NBA referee Scott Foster found himself in a late-game controversy for the second time in a week while refereeing a Sunday afternoon game between the Los Angeles Lakers and Toronto Raptors at the Air Canada Centre.
The Raptors had the ball in a sideline out of bounds situation with four seconds remaining in the fourth quarter and the Lakers leading, 93-92. Despite Raptors coach Dwane Casey's attempt to call a timeout, Foster whistled the Raptors for a 5-second violation. The Lakers went on to win the game, 94-92, when a DeMar DeRozan jumper at the buzzer was no good.
Video replay of the call was not conclusive, but it did show Casey walking back to the bench as if he had been granted a timeout, only to turn around in disbelief once he realized what had happened. Casey then apparently yelled: "Oh, come on, Scott!"
Post-Game Update: Here's Casey's reaction to the call from Robert MacLeod of TheGlobeAndMail.com and comments from Raual Butler, who was inbounding the ball on the play.
----------------------------------
“What little money I make I think I like it, so I’m not going to comment on it,” a now composed Casey said of the contentious conclusion when he spoke with reporters about 15 minutes after the game had ended.
“We’ll send it to the league, let them review it.”
...
“I asked for him [Foster] to count out loud for me, to help me out a little bit,” a subdued Butler said. “He did, I heard four and I turned to call a timeout and he felt like it was five seconds.”
----------------------------------
Foster was the referee who whistled Portland Trail Blazers All-Star forward LaMarcus Aldridge for a late-game goaltending call on a shot by Oklahoma City Thunder All-Star forward Kevin Durant that helped push OKC to an overtime win at the Rose Garden on Monday. The NBA later admitted Foster got the call wrong.
Update: Top video via YouTube user RahulRocks1569. Fast forward to the 3:15 mark for the full count in real time.
-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter
3 months ago
Ben Golliver
134 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Suspect we won't be seeing Scott Foster much from here on out
Trade John Canzano
Fun Fact: Crash has not lost to the Lakers since 2005. 8-0 since.
Even if he is not dirty, he has become a liability.
!!!o o!!!
OMG I just jizzed in my France
OMGrandpa
My problem is that both calls that was brought out in public favored LAL and OKC
Sterns Darlings. MMMMMMMMM
hg
Saw the play. No matter how many times the announcers counted the seconds it still came out to 4.
#52--------I believe in Greg Oden
Obvious question is ....
what was the line on this game.
by lickety brindle on Feb 12, 2012 1:13 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
What's the best way to organize with a clear message that this is unacceptable?
by Corvallis, OR on Feb 12, 2012 1:14 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I've been thinking about this and I'm just not sure.
Every time I see something like this, I become less of a fan.
Refs normally pander to stars, and that’s bad enough, but playing for Vegas … completely unacceptable.
"All is vanity and vexation of spirit."
http://year5000.bandcamp.com
by Y5k on Feb 12, 2012 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
It's not necessarily playing for Vegas
It’s pandering for the cash cows of the NBA. The OKC’s, the Boston’s, the Miami’s and the Smell-A’s (both teams). It’s pathetic, and it’s something that’s been happening since Bird and Magic, and especially Jordan played. Michael Jordan will always be the symbol, in my mind, of everything that has gone wrong with the spirit of basketball and the NBA. He and Stern are the reason it’s a “me first” league.
Okay...
I’d say “spirit” of the rule..and ref shouldn’t determine the winner. I would of granted the timeout. BUT…
What is the rule? Can a coach call a timeout verbally? Or do they have to actually, physically make the sign…the “T”. Because I can’t hear what Casey is saying…and he never did actually signal for a timeout. He starts to put his hands together but then turns…
I hate to say it but perhaps Scott Foster was “technically” correct..even if by the spirit of fairness maybe Casey should of granted the timeout.
Does anyone know what the actual rule is?
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
3rd paragraph should say...
…even if by the spirit of fairness maybe Casey should of been granted the timeout.
I really wish SBN offered an edit function.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
Since you seem to have gone into the self-correction business, let me give you some help
There is no such phrase as “should of.”
The phrase you are trying to use is “should have,” as in “I should have gone to the store but now it’s midnight and we’re all out of beer.”
Ok I changed my signature. Do you like it better now?
