5 vs 8: Where we discuss the quality (or lack thereof) of NBA Playoff Officiating

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,085
Sorry, but you're being illogical. What happened before the double technical is, by the rulebook, irrelevant. You know that is true.

I agree that the purpose of the double technical is to warn both players about their behavior. Whether one has been warned before does not change that goal from a game-management perspective, though. If what you say is true, there is in fact no 'warning' going on at all---think about what the word means. What you are describing is not a 'warning' it is a 'get out of jail free card' where any subsequent misbehavior is not penalized. That is, by your own words, not the purpose of the double technical. Or the prior warning. By your description, all technicals are 'get out of jail free cards' not warnings because they will never issue a second one. So, in that world, the point is to acquire your 'get out of jail free card' as soon as possible and then try to draw one on others rest of game with dirty play. That is bad, and it is precisely what Green did last night.

If your point is the league does what Javie says---ignores the rules and the purpose behind the rules to keep players in games---of course we know that is often true. The point being made here is that is neither right nor fair.
Illogical? You are interpretating these rules incorrectly as they aren’t being ignored. They are subjective and the game is managed, and has been managed for decades now, without a hard line in the sand when giving an equal warning to two players when one already has a T. The purpose is to manage and control the game…..now for a player to be thrown out for a nothingburger skirmish.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,045
Boston, MA
Illogical? You are interpretating these rules incorrectly as they aren’t being ignored. They are subjective and the game is managed, and has been managed for decades now, without a hard line in the sand when giving an equal warning to two players when one already has a T. The purpose is to manage and control the game…..now for a player to be thrown out for a nothingburger skirmish.
Sincere question: How do you think the officials managed Draymond's behavior after giving him his first technical? Do you think they did a good job, tamping down his outside the rulebook antics?
 

TrapperAB

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2002
2,298
West Hartford, CT
Sorry, but you're being illogical. What happened before the double technical is, by the rulebook, irrelevant. You know that is true.

I agree that the purpose of the double technical is to warn both players about their behavior. Whether one has been warned before does not change that goal from a game-management perspective, though. If what you say is true, there is in fact no 'warning' going on at all---think about what the word means. What you are describing is not a 'warning' it is a 'get out of jail free card' where any subsequent misbehavior is not penalized. That is, by your own words, not the purpose of the double technical. Or the prior warning. By your description, all technicals are 'get out of jail free cards' not warnings because they will never issue a second one. So, in that world, the point is to acquire your 'get out of jail free card' as soon as possible and then try to draw one on others rest of game with dirty play. That is bad, and it is precisely what Green did last night.

If your point is the league does what Javie says---ignores the rules and the purpose behind the rules to keep players in games---of course we know that is often true. The point being made here is that is neither right nor fair.
To add on to this: Context matters.

@HomeRunBaker is arguing that the double T shouldn’t be called because of context. Can’t toss a guy because of something seemingly less egregious than the shit he got the first T for. I understand and appreciate the point, and for the most part, agree with it.

But to not call the T is ignoring context, too. Draymond had been getting into it with multiple players all game long. The refs had to have seen the multiple cases of “straddle-stand over a player on the floor.” He had been barking shit at them all game long. They undoubtedly heard Draymond say some pretty unsavory shit to the Celtics players, too.

Plus, don’t the refs talk to one another at half? Discuss what they’ve seen? Maybe get a call from New York/the league? Pretty good chance that when the second half started, they were fully briefed about all the stupid shit Draymond had been pulling, including them having made the wrong call on the Grant tackle.

So when Green backed into Brown’s legs on the three (total bush league move — again, I’d argue that he did that intentionally, with his back to Brown to give him plausible deniability), and then has his feet on Brown afterwards, CONTEXT MATTERS. He’s been an asshole all game long. He’s stood over guys. He’s been talking shit to players and refs. Never mind all the garden variety hard fouls all over the place.

In isolation, yes, Draymond shouldn’t get tossed in a double tech situation, which, as has been pointed out, is about keeping the game from getting out of hand. But in context, Green was clearly trying to instigate yet another confrontation with a Celtics player. He sees himself as a savvy provocateur, when really, he’s an antagonistic jackass who should be held to account far more than he is.

