Stern admits foul should have been called on fisher

Post #61 » by **Atlanta Hawk Fan** » Thu May 29, 2008 9:28 pm

It made me sick to hear Kenny, Reggie, etc. talking about Barry not deserving a foul call because he tried to make a play instead of maximizing contact with Fisher to "sell" a foul call. Hearing them talk about it being a bad thing that a guy is trying to make a play instead of "jumping into" the defender and how Manu is someone to be admired for this. Just ugh. Talk about making an argument in favor of flopping...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDc31xBkBg0

JellosJigglin · Post #62 » by **JellosJigglin** » Thu May 29, 2008 9:45 pm

Atlanta Hawk Fan wrote:It made me sick to hear Kenny, Reggie, etc. talking about Barry not deserving a foul call because he tried to make a play instead of maximizing contact with Fisher to "sell" a foul call. Hearing them talk about it being a bad thing that a guy is trying to make a play instead of "jumping into" the defender and how Manu is someone to be admired for this. Just ugh. Talk about making an argument in favor of flopping...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDc31xBkBg0

Barry wouldn't have even needed to jump into Fisher. If he would have just gone up and took his normal shot, he would have gotten fouled. Fisher was already in the air, and unless he can defy Newtonian physics, he was going to crash into Barry. This is not some new concept. As Kenny Smith mentioned, players have been doing it since the 60's. It's not a flop, it's just fundamental basketball. Pump-fake, defender bites, go up and shoot. Elementary.

Post #63 » by **Atlanta Hawk Fan** » Thu May 29, 2008 9:50 pm

JellosJigglin wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Barry wouldn't have even needed to jump into Fisher. If he would have just gone up and took his normal shot, he would have gotten fouled. Fisher was already in the air, and unless he can defy Newtonian physics, he was going to crash into Barry. This is not some new concept. As Kenny Smith mentioned, players have been doing it since the 60's. It's not a flop, it's just fundamental basketball. Pump-fake, defender bites, go up and shoot. Elementary.

All that is true except it ignores an obvious truth:

Fisher did crash into Barry and he isn't any less deserving of the foul call because he did not "sell it."

The only way Kenny's argument has any legitimacy is if Fisher didn't hit Barry and he hit Barry hard enough that the NBA is apologizing for it publically. The only difference between Fisher crashing into Barry with Barry going up for the shot and trying to go around him should be in the number of free throws (3 for shooting foul; 2 for non-shooting). There should be no difference in whether a foul was called and for the commentators to literally suggest that Barry "jump into" Fisher or do more to "sell" the foul as a way to justify the no call was sickening, IMO.

JellosJigglin · Post #64 » by **JellosJigglin** » Thu May 29, 2008 10:04 pm

[quote="Atlanta Hawk Fan"][/quote]

I get what you're saying. It was a non-shooting foul. On the flip side, players who look to avoid contact don't usually get those calls.

But back to what Kenny was saying, I think when he says "sell the foul", he means don't avoid contact. It could mean flop, but in this case Barry didn't need to flop to get the shooting foul. He just had to go up and take his normal shot. Once he put the ball down and tried to avoid contact, he put himself in a lose-lose situation. So if he just took his normal shot, he would be selling the foul in that case. I don't think they meant he should've flopped, because that wouldn't even have been necessary.

Kreuk · Post #65 » by **Kreuk** » Thu May 29, 2008 10:05 pm

Atlanta Hawk Fan wrote:There should be no difference in whether a foul was called and for the commentators to literally suggest that Barry "jump into" Fisher or do more to "sell" the foul as a way to justify the no call was sickening, IMO.

1. barry was 30 feet out. do you really think he had a good shot?

2. when barry saw fish coming, he should have went up for a shot.

3. instead barry leaned into fish and then came down and took another dribble, 30 feet out... he did not deserve a bail out call...

The Notic · Post #66 » by **The Notic** » Thu May 29, 2008 10:23 pm

Kobot wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

1. barry was 30 feet out. do you really think he had a good shot?

2. when barry saw fish coming, he should have went up for a shot.

3. instead barry leaned into fish and then came down and took another dribble, 30 feet out... he did not deserve a bail out call...

Way to completely miss his point. He's arguing against a praised aspect of the game where you have to "sell" a call. It's a dumb practice and goes against what most fans claim to hate about the current game; flopping.

But no, carry on.

Big Lob · Post #67 » by **Big Lob** » Thu May 29, 2008 10:36 pm

LakerFanMan · Post #68 » by **LakerFanMan** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:26 pm

I seriously doubt Barry would have been fouled had he just took the shot. I don't get why people are saying "he would have gotten the call had he taken the shot." Fact of the matter is, had he not tried to get around fisher, the contact would have never occured. It only occured because he tried to get around fisher and accidentally ran into him. Other wise it would have just been a jumper with Fisher in his face.

Post #69 » by **TheOUTLAW** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:32 pm

It was a clear foul and should have been called one. The only real question is whether he should have been taking 2 or 3 free throws.

