Need opinion from the objective masses

[MaNu4Tres]

Mav fan's all over the internet are really trying to dig deep and are trying to justify the 3-1 hole their beloved Mavs have against the Stern loving Spurs .

They are totally disregarding how the Spurs have shot a better % in every game this series ( Which proves Spurs have better defense and are the better team.)

The only game the Mavs won of these 4 was when they attempted 20 more free throws. Go figure..

Anyway I'm tired of hearing all this crying from Mav fans about the officiating.

I just wanted an opinion from an objective point of view...Do any of you all actually believe these are legitimate playoff type fouls??






Talk about digging deep Mav fans...

[Cry Havoc]

If that's 5 fouls, then Damp and Haywood literally foul out every time they guard Duncan.

[z0sa]

What's more pathetic, thinking Dirk got fouled 5 times in that sequence, or actually putting it up on youtube for all to laugh at?

The day refs call playoff ball strict enough to where those 5 are clearly missed calls, I'll have long since stopped watching National Basketball Entertainment.

[z0sa]

^

[mogrovejo]

Yeps, refs are allowing the Spurs to defend Dirk by hand-checking him. That's obviously a foul. I mean, judge by yourself:

b. Contact initiated by the defensive player guarding a player with the ball is not legal. This contact includes, but is not limited to, forearm, hands, or body check.

Don't you think that in that play Nowitzki is holding the ball and Dice initiates contact with his hands? It seems pretty obvious to me.

[z0sa]

^ you don't see Dirk start backing Dyess down at the very, very beginning of that youtube?

It is legal to use a forearm if the player is playing with their back to the basket.

After posting for a second, Dirk turns, but he doesn't face up, he's still got his back turned away from the basket while he's looking to pass. So leaving the pawe on is still borderline-legal. Not enough for any type of call in the playoffs.

[mogrovejo]

^ you don't see Dirk start backing Dyess down at the very, very beginning of that youtube?

It is legal to use a forearm if the player is playing with their back to the basket.

After posting for a second, Dirk turns, but he doesn't face up, he's still got his back turned away from the basket while he's looking to pass. So leaving the pawe on is still borderline-legal. Not enough for any type of call in the playoffs.

No, I see him receiving a pass from Kidd, at the right elbow, well out lower defensive box, facing up and McDyess initiating contact.

These fouls are generally called, playoffs or not.

I'm really not going to lose time arguing this. It's too obvious and one would need to be blind or a lunatic to deny the evidence. Doesn't mean the Mavs are losing games because of the refs; the culprits are others.

[Halberto]

I'd say there was 2 missed calls there. (2 and 5 of the ones labeled)

Doesn't mean the game though

[z0sa]

No, I see him receiving a pass from Kidd, at the right elbow, well out lower defensive box, facing up and McDyess initiating contact.

Dirk turns his back to the basket, which is when Dyess puts the forearm.

These fouls are generally called, playoffs or not.

Not really

I'm really not going to lose time arguing this. It's too obvious and one would need to be blind or a lunatic to deny the evidence.

I think you don't understand that a player can have his forearm on your hip when you play with your back to the basket. Just because you turn and swing the ball across your chest, brushing his perfectly legally-placed hand out of the way in the process, does that mean a clear foul occurred. That's called "incidental contact."

[MaNu4Tres]

^ you don't see Dirk start backing Dyess down at the very, very beginning of that youtube?

It is legal to use a forearm if the player is playing with their back to the basket.

After posting for a second, Dirk turns, but he doesn't face up, he's still got his back turned away from the basket while he's looking to pass. So leaving the pawe on is still borderline-legal. Not enough for any type of call in the playoffs.

Not to mention Dirk initiating the contact with his elbow sweeping the ball through to create room from McDyess.

[mogrovejo]

Dirk turns his back to the basket, which is when Dyess puts the forearm.



Not really




I think you don't understand that a player can have his forearm on your hip when you play with your back to the basket. Just because you turn and swing the ball across your chest, brushing his perfectly legally-placed hand out of the way in the process, does that mean a clear foul occurred. That's called "incidental contact."

Are you this dense? Are you telling me that when Dirk receives the pass from Kidd he's with his back to the basket? And that McDyess puts the forearm? He doesn't even put the forearm. I mean, are you such an hysteric homer you can't even see the play in front of your eyes?

Not that would matter, it'd still be a foul because he's above the ft line extended. Just shows how clueless you are when you don't even know the basic rules.

[z0sa]

I remember in 2006, Mark Cuban complained about Tim Duncan slapping away hands/arms on his post moves kinda like Dirk just did. Yeah, seriously - Cuban complained that what Mogro is calling a clear defensive foul, is actually an offensive foul. I heard it during the broadcast so I'm not sure if there's an article I can quickly find.

[mogrovejo]

This is the moment Dirk catches the ball.

Is this a guy with his back to the basket or with his feet below the FTLE?

According to Spur fan, yes.

ing re s.

[z0sa]

Are you this dense?

More fat Mexican jokes?

Are you telling me that when Dirk receives the pass from Kidd he's with his back to the basket?