The refs should be forced to re-watch the entire game and keep a running log of all the shit Draymond did so that they can see just how badly they did their jobs. Sure, they didn’t want to toss a guy because he held his feet on Brown’s body for a second too long. But they really need to ask themselves: what WOULD get Draymond tossed? If the answer is “nothing short of shoving a guy to the ground and dangling his nuts in their face,” well, Green had already done that. Which is big part of the reason why Brown shoved Green’s leg out of the way.

Edit: Cleaned up a bit, added a little at the end.
 
Last edited:

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
7,329
0-3 to 4-3
I still can't believe that Green literally tackled Williams and they called the foul on Williams. That's the kind of shit that turned me away from this league years ago.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,045
Boston, MA
The solution was noted above. Simply call Draymond for common fouls. He fouls on many if not most possessions. Call the foul, ignore his crying, and when he fouls out in the third period, problem solved.
 

Dim13

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,639
The mucky muck
My favorite was the Jaylen "foul" on the GP2 layup. Granted, Payton missed the two free throws, but that gave Brown a second foul that he didn't need and didn't deserve.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,085
Sincere question: How do you think the officials managed Draymond's behavior after giving him his first technical? Do you think they did a good job, tamping down his outside the rulebook antics?
The refs were awful the entire game and this is coming from someone who is defensive of how difficult their job truly is. Having said that, they did their job of getting this series tied 1-1……we all know the deal on this. As far as how Green was managed he’s a very difficult player to officiate. They got a few calls right like when he pushed Tatum out of bounds, the one at midcourt when Grant was institigating contact, or trying to draw a T, then some were horrible such as running over Grant in the lane and another that I remember shaking my head at but don’t recall. If you’re asking me if I feel he should have been thrown out at at point then LOL the answer is a pretty easy no.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
17,564
FWIW, the video. Someone defending the call could argue that JB grazed GP2's legs, but man that level of contact is ignored on 99.9% of plays. If Draymond avoids techs due to game situations, they should avoid giving stars their second foul on plays like this.

 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,045
Boston, MA
The refs were awful the entire game and this is coming from someone who is defensive of how difficult their job truly is. Having said that, they did their job of getting this series tied 1-1……we all know the deal on this. As far as how Green was managed he’s a very difficult player to officiate. They got a few calls right like when he pushed Tatum out of bounds, the one at midcourt when Grant was institigating contact, or trying to draw a T, then some were horrible such as running over Grant in the lane and another that I remember shaking my head at but don’t recall. If you’re asking me if I feel he should have been thrown out at at point then LOL the answer is a pretty easy no.
I was asking because you said that the first T is often called to help the officials manage the game. They called the first T, and it not only didn't help them manage the game, but as noted above, it actually seemed to give Draymond license to approach the line (and cross it) multiple times. I acknowledge that "we all know the deal" but your argument about what the officials are doing to manage the game (particularly when it comes to Draymond) is, shall we say, unpersuasive (and I'm being kind).

Call common fouls on Draymond, foul him out conventionally in the 3rd quarter, and this starts to go away.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
37,837
Melrose, MA
There was a play early in the first quarter where Draymond set a screen for Curry. Smart went nicely over the screen, and then something weird seemed to happen that I missed. Curry drove past Draymond and Smart kind of got hung up on Draymond for a bit. Then, at a stoppage that happened right after, Smart was sort of walking around with a stunned look. If I saw only the beginning and end of the play, I'd have thought Green hurt Smart with some sort of cheap shot. But I saw the whole pay and didn't see anything. Anyone recall his?

I got to thinking about this play because Marcus played most of the game as though he was concussed and I started wondering whether he took a head shot at any point. But I most definitely am not accusing Green of that - I didn't see it and I'm sure it would have been on camera if it had happened.

