Tag: Lakers Celtics Game 3

NBA Finals, Lakers Celtics: Celtics minority owner confronts David Stern after Game 3 over officiating


Thumbnail image for Garnett_referee.jpgPlenty of people watching the NBA Finals have wanted to yell at NBA Commissioner David Stern about it.

Celtics minority owner Jim Pallotta did just that after Game 3. He confronted Stern and said the officiating was an embarrassment to the league.

That likely means a fine is on the way, and maybe a healthy one, according to the report in the Boston Globe.

Officiating has become a big story this series, with Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Ron Artest and others having to sit because of foul trouble. The first two games of the series saw a 71 percent increase in free throw attempts over a regular season game (Game 3 was right at the norm). Game 3 saw multiple uses or replay on key plays down the stretch.

All I can say to Boston and Los Angeles fans is what every coach I ever had said when a team complained about officiating — stop whining and play better so the game is not in their hands. The calls late in Game 3 didn’t cost the Celtics the game, their poor shooting night from the outside and inability to stop the 1-2 pick-and-roll late in the game did. The fouls on Kobe Bryant didn’t cost the Lakers Game 2, their poor defense on Ray Allen early and inability to control the boards did.

Hopefully tonight we can just play Game 4 without the whining. And maybe with some better calls.

NBA finals, Lakers Celtics: Doc Rivers complains about officiating, dabbles in irony


Rivers_referees.jpgLet’s be clear up front: The officiating during the NBA finals has not been good. Fans from Boston to Los Angeles have been complaining as games have been called tight and stars have been in foul trouble.

Wednesday it was Doc Rivers turn to flirt with a fine from the league, as reported by ESPN’s Chris Sheridan.

“I think it was a ton of moving screens they got away with,” Rivers said the day after the Celtics’ 91-84 loss to the Lakers in Game 3 put the Celtics behind 2-1 in the best-of-7 series. “As far as off-the-ball action … you are not allowed to hold, you are not allowed to bump, and you are not allowed to impede progress. I read that this morning, and I’m positive of it. So, you know, when that happens it has to be called.”

Let the irony of that paragraph sink in, really savor it. For the past few years there has been no team that has bumped, grabbed and impeded progress like the Celtics. Suddenly it’s a big problem.

“It’s huge,” Rivers said. “We’ve had all three games where one of our quote-unquote Big Three has not been able to play.

“Last night, Paul was never in his rhythm. He couldn’t be. He played for four minutes, he was back on the bench, played for five minutes. I mean, I played Paul at times last night when I should not have had him on the floor with four fouls, but I had no choice. You’ve got to get him on the floor at some point.

“But it clearly — you know, we watched film today, and I showed Paul, it’s funny. I said ‘Paul, that’s a driving lane. You’ve got to get to the basket.’ His response was: ‘I was worried about getting another foul.’ It’s tough to play that way.”

He wasn’t complaining in Game 2 when Kobe Bryant had to play that way.

I don’t blame Rivers for being frustrated. He should be. But so far the Lakers have adjusted better to the officiating than the Celtics, and that’s one of the reasons they lead the series. The Lakers, more a finesse team, my also find it easier to adjust.

That or the inconsistent officiating is so random nobody ever really adjusts.

Today it was Rivers turn to work the officials through the media. At some point in the next few days it will be Phil Jackson’s turn. And so the cycle of life continues.


NBA finals, Lakers Celtics: Talking Derek Fisher, the day after

Leave a comment

After practices on the off day, everybody was still talking Derek Fisher. Even Derek Fisher.


NBA instant replay: Do we need more of it? A PBT roundtable discussion

1 Comment

Garnett_referee.jpgThe star of the NBA finals Game 3 — just after Derek Fisher but ahead of Brian Scalabrine — was instant replay. The officials went to it constantly down the stretch of a close game. Good, because they got the calls right, sort of; or bad because it disrupted the flow of the game?

We’ve decided to go Algonquin Round Table to hash this one out. Myself, Matt Moore (the PBT weekend editor and a guy who is everywhere) and Rob Mahoney (also here and everywhere) discuss.