This happens so much I think it's subconscious for most people now
Still kind of makes me crazy when I see it though!
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain_4.html#ixzz1IE4sPu16
by Tyler Durrden on Feb 12, 2012 7:55 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah....
but I bet if I said, Scott Foster “should of” been suspended…you wouldn’t be so nit picky and petty.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
by Krang on Feb 12, 2012 11:03 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Funny how the grammer Nazi's are slanted.
Whats the betting line on missing two comas as opposed to one? Is there a high/low on an exclamation point?
Pretty sur eyou don't have to do the sign... cuz i see coaches all the time when a player dribbles up the court just lean over and say timeout ot a ref
And Scott foster is horrible
I don't think Chris Paul made a TO sign as he was sliding out of bounds against us...
So many horrible calls this season.
I don't know who the inbounding player was but he clearly called a timeout before the 5 seconds was up.
#52--------I believe in Greg Oden
The announcers seem to be looking...
at whether Casey called the timeout. He’s the one they are keying on. And from the video? I can’t tell whether he actually either said Timeout…or actually made the sign….
If no Raptor player called timeout? Then I can’t tell from that video if Dwayne Casey did. It looks like he started to..then stopped, maybe assuming it had already been granted. If so? Then I’d have be the minority that doesn’t blame Scott Foster.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
I watched the game. The announcers keyed in on the inbounding player first and then went on to Casey.
I realize this clip doesn’t show the whole story.
#52--------I believe in Greg Oden
Well though?
Did a player signal or ask for a timeout before the 5 second count? Or did Dwayne Casey actually “say” timeout? If everyone is honest it should be easy to figure out. The only thing I would conclude from this video is that Dwayne Casey “physically” never actually signaled for a timeout. It’s doesn’t appear to me that he verbally is saying timeout before either…but I can’t actually tell.
Kinda looks to me like a situation where Dwayne Casey and The Raptors might of aced themselves out. Everyone thinking the other was “going” to call a timeout, or that a timeout had been granted when in reality nobody did call a timeout and Foster “correctly” did not automatically grant one based on “it’s likely they really want one”.
But yeah I can’t tell.
I’m assuming these guys were interviewed. What does Casey say happened?
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
The inbounder signaled a timeout and then Casey turned and started walking back toward the bench.
Then Foster called the 5 second violation.
#52--------I believe in Greg Oden
I know Blazer fans...
…are thin skinned with Scott Foster after his horrible and admittedly revealed bad goal tending call. BUT? I googled this whole incident and even in a Toronto paper they said “The final few seconds drew angry boos from the crowd as Toronto’s Rasual Butler tried to call a timeout on Toronto’s possession. Officials ruled Butler didn’t call it before the allowable five seconds to inbound the ball, giving possession to the Lakers, a call that left Raptors coach Dwane Casey irate.” -Toronto Star
Still too vague for me to come to a conclusion. If Rasual Butler didn’t make the call? I’d have to say it appears to me neither did Dwayne Casey.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
All I can tell you is that they replayed the moment multiple times and the announcers counted the
seconds each time and every time they counted it came up 4.
#52--------I believe in Greg Oden
Yeah...
….but from that angle? Since you can’t see Rasual Butler is it 4 seconds before Casey does his half-hearted arm spasm and turn? Or 4 seconds before Rasual Butler calls timeout? Because there’s no view of Rasual Butler…and it appears to me Dwayne Casey didn’t actually call timeout.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
Also...
…given this was televised…I’m really surprised there isn’t another angle. Usually on an inbounds play at least some camera is directly on the inbounds player.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
How about this
it is pretty clear Casey is about to signal one, and stops and turns away when Butler does. We know It was at 4 when Casey begins his motion and walks away. So we can imagine Butler does it at the same time
scrappy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 12, 2012 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
I said earlier that during the game, which I was watching, the camera was on the
inbounder. He called time out. Then Foster called the infraction. Subsequently they played the moment over and over from several camera angles, counting all the time. I can’t explain it any more plainly than that.
#52--------I believe in Greg Oden
The new top video...
…certainly seems to me like it was a 5 second violation pure and simple.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
Then Foster should have called the foul before timeout was signaled.
#52--------I believe in Greg Oden
Sorry Ann....
