Need opinion from the objective masses

[LnGrrrR]

That renders all your endless rants about what Dice was trying or not trying to hit moot.

I can see what you're saying; however, I'm of the belief that the fouls occur more consistently than they are actually whistled/called.

I figured, if the fouls are easy to call, cut and dry as it were, then one would expect the average number of fouls to be nearly the same for each crew throughout the regular season.

This is true. For reference, according to this article, most crews average roughly 44 fouls called per game, with some dipping to around 42.

http://www.docsports.com/2010/handic...erees-471.html

Here's the amount of personal fouls called per game in each series so far, from least to most:

Hawks/Bucks: 35, 35, 35 - Avg per game = 35 (obviously)

Celts/Heat: 35, 40, 44, 44 - Avg Per game = 40.75

Spurs/Mavs: 48, 33, 41, 42 - Avg per game = 41

Bulls/Cavs: 34, 38, 46, 50 - Avg per game = 42

Suns/Blazers: 44, 52, 49, 44 - Avg per game = 47.25

Cats/Magic: 46, 51, 52 - Avg per game = 49 1/3

Lakers/Thunder: 48, 56, 45, 53 - Avg per game = 50.5

Nuggets/Jazz: 50, 67, 51, 63 - Avg per game = 57.75


Tell me, are the Hawks and Bucks just playing much more restrained basketball than the Nuggets and Jazz?

Granted, it suffers from a small amount of statistical data, but it implies to me that perhaps there COULD be a difference in the judgment of the refs handing out fouls, on what level of interference will draw a whistle.

[TD 21]

In all honesty (and this is coming from the guy who says Nowitzki receives more ridiculous calls than anyone in the league), of the five in the video, I think three are fouls. But each ref calls the game differently. Clearly, this was one where they were letting more physical play than usual go. I'd rather the officials do that then call a foul when a 7-0 guy takes and misses a jumper and proceeds to throw himself on the ground, even though it's blatantly obvious that no one so much as placed a finger on him.

On the basis of this particular video, Mavs fans have a legitimate beef. Overall, they don't. Not when Nowitzki inexplicably get's more respect from the officials than Duncan. The Spurs should shoot more free throws generally speaking, because they have better one on one players and attack the basket more. It's the same reason the Nuggets lead the league in drawing fouls. I know this is a foreign concept to Mavs fans, because Nowitzki doesn't have to do that to live at the line.

And this notion that Stern wants the Spurs to win is ridiculous. They're not good for business, it's that simple. Ideally, he'd probably love a team like this to win. Trio of international stars, humble, hard working, unselfish, for the most part clean cut looking guys, small market team, fiscally responsible (though they did blow past the tax line this year). Deep down, this is probably Stern's dream team. But the reality is they're bad for ratings and it's been proven in this league that in order to draw a big national audience you either have to be a big market team or have a transcendent, flashy, outspoken player.

[LnGrrrR]

To me that's an obvious foul that the refs screwed up by not calling. That kind of foul would even be called in Europe, let alone in the NBA.

Foul, singular? You implied that there were multiple fouls on the play. Which of the numbers should be called?

[mogrovejo]

On the basis of this particular video, Mavs fans have a legitimate beef. Overall, they don't.

Agreed.

Not when Nowitzki inexplicably get's more respect from the officials than Duncan.

That's BS though. Both get plenty of respect.

[mogrovejo]

I figured, if the fouls are easy to call, cut and dry as it were, then one would expect the average number of fouls to be nearly the same for each crew throughout the regular season.

Why? There are plenty of arguable calls that could go both ways. I say this often. It's a feature of basketball. It's a reason why so many criticism of basketball refs is baseless. And some refs are more whistle happy than others - some are stricter than others.

But once again, that's not my point. You're resorting to the same strawman, this time using a short-cut to hide it.

In any case, even if all fouls were cut'n'dry and every officiating crew would be able to see/not see the exact same fouls and to make the exact same mistakes, it still wouldn't be true - you'd still need every officiating crew to officiate the exact same games, which is an impossibility.

Yes, some teams play more restrained basketball than others. See the Magic or the Mavs, for example, compared to the Jazz or the Bucks. It's not even close.

[LnGrrrR]

Why? There are plenty of arguable calls that could go both ways. I say this often. It's a feature of basketball. It's a reason why so many criticism of basketball refs is baseless. And some refs are more whistle happy than others - some are stricter than others.

/thread

That's really what everyone was arguing... what you were calling a foul is subject to the person with the whistle, and whether or not he calls it.

And a 20+ difference in FTs in a series is statistically significant... if you compare the season averages for fouls, you get some strange instances. For instance, the Cats/Magic series is averaging 7 more fouls than the two team's regular season total. Nuggets and Jazz are both aong the top, but the avg of 57 PF's per game is 10+ more than their reg season averages combined would suggest. Perhaps it's the small dataset, or maybe it's just different refs reacting differently to playoff basketball.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/sortab...nf=1&prd=1#top

Like you said, there are arguable calls that could go both ways. I think it's interesting that you are willing to blast posters who argue that not all of the above numbers in the video should be called as fouls.

Finally, while the series averages show refs calling at a rate not too much less than the reg season (barring the Bucks/Hawks), I think the majority of posters WOULD like to see the the refs lower the aount of fouls called in the playoffs.