Anyway, I think this whole post is a nonsequitur and I am probably just obsessing over a good Draymond screen.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,256
In regards to the Poole-foul-that-ended-up-not-being-a-foul; I've always thought that basketball should have a soccer-like "advantage" rule where referees have the discretion to ignore a foul call if they think the team that was fouled still has the advantage on the possession (maybe make it only applicable to fouls committed outside the three point line). The offending team would still be charged with a foul, but they don't blow the whistle and stop the play. This would also stop a lot of the dumb take fouls that kill fast breaks and everyone admits is a problem.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
37,837
Melrose, MA
In regards to the Poole-foul-that-ended-up-not-being-a-foul; I've always thought that basketball should have a soccer-like "advantage" rule where referees have the discretion to ignore a foul call if they think the team that was fouled still has the advantage on the possession (maybe make it only applicable to fouls committed outside the three point line). The offending team would still be charged with a foul, but they don't blow the whistle and stop the play. This would also stop a lot of the dumb take fouls that kill fast breaks and everyone admits is a problem.
That call was mind blowing when it happened.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,085
In regards to the Poole-foul-that-ended-up-not-being-a-foul; I've always thought that basketball should have a soccer-like "advantage" rule where referees have the discretion to ignore a foul call if they think the team that was fouled still has the advantage on the possession (maybe make it only applicable to fouls committed outside the three point line). The offending team would still be charged with a foul, but they don't blow the whistle and stop the play. This would also stop a lot of the dumb take fouls that kill fast breaks and everyone admits is a problem.
Maybe the next step is to institute VAR in a more rapid fashion that could quickly correct missed calls. It wouldn’t have affected Draymond running over Grant bc that was subjective but it would have quickly corrected the Jaylen foul on GP3 that was sold (game speed it did appear to be an undercut based on GP3’s reaction) and it wouldn’t slow the game down bc there are generally only a small handful of plays each game like this.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,508
Hingham, MA
There was a play early in the first quarter where Draymond set a screen for Curry. Smart went nicely over the screen, and then something weird seemed to happen that I missed. Curry drove past Draymond and Smart kind of got hung up on Draymond for a bit. Then, at a stoppage that happened right after, Smart was sort of walking around with a stunned look. If I saw only the beginning and end of the play, I'd have thought Green hurt Smart with some sort of cheap shot. But I saw the whole pay and didn't see anything. Anyone recall his?

I got to thinking about this play because Marcus played most of the game as though he was concussed and I started wondering whether he took a head shot at any point. But I most definitely am not accusing Green of that - I didn't see it and I'm sure it would have been on camera if it had happened.

Anyway, I think this whole post is a nonsequitur and I am probably just obsessing over a good Draymond screen.
If it's the play I'm thinking of, Green hooked Marcus underneath his armpit
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
9,235
Plus, don’t the refs talk to one another at half? Discuss what they’ve seen? Maybe get a call from New York/the league? Pretty good chance that when the second half started, they were fully briefed about all the stupid shit Draymond had been pulling, including them having made the wrong call on the Grant tackle.
The only call they got from New York at half time was one saying "Keep up the good work."

Beyond the obvious interest in prolonging the series, I wonder if the league has a preference for "The grizzled vets win another title, cementing their place in the NBA pantheon" versus "The young upstarts dethrone the kings." I doubt they'd go so far as to really put the fix in for a game 7 a la last night, but sometimes you have to wonder.
 

TrapperAB

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2002
2,298
West Hartford, CT
The only call they got from New York at half time was one saying "Keep up the good work."

Beyond the obvious interest in prolonging the series, I wonder if the league has a preference for "The grizzled vets win another title, cementing their place in the NBA pantheon" versus "The young upstarts dethrone the kings." I doubt they'd go so far as to really put the fix in for a game 7 a la last night, but sometimes you have to wonder.
Was a bit surprised while listening to a recent Windhorst podcast (forgive me, I’m listening to everything right now) and hear him say that the league is far more interested in seven games of mediocre basketball/blowouts than a riveting series that ends in four or five. Bottom line: they want more games, because more games means more money. Even if the product is worse.

As a result, the refs are a bunch of edgers. (Blow it close.)

Last night, Golden State was down 0-1 and playing at home. They were going to get a favorable whistle. Started with Curry pulling RWIII out of bounds on the first play and went downhill from there.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
Illogical? You are interpretating these rules incorrectly as they aren’t being ignored. They are subjective and the game is managed, and has been managed for decades now, without a hard line in the sand when giving an equal warning to two players when one already has a T. The purpose is to manage and control the game…..now for a player to be thrown out for a nothingburger skirmish.
As others have noted, you are confusing "what is written in the NBA rulebook" and "what does the NBA want officials to do"

It is pretty hard to credibly argue that, by the rulebook, the Draymond kick and push on Jaylen doesn't at least get a hard look. And by the rulebook, it's irrelevant that there was a prior technical (if you disagree---cite the section which says what you suggest on that). This is the point I've made.