Doesn't matter

And that McDyess puts the forearm? He doesn't even put the forearm. I mean, are you such an hysteric homer you can't even see the play in front of your eyes?

First of all, foul number 1 doesn't even occur til a long time after Dyess puts the forearm. So if you're arguing for different fouls than the youtube, maybe you should be clear. Try refering the numbers, if you can.



Between 0:00 and 0:03, Dirk receives the pass, and and turns his back away from the basket. At first, Dyess puts his right hand on his back, which he then quickly takes away and puts the left forearm. These are facts. Dirk keeps his back to the basket until he finally faces up and immediately swings the ball through Dyess' chest/arm.

Not that would matter, it'd still be a foul because he's above the ft line extended. Just shows how clueless you are when you don't even know the basic rules.

Now now, that's a bit subjective of an opinion on your part. The ref clearly didn't see it that way.

[z0sa]

0:20, not that sequence

[MaNu4Tres]

In my honest opinion I see only 1 or 2 fouls of the "5" counted.

Missed calls are missed on both sides throughout the course of the game.

I just thought it was ludicrous to make a video on the type of the 2 fouls that I counted.

At the end of the day Mavs were called for 22 fouls, Spurs 20.

Mavs have just been outplayed these 4 games.

It's clear by looking at the shooting percentages from every game this series, which Spurs have the upper hand. Meaning they are playing the better defense and just playing more efficiently overall on both sides of the floor. The only game Mavs were able to pull off was when they shot 20 more free throws.


Referees aren't the reason Mavs are down 3-1.

[z0sa]

Whenever he brings the ball across during that sequence, it's really a difficult call. He just has his arms out, he's not really holding dirk at all. The final drive is probably a foul. The first two are definite good no calls.

[mogrovejo]

Now it doesn't matter any more if he's with his back to the basket ?

Wow, you're a re . I'm sorry, I'm generally civil and polite, but your homerism is beyond pathetic and you deserve to be lambasted by any serious fan of the game of basketball.

And stop using expressions like "incidental contact". You have no ing clue what incidental contact really is. There's no incidental contact when the defensive player puts his hands all over the offensive player body.

ps - okay, it the last post you already admit there's "probably a foul" (the "probably" is still pathetic because the fouls are quite clear), so I'll cut you some slack and retreat from my former name-calling for the sake of encouraging the ongoing progress. Small steps.

[MaNu4Tres]

This is the moment Dirk catches the ball.

That my friend is not a legitimate playoff foul (meaning an automatic call in a playoff type atmosphere, where aggression on both ends and physicality is increased). It is a foul by the book, but it is a ticky tack playoff type foul. ( If that makes any sense).

If you have trouble understanding, go look at playoff games from 2002-2008 and watch what kind of fouls were called on Bruce Bowen.

[z0sa]

Now it doesn't matter any more if he's with his back to the basket ?

You have been arguing the wrong call this entire time. I mean, I start at Call #1 on the YouTube and you go off on me like I'm the idiot whose arguing call Numbers 3/4/5 already.

Wow, you're a re . I'm sorry, I'm generally civil and polite, but your homerism is beyond pathetic and you deserve to be lambasted by any serious fan of the game of basketball.

you're generally a smug bag is what you are.

And stop using expressions like "incidental contact". You have no ing clue what incidental contact really is. There's no incidental contact when the defensive player puts his hands all over the offensive player body.

Says someone who doesn't even know what the I'm arguing. Good strawman this entire thread, jackass.

[mogrovejo]

That my friend is not a legitimate playoff foul (meaning an automatic call in a playoff type atmosphere, where aggression on both ends and physicality is increased). It is a foul by the book, but is a ticky tack playoff type foul. ( If that makes any sense).

If you have trouble understanding, go look at playoff games from 2002-2008 and watch Bruce Bowen and what the refs called and didn't call.

1. Of course that isn't a foul, the point of the picture wasn't the illustrate a foul. There's not even contact going on, how would that supposed to be a foul?

2. You recommendation to watch games from 2002 is beyond stupid considering the rules changed.

3. The way Bowen was officiated isn't an example.

4. Who are you?

[z0sa]

^ you don't see Dirk start backing Dyess down at the very, very beginning of that youtube?

No, I see him receiving a pass from Kidd, at the right elbow, well out lower defensive box, facing up and McDyess initiating contact.

What exactly was this response about, Mogrovejo?

ing ridiculous.

[AnthonyM]

Dirk can't be touched.

They were all fouls...and probably more.

[mogrovejo]

Says someone who doesn't even know what the I'm arguing. Good strawman this entire thread, jackass.

I was the one posting saying there was a foul and you refuted my post saying there wasn't a foul. Now I don't know what you are arguing?

ing re s.

[z0sa]

ing re s.

No, I see him receiving a pass from Kidd, at the right elbow, well out lower defensive box, facing up and McDyess initiating contact.

What youtube is this the very, very beginning of, ing re ?

Now I don't know what you are arguing?

It seems kinda like you knew exactly what I was arguing, at least, you thought you did, you ing re you.