The Miracle of Technology - Booker's Game 2 TO

[Sunburn]

The miracle of technology has created an issue.

Every time a player has the ball in his hand/s, and the defender knocks it out of bounds, it's going to be a turnover by the letter of the rule.

It's kind of a lesson in physics. The defender applies a force to the ball, which then applies a force to the offensive player's hand. The ball is launched out of bounds, but because of the chain of force, the ball will always be last touched by the offensive player.

This creates a huge disadvantage for the offense along the side and baseline. Because of the increased rate of turnover, the offense will want to spend as little time as possible there, effectively shrinking the court.

In addition, because it is difficult for the naked eye to see this in real time, this will either always need to go to review, or always assumed to be a turnover.

I do not think the league likes where this might be headed. I think they'll add language to the rule to account for this. What do you think?

 

[Proximo]

Yes, the rule needs to be changed.

 

[Dback Jon]

It needs to be changed and I’ve heard a lot of complaints about it hopefully it gets changed

 

[Mainstreet]

I agree, if the defensive player knocks the ball out of bounds, it should go back to the offensive player if it's not knocked off something like a leg or foot.

The change may be hard to write though because a lot of players fight for loose balls going out of bounds and the referees now look to see who touched it last.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I agree, if the defensive player knocks the ball out of bounds, it should go back to the offensive player if it's not knocked off something like a leg or foot.

The change may be hard to write though because a lot of players fight for loose balls going out of bounds and the referees now look to see who touched it last.

I agree, it would be tough to write and would open up some other doors you'd rather leave closed. What they might be able to do is give the officials direction on whether or not to review the play.

For example, they could say that it shouldn't be reviewed if the ball is knocked out of a person's hand unless they are reviewing to see who touched it last once it left the players hands. At that point though, once it goes to a review for whatever reason, you'd have to expect and want them to make as accurate of a call as possible (as in, it was off of Booker).

 

[Mainstreet]

I agree, it would be tough to write and would open up some other doors you'd rather leave closed. What they might be able to do is give the officials direction on whether or not to review the play.

For example, they could say that it shouldn't be reviewed if the ball is knocked out of a person's hand unless they are reviewing to see who touched it last once it left the players hands. At that point though, once it goes to a review for whatever reason, you'd have to expect and want them to make as accurate of a call as possible (as in, it was off of Booker).

Yeah. I think the referees not reviewing the play is the best option unless it is a coaches challenge otherwise it opens Pandora's box.

On other plays when it's unclear who touched it last, I'm good for a jump ball.

 

[Bufalay]

I just looked up the current rule in the rule book. In my opinion they should just get rid of the part in bold:

"If a the ball is deflected from the ball handler and goes out of bounds, the ball is deemed out of bounds on the defensive player unless the defensive player is Patrick Beverly and he yells at the referees."

 

[JCSunsfan]

They are just not going to review these. The rule that needs to happen is if you beg for, ask for, demand, brow beat, or try to criticize a ref into reviewing a play when you have used your reviews, it is an automatic T.

If they review it, they have to call it exactly as it appears.

 

[Raindog]

It's ridiculous. On nearly every deflection of a ball from the ballhandler's hand, his hand is still touching the ball last for a microsecond after the deflection. The only reason you never see it is because they never review it.

If the NBA is going to review every play that comes down to a microsecond of difference, the games would be ten days long. It's a fast motion sport, so the idea of potentially reviewing every single close play is idiotic. It's not baseball.

Let the teams have their one challenge and then limit obligatory reviews to players stepping on the out of bounds and 3 point line and the last second shots.

 

[tobiazz]

This rule needs to be amended with a variant of the "hand is part of the ball" clause on defensive fouls. It should only be considered off the dribbler's hand if the dribbler makes fresh contact with the ball after it is touched by the defender.