Now, separate from the rulebook, we all know that the league office gets involved with direction of games and speciifc choices around ejections. And so if your point really is "they just ignore the rules to keep guys in the game" I doubt anyone disagrees with that.

But it is illogical to assume the later changes the written rules of the former.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,230
To add on to this: Context matters.

@HomeRunBaker is arguing that the double T shouldn’t be called because of context. Can’t toss a guy because of something seemingly less egregious than the shit he got the first T for. I understand and appreciate the point, and for the most part, agree with it.

But to not call the T is ignoring context, too. Draymond had been getting into it with multiple players all game long. The refs had to have seen the multiple cases of “straddle-stand over a player on the floor.” He had been barking shit at them all game long. They undoubtedly heard Draymond say some pretty unsavory shit to the Celtics players, too.

Plus, don’t the refs talk to one another at half? Discuss what they’ve seen? Maybe get a call from New York/the league? Pretty good chance that when the second half started, they were fully briefed about all the stupid shit Draymond had been pulling, including them having made the wrong call on the Grant tackle.

So when Green backed into Brown’s legs on the three (total bush league move — again, I’d argue that he did that intentionally, with his back to Brown to give him plausible deniability), and then has his feet on Brown afterwards, CONTEXT MATTERS. He’s been an asshole all game long. He’s stood over guys. He’s been talking shit to players and refs. Never mind all the garden variety hard fouls all over the place.

In isolation, yes, Draymond shouldn’t get tossed in a double tech situation, which, as has been pointed out, is about keeping the game from getting out of hand. But in context, Green was clearly trying to instigate yet another confrontation with a Celtics player. He sees himself as a savvy provocateur, when really, he’s an antagonistic jackass who should be held to account far more than he is.

The refs should be forced to re-watch the entire game and keep a running log of all the shit Draymond did so that they can see just how badly they did their jobs. Sure, they didn’t want to toss a guy because he held his feet on Brown’s body for a second too long. But they really need to ask themselves: what WOULD get Draymond tossed? If the answer is “nothing short of shoving a guy to the ground and dangling his nuts in their face,” well, Green had already done that. Which is big part of the reason why Brown shoved Green’s leg out of the way.

Edit: Cleaned up a bit, added a little at the end.
I’ve typed a version of this out but you’re completely correct.

And Brown shoved Green’s leg because he fell and contorted himself to use Jaylen as a foot stool. Absolutely no one would take kindly to that…if someone did that to Draymond he would have got up in a huff and charged at the guy fist cocked…and waited for teammates to get between them. But still would have been more aggressive
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,085
As others have noted, you are confusing "what is written in the NBA rulebook" and "what does the NBA want officials to do"

It is pretty hard to credibly argue that, by the rulebook, the Draymond kick and push on Jaylen doesn't at least get a hard look. And by the rulebook, it's irrelevant that there was a prior technical (if you disagree---cite the section which says what you suggest on that). This is the point I've made.

Now, separate from the rulebook, we all know that the league office gets involved with direction of games and speciifc choices around ejections. And so if your point really is "they just ignore the rules to keep guys in the game" I doubt anyone disagrees with that.

But it is illogical to assume the later changes the written rules of the former.
There are no “rules” for issuing subjective technical fouls so I’m not even sure what you’re referring to. C’mon man now you are making things up. Draymond never “kicked” Jaylen and as I’ve said since this shitshow began IF he did kick Jaylen than that is grounds for a T and ejection for it being his 2nd. Falling to the ground and moving your legs on top of Jaylen for half a second, prior to being shoved in the chest by Jaylen, isn’t T-worthy on its own in any circumstances much less this one.
 

