Re: 2009-10 Chicago Bulls Thread

[SpongeWorthy]

The overhead camera angle was the only conclusive shot but I thought it was conclusive nonetheless.

[SouthSideRyan]

How is a stillframe with the ball in his hands and the clock at 0 inconclusive?

[Sammy Sofa]

How is a stillframe with the ball in his hands and the clock at 0 inconclusive?

 

Lord only knows.

[UMFan83]

How is a stillframe with the ball in his hands and the clock at 0 inconclusive?

 

How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ball is in his hands in that photo (I'm pretty sure I know the angle and photo you are referring to)? It looks like it is, but there's another angle where it looks like it's out. So which one is right?

[SouthSideRyan]

How is a stillframe with the ball in his hands and the clock at 0 inconclusive?

 

How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ball is in his hands in that photo (I'm pretty sure I know the angle and photo you are referring to)? It looks like it is, but there's another angle where it looks like it's out. So which one is right?

 

What angle are you looking at? The one obstructed by his left hand or the one obstructed by the ball? All you can say is those angles were inconclusive. Every angle on the court doesn't have to have irrefutable evidence in order to overturn.

[Sammy Sofa]

How is a stillframe with the ball in his hands and the clock at 0 inconclusive?

 

How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ball is in his hands in that photo (I'm pretty sure I know the angle and photo you are referring to)? It looks like it is, but there's another angle where it looks like it's out. So which one is right?

 

The only one you can argue shows that it's out (from the front) looks that way because the ball is obscuring the end of his fingers on his right hand.

[David]

How is a stillframe with the ball in his hands and the clock at 0 inconclusive?

 

How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ball is in his hands in that photo (I'm pretty sure I know the angle and photo you are referring to)? It looks like it is, but there's another angle where it looks like it's out. So which one is right?

 

The only one you can argue shows that it's out (from the front) looks that way because the ball is obscuring the end of his fingers on his right hand.

 

 

Except it doesn't need to be proven to be out. It needs to be proven to be not out. The call was that the shot was good and counted.

 

So basically, only one angle suggests the ball to be not out, and the rest are completely inconclusive. I don't see how that's enough to overturn.

[SouthSideRyan]

How is a stillframe with the ball in his hands and the clock at 0 inconclusive?

 

How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ball is in his hands in that photo (I'm pretty sure I know the angle and photo you are referring to)? It looks like it is, but there's another angle where it looks like it's out. So which one is right?

 

The only one you can argue shows that it's out (from the front) looks that way because the ball is obscuring the end of his fingers on his right hand.

 

 

Except it doesn't need to be proven to be out. It needs to be proven to be not out. The call was that the shot was good and counted.

 

So basically, only one angle suggests the ball to be not out, and the rest are completely inconclusive. I don't see how that's enough to overturn.

 

Because the angle that shows the ball in his hand is conclusive evidence. If there was another angle that showed it out of his angle, then it would be inconclusive.

[manbearcub]

the rest of them weren't inconclusive at all. the ball was clearly still touching his hand.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, I don't see what is inconclusive. Upon replay, only one angle shows it might be inconclusive, and that's because the ball is blocking the view of his hand. The other angles where the hand isn't blocked shows his fingers still on the ball.

[David]

the rest of them weren't inconclusive at all. the ball was clearly still touching his hand.

 

 

http://i38.tinypic.com/19p8vl.jpg

 

 

Clearly. Which is why it took the refs like 5 minutes (when they're only allowed to take 2 at most) of watching to "figure it out." Totally clear.

[David]

Not to even mention the countless horrible calls against the Bulls the rest of the game. What the hell was up with the Joakim jump ball?

[Sammy Sofa]

the rest of them weren't inconclusive at all. the ball was clearly still touching his hand.

 

 

http://i38.tinypic.com/19p8vl.jpg

 

 

Clearly. Which is why it took the refs like 5 minutes (when they're only allowed to take 2 at most) of watching to "figure it out." Totally clear.

 

Again, that's the only angle where it shows it MIGHT be out of his hand (you can't tell for sure since the ball is blocking his fingers) while there are angles that show the ball is still touching his fingers without any obstruction. There was no unobstructed view where it could be claimed he had the ball away from his fingers. Why do you expect them to go with the ruling where there are no unobstructed views to back it up?

Edited November 11, 2009 by Sammy Sofa

[Sammy Sofa]

Not to even mention the countless horrible calls against the Bulls the rest of the game. What the hell was up with the Joakim jump ball?

 

Or where they completely missed Rose's obvious goaltending.