 

[1tinsoldier]

a lot of good posts here

i usually prefer getting things right and don't mind waiting for ref reviews
but this is over-kill and bad for the game

it can also be too difficult to analyze when it goes out when fighting for a rebound

 

[AZ Shocker]

I don't know...I think it's kinda cool to see today's NBA athletes able to cause their dribble to miraculously do a 90 degree turn of the ball to go out of bounds and give the other team possession. It's unbelievably exciting to see how athletic and skillful these players have become.

 

[Billy Bob]

I don't like it, if it's that close, jump for it!

 

[Superbone]

I do not think the league likes where this might be headed. I think they'll add language to the rule to account for this. What do you think?

I think maybe it’s already been discussed with the refs. Did you notice how they didn’t review a similar play when the ball was knocked out of Payne’s hand in the last two minutes of Game 4? Van Gundy made a big deal on the broadcast. That most likely tipped off Payne’s pinky too.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I think maybe it’s already been discussed with the refs. Did you notice how they didn’t review a similar play when the ball was knocked out of Book’s hand in the last two minutes of Game 4? Van Gundy made a big deal on the broadcast. That most likely tipped off Book’s pinky too.

I find it funny that Van Gundy was making a big deal out of it when he was firmly against all the reviews in game 2 and was even very much against the idea that the one in game 2 should have been out on Booker.

 

[Superbone]

I find it funny that Van Gundy was making a big deal out of it when he was firmly against all the reviews in game 2 and was even very much against the idea that the one in game 2 should have been out on Booker.

Yeah, I thought the same thing but I think he was making a point. Why did they review it in one game but not another? Thanks god they didn’t review it! One of our few breaks.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Yeah, I thought the same thing but I think he was making a point. Why did they review it in one game but not another? Thanks god they didn’t review it! One of our few breaks.

Meh. I think the league just decided to take the stance that he was suggesting in game 2. That is that when a defensive player knocks the ball out of an offensive players hands and it goes out of bounds then it will be deemed out on the defensive player. That or it was deemed that the call on the floor should stand unless a team uses their challenge on the call. The refs shouldn't be stopping the game to examine every play.

 

[Superbone]

Meh. I think the league just decided to take the stance that he was suggesting in game 2. That is that when a defensive player knocks the ball out of an offensive players hands and it goes out of bounds then it will be deemed out on the defensive player. That or it was deemed that the call on the floor should stand unless a team uses their challenge on the call. The refs shouldn't be stopping the game to examine every play.

Of course I’m totally with you. Just trying to explain Van Gundy’s about face during Game 4 after what he said in Game 2.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I find it funny that Van Gundy was making a big deal out of it when he was firmly against all the reviews in game 2 and was even very much against the idea that the one in game 2 should have been out on Booker.

He was venting about the inconsistency. Tough to argue with him on that count.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Meh. I think the league just decided to take the stance that he was suggesting in game 2. That is that when a defensive player knocks the ball out of an offensive players hands and it goes out of bounds then it will be deemed out on the defensive player. That or it was deemed that the call on the floor should stand unless a team uses their challenge on the call. The refs shouldn't be stopping the game to examine every play.

I also think someone may have reminded them that they’re not supposed to automatically review every play, even if one team whines incessantly about it. Review is for scenarios where you don’t think you know the call. Game 2 they allowed the clips to influence the barrage of reviews, it was obvious, and it’s an embarrassment to the refs and the game.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I also think someone may have reminded them that they’re not supposed to automatically review every play, even if one team whines incessantly about it. Review is for scenarios where you don’t think you know the call. Game 2 they allowed the clips to influence the barrage of reviews, it was obvious, and it’s an embarrassment to the refs and the game.

It's very likely this. This is why they have been calling these jump balls on these loose ball out of bounds plays because they aren't completely certain in that moment who it is out on.

The refs were about to open a can of worms that they really didn't want to if they kept reviewing every single play down the stretch.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

It's very likely this. This is why they have been calling these jump balls on these loose ball out of bounds plays because they aren't completely certain in that moment who it is out on.

The refs were about to open a can of worms that they really didn't want to if they kept reviewing every single play down the stretch.

Exactly. If anything it would open every single call to “why didn’t they review that one?”