Kurt Helin: It looked like an NFL game out there late in Game 3. I was expecting Doc Rivers to throw the red flag on the court at one point. No doubt it messes with the flow of the game some, but this proved to me I want more replay. Lets get the calls right.

I say give the coaches two challenges to use per game outside of the last two minutes, and have the refs overturn some more stuff. What matters is getting it right. This isn’t baseball.

Matt Moore: I suppose if we’re going to go that route we’re going to have to make one expansion with a limitation. You can challenge the overall result of the play, not just a specific element, and it’s got to be done at a stopped ball, no more than one possession removed from the play in question.

An example? Doc challenging out on Rondo shouldn’t negate the fact that Rondo was fouled. The question then is if you attribute the foul to him. We’re getting in murky water there, though. A retroactive foul is such a huge deal because so many go on that aren’t called (a zillion in an average Boston game and a googleplex whenever Andrew Bynum enters the arena).

My big thing is, man, we’ve got to do better about getting the call right the first time. Four blatant misses down the stretch. This after I thought Games 1 and 2 weren’t so bad.

Rob Mahoney: The league could definitely use more replay, but how is ‘challeng[ing] the overall result of the play’ a limitation? That’s opening up a huge can of worms, in my opinion, and you cut right to the heart of it, Moore.

Why should the challenging team really be penalized with an additional foul that wasn’t called by the referees in the first place?

As you mentioned, Matt, there are fouls going on during every possession, from holds, to hand-checks, to the pleasantries exchanged by players fighting for post position. A referee, if so inclined, could choose to end every single replay review by calling a foul that wasn’t seen the first time around, and that’s game-changing in the worst way. Circumventing that requires the challenging of specific calls. It has to be “this out of bounds call needs to be reviewed,” or “this blocking foul needs to be reviewed, it was a charge.” It’s not so easy to do that in every circumstance, but giving referees a remote control and free rein to revisit all of the calls they didn’t make could be damning.

Where that line should be though, I’m not sure. Should foul calls even be reviewable? Or maybe only those that are actually called, rather than challenging a no-call? Technical fouls? Violations only? I’m not sure there’s a good answer.

Kurt Helin: I don’t think you can open up the Pandora’s Box of foul’s that were not called the first time. Even though you end up with plays like that out of bounds off Lamar Odom where it went out off him because of an uncalled foul on Rondo. That is the price. But there have to be definitive lines of what can and can’t be reviewed. Charge/block is too subjective.

But what about a standard shooting foul? If Ray Allen goes up for a three and Derek Fisher is late closing out on him and is called for a foul, can you review if he did get him? To me that kind of thing can’t be part of it, because it can be about camera angles, or how do you determine how much body contact there was? Especially with a foul in a scrum under the basket. So many foul calls are made in the shades of gray.

Moore is hits the nail with getting calls right the first time, and with that comes the old consistency argument. From ref to ref in the same game what is a foul on one end is not on the other. Touch fouls get called, guys knocked down and no whistle. Was there a clear line in Game 3 of what was and was not a foul? Paul Pierce sure couldn’t find it.

Matt Moore: I think perhaps one way to solve it is this. If after review, a conflicting piece of evidence in the play would negate the reversal, the play stands as called. So basically, last night, Rondo’s foul negates the incorrect call on the out of bounds, because given all the information, there is inconclusive evidence to overturn the call. Rondo doesn’t benefit from the foul, and Lamar doesn’t get screwed.

Reviewing the contact would be interesting, but that’s one where I’d almost say you can only challenge ONE foul call per game. That would make it interesting. If you save it, and you KNOW your guy didn’t foul, you could challenge. Also makes you wonder if you could challenge that you DID foul, re: Denver-Dallas last year with Antoine Wright.

I still think if we’re talking individual plays, we’re not falling victim to any specific problems more than the NFL. So while there could be a blatant foul going on off-ball. I’d recommend that only on-ball action can be reviewed.

Rob Mahoney: The one thing I think we’re ignoring is how such reviews affect the game’s natural momentum. That matters in terms of how we view the game, but even more importantly, how the game progresses.

