyB]

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.

Very good point lawdog.  It's not something I ever remember happening.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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?

[lawdog77]

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

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[forgetful]

So even though they have the means to get an objectively wrong call correct, they shouldn’t correct it?  That makes no sense.

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.

And in this case it was still really close as to whether his heel hit the ground on the line. Your heel can hover over the out of bounds line, and it has happened multiple times (that I saw) during the playoffs.

Even if it is reviewable, I didn't see anything that would be incontrovertible evidence he was out of bounds. So stick with the on the court call. If it takes them over 3 minutes of game time (and likely 15 minutes of actual time) to decide whether he was out of bounds or not...stick with the original call.

[Jockey]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

There is zero question he stepped on the line.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

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.

[MU82]

Warriors in 5.

[MuggsyB]

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. 

[MU82]

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.

The Celtics are tired and beat up, and I just think the Warriors will run all over 'em.

The good thing is we'll get to see!

[JWags85]

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.

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.

[MuggsyB]

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.

[JWags85]

Size includes weight

Warriors
6'7 205, 6'2 185, 6'6 220, 6'6 240, 6'9 230, 6'8 210, 6'4 195

Celtics
6'7 205, 6'3 220, 6'6 220, 6'9 240, 6'6 235, 6'8 237, 6'4 190

Again, its not that huge of a difference.  Its not like the Celtics have bruisers that can play bully ball due to complete size advantage.  The only real size difference is Smart and Curry.  Grant Williams is a tank, but he's really not any bigger than Draymond.

The Celtics play a much more physical brand of basketball, without a doubt.  But its not like they are the Monstars outsizing the Toon Squad

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

I saw it on video enough to see he was out. No judgement at all.

[MuggsyB]

Didn't Draymond Green once score 37 in an NBA Finals game?  WTH happened to his offensive game?

[MuggsyB]

Curry on pace for 24 triples. 

[MuggsyB]

Wow.  Fun game the first 15 mins.  It's raining triples.