Blown Call? Frank Vogel Angry

[JBKB]

Were the old referees fatigued and just wanted to end the game? Every time the NBA Pacers seemed to have no chance, they would fight right back against the Jazz. In fact, there was a high chance for a 2nd overtime, until the referees cheated!

Jazz were leading 112 to 110, with only a few seconds left. As Paul Millsap inbounded the ball, THE BALL HIT the side of the backboard. Since this is a clear violation to the rules, Jazz were supposed to lose possession. When the referees ignored the rule, Frank Vogel got extremely heated and yelled at the referees, delaying the game a bit! However, the referees decided to ignore the violation and let the Jazz keep possession of the ball. Instead of the Pacers having a chance to tie the game and start a 2nd overtime, the Jazz go on to win 114 to 110.

For those hardcore fans who want the rule, here you go, SECTION III The Throw-in:


"A throw-in which touches the floor, or any object on or outside the boundary line, or touches anything above the playing surface is a violation. The ball must be thrown directly inbounds."

PENALTY: Violation of this rule is loss of possession, and the ball must be inbounded at the previous spot of the throw-in."

NBA TV analysts were confused at first, but later believed the referees made the right call by quoting this rule:

Five sides of the backboard (front, two sides, bottom and top) are considered in play when contacted by the basketball. The back of the backboard and the area directly behind it are out-of-bounds.

As you see, there seems to be contradiction between the two rules. HOWEVER since the inbound pass was a THROW-IN, the referees should have placed greater weight on the THROW-IN rule.

I'm assuming Frank Vogel is intelligent and knows the rules of basketball. Therefore, Frank Vogel was most likely angry because of the violation of the THROW-IN rule that went ignored.

I am very surprised NBA TV did not also quote the THROW-IN rule to shed light on why Frank Vogel was most likely furious.

[Ron]

They didn't "cheat."

Ensure the titles of your threads are not misleading.

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by Ron

They didn't "cheat."

Ensure the titles of your threads are not misleading.

The referee's job is to officiate according to the official rules. They ignored the Throw-in rule that I sourced straight from the NBA. The referee's decision to ignore an official NBA rule isn't cheating? : )

[-James-]

They didn't blow the call.

[Cinco de Mayo]

This is someone's joke account, right?

[bamma]

Originally Posted by JBKB

Were the old referees fatigued and just wanted to end the game? Every time the NBA Pacers seemed to have no chance, they would fight right back against the Jazz. In fact, there was a high chance for a 2nd overtime, until the referees cheated!

Jazz were leading 112 to 110, with only a few seconds left. As Paul Millsap inbounded the ball, THE BALL HIT the side of the backboard. Since this is a clear violation to the rules, Jazz were supposed to lose possession. When the referees ignored the rule, Frank Vogel got extremely heated and yelled at the referees, delaying the game a bit! However, the referees decided to ignore the violation and let the Jazz keep possession of the ball. Instead of the Pacers having a chance to tie the game and start a 2nd overtime, the Jazz go on to win 114 to 110.

For those hardcore fans who want the rule, here you go, SECTION III The Throw-in:


"A throw-in which touches the floor, or any object on or outside the boundary line, or touches anything above the playing surface is a violation. The ball must be thrown directly inbounds."

PENALTY: Violation of this rule is loss of possession, and the ball must be inbounded at the previous spot of the throw-in."

NBA TV analysts were confused at first, but later believed the referees made the right call by quoting this rule:

Five sides of the backboard (front, two sides, bottom and top) are considered in play when contacted by the basketball. The back of the backboard and the area directly behind it are out-of-bounds.

As you see, there seems to be contradiction between the two rules. HOWEVER since the inbound pass was a THROW-IN, the referees should have placed greater weight on the THROW-IN rule.

I'm assuming Frank Vogel is intelligent and knows the rules of basketball. Therefore, Frank Vogel was most likely angry because of the violation of the THROW-IN rule that went ignored.

I am very surprised NBA TV did not also quote the THROW-IN rule to shed light on why Frank Vogel was most likely furious.

You really need to learn to read and understand what you are reading before you rant. The ball hit the side of the backboard. The side of the backboard is not "on or outside the boundary line", it is inside it, as the side of the backboard is in play. It is also not above the playing surface, it is part of the playing surface.

[Gonzo]

Does anyone have a youtube clip of this play in question?

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Cinco de Mayo

This is someone's joke account, right?

Apparently not. I've already checked.

The dude is real, believe it or not.

[Jamel Irief]

Originally Posted by Ron

They didn't "cheat."

Ensure the titles of your threads are not misleading.

Thank you.

I entered this thread expecting a salacious cheat saga.

[Pacers Fan]

Actually, I was a bit skeptical about this call. The ball seemed to hit that corner part right between the side and underside of the backboard. It seems to me that that could be "on the boundary line." Furthermore, if the ball is not allowed to "touch anything above the playing surface," does that make anything above the court (the scoreboard for example) out of bounds? I mean, it says that the ball must be thrown directly inbounds. That was not directly inbounds.

I'm sure the NBA will side with the officials, but it's a really vague rule and they'll probably look into more clearly defining it after this mishap.

Regardless, that was a tough loss.

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by bamma

You really need to learn to read and understand what you are reading before you rant. The ball hit the side of the backboard. The side of the backboard is not "on or outside the boundary line", it is inside it, as the side of the backboard is in play. It is also not above the playing surface, it is part of the playing surface.

Your very first post? lol Well welcome to the forums! We do have an "introduce yourself" thread just in case you may have not noticed it.

Anyway, I provided a direct source regarding the Throw-in rule. The referees violated the rule.

Now, where is your source? According to you, the side of the backboard is part of the playing surface, and is not on or outside the boudary line, nor above the playing surface. Where is your source?

The referees clearly violated the Throw-in rule, as the ball must be thrown DIRECTLY INBOUNDS.

This may be a bit extreme, but hypothetically, if this matter could be taken to court and the referees are tried, lawyers would read the rulebook and have NO difficulty convincing the judge that the referees were at fault.

[Dornado]

He doesn't need a source, he's using yours.

[Jamel Irief]

His English is good and I think he really believes what he writes. You're cool with me, JBKB.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

[Hyperion]

I think you are confused with boundary lines. The side of the backboard is considered part of the court just as the front of the backboard is. A player can roll the ball inbounds, delaying the start of the game clock until he touches it. This is completely legal. So is throwing a pass from under the opponents hoop to your team's backboard and into a player's hands.

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

His English is good and I think he really believes what he writes. You're cool with me, JBKB.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

lol Thanks! Yes, I believe what I write, but I don't believe my English is good. English grammar is probably a more difficult task than surgery! I say that because there are more surgeons than people who know good English, yet there are more English speakers than there are surgeons. : ) lol