Game 57: Mavericks @ Cavs 2/27/2024

[afarmenian]

Like I said, once the defender successfully gets his hands on the ball, refs will often just swallow their whistle and let things play out even to the point of a scrum or scramble on the floor.

It's also likely no ref was able to see both angles, just like we're only looking at one angle; but the broadcast did capture the other angle and it's disingenuous really for anyone to talk about the play without showing all the angles available.

There are three officials looking at the court from three angles for a reason. Garland was dragged down to the court, back first, with the ball still in his hands, and no defenders hands on it. Someone saw that.

The refs can't combine all their views of a play in time synchronization like a video editor, they will usually defer to the refs who they think had the best angle.

Apparently that ref saw Green getting his hands on the ball, Garland twisting and wrenching the ball out of his hands, then tripping over his knee. Looks like Mitchell actually called the timeout about a second after Garland was tripped.

Anyone with a decent amount of objectivity would say this is a fair and reasonable explanation for what happened.

If it were the other way around Cavs fan would be saying the same exact things Mavs fans said about the play. Could have been a travel or jumpball......cnc

[JonFromVA]

The two minute report is up:
https://official.nba.com/l2m/L2MReport.html?gameId=0022300832

The only mistake they saw is that Allen should have been called for 3 seconds at 1:54.

Of note ...

"12.0: Green (DAL) gets his hand on the ball to tie up Garland (CLE) before incidental contact occurs between the two players."

"3.8: Allen (CLE) gets to the height of the ball and makes contact with it during Washington's (DAL) shot attempt at the basket. Any ensuing contact with Washington's wrist is marginal."

And calling that incidental contact is why no one takes NBA officiating seriously anymore.

I can't remember any fan saying they liked the incidental contact rule, but then they'll complain about refs calling ticky-tack fouls, wrecking the flow of a game with their whistles, and not letting the players determine the outcome of the game.

So, you know ... catch 22.

[jbk1234]

The two minute report is up:
https://official.nba.com/l2m/L2MReport.html?gameId=0022300832

The only mistake they saw is that Allen should have been called for 3 seconds at 1:54.

Of note ...

"12.0: Green (DAL) gets his hand on the ball to tie up Garland (CLE) before incidental contact occurs between the two players."

"3.8: Allen (CLE) gets to the height of the ball and makes contact with it during Washington's (DAL) shot attempt at the basket. Any ensuing contact with Washington's wrist is marginal."

And calling that incidental contact is why no one takes NBA officiating seriously anymore.

I can't remember any fan saying they liked the incidental contact rule, but then they'll complain about refs calling ticky-tack fouls, wrecking the flow of a game with their whistles, and not letting the players determine the outcome of the game.

So, you know ... catch 22.

He was grabbed by the arm and yanked to the ground while he still had the ball. He was disadvantaged by the fact he was no longer on his feet. Calling that incidental was risible CYA by the league.

[jbk1234]

There are three officials looking at the court from three angles for a reason. Garland was dragged down to the court, back first, with the ball still in his hands, and no defenders hands on it. Someone saw that.

The refs can't combine all their views of a play in time synchronization like a video editor, they will usually defer to the refs who they think had the best angle.

Apparently that ref saw Green getting his hands on the ball, Garland twisting and wrenching the ball out of his hands, then tripping over his knee. Looks like Mitchell actually called the timeout about a second after Garland was tripped.

Anyone with a decent amount of objectivity would say this is a fair and reasonable explanation for what happened.

If it were the other way around Cavs fan would be saying the same exact things Mavs fans said about the play. Could have been a travel or jumpball......cnc

I'm sorry, but that's insane. You can't grab a player by the arm, especially when he still has the ball, and drag him to the ground. If you watch the video the Mavs players never actually established mutual possession. You don't establish mutual possession by touching the ball, you actually have to possess it.

[afarmenian]

The refs can't combine all their views of a play in time synchronization like a video editor, they will usually defer to the refs who they think had the best angle.

Apparently that ref saw Green getting his hands on the ball, Garland twisting and wrenching the ball out of his hands, then tripping over his knee. Looks like Mitchell actually called the timeout about a second after Garland was tripped.

