ADVERTISEMENT

Kicked ball is not reviewable?

Bucket Getter

Senior
Apr 9, 2023
2,098
3,406
113
I guess I don’t understand what replay is really supposed to do. I mean, if there’s something egregious called, how can you not review it? Seems like a very good way for officials to sway a game knowing full damn well there’s nothing anyone can do. How many other calls are there that aren’t reviewable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbafficionado
I cant wait til AI takes over in every sport! Human error has no place in sports. Humans have made too many dumb errors to count these days that make things unwatchable! Inside and outside sources also have effected officiating such as NiL/Legal betting. Cant trust a human anymore to make the right calls because you dont know what influences them to make the calls!
Look at the MLB, umps are still calling obvious balls strikes and a terrible percentage rate! Its an easy fix to put a strike zone box on a camera that can perfectly call what a strike or ball is!

In football and basketball is more complicated, but there can be advancements in technology that can fix officiating issues in a timely manner!
To have a couple reviews per team per game that others in saccaucas NJ make the calls in an unknown location is ridiculous! More cameras+computer chips+better emphasis on rules and regulations, etc can make sports not look like the fake wwf!
 
The last four minutes of that game was absolutely emabarrasing for the NBA. So many terrible calls. Some of them were almost inexplicable. Then the moving screen call (which may have technically been a moving screen), but is the way that every single screen is set in every single NBA game. Just so bad....
 
Nothing matches the bad calls in NBA playoffs through the years. The officiating to get to a seventh game used to be horrific. My view is that NBA officials have the lowest apparent integrity of any officiating group.

Joey Crawford hitting Tim Duncan with phantom T’s was ridiculous and should have resulted in termination (even though I have always despised the Spurs).
 
Last edited:
To me, the amount of calls/missed calls that went against the Pacers...and then the timing and situation of the late game calls...I don't know man, I'm not really a conspiracy theorist normally, but when taken in totality its difficult to explain it all away.

Haliburton's waived off shot...clearly the wrong call, thats points taken off the scoreboard.

Brunson's foul that was reviewed and reversed...clearly the right call initially, why it was even reviewed was strange to me...but then to overturn it...no possible explanation for it. At a minimum, he hit him with a ton of body. But then he also brought his arm down on the offensive players arm... That's also points taken off the board, and 1 less foul on Brunson.

They called a foul on a ball Haliburton poked away late in the game. The Pacers had to use their challenge on that, and it was overturned. It looked obviously clean live, and not sure why they'd be calling it that closely in the first place in that situation. They sure weren't on the other end, it didn't seem. Pacers won the challenge, but that took away a likely break out layup or dunk.

They called that kicked ball that obviously wasn't a kicked ball. At best, it would have hit him in the thigh, and bounced off, and wouldn't have been a kicked ball. Why make that call? That also took away a likely breakaway layup or dunk.

The illegal screen on Turner. Illegal screens are sporadically called in the NBA, so its not like they don't ever call them (like refs never did on Edey/Purdue). But in this particular game, moving screens on both sides were rampant, all night long. I'm not sure they called a single one. So to call a marginal one, with the defensive player ultimately flopping, and then passing on the opportunity to "get it right" via the review and overturn the call... Its hard to explain or understand.

The last one was the dead ball foul call, that gave Brunson that 1 shot free throw. First of all, players grabbing and holding defensively happens literally every single play in the NBA...especially on out of bounds plays. That was the 2nd dead ball holding call they had made in the 2nd half...both on Brunson's man. And then to make that call in that time and situation... inexcusable.

To quote one of my kids..."the whole thing was 'sus' ". The Pacers have the better overall team. If they can win game 2, I think they could win the series easily. But it seems like they might be swimming up stream a little bit.
 
To me, the amount of calls/missed calls that went against the Pacers...and then the timing and situation of the late game calls...I don't know man, I'm not really a conspiracy theorist normally, but when taken in totality its difficult to explain it all away.

Haliburton's waived off shot...clearly the wrong call, thats points taken off the scoreboard.