I’ve watched the video numerous times now…and all I see is a 5 second violation.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
We agree. I see a 5 second violation called after the player signaled for a timeout.
#52--------I believe in Greg Oden
Watched the game live
on the big screen at Buffalo Wild Wings. Saw it replayed time and time again. Sure looks like the inbounding player called and signaled for time out before the 5 seconds.
And then the whistle was blown.
"Luke is our go-to Chalupa man," Matthews said. "Designated."
watch his arm
it had clearly already been fully extended, which signals the 5, before, or at least simultaneous, to Butler calling for timeout. Obviously it then takes a split second for him to make the 5 second signal, as he has to adjust his arm position to do so.
it was a good call
"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave
My thought is ...
…if they want to be that precise …then they need to go away from some dude saying to himself “one-one thousand…two-one thousand …three-one thousand…” and get a stop watch or something. Otherwise ….if he hears the word “timeout” yelled right about the time his 5 count is up…he needs to give that timeout
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
by 92wastheyear on Feb 13, 2012 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
i agree that he should have awarded the timeout
and in the NBA, as Dave has pointed out, you would almost always see that happen. even if the ref is blowing his whistle intended to call a 5-second, somewhere in mid-process he will change it to a timeout in a case like the one seen here. for some inexplicable reason, Foster decided this was the time and place to enforce the rule in a hard and fast manner. Thus the problem again comes down to inconsistently enforced rules.
by the letter of the rule, it was the right call.
"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave
but he's counting it out!
out loud. Butler waits till he hears “5” to call timeout? does not make sense.
scrappy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 13, 2012 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
I gotta say ...I am with Ann on this one
at the end of the longer video …the player calls for time..you can see it. It also appears like he heard something from the bench about that same time.
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
by 92wastheyear on Feb 13, 2012 7:17 AM PST up reply actions
To elaborate a little
To me …that video shows the player look to his bench and confirm that a timeout should be called (not smoke signals or morse code I am assuming..but vocal) …then turn to ref and call it right at the stroke of 5
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
by 92wastheyear on Feb 13, 2012 9:46 AM PST up reply actions
If the ref knew that Casey called time; that should be all that matters
The actual rule has been ignored for years.
hg
Isn't there a really good ref in the WNBA
we can swap this guy for?
Then no one would care about his poor calls and if he’s fixing NBA games…because no one bets on WNBA games anyways.
Win/win. Except for the Blazers. That’s still a loss. And the Raptors.
I don't always root for an NBA franchise, but when I do, I prefer the Portland Trail Blazers.
by Oh. Em. Gee. on Feb 12, 2012 1:20 PM PST via mobile reply actions
You'd be surprised.
People bet on ANYTHING. Even Pop Warner league football.
His name is coming up too often.
Foster should have been let go when he was connected with Tim Donaghy. You can’t afford to have any of this corruption happening in the NBA with a person who decides the winners and losers of games. David Stern needed to clean house with anyone in association with Donaghy. I would hate to see this all come back and haunt the league in the future.
Obviously
Toronto wanted a timeout. Tie goes to the runner. If its close, give the offense the timeout. Unspoken rule right?
I have been saying for years
The NBA needs to hold the refs accountable for how they preform their job because as right now there is basically none. Stern has made so many attempts to not make them scapegoats and receive unfair ridicule that anytime anyone suggests displeasure with a ref or a call they get fined. The refs right now have obvious biases that at times I have witnessed directly alter the course of games (not just Blazer games). In the real world, you get fired if you are unsatisfactory at your job. It’s time NBA reffing enters the real world.
by Trail Ducker on Feb 12, 2012 1:33 PM PST via mobile reply actions
what happened to that army guy Stern hired?
the guy who was supposed clean up the refs
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
He may have been a counter Intelligence guy
That taught the refs how to cheat without being cought LOL.
hg
Not really
We got a shot at tying the game after the goaltending call….
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Feb 12, 2012 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
Are you cool with taking something that was yours as long as I give you a chance to get it back?
I’m definitely selling on the Vegas/gambling angle, Blazers fans are reaching too deep and overreacting with that stuff, but we absolutely got screwed, worse than Toronto here.
volatilelyle.com
by almost awesome on Feb 12, 2012 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
Both calls affected the game
Neither call ended the game
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Feb 12, 2012 4:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
One call changed the outcome of the game
Though i suppose I have to concede that’s barring a successful desperation, low percentage three from Harden.
Nate said it himself ’We had that game won."
volatilelyle.com
by almost awesome on Feb 12, 2012 4:25 PM PST up reply actions
OKC would have had the ball with 4-6 seconds against an unorganized defense
So their chances would have been a lot better than a desperation 3 at the buzzer.
More to the point – the Blazers missed a good look of their own that could have won it. The Blazers still controlled their own destiny.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Feb 12, 2012 4:43 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You're right, we had a chance
and rewatching it, Harden would have had it a lot closer to his own basket than I had remembered.
I maintain, however, that our chances to win if there is no whistle and the ball is punched out were still overwhelming.
And as for that chance, keep in mind that Foster had just kicked us right in the balls (figuratively, but I’m sure he would have done it literally given the chance), and this team has delicate confidence even in the best of situations.
volatilelyle.com
by almost awesome on Feb 12, 2012 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
There I suppose I'm backing off my 'changed the outcome' argument
so I’ll qualify ‘almost certainly changed the outcome.’
volatilelyle.com
by almost awesome on Feb 12, 2012 4:57 PM PST up reply actions
That has not been brought up;
But since the ball bounced past the halfway mark, and there was only 6 seconds in the game, but how about the 24 second violation. I don’t recall how much time was used up before LaMarcus blocked the shot. and since there was not a possession change wouldn’t that have been classified as over and back or since LMA touched it that would nullify over and back.
hg
Listened to this live. I thought it was really suspicious at first, but then again it is the Raptors. Then the radio guy says
Scott Foster made the call. I some how knew this would be on Bedge today.
Look at it this way....
let’s assume Scott Foster is the worst most corrupt Ref ever…
Wouldn’t you have to give him some perverse credit? Just a handful of days after being called out by the N.B.A as making a high profile WRONG call at the end of a game, he comes back and makes another?
If I want to believe that? Then part of me wants to simultaneously applaud him, while I question his intelligence. Unless he had his mothers cancer surgery money riding on that game, you’d think he’d fly low for a while.
No…it’s too easy to grab the pitchforks..I’m afraid I’m just going to have think maybe, just maybe, neither Dwayne Casey nor Rasual Butler actually did call a timeout in time.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
Also, this had absolutely no effect on the line
Given that LA was favored by 6.5, and even if Toronto had gotten to OT it’s pretty rare to have a 7 point win in OT, this call had essentially nothing to do with the gambling outcome (they were also already well over the O/U). Even if this was part a gambling ring, it would be a pretty worthless time to make the call, given that there was almost no way that Toronto wasn’t covering the line.
it would be worthless,
unless your money was on LA winning
by cavejunctionblazer on Feb 12, 2012 10:01 PM PST up reply actions
Or
your Stern and you want big markets to win games, just saying.
Basically no one bets NBA moneylines as far as I know
and with a 6.5 point spread the moneyline would be high enough, you’d need to lay A LOT of money on LA to make anything on them winning. If you’re going to fix a game, you don’t do it like that.
Wasn't Donaghy trying to affect the over under?
"Luke is our go-to Chalupa man," Matthews said. "Designated."
Like I said
They were well over the O/U at this point anyways (I think it was 176). As sad as it may be for some people to admit, this call had essentially zero gambling implications.
bad call to me but
not even close to how bad our call was!
I watched the highlights on SportsCenter
It looked like it was 5 seconds then Scott Foster made the call. It must have been a couple of milliseconds before Foster made that call that Butler called timeout but Foster already had his mind made up. Watch it in real time, it looked pretty clear that it was a 5 second violation.
I agree with you.
It was a good 5 seconds and Foster maybe didn’t hear the time out call, but who knows?
let it go
we’re a 1st round and out team at best anyway.
this stuff just makes all the soccer mom jokes more accurate.
"this stuff just makes all the soccer mom jokes more accurate."
Portland and Toronto have two of the more notoriously obnoxious fan bases, too, so it’s extremely amusing how this has played out.