Anyone with a decent amount of objectivity would say this is a fair and reasonable explanation for what happened.

If it were the other way around Cavs fan would be saying the same exact things Mavs fans said about the play. Could have been a travel or jumpball......cnc

I'm sorry, but that's insane. You can't grab a player by the arm, especially when he still has the ball, and drag him to the ground. If you watch the video the Mavs players never actually established mutual possession. You don't establish mutual possession by touching the ball, you actually have to possess it.

Well i dont see any angle were he is grabbing him by the arm, I dont think anyone is debating that it shouldnt be a foul if that were the case. But it only looks like he is yanking him down by the arm you cant actually see the contact. Again it was cleared in the two minute report so i guess they are insane too? This is no different then the Garland closeout that looked like an obvious foul, but no on further review it was a hive five and then a flop attempt by Green to try to draw the foul and cleared by the two minute report as well.

[JonFromVA]

And calling that incidental contact is why no one takes NBA officiating seriously anymore.

I can't remember any fan saying they liked the incidental contact rule, but then they'll complain about refs calling ticky-tack fouls, wrecking the flow of a game with their whistles, and not letting the players determine the outcome of the game.

So, you know ... catch 22.

He was grabbed by the arm and yanked to the ground while he still had the ball. He was disadvantaged by the fact he was no longer on his feet. Calling that incidental was risible CYA by the league.

I've seen no evidence of Garland being grabbed by the arm and yanked to the ground. I've seen nothing that makes me doubt the refs ruling or the leagues review of this.

[jbk1234]

Anyone with a decent amount of objectivity would say this is a fair and reasonable explanation for what happened.

If it were the other way around Cavs fan would be saying the same exact things Mavs fans said about the play. Could have been a travel or jumpball......cnc

I'm sorry, but that's insane. You can't grab a player by the arm, especially when he still has the ball, and drag him to the ground. If you watch the video the Mavs players never actually established mutual possession. You don't establish mutual possession by touching the ball, you actually have to possess it.

Well i dont see any angle were he is grabbing him by the arm, I dont think anyone is debating that it shouldnt be a foul if that were the case. But it only looks like he is yanking him down by the arm you cant actually see the contact. Again it was cleared in the two minute report so i guess they are insane too? This is no different then the Garland closeout that looked like an obvious foul, but no on further review it was a hive five and then a flop attempt by Green to try to draw the foul and cleared by the two minute report as well.

Well, we know his hand isn't on the ball when Garland is yanked down, Green is clearly yanking
and as the entire ball is the frame without Green's hand on it, what do people think is being yanked?

[jbk1234]

I can't remember any fan saying they liked the incidental contact rule, but then they'll complain about refs calling ticky-tack fouls, wrecking the flow of a game with their whistles, and not letting the players determine the outcome of the game.

So, you know ... catch 22.

He was grabbed by the arm and yanked to the ground while he still had the ball. He was disadvantaged by the fact he was no longer on his feet. Calling that incidental was risible CYA by the league.

I've seen no evidence of Garland being grabbed by the arm and yanked to the ground. I've seen nothing that makes me doubt the refs ruling or the leagues review of this.

Just so we're both clear, you do see the entire ball in the frame here?

Read on Twitter

/tweet

[JonFromVA]

He was grabbed by the arm and yanked to the ground while he still had the ball. He was disadvantaged by the fact he was no longer on his feet. Calling that incidental was risible CYA by the league.

I've seen no evidence of Garland being grabbed by the arm and yanked to the ground. I've seen nothing that makes me doubt the refs ruling or the leagues review of this.

Just so we're both clear, you do see the entire ball in the frame here?

Read on Twitter

/tweet

Sure, Garland took back control of the ball. That's not even in doubt or else the review would have said a jump ball should have been called.

But how do you think he did that? It should be clear if we could see the other angle like the ref watching the play had.

[toooskies]

I've seen no evidence of Garland being grabbed by the arm and yanked to the ground. I've seen nothing that makes me doubt the refs ruling or the leagues review of this.