Kreuk · Post #70 » by **Kreuk** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:38 pm

The Notic wrote:Way to completely miss his point. He's arguing against a praised aspect of the game where you have to "sell" a call. It's a dumb practice and goes against what most fans claim to hate about the current game; flopping.

LakerFanMan wrote:Fact of the matter is, had he not tried to get around fisher, the contact would have never occured. It only occured because he tried to get around fisher and accidentally ran into him. Other wise it would have just been a jumper with Fisher in his face.

30 feet out...

at87on · Post #71 » by **at87on** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:44 pm

I don't know if anyone caught Sportscenter this morning, but the play with the Fisher "airball" they did a spotshadow of Kobe at the top of the key on that play and showed that Kobe travelled ...

So, the ones who are saying Fisher's airball wasn't called therefore therefore the the foul is ok... Had they called the walk ok Kobe, there would be no Laker possession.

Kreuk · Post #72 » by **Kreuk** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:51 pm

people are just going to have to accept the fact that there were many blown calls this game... it's sad that it happened during the last minute and may have changed the outcome, but such is life...

manu's foot was on the line...

odom did not goal-tend that lay-up...

kobe traveled...

fisher's shot hit the rim, but no 24-second clock reset...

barry was fouled...

the list goes on

JellosJigglin · Post #73 » by **JellosJigglin** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:13 am

qwixDOTca wrote:I don't know if anyone caught Sportscenter this morning, but the play with the Fisher "airball" they did a spotshadow of Kobe at the top of the key on that play and showed that Kobe travelled ...

So, the ones who are saying Fisher's airball wasn't called therefore therefore the the foul is ok... Had they called the walk ok Kobe, there would be no Laker possession.

I was kind of surprised ESPN pointed that out when there were so many plays that were more blatant than that one, for both teams. It was one of those things that no one paid any attention to even when it happened. I don't understand why they chose that one.

If they wanted to bring up obvious travels that weren't called then they should've shown Duncan ice skating to the rim from the 3 point line and dunking it. That one was MUCH more obvious even in real time. They wouldn't even need to spotlight his feet to see it.

The one that they showed of Kobe could literally be called on every single possession against any ball handler in the league.

daddyfivestar · Post #74 » by **daddyfivestar** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:17 am

If we're going letter of the law then only real issue is whether to put 1.2, 1.1, or 1.0 seconds on the clock after Barry gets called for travelling.

jaypo · Post #75 » by **jaypo** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:54 am

TheOUTLAW wrote:It was a clear foul and should have been called one. The only real question is whether he should have been taking 2 or 3 free throws.

He should have been shooting ZERO, because the travel occurred before the contact!

Game over. Press REDO or BACK.

Vindicater · Post #76 » by **Vindicater** » Fri May 30, 2008 2:41 am

god, you guys are lame, the 5th games on now, go watch it and get over this ****

Post #77 » by **Atlanta Hawk Fan** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:35 am

Kobot wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

30 feet out...

I don't get the relevance of the 30 feet thing when even the NBA publically admits it was a foul. Are you trying to pretend like (a) it wasn't a foul or (b) there is a 30 foot line outside of which there can't be a foul? Fouling a guy 30 feet from the basket may be stupid but that is on Fisher, not Barry.

My problem isn't with the outcome of the game, it is with the fact that the foul was a deliberate no-call and the commentators "justified" that by saying Barry should have initiated contact or embellished the contact in order to deserve the call.

Post #78 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri May 30, 2008 5:26 am

Atlanta Hawk Fan wrote:My problem isn't with the outcome of the game, it is with the fact that the foul was a deliberate no-call and the commentators "justified" that by saying Barry should have initiated contact or embellished the contact in order to deserve the call.

I partially agree with you. The idea that anyone would say that it was Barry's fault for not flopping just drives me nuts.

I have to just say we don't share realities when you imply that Barry *didn't* initiate contact. He drove himself directly into Fisher immediately after pump faking. He did everything you do to draw a shooting foul except begin the shooting motion, and had he taken the shot, he gets the call. As is, we're left with a guy was simply driving, but who started his drive momentum after his opponent was in the air, so you can't honestly argue that the defender got in the way of a driving player.

Not saying I think the non-call was necessarily "right", but truly, Barry screwed up.

B-Scott · Post #79 » by **B-Scott** » Fri May 30, 2008 6:08 am

The play before, Fisher's shot hit the rim so had the referees made the proper call on that play the Lakers have a full 24 2nd shot clock with 6 seconds left in the game up by 2. Most likely they end up with 2 free throws because the Spurs would have had to foul.

If the Lakers go up by 4 with 2 free throws with about 5 seconds remaining in the game, Fisher would not have even been as aggressive on that last play.

Bottom line is if everything was called to perfection by the Refs Lakers still win the game. The Spurs only hope would be if the Lakers missed the free throws.