Looks like it was 5 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxkkES1DOlk&feature=player_detailpage#t=133s
That video shows the replay at normal speed. I don’t know when the coach called timeout, but the inbounder was a little late. Put a stopwatch to it like I did here: http://www.online-stopwatch.com/
by Gay4Roy on Feb 12, 2012 7:34 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Competely agree
I dont know when the coach called the timeout, but that was the right call. Whether or not he had money on the Blazer game is another thing. The Aldridge block – ‘er goaltending – was one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen.
by TheloniousNerb on Feb 12, 2012 10:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This.
Is what I was wondering if people noticed before getting all excited. The video linked here isn’t at real speed when the guy is counting.
by GPeterson82 on Feb 13, 2012 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
NBA, where amazing stuff goes down.
I'm typing this here because I became jealous of everyone else with signatures in their posts.
My issue is the same as before
No matter the letter of the law here—and people could debate the difference between 4 and 5 seconds all night—this is a call that you just don’t see made, especially in game-deciding situations. A guy usually has to get to 7 before that whistle will blow and even then it’s more likely to signal a timeout than an infraction.
I don’t believe Foster is crooked unless he’s REALLY stupid and crooked. But I do believe he’s getting kind of random and having a really bad couple of weeks. The magnifying glass he’s earned so far would be enough to earn him a vacation, in my opinion. Unfortunately as we’ve heard on TV healthy refs are in short supply in this shortened season so I don’t believe the league will want to do without him for long.
—Dave
—Dave
by Dave on Feb 12, 2012 8:18 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Come on Dave?
Listen if you are going to correctly criticize Scott Foster for absolutely blowing a call against the Blazers that WAS the wrong call, then you can’t conversely criticize him for getting a tough call correct.
Your case can’t be “You just don’t see that call made”…in all the additonal clips I’ve seen now? It simply looks to me like the timeout wasn’t called in time…thus a 5 second violation. You can’t really lobby for a non-call by saying “usually in those situations you get up to 7 seconds”.
In the case of Aldridges block…it was a close tight play that Foster got WRONG and he should be held accountable.
IMO in the case of this 5 second count, it was a close tight play that Foster got RIGHT. If you want to start adding shades of gray as excusable and acceptable? Then things get really messy. It has to be either a 5 second violation or NOT..and IMO it was a 5 second violation.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
In order to make your assertion
you’d have to assume that every official had a flawless internal clock by which they measured their five counts and that each, like a machine, made the call without exception on the count of five. Neither of those are true or even possible. Therefore you have to measure by difference between what ordinarily happens and what happened in this case. This case was unusual.
As I’ve said a few times, the league can survive just fine if a travel isn’t called until 3.5 steps are taken or, in this situation, a violation isn’t called until well after five seconds have elapsed and a chance for a timeout has been granted as long as it’s consistent. The problem comes when those hold true in some cases and not in others.
To make the argument a slightly different way, if your final paragraph is accurate and the standard by which the league operates then league refs have screwed teams out of game after game after game for as long as I can remember, because this call barely ever gets made when the game is on the line, period, let alone made at the exact tick of five. The league now needs to go back and review scores of games in which this rule has not been enforced to the letter of the law and the tick of the clock.
—Dave
by Dave on Feb 13, 2012 1:02 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
But Dave...
just like the Aldridge call…it comes down to was it the right call by the rules, or the wrong call by the rules.
I’m aware that humans are flawed and anything being executed by humans is prone to attachment to that truth.
But refs are still concievably trying to execute the application of the rules as correctly as possible. So again, I say, you can’t justify criticism of the call by saying the call barely ever gets made when the game is on the line, or let alone at the exact tick of 5. That all may be true, but it still boils down to was it the right call or the wrong call?
It was close, it hardly ever gets called…aren’t sufficient justifications for criticism.
But I’m in Blazersedge and this is very much your house. I’m fighting a losing battle here I suspect. Listen, I was no fan of the Scott Foster Aldridge call. Rumors, speculation surround Scott Foster. But- Why do I feel like the deputy left in charge of the accused prisoner, when the Jail House suddenly gets overtaken by the mob that wants to pull the prisoner out of the cell and go string him up? Can we just agree to let the prisoner be?
I think you can’t attach history to this call. You judge it as itself. The fact that there might be uncountable similar moments in N.B.A . history that played out differently? Doesn’t change the reality. It either was a 5 second violation, or it was not.