[mogrovejo]

/thread

That's really what everyone was arguing... what you were calling a foul is subject to the person with the whistle, and whether or not he calls it.

And a 20+ difference in FTs in a series is statistically significant... if you compare the season averages for fouls, you get some strange instances. For instance, the Cats/Magic series is averaging 7 more fouls than the two team's regular season total. Nuggets and Jazz are both aong the top, but the avg of 57 PF's per game is 10+ more than their reg season averages combined would suggest. Perhaps it's the small dataset, or maybe it's just different refs reacting differently to playoff basketball.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/sortab...nf=1&prd=1#top

Like you said, there are arguable calls that could go both ways. I think it's interesting that you are willing to blast posters who argue that not all of the above numbers in the video should be called as fouls.

Finally, while the series averages show refs calling at a rate not too much less than the reg season (barring the Bucks/Hawks), I think the majority of posters WOULD like to see the the refs lower the aount of fouls called in the playoffs.

I'll try to explain this in a way you may be able to understand.

There isn't only black and white. There's grey and multiple shades of grey.

I don't dispute that. All right, so far?

However, this square here:


It's a ing black square. There's no other way around it. It's irrelevant that squares can be black, grey or white. This one is black, period.

And I'm willing to blast posters who argue that this square isn't black.

The fact that there are arguable fouls that can go both ways doesn't mean that every ing foul is an arguable foul. That's it.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll try to explain this in a way you may be able to understand.

There isn't only black and white. There's grey and multiple shades of grey.

I don't dispute that. All right, so far?

However, this square here:


It's a ing black square. There's no other way around it. It's irrelevant that squares can be black, grey or white. This one is black, period.

And I'm willing to blast posters who argue that this square isn't black.

The fact that there are arguable fouls that can go both ways doesn't mean that every ing foul is an arguable foul. That's it.

So you're claiming every number there was a black square foul?

Because if so, there's a mul ude of posters who disagree with you. You can't just claim superior intelligence, and stomp your feet until we all bow to your infallible interpretation of the rules.

It's pretty simple to understand, and I'm not sure why you don't. The refs won't always call contact like that as a foul. They won't always whistle it... even though it may be a "black square".

[LnGrrrR]

And frankly, your wildly insistent claims that your interpretation of the rulebook is the only 'correct' one, and that you have the ultimate authority on when a player's rhythm/speed/quickness/etc is interrupted is laughable.

It also wouldn't hurt to be so smug. You know, just a thought. But I'm sure you'll reply with something like, "I'm not smug, I'm right", totally missing the irony of your statement.

[mogrovejo]

It's pretty simple to understand, and I'm not sure why you don't. The refs won't always call contact like that as a foul. They won't always whistle it... even though it may be a "black square".

Yeah, I've already said refs blow easy, obvious calls here and there. Like in the first page of the thread. The fact that they screw up on an easy call doesn't mean that call was arguable.

Anything else?

[LnGrrrR]

So you're claiming every number there was a black square foul?

Still waiting for this answer.

[mogrovejo]

And frankly, your wildly insistent claims that your interpretation of the rulebook is the only 'correct' one, and that you have the ultimate authority on when a player's rhythm/speed/quickness/etc is interrupted is laughable.

Link?

It also wouldn't hurt to be so smug. You know, just a thought. But I'm sure you'll reply with something like, "I'm not smug, I'm right", totally missing the irony of your statement.

Yawn. I appreciate the attention, but I have a girlfriend. ANything else or are you going to keep discussing me?

[AnthonyM]

The square is blue.

[LnGrrrR]

So you're claiming every number there was a black square foul?

[mogrovejo]

The square is blue.

Ahah, well played.

Still waiting for this answer.

Again? I've answered that like 23 times. Read the thread, I won't keep having the same discussion and answering the same answers to every lunatic who comes across. The next strawman you make I simply won't answer. Anything else?

[LnGrrrR]

Again? I've answered that like 23 times. Read the thread, I won't keep having the same discussion and answering the same answers to every lunatic who comes across. The next strawman you make I simply won't answer. Anything else?

You've said "foul" in multiple posts. That implies singular.

Is it REALLY that much of a stretch to post how many fouls you saw in the video? Really?

[AnthonyM]

Ahah, well played.

no, its blue brah

[Shastafarian]

Link?



Yawn. I appreciate the attention, but I have a girlfriend. ANything else or are you going to keep discussing me?

Does said girlfriend frequently brag about hunting for pussy?

[mogrovejo]

no, its blue brah

Check the original post, I've changed it to black.

[Cry Havoc]

Check the original post, I've changed it to black.

And the self-ownage becomes epic.

every lunatic

If this site is so full of idiots who are clearly beneath your basketball a en, why do you bother to hang out here and/or argue with them? They (we) all clearly just don't recognize your supreme greatness.

[ElNono]

11 pages to state you have an opinion and make sure everybody knows you're a in the process...

Well done, indeed!

[MannyIsGod]

Jesus Christ.

[AnthonyM]

Should I tell mogrovejo that I highlighted the square?

[mogrovejo]

And the self-ownage becomes epic.

If this site is so full of idiots who are clearly beneath your basketball a en, why do you bother to hang out here and/or argue with them? They (we) all clearly just don't recognize your supreme greatness.

Sig bet or not, pussy? Are you going to admit you didn't know the rule?

And you seem pretty fascinated by me.

[LnGrrrR]

So you're claiming every number there was a black square foul?