NBA Playoffs and i hate Lebron/I wanna bang Lebron thread

• Hb31187

  

  Haha, not all franchises crash and burn like Cleveland. Keep hoping though, if it makes you feel better
• Laley23

  

  wildcats20
  They are saying he caught the ball simultaneously while touching the line. Which is STILL a back court violation.
  
  He never established himself in the back court. His last established position was in the front court.

  That contradicts yourself. If he catches it at the same time hes on the line, he is established in flux, essentially. So if 2/3 are in frontcourt, he has to go forward, 2/3 in backcourt he can do either. He was 2/3 in frontcourt and moved forward, legally. Then the next step was over and back, but the whistle had blown. You have to overturn at the whistle if the call is wrong.
• wildcats20

  

  Laley23;752561 wrote:That contradicts yourself. If he catches it at the same time hes on the line, he is established in flux, essentially. So if 2/3 are in frontcourt, he has to go forward, 2/3 in backcourt he can do either. He was 2/3 in frontcourt and moved forward, legally. Then the next step was over and back, but the whistle had blown. You have to overturn at the whistle if the call is wrong.

  
  Yeah, I don't think I worded what I wanted to say correctly.
  
  But that was definitely a bad call.
• Hb31187

  

  It looked like he caught it on the line, then came across to the front court and was abotu to take a step intot he backcourt and they blew the whistle and called the play dead before he could
• robj55

  

  You are allowed to catch it in the back court there, and since he came down simultaneously on the line when he caught the ball, TECHNICALLY he hadn't established possession in the front court, crappy call but thats the rule.
• Laley23

  

  IF he caught the ball in the air, he is in the frontcourt, since he jumped from there. Thus landing on the line is over and back.
  
  IF they ruled him catching it while on the line (ie, simultaniously) the call was correct...the overturn that is, because he is catching the ball "in flux" and is established position in both (but can only go forward if 2/3 parts are in frontcourt).
  
  It sucks, cause 2 steps later HE DID commit an over and back, regardless of the initial call. But the whistle had blown, so that call never had a chance to even be made.
• wildcats20

  

  Laley23;752567 wrote:IF he caught the ball in the air, he is in the frontcourt, since he jumped from there.
  
  IF they ruled him catching it while on the line (ie, simultaniously) the call was correct...the overturn that is
  
  It sucks, cause 2 steps later HE DID commit an over and back, regardless of the initial call. But the whistle had blown, so that call never had a chance to even be made.

  
  Which is what he actually did IMO. The original call was the correct call.
• Laley23

  

  wildcats20;752568 wrote:Which is what he actually did IMO. The original call was the correct call.

  
  yeah, I agree. But again, if the ref who initially made the call simply made the wrong call and not the wrong judgment (ie he called it over and back thinking it was simultaneous, than thats just a blown call and they corrected it). I cant imagine a guy would overturn the call if that wasnt the case. In that instance, tough to blame a guy making a split decision.
  
  If that makes sense.
• Hb31187

  

  Chuck made a good point. The referee staring directly down the line was overruled by someone who was in no position to see the play lol?
• wildcats20

  

  And Chuck just made the best point of the whole thing.
  
  A ref 30+ feet away over ruled the call. AKA David Stern "hit that button"
• wildcats20

  

  Hang on though.
  
  Even if they want to say he caught it simultaneously; his left foot came down first, BEFORE he had the ball. Doesn't that establish front court position?
• Laley23

  

  wildcats20;752572 wrote:Hang on though.
  
  Even if they want to say he caught it simultaneously; his left foot came down first, BEFORE he had the ball. Doesn't that establish front court position?

  
  no, you are allowed to land completely. However, if you land on one foot, and sort of have control, like you dont want the other foot to come down cause you dont know the rule, and hold it up for a second, and finally it comes down, its over an back. That is a HUGE judgment call that will never be overturned though lol.
• Laley23

  

  Hb31187;752570 wrote:Chuck made a good point. The referee staring directly down the line was overruled by someone who was in no position to see the play lol?

  
  BUT, thats my point.
  
  The crew chief may have said, you know if it is simultaneous it isnt over and back right? Then the guy who made the call mightve said, "oh I forgot, wrong call."
  
  Thats my point. It may have been a blown call corrected, based on bad judgment initially.
• robj55

  

  Laley23;752573 wrote:no, you are allowed to land completely. However, if you land on one foot, and sort of have control, like you dont want the other foot to come down cause you dont know the rule, and hold it up for a second, and finally it comes down, its over an back. That is a HUGE judgment call that will never be overturned though lol.

  
  Correct, I believe it has to be both feet
• Hb31187

  

  Laley23;752574 wrote:BUT, thats my point.
  
  The crew chief may have said, you know if it is simultaneous it isnt over and back right? Then the guy who made the call mightve said, "oh I forgot, wrong call."
  
  Thats my point. It may have been a blown call corrected, based on bad judgment initially.

  Yeah that could of been the case, idk. Guess ill have to wait for the NBA to release a statement about the call, which im sure they will
• Laley23

  

  Hb31187;752577 wrote:Yeah that could of been the case, idk. Guess ill have to wait for the NBA to release a statement about the call, which im sure they will

  
  yeah. Regardless, I think it was a bad call, because I think he caught it in the air and then landed.
  
  But if the ref truly thought it was simultaneous, and just got the rule backwards initially. I dont think it is right to judge him on that, though it ended up being so unfortunate for the Nuggets. Both in the initial overturn, and in the fact that without the initial call, its over and back in 2 steps later.
• karen lotz

  

  Was it back court 2 steps later? That same foot was on the line when he established himself in the backcourt and then that same foot came down on the line again. He technically would have still been in the backcourt because he wasn't fully over the line. Is that not correct?
• Laley23

  

  karen lotz;752581 wrote:Was it back court 2 steps later? That same foot was on the line when he established himself in the backcourt and then that same foot came down on the line again. He technically would have still been in the backcourt because he wasn't fully over the line. Is that not correct?

  
  Nah, he caught the ball in flux. He had 1 foot in the front and 1 on the line. He was allowed to do this, but had to then advance forward. As soon as that left foot was picked up, he cant touch the line again, which he did when the left foot came down. Once it was picked up, he was 100% in the frontcourt, with possession.
• Skyhook79

  

  wildcats20;752470 wrote:Regardless of what happens in OT, Memphis is NOT losing game 6 at home. Not happening.

  
  Says the guy who TWICE said the Spurs were losing this game, done for the season and Timmy retiring before Game 5 was over.
• Trueblue23

  

  Lakers vs Mavericks in the 2nd round
• Hb31187

  

  Lakers will dominate that series. they have nobody for Bynum or Kobe
• Skyhook79

  

  like_that;749198 wrote:Lakers don't care about the playoffs.

  
  smh
• Skyhook79

  

  Midstate01;749202 wrote:Or at least the first round. Or first 4 games

  
  smh
• Skyhook79

  

  chicago510;749218 wrote:Kobe leaves NO on crutches...ruh roh.

  
  smh
• like_that

  

  Skyhook79;754090 wrote:smh

  
  Well they obviously didn't care about game 1 or game 4 of the first round series.