I think if we take anything from evaluation of this call and evaluation of the Aldridge block, it’s that the rules may NOT need to be changed in regards to what is a block or what is a goal tend, or what is a 5 second violation…BUT the rules in regards to applying available technology at the time for immediate review might need to be changed.
The difference being, that I think if you do review of Aldridges Block called Goaltend…you get Scott Foster guilty of making a mistake…I think you review the 5 second violation? You get Scott Foster made the right call.
The league IMO does not need to go back and review scores of games inwhich this rule has not been enforced to the letter of the law, because what have we learned? Mistakes do happen. Because refs are human.
But Scott Foster and this call? Should be judged individually as a separate happening. And since we have gathered with Youtube and video clips to debate it? It’s becomes a Either/Or evaluation. Either it was a good call or a bad call…and my opinion is that it was closer to being a legitimate 5 second violation than being some broken unwritten rule that Scott Foster should have just not called it because usually they don’t.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
by Krang on Feb 13, 2012 1:33 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I have to agree with Dave on this one
That is a call that hasn’t been made in that situation for 30+ years. There is a thing called precedent attached to law that helps people interpret how the law should be applied and what penalties should be handed out. The precedent in that situation is to give the TO.
I would agree with you on one point, the call on the goaltend is not arguable. This one is questionable. It looks to me that Butler was calling the TO as his arm hits the 5th count. It certainly wasn’t any longer than 5 seconds.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
either that or usually NBA players are smart enough to call the timeout on “four.” Also generally coaches are in the ref’s ear to get the timeout earlier.
i keep dancing on my own.
Shoot ...I have seen tons of those situations where the TO was given at the 6-7-8 second mark too
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
by 92wastheyear on Feb 13, 2012 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
but really the point is this isn’t a situation where precedent comes into play. Precedent applies when there’s ambiguity, something like possibly handchecking or whatever. This call, which Foster made correctly, is like the Aldridge call, a totally objective measure. The only questions are (1) did Butler call the timeout before Foster extended his arm all the way for the 5th time and (2) was Foster counting too fast?
i keep dancing on my own.
See what you want to but the precedent makes the call ambiguous...
If a judge automatically cuts first time speeders’ tickets in half if they plead guilty for 30 years and then decides to not do that in one case, he better have an explanation ready or it is not going to be a just decision. He would be correct by the letter of the law and the speeder would have no real recourse but it would not mean that justice was being served in that case. Circumstances would come into play like whether the guilty party had 20 unpaid parking tickets etc.
The point is that 199-200 or maybe even more times than that, the TO is awarded. Why wasn’t it in this case?
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Except you're comparing a single judge
to the entirety of NBA refs who are hardly automatons. The only fair comparison would be against Scott Foster’s history of calls in this exact situation, and if he called it differently here. There’s certainly nothing wrong with being a ref who calls things more tightly than others (as opposed to making an objectively wrong call like against us), as the Lakers would have felt aggrieved at seeing the fifth arm “beat” go without a violation being called.
And honestly, given the exact situation (end of game, important possession, timeout called extremely late into the 5th beat), I’d guess there probably aren’t a whole ton of Scott Foster calls that fit the bill.
Change Judge to "Traffic Court" and add "a particular judge"...
to make “and then a particular judge decides…”
I agree to a certain extent the the call “could have gone either way”. I have watched the NBA for 25+ years and would say with confidence the call goes the other way 99.9% of the time. To pretend like the rule is the only way to interpret what is going on ignores the reality of how that play is called.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Meh, in the analogy there's a range of outcomes
Each individual judge will have their own tendencies, just like in the NBA.
And I personally don’t buy the 99.9% of the time this is called differently. 99.9% of the time, players aren’t stupid enough to try to toe the violation line this closely so either timeouts get called earlier and awarded or they throw an iffy inbound pass. I’ve seen plenty of 5 second violations called, and I’ve seen plenty of timeouts given. It’s almost never the case that the player turns to call the timeout as late as Butler does in the video, and anything else is an imperfect comparison. It’s a huge leap to go from “5 second violations are almost never called”, to “5 second violations are almost never called given this set of events.”
To stick with traffic analogies, it’s like complaining about being pulled over for driving 10 over when people drive 8 over all the time without getting pulled over. At some essentially arbitrary point you cross the line, but exactly where that line is will usually vary for the enforcing individual.
