Did the Celtics lose game 2 because of the refs?

[NO-KG-AI]

The Celtics lost because they let another monster 3rd quarter happen and didn't have a 40-16 4th quarter in the barrel to counteract it. You either have to build some sort of cushion in the first half, or do something to slow down the surge GS is going to make in quarter 3. This aint it.

[Bornstellar]

You can blame refs in a tight game, not when you get your ass handed to you

[whocurrz]

They got Some very weak calls against them for sure but the refs weren’t that huge. The bigger factor was that They stole Game 1 and were rightly okay with that. Yes, They were victims of some home cooking and when They couldn’t match a desperate warriors run or hit An unsustainable amount they decided do play the Series and not worry about the game.

Refs made things tough to go 2-0 but the Cs were
Totally okay walking away how they did

[FreeThrowLine]

No, they had a lot of unforced turnovers and they didn't play as aggressively on defense as the Warriors did. I feel the game 1 win made them a little complacent as opposed to hungrier for the win, as if they'd done what they needed to do getting out of GS 1-1

[FNQ]

nah but they sure didn't help em

[MemphisX]

Cs were getting ready to blow them ut in the 1st quarter but the refs kept it close until the Warriors found themselves.

[Warriors2022]

Cs were getting ready to blow them ut in the 1st quarter but the refs kept it close until the Warriors found themselves.

Lol. You see what happen when we got gp2? You’re lucky Dirty Dillon broke his elbow and took him down or else it woulda been a gentleman swept.

[sammo89]

Turnovers and that crazy sequence at the end of the 3rd are the most likely culprits

[BayArea408415]

Turnovers and no historic 3 shooting from Celtics role players. No terrible lineup early in 4th with Iguodala and co.

Also, refs didn’t let Celtics hack/hold as much as they wanted as “physical” defense like Game 1. A few bad calls in GS favor sure but not anywhere near enough to turn 2 point game into nearly 30 point game.

[soxfan2003]

Probably not in this particular case but we will never know. IMO the refs clearly helped out the Warriors a lot when game was on the line by their calls/non calls, but they clearly didn't help out the Warriors by 25+ points which was around the margin when both teams emptied their benches. No matter what one thinks of the refs, the Warriors still deserve credit for playing great defense.

IMO the question really becomes if the Warriors had let's say a 8 point deficit at half, do the Celtics still get blown out in the 3rd quarter like they did by 21 points or do they just lose the quarter by let's say even 12-14 points? We will never know for sure since sometimes fouls/score influence how well a team plays/shoots.

If I hadn't grown up watching the NBA in the days of Bird/Magic, I would not be a fan at all of modern day NBA basketball. If I want somewhat ridiculous behavior, it is more entertaining to watch old WWF highlights. Jaylen Brown barely touches a Warriors player if he touches him at all and is called for a foul but Draymond Green gets away with a lot with the refs just watching. If I want to watch football to see a player blocking someone else 5 yards down the field, it is more interesting to watch football.

I honestly want the Celtics if they hold Stephen Curry or anyone else running around in the halfcourt to be called for fouls every time but I also want Draymond Green to be called for all of his illegal behavior. If any player on offense pushed off at all, call them for it. If you actually enforce the rules long enough, players will adjust to how the game is actually called.

The refs in football don't call everything right and sometimes the really blow monumental calls like uncalled headshots but more often than not they are so much better than NBA refs. In the NBA, there is just severe conflicts of interests and I agree with the person who suggested the refs shouldn't even be employed by the NBA. The only worse employer for the refs than the NBA may be the television networks themselves. If refs received 30% of their pay based upon how well the officiating crew called the game, the calls may be better.

The NFL would probably have this same issue if the Super Bowl was best of 7. A best of 7 Super Bowl, they would never want to risk it ending after 4 or 5 games if they could extend the series.

[Bill Bradley]

The question is worded in an all or none way but the refs played a big role in the outcome of this game. The Celtics were on the verge of breaking the game open in the first quarter and Brown was on fire and they took him out of the game with phantom calls while the Warriors were just bulldozing folks on moving picks with nothing called, Curry’s ridiculous push offs etc. The sad thing is that this was totally expected, especially when we saw Brothers was reffing. We knew they would make it hard for the Celtics to go up 2-0. Celtics would have had to play a perfect game to overcome ref bias.

[AussieCeltic]

Not at all. Celtics didn’t show up in the second half. Refs with some real questionable calls in the first, but it didn’t effect the result.

[AussieCeltic]

Clearly. I mean they even took a made three of the score board where they lost all the momentum.

Oh wait...Different game. Never mind.

How many times do you bring this up? Like every thread? When you know it was the right call.

Why don’t you pull up the L2M report of game 7? All the calls benefited Miami. The game shouldn’t have even been that close.

[Hugi Mancura]

I didn't see this. There was some non calls or phantom calls, but those happen in every game. Didn't really see that GSW did benefit from those a lot more than Boston. In long run in one game one team always benefits from those more than the other team, but is it because of referee bias or is it just because of luck?

Biggest change there was that GSW started to be more physical on defense. They started to defend similar way as Boston have all playoffs. In all Boston series teams have been allowed to play physical defense and that also means using ways to defend that normally are called as fouls. Which is a norm in playoffs. While on other series games have been called like a regular season games.

[robbie84]

In the first half I though Celts got very favorable no calls on defense that kept them in the game, despite poor shooting and many turnovers. In the second half I think the warriors adjusted and benefitted from the no calls a bit, but not much impact. They were hitting shots through the contact, except for Klay.

The poor calls in the first quarter put multiple C's in foul trouble and affected their ability to defend without worrying about fouling.
It's not the reason the Celtics lost, but it definitely contributed to a lack of defensive pressure.

[evilpimp972]

Celtics have been getting favorable calls all playoffs so id said its karma.

[WestGOAT]

Draymond should have been thrown out in the first half.

Warriors don't win the game without him, so of course the refs didn't dare throw him about.

Refs absolutely played a big role in Celtics losing the game.

[hugepatsfan]

Celtics we’re rolling in the first Q. Seemed to be flirting with opening up a double digit lead. Some very questionable reffing helped GS weather that storm. I think legit gripe there, but obviously I’m biased.

Celtics got thoroughly outplayed second half though and that’s what they lost. I guess you can argue they got discouraged by some of the reffing in the first half, but honestly that’s on them if so. They just played poorly in the second half.

[Garbanzo]

No, they had a lot of unforced turnovers and they didn't play as aggressively on defense as the Warriors did. I feel the game 1 win made them a little complacent as opposed to hungrier for the win, as if they'd done what they needed to do getting out of GS 1-1

They had 4 fouls after 5 min, and again were in the penalty in the middle of the second q.

How could they be aggressive?

[BudenFerry]

In the first half I though Celts got very favorable no calls on defense that kept them in the game, despite poor shooting and many turnovers. In the second half I think the warriors adjusted and benefitted from the no calls a bit, but not much impact. They were hitting shots through the contact, except for Klay.

The poor calls in the first quarter put multiple C's in foul trouble and affected their ability to defend without worrying about fouling.
It's not the reason the Celtics lost, but it definitely contributed to a lack of defensive pressure.

This is straight bull. None of those guys had 3 fouls at halftime, when the game was still close. Tatum took a take foul, like a dummy, and on Curry who is likely to make both FTs. There was the one bad call on Brown on the GP layup attempt. They stayed in the game and didn't get in further foul trouble. Can't see how you can act like that turned the game upside down.