Syfo-Dyas wrote: AHF wrote: Syfo-Dyas wrote:
I never said anything about Steve Nash. Clearly I said the it was a foul on Camby. Obviously you have reading problems.
The call was terribly butchered. Any foul was suspect (that level of contact off the ball is routine) but sending Nash
to the line was the big problem.
Good gracious, if I have reading problems, I hope you don't apply the same critical eye and personal nature to your self-examination when you view that clip and somehow come away thinking the problem somehow didn't involve Steve Nash.
That is like watching this clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlFMT88acHw
And saying that Wade had good defensive position.
If you don't have reading problems, than you have something else, since you are the only one talking about Nash.
That the call was butchered is your opinion.
I dont know much about NBA rules, but as an outsider, I think it was too much contact.
So it seemed like it was a foul.
End of basketball.
Back to baseball.
You continue to insist it was a good foul and this materially misses the point. The main point was that the foul called involved Steve Nash being sent to the line. Nash was the focal point. Nash is not a 6'8'' black man but he is about the best free throw shooter in NBA history. I'm not sure how you are missing here that the focus is on Crawford insisting Nash go to the line.
Here are excerpts from the clip that should have clued you in that Nash's role was important:
* 0:00 Title has Nash's name in all caps and large font
* 0:16 The video is paused and Nash's name appears under him and he is highlighted (Hill's name does not)
* 0:25 Foul is called and Nash is again highlighted and his name appears (Hill's name does not)
* 0:46 The announcer says the foul must be on someone other than Camby because Camby's wasn't guarding Nash
* 0:53 Nash says he should not be going to the line and Crawford commands him to go to the line because he was the guy fouled; the announcers note that Nash didn't think he should be shooting.
* 1:26 The announcers again question how Nash could be on the line if the foul involved Camby
* 1:40 The announcers point out that Nash is a >90% free throw shooter and say he shouldn't have been shooting (Nash led the league in free throw shooting that season and shot more than 12% better than Hill)
I'm not sure how anyone could watch that and concluded that Nash's involvement was so insignificant to the call that it isn't worth discussing.
There are reasons to gripe about that foul in the playoffs given how ordinary the contact is but there are always plays like that. What makes that play stand out is that:
(1) Nash is sent to the line by Crawford even though he wasn't near where the "foul" was committed.
(2) Nash said he shouldn't be going to the line.
(3) Crawford orders him to the line anyway even though this is clearly an error.
The refs job isn't simply to recognize contact. It also extends to calling the foul on the right player and sending the right player to the line. Sometimes this is difficult. The last part (sending the right player to the line) was quite easy and the player benefiting from this suspect call found it so outrageous that he wasn't even willing to just go with the flow but had to be told to go to the line anyway.
* * * *
On the baseball issue here, I frankly like your suggestion to have a signal to the umpire on balls and strikes (no Eric Gregg situations) as well as jfg's suggestion to have a member of the crew off the field who reviews and gives the decision rather than having the crew put in the position of second guessing their own decision in a procedurally slow and awkward manner.