OK
I don’t agree…but it is kind of pointless to go back and forth about it. It was close and Foster chose to call it in a way that is not typically called. That much is true and I really don’t understand the legalists acting like it was a normal call. Correct? Debatable. Against the grain of how calls are given in the NBA? Undeniable. In my humble opinion of course.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
the ambiguity comes in BECAUSE of precedent
the precedent, unfortunately, is that this is a rule that is applied in a horribly non-standardized way. in fact, you could say the 5-second rule might be the most ignored rule in the NBA. the precedent, especially in a late game situation, is that NBA referees are going to give extra time, whether that time is used to inbound after 5 seconds, or call a timeout. NBA players are conditioned to subconsciously know they have extra time, because the referees pretty much always give it to them. To come in in this instance and all of a sudden enforce the letter of the law is what creates ambiguity.
"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave
I think the point Dave was trying to make and that you didn’t really consider here is that in order for refs to be successful they have to be consistent. They can call a game tight, but you have to call it tight for both teams and for all four quarters.
If there isn’t consistency it neuters the players, who on the one hand could take advantage of lax rules if the refs are backing off, but on the other could be whistled for a violation if they aren’t. If they don’t know which to expect then advantage goes to which ever team is luckiest in deciding which plays to take advantage of and that is no way to determine the outcome of games.
So the issue here, for Dave and myself, isn’t whether the call was right to the letter of the law, but whether the players had reasonable and sufficient warning to expect it to be made in that way. In my opinion they did not. In almost all other instances that timeout is granted in situations exactly like the one above.
Just as in the Aldridge block the issue, for me, wasn’t so much whether he got the call right (he didn’t, but refs miss close calls all the time) rather whether he should have been blowing his whistle on a play that couldn’t have been obvious in real time. In those situations, unless they are sure, refs almost never make the call, but he did. If it is common for refs to do that in those situations, maybe it alters how Aldridge plays that shot, i.e. takes his chances with the miss rather than risk the call. And that’s the rub.
Players just need to know what to expect in those situations and for it to be consistent, otherwise calls like this and the Aldridge block are unfair.
by SabasTheHut on Feb 13, 2012 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
the players have “reasonable and sufficient warning” in the form of the NBA rule book.
i keep dancing on my own.
So...then ...question. When a ref calls a 5 second violation ....
…is it actually 5 seconds? I am talking about a legit 5 second call…a tight one ..the way you are advocating…is that actually 5 seconds?
I will answer for you …no…it isn’t. Cause the ref isn’t even using a watch …he is just guessing anyway. So if it isn’t really even a true 5 seconds …what is wrong with a ref granting a TO a fraction of second late (or early …who really knows)?
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
by 92wastheyear on Feb 13, 2012 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
the ref has to trust that his arm motions are accurate, it’s not their fault that they don’t use a stopwatch or whatever.
i keep dancing on my own.
Haha ...trust his arm motions
"What began as a credible protest against bank bailouts, crony capitalism and the like has, in large measure, been hijacked by crazies and criminals,"
by 92wastheyear on Feb 13, 2012 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
He was calling out the count.
It means that Butler and the Coach did not hear him count to 5 before blowing his whistle.
I’ll pay attention to this tonight and see how often it is followed
scrappy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 13, 2012 2:48 PM PST up reply actions
Does the rule book tell you whether the timeout is retroactive to when the player calls it? Or whether the ref need be given sufficient warning to grant it? If so, what constitutes sufficient warning? Does a tie in such a situation go to the player with the ball?
The problem with the rule book argument is that so many parts of that call are left to the ref’s discretion. And if that has to be the case, then precedents do matter and ‘sufficient warning’ cannot be given by the rule book alone. The application and intent of rules matters just as much as the writing alone.
In the end, I guess we have differing perspectives on what the role of a ref should be:
You seem to think they should be rigid and exact (I personally think that is impossible for any human ref to achieve).
I think they should strive for consistency above all else (more attainable).
by SabasTheHut on Feb 13, 2012 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
I agree that striving for consistency is important. However, that’s a larger issue that I don’t think this fanshot was designed to address. The point of this fanshot is to imply that Foster is either incompetent or crooked, otherwise there would be no reason to put something like this on here. This instance does not demonstrate either of those things because it is at worst a violation of custom where custom should be respected (your opinion), and at best a correct application of the rules (my opinion). Even conceding your viewpoint that a call shouldn’t be made there because it isn’t generally made, it’s still very much a garden-variety “close-call” type mistake of which there are dozens in the NBA every night. Many even happen toward the end of games. So why is this one being singled out?
i keep dancing on my own.