BostonFan23

Randy Hickey
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
1,714
It's absurd that Green was afforded the privilege of looking over the refs' shoulders and providing his thoughts on the Poole-White interaction as they reviewed the play. Maybe just wishful thinking, but he might've been a little too open post-game about how he knows he gets special treatment, he knows how to use it, etc. Curious if we could see any blowback in his direction when the series shifts to Boston.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,978
If I'm Ime, I start Game 3 with Grant Williams pummeling the fuck out of Draymond up and down the court for the first 5 minutes of the game. I don't even care if he picks up 3-4 fouls. Just send that dickhead a message that it's going to be a LONG night for him.
 

Nator

Member
SoSH Member
In regards to the Poole-foul-that-ended-up-not-being-a-foul; I've always thought that basketball should have a soccer-like "advantage" rule where referees have the discretion to ignore a foul call if they think the team that was fouled still has the advantage on the possession (maybe make it only applicable to fouls committed outside the three point line). The offending team would still be charged with a foul, but they don't blow the whistle and stop the play. This would also stop a lot of the dumb take fouls that kill fast breaks and everyone admits is a problem.
I am %100 behind this. They could use it on these 'take' fouls where despite the light intentional foul they are allowed to complete the play on a 3 on 1, for instance.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
18,177
A Grant-Draymond brawl would be interesting. No idea who would come out on top. Except that Boston would “win” if they both got ejected.

Crazy…watch YouTube clips of the 80s - there were all out fistfights that didn’t even result in technical fouls, never mind ejections or suspensions.
 

Light-Tower-Power

ask me about My Pillow
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
14,094
Nashua, NH
It's absurd that Green was afforded the privilege of looking over the refs' shoulders and providing his thoughts on the Poole-White interaction as they reviewed the play. Maybe just wishful thinking, but he might've been a little too open post-game about how he knows he gets special treatment, he knows how to use it, etc. Curious if we could see any blowback in his direction when the series shifts to Boston.
I had the same thought. Not sure if was super bright of him to say that so boldly. Wonder if he earned himself a few extra whistles in Boston.
 

Stan Papi Was Framed

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
2,859

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,085
Jaylen thinks this call was a big deal:
Keith Smith
@KeithSmithNBA

·
10h

Jaylen Brown on his second foul on the Gary Payton II layup: "It definitely changed the game with that phantom call."
https://twitter.com/KeithSmithNBA
This is the kind of mental toughness thing that I speak of. Jaylen? How exactly did that call change the game? If it was him picking up his second foul then we have an issue here. Looney picked up his second even before Jaylen and he was a force defensively the rest of the game. Lame lame excuse by Jaylen imo. You gotta play through stuff like this and as I said in the other thread he was playing soft prior to that call as well.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
There are no “rules” for issuing subjective technical fouls so I’m not even sure what you’re referring to. C’mon man now you are making things up. Draymond never “kicked” Jaylen and as I’ve said since this shitshow began IF he did kick Jaylen than that is grounds for a T and ejection for it being his 2nd. Falling to the ground and moving your legs on top of Jaylen for half a second, prior to being shoved in the chest by Jaylen, isn’t T-worthy on its own in any circumstances much less this one.
Yes, there are. You simply flat-out wrong. Here they are:

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-12-fouls-and-penalties/#basketring

Was what Draymond did "Anyone guilty of illegal contact which occurs during a dead ball may be assessed (1) a technical foul, if the contact is deemed to be unsportsmanlike in nature, or (2) a flagrant foul, if unnecessary and/or excessive contact occurs." People are arguing yes, and you seem to feel no. But there are in fact rules and we're talking about whether this conduct met them.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,085
Yes, there are. You simply flat-out wrong. Here they are:

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-12-fouls-and-penalties/#basketring

Was what Draymond did "Anyone guilty of illegal contact which occurs during a dead ball may be assessed (1) a technical foul, if the contact is deemed to be unsportsmanlike in nature, or (2) a flagrant foul, if unnecessary and/or excessive contact occurs." People are arguing yes, and you seem to feel no. But there are in fact rules and we're talking about whether this conduct met them.
LOL at that being interpreted as “illegal contact.” He barely touched him with his leg get outta here. I’m moving on from that play. It’s getting absurd now.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
958
Isle of Plum
It's absurd that Green was afforded the privilege of looking over the refs' shoulders and providing his thoughts on the Poole-White interaction as they reviewed the play. Maybe just wishful thinking, but he might've been a little too open post-game about how he knows he gets special treatment, he knows how to use it, etc. Curious if we could see any blowback in his direction when the series shifts to Boston.
I expect it to change in Boston. Its hard in this day and age to have the refs impact a game, but you definitely want them doing it for hte home team as it comes across as more organic. C's stunk but this was pretty clearly a thumb on the scale game and Green really leaned into it. A first qtr fouls on key Celtics to let them know whats what, and let DG put his stamp on everything.