 

Oh, wait, he's on the Bulls.

[David]

Not to even mention the countless horrible calls against the Bulls the rest of the game. What the hell was up with the Joakim jump ball?

 

Or where they completely missed Rose's obvious goaltending.

 

Oh, wait, he's on the Bulls.

 

 

It's laughable if you're suggesting the officiating in this game was even or if you're suggesting that NBA officiating isn't shady as all hell.

[David]

Oh wait, I can point out one time when the Bulls got the benefit of a bad call. I guess that means that they were even.

[David]

To be fair, as far as the last shot is concerned, there's no way that Joakim rebounding that ball after the free throw, the time out, and Brad Miller getting the shot off happened within .6 seconds. Not a chance in hell.

[Sammy Sofa]

Not to even mention the countless horrible calls against the Bulls the rest of the game. What the hell was up with the Joakim jump ball?

 

Or where they completely missed Rose's obvious goaltending.

 

Oh, wait, he's on the Bulls.

 

 

It's laughable if you're suggesting the officiating in this game was even or if you're suggesting that NBA officiating isn't shady as all hell.

 

It was generally a crappily called game. I'm sure the Bobcats weren't happy about Kirk getting to go to the line for getting fouled while dribbling. To assert that the bad calls were lopsided against the Bulls just doesn't seem very sound when you break it down. Both sides got shafted by bad calls.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Sammy Sofa

[bukie]

To be fair, as far as the last shot is concerned, there's no way that Joakim rebounding that ball after the free throw, the time out, and Brad Miller getting the shot off happened within .6 seconds. Not a chance in hell.

Actually, the .3 seconds for the rebound/timeout is explicitly written out in the NBA rulebook.

 

The problem with the shot is that Miller wasn't facing the basket when he caught the ball. Took too much time to turn and shoot.

[David]

To be fair, as far as the last shot is concerned, there's no way that Joakim rebounding that ball after the free throw, the time out, and Brad Miller getting the shot off happened within .6 seconds. Not a chance in hell.

Actually, the .3 seconds for the rebound/timeout is explicitly written out in the NBA rulebook.

 

The problem with the shot is that Miller wasn't facing the basket when he caught the ball. Took too much time to turn and shoot.

 

 

Interesting. Did not know that. But that seems pretty stupid. Establish possession of the ball in 3 tenths of a second (both for the rebound and for the catch and shoot)? I just don't see it, but I guess.

[bukie]

To be fair, as far as the last shot is concerned, there's no way that Joakim rebounding that ball after the free throw, the time out, and Brad Miller getting the shot off happened within .6 seconds. Not a chance in hell.

Actually, the .3 seconds for the rebound/timeout is explicitly written out in the NBA rulebook.

 

The problem with the shot is that Miller wasn't facing the basket when he caught the ball. Took too much time to turn and shoot.

 

 

Interesting. Did not know that. But that seems pretty stupid. Establish possession of the ball in 3 tenths of a second (both for the rebound and for the catch and shoot)? I just don't see it, but I guess.

Technically, the wording is "no less than .3 seconds", so if Noah had bobbled it at all, or if there was any sort of battle for possession, the game may well have been over. But, he rebounded cleanly and VDN indicated a TO immediately upon possession, so in that case, the .3 seconds was pretty cut and dry.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

Can someone tell me at what point possession actually begins as pertaining to the Noah rebound? I'm having a discussion with a friend about this, and as far as I knew, possession, along with the ability to call time out, begins as soon as Noah secures that rebound, regardless of if he is in the air or on the ground. He is under the impression that the player must be on the ground before he is ruled to have possession and able to call time out. Does anyone know which of these is correct, and where I can find an actual NBA rule that explains this?

[RedFlash]

As expected the NBA is backing the refs. Apparently the NBA would rather the fans to continue to have suspicions about refs, instead of admitting a mistake and overturn the call. At least the Bulls won't have to wait long to get back on those bums from Denver. (November 21).

 

IMO, the Bulls won that game and was literally stolen from them.

Edited November 11, 2009 by RedFlash

[Soul]

I don't really see much either way from those photos. He probably had the ball still in hand, but I'm pretty sure if this was Kobe the call would have been upheld. The NBA is well-known as a shady place for fair play.

[RedFlash]

I don't really see much either way from those photos. He probably had the ball still in hand, but I'm pretty sure if this was Kobe the call would have been upheld. The NBA is well-known as a shady place for fair play.

 

Everybody knows that the NBA is nothing more then a sports mafia, and Stern is the godfather. :wink: