Comments on: Game Recap: Nuggets 119, Bulls 118

By: Matt McHale

Matt McHale — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:35:22 +0000

Mark said: “And I don’t see how Noah’s play is any different than a player dunking an alley-oop that is on its way down toward the basket…balls are thrown at the hoop (pass or shot) that are on the way down that have a chance at hitting the rim or scoring all the time, and offensive players make a play on them … players have accidentally thrown an alley-oop and its gone in the hoop … so those “have a chance to score” but a ref would never waive off an alley-oop. …. and no, having a chance to score doesn’t mean its in the cylinder Mauer … those are two separate issues … stop trying to cover for a screw-up.”

I agree. In many cases, it’s simply a judgement calls by the officials. Frustrating as hell when it doesn’t go your team’s way.

scott r said: “One can say that the Bulls should of done a better job on defense and they would of won the game. One can also say that the refs blew some calls. 2 way street.”

I hear what you’re saying. But I was focusing on things the Bulls can actually control. Officiating is something nobody can control Apparently, not even the officials.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:13:31 +0000

Yeah, Iggy made a timely shot… And I can’t remember a player running through the lane and gashing the Bulls dunk after dunk like Wilson Chandler did … but that 2-way street should be for Bulls and Nuggets … yes the Bulls shouldn’t let the refs decide the game, but that doesn’t mean the refs get a lane … I know they can’t do much now and they have to get over it … the bulls still got screwed though.

By: scott r

scott r — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:07:19 +0000

One can say that the Bulls should of done a better job on defense and they would of won the game. One can also say that the refs blew some calls. 2 way street.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:41:08 +0000

I think I agree with both points Mark is making:

1. If a call (wave off) has to be made for the play to be reviewable, then I’m not sure this one was reviewable. Where is the support for saying they waved it off initially?

2. If the standard for goal tending is “in the cylinder” or “has a chance to go in,” then Noah’s play wasn’t goal tending, because the shot was well short. If the rule is that if the descending ball *might* touch the rim, then the player has to let it touch the rim, that’s a very stupid rule.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:10:00 +0000

And I don’t see how Noah’s play is any different than a player dunking an alley-oop that is on its way down toward the basket…balls are thrown at the hoop (pass or shot) that are on the way down that have a chance at hitting the rim or scoring all the time, and offensive players make a play on them … players have accidentally thrown an alley-oop and its gone in the hoop … so those “have a chance to score” but a ref would never waive off an alley-oop. …. and no, having a chance to score doesn’t mean its in the cylinder Mauer … those are two separate issues … stop trying to cover for a screw-up.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:59:36 +0000

“Unlike the Koufos play, the officials called this one, and they were therefore able to review it. Which meant the shot wouldn’t count. And it didn’t.”

At what point in this article is it clarified that the refs waived it off initially? Because the quote taken was from a post-game interview and has nothing to do with what they called initially, which was a good basket. He was speaking on the decision made during review, which should not have happened per the Koufos play reasoning.

By: MrFrEEz33

MrFrEEz33 — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:48:40 +0000

Actually it was 3 plays. The Koufos no-call on the offensive interference, Andre Miller shuffling his feet before dishing to Igoudala for the 3 and, of course, the Noah tip-in called for interference when the replays show the ball was OUTSIDE of the cylinder. I know that the league grades the refs after every game. This game the refs should get a D-. Way too inconsistent.