W/r/t the second T: I agree the double tech 'cool-it' thing isn't meant to cause a player to get chucked, but its insane that giving him a technical effectively puts the poor refs on notice and liberates his nonsense utterly.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
37,453
This is the kind of mental toughness thing that I speak of. Jaylen? How exactly did that call change the game? If it was him picking up his second foul then we have an issue here. Looney picked up his second even before Jaylen and he was a force defensively the rest of the game. Lame lame excuse by Jaylen imo. You gotta play through stuff like this and as I said in the other thread he was playing soft prior to that call as well.
How exactly does Jaylen play through that, when that second foul resulted in him going to the bench and NOT FUCKING PLAYING? He was absolutely smoking hot at that point, and the refs removed him from the game on his 2nd bullshit foul of the quarter. I partially blame Ime for not challenging it, but frankly, the refs wouldnt have overturned that, because that wasn't the directive.

What happened when Jaylen came out? Tatum went back in, earlier than he normally would. Generally, Tatum comes out after 6 minutes or so, and sometimes sits the remainder of the 1st while Brown plays. By calling that foul on Brown, Tatum came back in, and what happened? Tatum got his 2nd foul of the first period shortly after that. The C's had 3 starters in foul trouble in the 1st quarter. They were badly outplaying the Warriors throughout, and then the refs decided to tie a hand behind their backs through the 2nd quarter.

The result, a 2 point lead for Golden State, that could have easily been a 10-15 lead the other way if calls were made correctly. And we all know that Golden State is the best in basketball at front running. When they get a lead, and can play free and easy, they are almost unstoppable. The refs managed the entire first half to ensure they would get to the third in a close game, and when shots started fouling for GS, the end was nigh. Instead, if the Dubs went into the third with a double digit deficit, it's completely different, IMO.

Last night was a fucking joke, but you and I have watched enough NBA basketball to know that it was pre-ordained. The C's weren't winning that game unless Dray went crazy and held his teammates hostage in the locker room and they had to forfeit. As @Dave Stapleton has been saying for years, if the NBA wanted to at least have the appearance of impropriety, the refs for every game would be announced prior to each series, and not hours before each game so they have time to find the right guys for the result they want.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
5,872
Monument, CO
The problem with focusing on that one play is that Draymond had been absurd all game. He tackled Grant and Grant got the foul. He ran down the court pushing guys out of the way like the lead blocker in a football movie so Steph could get a three. He grabbed arms all over the court. Draymond came out playing aggressive, dirty, and the refs didn’t do anything about it. One top of that they didn’t call it both ways. It is tough to match aggression when you get called for touch fouls. The entire team got frustrated. Ime got a T, how often does that happen? Al made a comment after the game, how often does that happen? The first half was horribly reffed and the Celtics were terrible in the 3rd quarter. Both can be true.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,230
There are no “rules” for issuing subjective technical fouls so I’m not even sure what you’re referring to. C’mon man now you are making things up. Draymond never “kicked” Jaylen and as I’ve said since this shitshow began IF he did kick Jaylen than that is grounds for a T and ejection for it being his 2nd. Falling to the ground and moving your legs on top of Jaylen for half a second, prior to being shoved in the chest by Jaylen, isn’t T-worthy on its own in any circumstances much less this one.
Draymond didn’t kick Jaylen….also Jaylen never shoved Draymond in the chest.
draymond used Jaylen as a foot stool, Jaylen threw his leg off of him, and tried to get up and walk away…Draymond then tries to pull him down by the shorts and it escalates more.

there’s no debating that’s the sequence. It’s all clear as day on the video.

Now, if you think that’s not enough to throw Draymond out, ok. I don’t agree but I can see why you would think that.

