Report: Referee Would Have Called Foul On Curry Shot If He Had Missed

[RealGM Wiretap]

Stephen Curry sent Game 3 into overtime with a game-tying three-pointer when Marreese Speights recovered Curry's previous attempt. Curry appeared to get fouled as he released the shot (Vine).

According to sources, referees explained that a foul would have been called if Curry had missed the three-point attempt. Curry would have then had to make all three free throws to extend the game.

The Golden State Warriors ultimately won the game in overtime.

Via Marcus Thompson/San Jose Mercury News

[AI]

WTF? That is the epitome of sloppy and inconsistent officiating. Now the referees are following their own arbitrary rules? Calling an obvious foul should not be contingent on whether or not the shooter makes the basket or not. I suppose this is why NBA officiating is so looked down upon by sports fans. I'm even more shocked that the referees thought releasing such a statement would be an OK thing to do. Wow...

[cccmonteiro]

WTF? That is the epitome of sloppy and inconsistent officiating. Now the referees are following their own arbitrary rules? Calling an obvious foul should not be contingent on whether or not the shooter makes the basket or not. I suppose this is why NBA officiating is so looked down upon by sports fans. I'm even more shocked that the referees thought releasing such a statement would be an OK thing to do. Wow...

Unbeliavable

[Rated T By CBRA]

If this came for a referee's mouth then the entire rule book/approach to refeering needs to be re-evaluated. A foul is not dependent on the basketball going in or out of the hoop, it is dependent on the physicality of the offensive/defensive players.

Watching the play it should have been a foul on the made shot, with a chance for 4pt play. Missed call...I guess another apology from the NBA and everyone moves on. Won't be the first or last time, right?

[TheSamMitchell]

Lol well an NBA referee thought it would be smart to release this statement. Completely summaries NBA referee logic.

[gom]

Nonsense. Should have been an and 1 then.

[Bball0000]

Exactly. Then they wonder why they get so much distrust from the fans. Just interpret the damn rulebook instead of overthinking it. We dont neee their personal touch on it. How is it they think the rulebook should be flexible where time of season, what situation, what player or team, etc should have any bearing in changing the rulebook?

Just imagine if baseball did this. "well I was gonna call you safe, but you guys are already up a couple runs soo..."

The fact that they would admit to this just shows how far gone they are in drinking their own koolaid.

[I_Never Lied]

Are you guys 12 years old? This "Report" is just some bloggers opinion. No referee gave them this information.

[mastermixer]

first off it says "according to sources, referees explained that a foul would have been called if Curry had missed the three-point attempt."

That is not a statement by the referees or that ref.

Second, there would be a violation called on ever single play if all the refs called everything by the book perfectly every single time. They have to use some judgment on what to let go and what to call.

In this case, I actually agree with the idea that if the shot hadn't gone in, then make the call. You gotta use some judgment some times.

[jlokine]

Exactly. Then they wonder why they get so much distrust from the fans. Just interpret the damn rulebook instead of overthinking it. We dont neee their personal touch on it. How is it they think the rulebook should be flexible where time of season, what situation, what player or team, etc should have any bearing in changing the rulebook?

Just imagine if baseball did this. "well I was gonna call you safe, but you guys are already up a couple runs soo..."

The fact that they would admit to this just shows how far gone they are in drinking their own koolaid.

they do do stuff like this in baseball. most notably with the strike zone. depends on who the catcher is, who the pitcher is, who the hitter is, strike zone shrinks and expands from pitch to pitch.

[King4Day]

I'm probably wrong and would have to watch the replay again but did anyone else think Speights travelled after getting the rebound?

[Ris_44]

This should be more of a big deal then it is. If this report did come from a referee it proves that there needs to be changes to how the game is refereed. This no call changed the outcome of this game. Had they done their jobs correctly, it would have been a four point play opportunity. Which means possibly no over time and possibly one of the greatest moments in playoff history. There shouldn't be different rules to what consists of a foul depending on how much time is on the clock. The fear of a referee deciding the game is dumb. If a foul happens, and its called and it decides the game, then so be it. Players get away with too many fouls because they know it will not be called in the final seconds unless it's blatantly obvious. Not calling these fouls IS deciding the outcome of a game.

