Im Coming Home wrote:For me the biggest questionable calls were the blocking fouls and/or charging fouls and the 2 times Knicks were held from contesting a layup.
3 went the Pacers way(one that the Knicks had to challenge, Divo And1). The And1 Haliburton got in the 4th where Deuce McBride was clearly set and outside the restricted area, and then the Brunson one where it was closer but I still think he was set and outside the restricted area all went the Pacers way, and 2 of those were late in the 4th and lead to big buckets and FTs/Points for the Pacers.
I remember those plays.
The DiVincenzo play was indeed correctly overturned. They got it wrong initially which is why you had to use the challenge to correct it. Here's the replay ->
https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=323&GameID=0042300213&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=DiVincenzo%201%27%20Driving%20Layup%20(17%20PTS)%20(Brunson%203%20AST)
It looks like the ref that called it a charge was the one underneath by the basket and when the two bodies collided, this ref's view of the play was obstructed by Achiuwa and Siakam jostling for rebounding position. My guess is that he assumed that Nesmith got out of the restricted area and therefore called it a charge. He was clearly mistaken, though, and the call was rightfully overturned.
As for the other two plays, both McBride and Brunson were clearly outside the restricted area. That's a given. What probably caused the call to go against them was whether they were in set in time or not.
Here's what the rulebook has to say on this:
https://official.nba.com/the-nba-rule-authority/NBA rules wrote:To get into a legal position, the defender needs to establish himself in the path of the offensive player before contact is made, thus “beating him to the spot,” and before he starts his upward shooting motion.
I put the "and" in bold because that's the crux of the question here. McBride and Brunson were indeed set the moment the contact was made. But that's not enough. They also had to be set when Hali and Siakam started their upward shooting motion.
So, what marks the start of a player's upward shooting motion during a drive? It's the gather. Here's the NBA's Video Rulebook on the matter:
https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/foul-in-the-act-of-shooting-foul-occurs-after-the-gather-on-drive/And here's the explanation provided along with the video in the URL above:
“This is an example of a defensive foul that occurs with the offensive player in the act of shooting. The defensive player, Kelly Oubre Jr., reaches in and hits the arm of the offensive player, Kyle Kuzma, after the offensive player had gathered the ball. Because the gather marks the beginning of the continuous shooting motion on drives to the basket, this is a foul in the act of shooting.”
Now, let's watch the plays in question.
Here's the play involving Haliburton and McBride ->
https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=495&GameID=0042300213&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=McBride%20S.FOUL%20(P2.T3)%20(K.Scott)
When Haliburton gathers the ball, McBride was not set yet.
And here's the play involving Siakam and Brunson ->
https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=572&GameID=0042300213&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Brunson%20S.FOUL%20(P2.PN)%20(K.Scott)
Once again, when Siakam gathers the ball, Brunson isn't set yet.
In my opinion, both calls were correct but they are indeed close enough that I can understand why someone who supports the Knicks would disagree with them.
Im Coming Home wrote:That and twice a Knicks player was held(the obvious Siakam one on Hartenstein, and another where I believe Divo was knocked over by an elbow/arm of Turner when he was in position to contest a layup) while trying to contest a layup where if they weren't, they could've contested it and caused a miss. All of these were in the 4th quarter and lead to points for Pacers..
I do not remember that DiVincenzo/Turner play. If you can find tell me a time-stamp, I can try and find it.
As for the Siakam play, I fully agree. I actually missed it during live play (because I was watching the ball) but, yes, it clearly was a foul.