But you seem to be insisting as if Jaylen had an active part in what happened and that he deserved a tech as much as Draymond did. That’s absolutely not true and absurd. Literally any human being in that situation would react that way. I mean, using another human as fucking furniture is about as disrespectful as it gets. There’s also no way Jaylen can get up in that situation….is he supposed to wait until Draymond gets tired of kicking his feet up on top of him?

Here’s the play in question

View: https://twitter.com/espn/status/1533619137146019840
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
3,648
There are no “rules” for issuing subjective technical fouls so I’m not even sure what you’re referring to. C’mon man now you are making things up. Draymond never “kicked” Jaylen and as I’ve said since this shitshow began IF he did kick Jaylen than that is grounds for a T and ejection for it being his 2nd. Falling to the ground and moving your legs on top of Jaylen for half a second, prior to being shoved in the chest by Jaylen, isn’t T-worthy on its own in any circumstances much less this one.
Shoved in the chest? Pushed his leg off of him and stood over him but no chest pushing. That is your bias showing.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
As an aside.....it was not surprising that Jeff Van Gundy, who was an assistant and then a coach on one of the two dirtiest multi-year teams ever with the Knicks wants that kind of play to not generate ejections.

I am a JVG fan overall, but his track record on dirty play is the opposite of what the NBA should want to be targeting.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,045
Boston, MA
As an aside.....it was not surprising that Jeff Van Gundy, who was an assistant and then a coach on one of the two dirtiest multi-year teams ever with the Knicks wants that kind of play to not generate ejections.

I am a JVG fan overall, but his track record on dirty play is the opposite of what the NBA should want to be targeting.
Disciples of Pat Reilly generally.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
26,793
Saskatoon Canada
The Celtics played this well. Ime doesn't whine every call like Nurse or some others. So when he takes a T and makes post-game comments, he gets attention, and the media, etc look close. He picked a good time, his team played poorly, and there were some apparent calls. Draymond's behavior when examined at all looks bad. The Celtics are basically saying they think his free pass is over. So expect Dray gets called early for some of his off ball shenanigans, expected him to get ejected for a minor tussle? Be realistic. I
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,085
Shoved in the chest? Pushed his leg off of him and stood over him but no chest pushing. That is your bias showing.
Yeah I’m the one biased ok. He pushed something…..his chest, his legs, single T’s are often assessed for retaliation. I wouldn’t have been in favor of that either. Not every minor skirmish has to have an exotic ending with whistles, T’s and ejections.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,967
02130
I am more annoyed at the Poole non-technical than Draymond's stuff. Poole is not a key player for the Ws success this series, he didn't have any techs so the ejection argument doesn't matter, and they took the time to review it. JVG started blabbing about him protecting himself and I chuckled, but then Zarba GAVE THE SAME EXPLANATION? The game was 31-30 at that point. Absurd
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
17,564
I am more annoyed at the Poole non-technical than Draymond's stuff. Poole is not a key player for the Ws success this series, he didn't have any techs so the ejection argument doesn't matter, and they took the time to review it. JVG started blabbing about him protecting himself and I chuckled, but then Zarba GAVE THE SAME EXPLANATION? The game was 31-30 at that point. Absurd
Draymond and Kerr allowed to forcefully argue the same thing and they magically came to the same conclusion. The game was officiated by clowns scared that they were going to end up in Draymond's podcast.
 

Light-Tower-Power

ask me about My Pillow
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
14,094
Nashua, NH
Draymond didn’t kick Jaylen….also Jaylen never shoved Draymond in the chest.
draymond used Jaylen as a foot stool, Jaylen threw his leg off of him, and tried to get up and walk away…Draymond then tries to pull him down by the shorts and it escalates more.

there’s no debating that’s the sequence. It’s all clear as day on the video.

Now, if you think that’s not enough to throw Draymond out, ok. I don’t agree but I can see why you would think that.

But you seem to be insisting as if Jaylen had an active part in what happened and that he deserved a tech as much as Draymond did. That’s absolutely not true and absurd. Literally any human being in that situation would react that way. I mean, using another human as fucking furniture is about as disrespectful as it gets. There’s also no way Jaylen can get up in that situation….is he supposed to wait until Draymond gets tired of kicking his feet up on top of him?