Because it almost never is called that way...
that is why people are questioning it. What is Foster’s reason for not awrding that TO? Especially if the discussion had happened that Butler claims happened.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
I concede that it was an unusual call, and the Raps may have reason to feel aggrieved based on custom. But why are we singling out this call on a Blazers blog? There are dozens of questionable calls in the NBA every night. The only reason this discussion is taking place here is to call Scott Foster’s credentials into question, which I don’t think is justified when you stack up one bad call and one unusual call over the course of a week against three consecutive years of being one of the top five crew chiefs in playoff games reffed.
i keep dancing on my own.
Maybe you answered your own question...
If he is considered one of the best officials in the game, that is why people are questioning him. If he was a rookie or a guy known for being a stubborn guy or if the call went against the Lakers, then it would be just another bad call.
I agree there are lots of questionable calls, but the goaltend was a call he essentially overruled two officials with a better view on and this one had a huge impact on deciding the game and is a call people are used to seeing go the other way. I personally just think it is a bad call and nothing more than that, I just disagree with people saying the rule book says something when, in practice, reality is not the rule.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
I don’t know that I would even concede that the call he made was correct via the letter of the law. I don’t couldn’t tell which came first: his five-second countdown or the signal for a time-out by either Casey or Butler.
My point wasn’t to call Foster incompetent or dirty, just to weigh in on the debate of whether any or all rules can or should be interpreted literally. I am not carrying a grudge against Foster (sorry if it seemed that way).
I didn’t even mean to imply that custom should always be respected. I am ok with officials coming together in the offseason (or even the middle of the season) and deciding to apply a rule differently (more strictly, less strictly, more literally, more by the spirit it was intended to be applied, etc.). i just think that if that is the case, they ought to be clear with the players on any such changes. Foster clearly made a call inconsistent with his peers and precedent set by himself and others in all other games prior without (to my knowledge) making it clear that he was going to do that. That’s unfair to the players.
by SabasTheHut on Feb 13, 2012 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What is odd to me is that Butler asks for the 5 count,
he gets it, but still doesn’t call TO in time? Does Foster believe that himself? He seems like a ref that wants to put himself into the middle of games, which is unfortunate.
scrappy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 13, 2012 4:28 AM PST up reply actions
since a ref’s job is to enforce the rules, declining to call a violation is actually what puts the ref in the middle of games.
i keep dancing on my own.
by atomiccafe on Feb 13, 2012 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not in this case.
Declining to call that violation is the standard, not the exception.
by stax o' wax on Feb 13, 2012 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Really he helped the Raptors
they don’t want to win games, they want to lose games and get a high draft pick.
by AR-15 on Feb 12, 2012 10:00 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
It's. Lose to call...
But it was clear that the coach called time at 4 sec, but called it without enthusiasms and looks like that he didn’t even have the refs attention. Therefore the ref probably did not hear him call time out or see it.
The last second was kind of fast though, and Derozan does call it at just about 5 seconds ( quick last second) and should of been granted the time. Clearly it looks like foster had his eyes on derozan.
by Hoi on Feb 13, 2012 12:19 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Technically, so was the recent palming call on LMA -
- the palming call (was it the last Denver game?) that nobody ever calls in that situation (where no advantage is gained.) But just like with this particular call it is never whistled, so it looks suspisciously like a ref is “making a point” rather than ernestly calling the game.
by stax o' wax on Feb 13, 2012 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
As an aside,
The NBA agrees. I love the top youtube result for searching “NBA 5 second violation”, from the NBA’s own youtube channel.
Looks like 5 seconds to me. The in-bounder should have acted a second sooner.
Tough call, but not incorrect.
You're right dave, refs are having a hard time staying healthy..
…karma… where are you?
"just shoot Aldridge. it's not like we're getting easy shots anyway" - by poorwebguy
"that sounds not how you wanted it to sounds....it sounds like Aldridge is a horse with a broken leg" - by bgblazer
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
