RealGM

The clear path rules are something that seems like a good idea in theory but they're so poorly written, with gaping holes that allow for illogical interpretations to occur. On top of that they're never called consistently. With how poor NBA officiating is any rule with ambiguity in it seems like a terrible idea.

Wow. I know that Blazers-Raptors game was hard to watch, but this is probably an overreaction.

I like the concept of the rule, and the replay center should theoretically be able to completely correct for errors on this kind of call. The problem is that the replay center seems dysfunctional and inefficient since the refs end up reviewing video in the time that I imagined internal people at the replay center would have been able to watch and send a correct call. I think clear path should stay though. The league just needs to make the replay center effective to the degree it was touted.

No.

The clear path rule is designed so teams can't rob the opponent of an open fast-break lay-up (almost a guaranteed 2 point play). Two free throws and possession is a bit steep of a penalty, but it has to be done for fairness. Plus watching clear path foul after clear path foul would make basketball a horrible viewing sport if it wasn't penalised heavily, so it has to be there.

It'd never happen, but I think awarding the opponent 2 points, and giving them 1 free throw (without possession afterwards) is the way to go.

No.

The clear path rule is designed so teams can't rob the opponent of an open fast-break lay-up (almost a guaranteed 2 point play). Two free throws and possession is a bit steep of a penalty, but it has to be done for fairness. Plus watching clear path foul after clear path foul would make basketball a horrible viewing sport if it wasn't penalised heavily, so it has to be there.

It'd never happen, but I think awarding the opponent 2 points, and giving them 1 free throw (without possession afterwards) is the way to go.

They're fine. And really? Pretty transparent reason to start a thread.

You only get exceptional situation like Raps at Blazers once every year, no need to overreact.

In fact, refs have been mostly good tonight, even with Raps intentional fouling for a bit, the foul discrepancy is only at 4 in Blazers favor. I was expecting a 10+ in Blazers favor before the game starts.

rottenzombie wrote:You only get exceptional situation like Raps at Blazers once every year, no need to overreact.

In fact, refs have been mostly good tonight, even with Raps intentional fouling for a bit, the foul discrepancy is only at 4 in Blazers favor. I was expecting a 10+ in Blazers favor before the game starts.

The saltiness is real.

Also, I think you're forgetting a few different controversial moments!

the clear path rule should stay, but only be called on teams from Canada

For god sakes

- The Blazers player who committed the foul on Terrence Ross was in between Ross and the hoop ( Not a clear path foul)
- Grevis Vasquez was not inbetween Nic Batum and the basket when he committed the foul (Is a clear path foul)

I'm not sure where all this complaining is coming from, both fouls were different and were called correctly.

I've always thought 2 FT"s and the ball was excessive.

Maybe just give 2 free throws.

CB-Blazer wrote:I've always thought 2 FT"s and the ball was excessive.

Maybe just give 2 free throws.

maybe the NBA needs a penalty box like hockey.

Wizenheimer wrote:

CB-Blazer wrote:I've always thought 2 FT"s and the ball was excessive.

Maybe just give 2 free throws.

maybe the NBA needs a penalty box like hockey.

Only if they allow fighting.

Pure_Basketball wrote:For god sakes

- The Blazers player who committed the foul on Terrence Ross was in between Ross and the hoop ( Not a clear path foul)
- Grevis Vasquez was not inbetween Nic Batum and the basket when he committed the foul (Is a clear path foul)

I'm not sure where all this complaining is coming from, both fouls were different and were called correctly.

not too sure about the ruling..I don't really care as much and I haven't seen the replays, but you might be wrong on both accounts (courtesy of Raptor fans):

Additionally, if the defensive player who commits the foul is
ahead of the player with the ball who he fouls anytime after that offensive player
enters the frontcourt, no clear path has occurred regardless if he is fouled from
behind or on the side

Apparently, Vasquez was in the frontcourt before Batum. If he was, no clear path foul.

if an offensive player, or a teammate, is fouled while having a clear-path-to-the-basket. The ball and an offensive player must be positioned between the tip-of-circle extended in the backcourt and the basket in the frontcourt, with no defender between the ball and the basket when the personal foul occurs.

The foul was called after Ross was ahead. Ref didn't call the initial contact and made the foul call when Lillard was grabbing from the side/behind.

Pure_Basketball wrote:For god sakes

- The Blazers player who committed the foul on Terrence Ross was in between Ross and the hoop ( Not a clear path foul)
- Grevis Vasquez was not inbetween Nic Batum and the basket when he committed the foul (Is a clear path foul)

I'm not sure where all this complaining is coming from, both fouls were different and were called correctly.

The Raptors had a player already stationed next to the Blazers' basket. It would have been a far easier basket than Batum's.

Dame Lizard wrote:

rottenzombie wrote:You only get exceptional situation like Raps at Blazers once every year, no need to overreact.

In fact, refs have been mostly good tonight, even with Raps intentional fouling for a bit, the foul discrepancy is only at 4 in Blazers favor. I was expecting a 10+ in Blazers favor before the game starts.

The saltiness is real.

Also, I think you're forgetting a few different controversial moments!

Which is why I said the refs were mostly good. I expected the refs to favor the Blazers like they always do in Portland, especially against the Raptors, and I was surprised with the amount of calls the Raps got.

It is a fact that refs like to screw over the Raps, since they face less criticism from American media if they do that. Not to mention home cooking calls is a time honored tradition in Portland going back decades, no road team is gonna get calls there.

It is really all moot anyhow; refs or not, the Raps would have most likely lost anyway. At least the game was entertaining.

I'd probably even give them 3 free throws and posession. Just because in theory the team on a fast break could just be going for 3 point shot. And well to punish the defending teqm more.

AlexDelta wrote:I'd probably even give them 3 free throws and posession. Just because in theory the team on a fast break could just be going for 3 point shot. And well to punish the defending teqm more.

nope, keep it at 2 FTs

they don't give 3 FTs for an intentional foul at the end of games even if the offensive team needs a 3 pointer to stay in the game

I don't see how 2 FT plus the ball is excessive. If that were the case every team would rather foul and make the player shoot 2 FT vs 99% chance of the player making the lay-up/dunk.

I hate the way they officiate the clear path foul with a passion. A game will be 4-2, early in the first quarter and we have to wait three minutes on the replay. It's ridiculous. They should just make it a judgement call, if the foul was an attempt to stop a 1 on 0 fast break, give them the call. It makes for better basketball.

I'm against replay in general, just ruins the flow of the game. I also haven't noticed any increased speed with the replay center.