Here’s the play in question

View: https://twitter.com/espn/status/1533619137146019840
This "altercation" is even softer on replay than it seemed in real time. I think Draymond is a dirty POS player, but there is no universe in which they're tossing him for that, and really no universe in which it should be a T on either guy, and it wasn't.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
Draymond and Kerr allowed to forcefully argue the same thing and they magically came to the same conclusion. The game was officiated by clowns scared that they were going to end up in Draymond's podcast.
I initially thought that it was intentional to hurt or impede. On the replay I do think it's quite possible Poole was trying to defend himself. What I am not clear on is why a very dangerous trip becomes ok because part of your intent may have been to protect yourself---it still is a very dangerous play, and it still impacted the play on the floor. I guess that is why they didn't call a technical (so, interpretation of 'protecting himself' means it was not 'unreasonable' contact and thus not a technical?)

Ultimately Mark Jackson to me had it right---he did trip White. It was clearly intentional (he did not just reach up, he reaches for and his hands try to grab the leg). Whether his intent was to harm or impede or protect himself, that's a lot of contact in a dangerous situation.
 

PedrosRedGlove

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2005
601
Yeah I’m the one biased ok. He pushed something…..his chest, his legs, single T’s are often assessed for retaliation. I wouldn’t have been in favor of that either. Not every minor skirmish has to have an exotic ending with whistles, T’s and ejections.
Is it really retaliation to remove someone's leg from resting on your head? Because that's what Jaylen does initially.

In the end I'm fine with the no call double T. What makes it frustrating though is that it's really multiple bush league actions from Draymond before Jaylen retaliates. The dude playing with a technical already shouldn't be able to get away with pushing the envelope like that, unfortunately making intentional stuff look unintentional is one of Draymond's best skills.
 

dhellers

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2005
3,286
Silver Spring, Maryland
I recollect that after Mchale's famous clothesline of Rambis, for the next several games Mchale got a short leash from the refs.
Same situation should be applied to Draymond.
Getting away with crap for one game should invoke consequences. Especially when the series is back on Celtic home court.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
4,015
Cultural hub of the universe
I initially thought that it was intentional to hurt or impede. On the replay I do think it's quite possible Poole was trying to defend himself. What I am not clear on is why a very dangerous trip becomes ok because part of your intent may have been to protect yourself---it still is a very dangerous play, and it still impacted the play on the floor. I guess that is why they didn't call a technical (so, interpretation of 'protecting himself' means it was not 'unreasonable' contact and thus not a technical?)

Ultimately Mark Jackson to me had it right---he did trip White. It was clearly intentional (he did not just reach up, he reaches for and his hands try to grab the leg). Whether his intent was to harm or impede or protect himself, that's a lot of contact in a dangerous situation.
The whistle stopping the fast break so they could decide it wasn't a technical was what really pissed me off. Gotta wait till a dead ball to call that shit.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,144
Maine
While i can see some "Variation" game to game of a common foul. (Some games a reach is a foul other games not so much. Some games bodying up more aggressively is a foul, other games not so much....) TECHNICALs should never be At a whim, Nor should they be influenced by WHO or WHEN. Technicals are Safety issues for the most part. They keep guys from punching other guys, they keep things from getting overheated.

That SVG and the Officiating establishment promotes the idea that they can take it on themselves to decide WHO should get a Technical and WHEN they should get a technical is Bullshit. Techs are easy to spot. Easy to call.

Would the Celts lose last night? Probably....but what we often fail to realize is that pushing an envelope creates a NEW Envelope. Draymond can now chew on even somewhat competent Refs and say "WHAT!? They didnt call that in Game2!" Which makes Refs question themselves....which makes them swallow a whistle.....which allows Players to do things that shouldnt happen. (Draymond being Draymond is a perfect example of this).

So shitty officiating last night is not isolated to Last night. It establishes new (possible norms) and degrades the product.
Last night crystalized for me that the Celts are the better team. That GS is scared and willing to use all the tricks and influence to make this competitive. Curry is awesome and could certainly lead GS to victory.....but they are not the better team, nor is Boston resorting to the same antics.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
The whistle stopping the fast break so they could decide it wasn't a technical was what really pissed me off. Gotta wait till a dead ball to call that shit.
Completely agree---that was inexcusably bad officiating.