[ishoy123]

I'm probably wrong and would have to watch the replay again but did anyone else think Speights travelled after getting the rebound?

[totalrekall]

did the ref really say that? I find that very hard to believe. why would a ref admit he was essentially trying to fix a game. a foul is a foul. its not up to the ref to decide based on the shot going in. so a foul occurred (obviously) and he chose not to call the foul bc the game was tied??! if this is a fact the ref has to be suspended for the rest of the playoffs at least

[nfmos]

Are you guys 12 years old? This "Report" is just some bloggers opinion. No referee gave them this information.

Its not just some blogger, this is from the sources of the GSW Beat Reporter for the last few seasons. These sources were actually probably the players themselves.

[rpn123321]

No way they call a foul if he missed it. NBA wants to try to extend a few series past 4 games! Except for the Clips and Spurs, all the other series are looking like sweeps. Not good for ratings or attendance considering both are at 8 year lows right now. Your going to see some pretty crappy ref calls in the next few games. You know they will let the Celtics win there next game against Cleveland as well just to extend the series one more game, greedy corporation.

[your boy]

No way they call a foul if he missed it. NBA wants to try to extend a few series past 4 games! Except for the Clips and Spurs, all the other series are looking like sweeps. Not good for ratings or attendance considering both are at 8 year lows right now. Your going to see some pretty crappy ref calls in the next few games. You know they will let the Celtics win there next game against Cleveland as well just to extend the series one more game, greedy corporation.

You and your conspiracy theories.

[Twinkie defense]

I'm not one to complain about foul calls and non calls. But I don't understand why a ref would call or not call the foul *based on whether or not the shot was made.* Makes no sense, either it's a foul or it's not a foul. At the time I thought Curry very easily could have ended the game at the FT line, rather than going into OT. Most of all, how about some consistency in calls - don't change the way you are calling them based on where in the game you are or other irrelevant factors.

The call that I did think was really bad was when Klay got called for an away from the ball foul vs. Davis, giving the Pels a free throw AND posession. WTF!? I would like to hear some explanation of that call. Under that logic, in the Spurs hack a DJ game just a couple nights earlier, Clippers should have been retaining posession throughout, shouldn't they?

As a Warriors fan, I was also unhappy to see the Draymond Green and Harrison Barnes flops, both of which successfully drew the whistle, even though there was no contact. That's not the way the Warriors play, so maybe that inexplicable call against Klay was a sort of Karmic retribution.

[Twinkie defense]

first off it says "according to sources, referees explained that a foul would have been called if Curry had missed the three-point attempt."

That is not a statement by the referees or that ref.

Second, there would be a violation called on ever single play if all the refs called everything by the book perfectly every single time. They have to use some judgment on what to let go and what to call.

In this case, I actually agree with the idea that if the shot hadn't gone in, then make the call. You gotta use some judgment some times.

There is a difference between a borderline call, or not seeing the foul, and seeing a foul and deciding not to call it. If there was a foul on that shot that the ref decided not to call, and the Pels went on to win in OT, that ref would have stolen the game from the Warriors. Who wants that outcome? How is that good for basketball?

[luss54321]

I see nothing wrong with that statement.

Here's the reality... There is probably a foul on every single play in a given basketball game. There are different DEGREES for each foul.

For example: If a player is going up for a layup and the defender grazes his hand. You don't call the foul because it has absolutely no affect on the outcome of the play... OR... A player slides his pivot foot a centimeter. You don't call the travel because it gave the player no advantage and was a minor degree of infraction.

Refs make judgment calls. That's how the game is meant to be officiated.

There's holding every single play in the NFL. The question is to what degree and how did it affect the play