Just so we're both clear, you do see the entire ball in the frame here?

Read on Twitter

/tweet

Sure, Garland took back control of the ball. That's not even in doubt or else the review would have said a jump ball should have been called.

But how do you think he did that? It should be clear if we could see the other angle like the ref watching the play had.

My interpretation is that Garland may not have been yanked down.

However the other player was grabbing at the ball and then had one leg positioned behind Garland's legs, so that when Garland attempted to move with possession of the ball he tripped over the other guy's leg.

Tripping should have been called at a minimum (and is obvious from even the TV angle) if there was no upper-body contact foul.

[JonFromVA]

Just so we're both clear, you do see the entire ball in the frame here?

Read on Twitter

/tweet

Sure, Garland took back control of the ball. That's not even in doubt or else the review would have said a jump ball should have been called.

But how do you think he did that? It should be clear if we could see the other angle like the ref watching the play had.

My interpretation is that Garland may not have been yanked down.

However the other player was grabbing at the ball and then had one leg positioned behind Garland's legs, so that when Garland attempted to move with possession of the ball he tripped over the other guy's leg.

Tripping should have been called at a minimum (and is obvious from even the TV angle) if there was no upper-body contact foul.

It's also possible than when Garland took back possession of the ball that in the refs opinion he pulled Green and twisted his own body in to position to trip over him or like I mentioned before once a defender gets a hand on the ball it's very common for any contact after that to be ignored until possession is established and the players are no longer in contact.

[jbk1234]

Just so we're both clear, you do see the entire ball in the frame here?

Read on Twitter

/tweet

Sure, Garland took back control of the ball. That's not even in doubt or else the review would have said a jump ball should have been called.

But how do you think he did that? It should be clear if we could see the other angle like the ref watching the play had.

My interpretation is that Garland may not have been yanked down.

However the other player was grabbing at the ball and then had one leg positioned behind Garland's legs, so that when Garland attempted to move with possession of the ball he tripped over the other guy's leg.

Tripping should have been called at a minimum (and is obvious from even the TV angle) if there was no upper-body contact foul.

Are people not watching Green's arms yank with Garland's hands on the ball, and Green's hands not on the ball?

He's yanking something as he falls, and if it's not the ball, it's Garland's arm. Green actually yanked Garland so hard that the other Mavs player had a shot at a tie up, but Garland took the ball with him as he was forced to the ground.

[jbk1234]

Sure, Garland took back control of the ball. That's not even in doubt or else the review would have said a jump ball should have been called.

But how do you think he did that? It should be clear if we could see the other angle like the ref watching the play had.

My interpretation is that Garland may not have been yanked down.

However the other player was grabbing at the ball and then had one leg positioned behind Garland's legs, so that when Garland attempted to move with possession of the ball he tripped over the other guy's leg.

Tripping should have been called at a minimum (and is obvious from even the TV angle) if there was no upper-body contact foul.

It's also possible than when Garland took back possession of the ball that in the refs opinion he pulled Green and twisted his own body in to position to trip over him or like I mentioned before once a defender gets a hand on the ball it's very common for any contact after that to be ignored until possession is established and the players are no longer in contact.

You keep saying took back possession, do you have an angle where Green actual had possession?

[JonFromVA]

My interpretation is that Garland may not have been yanked down.

However the other player was grabbing at the ball and then had one leg positioned behind Garland's legs, so that when Garland attempted to move with possession of the ball he tripped over the other guy's leg.

Tripping should have been called at a minimum (and is obvious from even the TV angle) if there was no upper-body contact foul.

It's also possible than when Garland took back possession of the ball that in the refs opinion he pulled Green and twisted his own body in to position to trip over him or like I mentioned before once a defender gets a hand on the ball it's very common for any contact after that to be ignored until possession is established and the players are no longer in contact.

You keep saying took back possession, do you have an angle where Green actual had possession?

I'm referring to the moment Green got his hands on the ball and tried to steal it, but Garland held on and pulled it free.

I'm pretty sure I saw a replay of the opposite angle that better shows what the ref should have seen, but can't say I care enough to find it, record it, or post it.