Would challenges require the use of a timeout? Last night we saw a Doc Rivers timeout turn into a review that benefited the Lakers, which is an interesting twist. I think requiring teams to use timeouts to challenge plays would at least limit the disruptions in the flow of the game, both in terms of the viewing experience and each team’s ability to halt the other’s momentum. Otherwise, being able to challenge at any dead-ball situation could be a powerful weapon in the hands of any team, especially those on the road.

Can you imagine if a team could not only stop play during an opponent’s big run, but also overturn a call that could act as a catalyst for their own? That’s huge. There needs to be some kind of cost for teams to force reviews, should they be unsuccessful, and timeouts could be the best way to go.  

Kurt Helin: What would concern me is what we saw for a while in the NFL — gun shy refs. They seemed hesitant because of the potential overrule. NBA refs have enough problems without starting to second-guess themselves on top of it.

For that reason, got to just keep this limited — two (Matt says one, I could live with that) challenges outside the last two minutes of the half, and only challenge on certain specific calls. Only on-the-ball fouls.

Cool, now that the three of us solved the replay issue, let’s just fix the CBA….

NBA finals, Lakers Celtics: The good news and the bad news for Boston's offense


Celtics_bench.jpgAs the Celtics look to move on from their Game 3 loss, they can find some redemption in how much they were able to accomplish with so little going right. As much as I’d like to say that Paul Pierce and Ray Allen were smothered by the Lakers’ defense, that doesn’t quite do justice to just how much the shooting of the two left to be desired.

L.A. clearly learned a few things after Ray Allen turned Game 2 into a resume-builder, as the Laker bigs did a better job of preventing open looks and the guards a superior job of chasing him down. But even a team of the world’s most disciplined defenders won’t prevent Ray from getting open at some point, and on numerous occasions Allen found himself open beyond the arc or within it.

Clearly, something was different in Game 3. Allen elevated in idyllic form — his back a straight, steady, and perfectly vertical support from which his arms would heave yet another faultless attempt — but his shots met a less idyllic result. Ray just…missed. Quite a few times, actually. There weren’t flaws in his mechanics, but only the reality that no matter how good of a shooter Allen is or could ever hope to be, he’s going to have nights like this one. Obviously it’d be preferable if those nights didn’t come during the NBA finals, but what are you going to do.

Pan to Paul Pierce, one Celtic capable of making up for Allen’s poor shooting with a three-point assault of his own or another well-timed scoring explosion. Yet Paul wasn’t much help, either. He too missed some very makeable shots — some of them wide open — and finished with just 15 points on 5-of-12 shooting. His three hits from outside were much-needed, but this is the second straight performance in this series where Pierce has failed to produce in the scoring column, with his only fault being his inability to hit the shots he’s worked so hard to get.

This is Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, two fine scorers, both going cold at just the wrong time. They’re getting open, they’re getting the shots they want (on some occasions, but not all), but the ball just can’t find its way through the net. Factor in a decent but somewhat uninspired performance by Rajon Rondo, and it’s easy to understand why the Celtics lost in Boston: they were waiting on the arrival of two heroes that never showed.

Still, the nature of the Celtics’ struggles should leave Boston fans somewhat optimistic. Everything that transpired in Game 3 can be fixed with some troubleshooting and a bit of luck, and should Pierce and Allen return to form for Game 4, we could see another tiebreaker as both 2-2 teams square off in Game 5. You’d have to think that both Celtics would be able to rebound from their poor Game 3 performances in one way or another, and if not, Boston will have to get creative in using the mere threat of their offense to open up opportunities for Kevin Garnett, Rajon Rondo, Rasheed Wallace, and others.

That’s where things could get a bit dicey. The bad news is that the Celtics don’t have a ton of weapons, and thus they need the scorers they do have to produce. The good news is that the scorers they do have are so experienced and so skilled, that it’s extremely unlikely they’ll be kept down for a significant portion of this series. Even if Ron Artest is playing tough defense and the entire Laker team is aware of Allen’s cuts and streaks, Paul and Ray are plenty capable of rebounding in Game 4.