Brunson's foul that was reviewed and reversed...clearly the right call initially, why it was even reviewed was strange to me...but then to overturn it...no possible explanation for it. At a minimum, he hit him with a ton of body. But then he also brought his arm down on the offensive players arm... That's also points taken off the board, and 1 less foul on Brunson.

They called a foul on a ball Haliburton poked away late in the game. The Pacers had to use their challenge on that, and it was overturned. It looked obviously clean live, and not sure why they'd be calling it that closely in the first place in that situation. They sure weren't on the other end, it didn't seem. Pacers won the challenge, but that took away a likely break out layup or dunk.

They called that kicked ball that obviously wasn't a kicked ball. At best, it would have hit him in the thigh, and bounced off, and wouldn't have been a kicked ball. Why make that call? That also took away a likely breakaway layup or dunk.

The illegal screen on Turner. Illegal screens are sporadically called in the NBA, so its not like they don't ever call them (like refs never did on Edey/Purdue). But in this particular game, moving screens on both sides were rampant, all night long. I'm not sure they called a single one. So to call a marginal one, with the defensive player ultimately flopping, and then passing on the opportunity to "get it right" via the review and overturn the call... Its hard to explain or understand.

The last one was the dead ball foul call, that gave Brunson that 1 shot free throw. First of all, players grabbing and holding defensively happens literally every single play in the NBA...especially on out of bounds plays. That was the 2nd dead ball holding call they had made in the 2nd half...both on Brunson's man. And then to make that call in that time and situation... inexcusable.

To quote one of my kids..."the whole thing was 'sus' ". The Pacers have the better overall team. If they can win game 2, I think they could win the series easily. But it seems like they might be swimming up stream a little bit.
Learned today that pint-sized ref went to Ball State and lives in Westfield. WTH?
 
Screwing small TV market teams makes sense from a business standpoint but is horrible for a sport.
Knicks/Celtics is what the NBA bean counters would strongly prefer. I've always pushed back on things like this actually happening...but have to admit that the calls in Game 1 were very difficult to rationalize as just "missed calls". It sure allows the mind to connect the conspiracy theory dots, with things like past draft lottery "miracles", and then obvious inconsistent officiating that has favored teams and star players.

Not only are the Pacers a small market team, they also don't have a "mega star"...double whammy for them right now. Brunson is becoming that, and the NBA has a very long history on helping players like that along, in many ways.
 
Knicks/Celtics is what the NBA bean counters would strongly prefer. I've always pushed back on things like this actually happening...but have to admit that the calls in Game 1 were very difficult to rationalize as just "missed calls". It sure allows the mind to connect the conspiracy theory dots, with things like past draft lottery "miracles", and then obvious inconsistent officiating that has favored teams and star players.

Not only are the Pacers a small market team, they also don't have a "mega star"...double whammy for them right now. Brunson is becoming that, and the NBA has a very long history on helping players like that along, in many ways.
NBA and that alien-looking love child of David Stern desperately want Brunson to be a megastar. It’s clear as day when he body blocks Myles on a dunk and the review overturns the correct call on the floor. NY has always had the benefit of home cooking. Thank goodness the owner is a certified clown or they’d win it all about every 4 years.
 
NBA and that alien-looking love child of David Stern desperately want Brunson to be a megastar. It’s clear as day when he body blocks Myles on a dunk and the review overturns the correct call on the floor. NY has always had the benefit of home cooking. Thank goodness the owner is a certified clown or they’d win it all about every 4 years.
Could even a mother not be alarmed by that face. When he calls someone in for a meeting they need a good stiff drink to tamp down the face panic.


 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bucket Getter
...The Pacers have the better overall team. If they can win game 2, I think they could win the series easily. But it seems like they might be swimming up stream a little bit.
This didn't age well. Brunson > Haliburton when it counts most. And in the NBA, that often determines games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bucket Getter
This didn't age well. Brunson > Haliburton when it counts most. And in the NBA, that often determines games.
I still think we have better players across the board. But it's clear as day NY is tougher across that same board. I've always thought sheer talent should beat sheer toughness, but I am about to be proven wrong. And if the officials allow only one team team to use the toughness, the other team is screwed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CriticArisen
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT