Garnett Foul Reveals Illogical Reasoning

Naturally, there was a huge outcry following the offensive foul called on Kevin Garnett that cost the Celtics a chance to tie the game very late in the 4th quarter. Garnett was clearly moving on the off-ball screen but the call was deemed wrong by many, including the likes of Pardon the Interruption’s Mike Wilbon, because of the situation during which the foul occurred.

Apparently, if there are 10 seconds left in the 4th quarter, offensive fouls of this sort are not supposed to be called. The fact that it is uncommon for a moving screen to be called during crunch time justifiably warrants some criticism. It’s like the lane violation that was called during this year’s March Madness that cost the Notre Dame fighting Irish an opportunity to move onto the next round. It doesn’t seem right.

Following the game, Celtics coach Doc Rivers did not deny that Garnett committed a foul. Rather, he pointed to the, supposedly, numerous similar offensive fouls that went uncalled throughout the game. A valid argument.

However, the anger surrounding the Garnett call illustrates a major flaw in our way of thinking. It is the logic across many sports that has more holes in it than a 6-year-old soccer team’s defence. Why humans feel that the rule book should become more lenient as a game moves into its latter and more stressful stages is baffling.

A foul should be a foul no matter what the circumstances may be.

The rule book is there for a reason. It isn’t meant to be enforced only when it so pleases us.

Fans don’t want referees deciding the games but by choosing not to make certain calls they are doing more to affect the game than they ever could if they called the game the way it was designed to be called. A referee making calls in tight, late games does not necessarily mean that they are doing more to determine the outcome of the game than the players.

It goes both ways. Paul Pierce did not get the opportunity to shoot the game tying 3-pointer. On the other hand, if Garnett had not been whistled for blocking much like a good right tackle, Andre Igoudala would have been caught up in the “screen,” unable to come close to challenging the Pierce attempt. Either way, someone gets the short straw. The question is, who deserves it?

Sports society has been brainwashed into believing that there should be 2 different rule books (actually 3 considering that stars are nonsensically assumed to get more calls. But that’s a story for another day). 1 rule book for most of the game and 1 rule book for crunch time. This is the way things are done so we accept the unacceptable. Wouldn’t you like it if your boss was more lenient to you on Fridays?

Life doesn’t work the way. Sports shouldn’t either.

The NHL is the biggest culprit of all the major North American professional sports. The 3rd and overtime periods are an anarchist’s dreams. They tried to change that post-lockout but the 2 rule book mentality is too deeply engrained in sports. The referees have reverted back to their old ways. Not a shocker there. They can’t help themselves.

The referees got the call right in Boston on Monday evening.

I mentioned that Doc Rivers citing the inconsistency of the referees is a point not without merit. The players need to know what they are allowed to do out on the floor. That can’t change from quarter to quarter.

Unfortunately, the legitimacy of Doc’s argument also demonstrates another error in our logic.

Consistency is a large part of being a first-rate referee. In spite of this, consistency is often times given too much worth. People will take consistency no matter what the referee’s interpretation of the rules are. Any way you slice it, it is wrong to think that an MLB umpire giving 3 inches off the plate is alright as long as he is unwavering with his strike zone.

Judging by Doc Rivers’ argument, it would appear as though he would be fine with a moving screen off the ball going uncalled for either team as long as it goes uncalled for the entire game.

Again, the rule book is there for a reason. For some odd reason though, consistency trumps all. Variations and bending of the rules is fine if it is consistent.

Consistency is good. But it should be consistency by the book.

It’s the acceptance of these senseless reasoning’s constructed upon foundations as solid as an Elizabeth Taylor marriage that bothers me most. A change in philosophy should come but that is highly doubtful.

Kevin Garnett’s foul expectedly stirred up a lot of controversy.

Too bad it was for all the wrong reasons.

You can follow me on Twitter @paintstheblack and subscribe to Painting the Black to get the latest posts.

Agree? Disagree? You can also E-mail Chris at cross_can15@hotmail.com or reply in the comments section below.

Advertisements

Shaq’s Health Holds Series in the Balance

Shaquille O'Neal is likely to be dressed sharply again for game 2

If you want to talk x-factor’s, there probably isn’t more of an x-factor than Shaquille O’Neal. They might as well put his picture beside the definition on Urban Dictionary. Then the kids will understand.

Shaq has been struggling with calf problems the past three months and his missed all five Celtic playoff games so far. Even though Shaq scrimmaged on Monday he is considered doubtful for game 2 against the Heat.

There’s an awful lot of fuss over a 39-year-old guy who averaged just over 20 minutes a game this season in 37 games. Too bad for the Celtics there is a good reason behind all the worry.

With all the intriguing position matchups the return of a healthy Shaq could represent a shift in the balance of power. Advantage Boston.

For 20 minutes a game the Heat will have no one that can stand up to the Big Diesel.

The lesser of the two O’Neal’s, Jermaine, has done a decent enough job for a guy who was supposed to be, at best, the third string center on the Celtics. Like Shaq, Jermaine O’Neal could probably also pass off as 39 year’s old out on the court. However, various health issues have taken the explosiveness out of the former perennial all-star.

The extended minutes that Jermaine has been getting are not ideal yet with Nenad Kristic only seeing 5:41 of floor time in game 1, the Celtics are going to need another solid performance from big baby-faced O’Neal.

Solid might not be enough for the Celtics though.

This is where Shaq comes in. His benefit goes far beyond the lane presence he provides. With Ilgauskas or Anthony “clogging” the lane for the Heat, Shaq forces the defence to pay attention to him. He might not have the scoring prowess that he did just two years ago but he still has the ability to take some of the pressure off of his teammates. That ability could be the difference in a game.

No matter which way you spin it, the relief his teammates receive is greater than whatever Jermaine O’Neal can offer.

Shaq even put up 18 points early in the year against the vertically endowed Memphis Grizzlies.

The mind-boggling trade of Kendrick Perkins has put the Celtics in a tough spot. Part of the reasoning behind that trade must have been the confidence in Danny Ainge that they would only face scoring challenged big men. No Dwight Howard, no problem.

I guess that plan hinged on the insurance of a healthy Shaquille O’Neal.

Maybe Danny Ainge was also thinking the lack of quality size in the Eastern Conference should allow Shaquille O’Neal to be enough of a difference maker. That plan still holds water as there is nothing to suggest that Shaq isn’t the man who holds the final key to the series.

Boston’s closing line-up may not feature a true center but if they are constantly having to claw their way back from double-digit deficits it really isn’t too important that their 4th quarter line-up features Big Baby instead of the Big Aristotle.

Doc Rivers says Shaq may be “likely” to play in game 3 at Boston. With the window of opportunity closing in on the original big three they had better hope that the 4-time champion is ready to go by Saturday.

Related: Shaq to the Celtics. Sure, why not?

Agree? Disagree? If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, please feel free to reply in the comments section below. Or you can e-mail me at cross_can15@hotmail.com. Also, follow me on twitter @paintstheblack and I will gladly return the favour.

Subscribe to my blog too and you can get the latest posts such as Bang for the Buck

The Lakers Won? Nope, the Celtics lost

For the rest of time, game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals will be remembered as a LA Laker 83-79 victory over the Boston Celtics. The score sheet will show that Paul Gasol had a double-double, 19 points and 18 rebounds. That Ron Artest poured in 20 points. It will show that despite Kobe’s poor shooting night he was able to come through and muster a large double-double of 23 points and 15 rebounds. Even though the score sheet shows a Laker win, many of the fans who watched the game know in their heart that the Celtics lost.

Throughout last night’s game it was apparent that it was the Celtics game to lose. It’s not too often, especially in these 2010 playoffs, that you see an off night like that from Kobe Bryant. But it wasn’t just Kobe Bryant who had a poor shooting night. Only one player on the Lakers shot over 50% and that was Derek Fisher’s 4-6. I guess that’s what explains the dismal 32.5% shooting. It begs the question though of how in the world is it possible that a team can shoot 32.5% and not be beaten?

The problem for the Boston Celtics was that there were plenty of reasons why they couldn’t beat a team who shot 32.5%.

Shooting. They didn’t exactly shoot the lights out with a 40.8% rate of success from the field. But it wasn’t just poor shooting. It was the inability to get baskets when they had the opportunity to pull away from the Lakers. Time after time Ray Allen was given good looks and was not able to hit. Ever since he broke out with 8 three’s for an NBA finals record he was unable to find his stroke again. There was one instance in particular last night where Ray Allen curled off a screen for a mid-range jumper, caught the ball, but didn’t seem ready to shoot. He wasn’t looking towards the basket when he caught it, so he hesitated. To me it looked like he didn’t want to take the jumper, which is just inexcusable for a guy of his caliber, in a game of that magnitude. There are always so many “what if’s” in big game’s, but what if Ray Allen had just a normal day at the office? Not a great day, just a regular ol’ Thursday at the office.

Bench. I do realize that Rasheed Wallace is a bench player who did a good job in relief of starting center Kendrick Perkins but the fact of the matter is that the bench scored a grand total of 6 points. The only player on the Boston Celtics who got significant minutes off the bench was Glen “Big Baby” Davis who had all 6 of their bench points. I don’t like to be one to second guess a very good coach in Doc Rivers but when his starters weren’t getting it done on the offensive end it seemed like it was time for a change. Part of the problem that was even more evident last night was how compact the offensive zone was for the Celtics. A few things contributed to this. Whenever Rondo had the ball Kobe Bryrant was playing way off of him. For example when Rondo was at the top of the three point line, Kobe Bryant was guarding him at the free throw line. Also, Paul Pierce was unable to shake Ron Artest in isolation situations, which made it so the Lakers did not really have to double team Pierce. Moreover, Ray Allen did not extend the defence like he can because of his inability to make his shots over the last 3 games of the series.

The Celtics needed someone to take the pressure off of Paul Pierce who was relied upon so often, and so often was unable to make something happen. Rajon Rondo did have 14 points and 10 assists but he was pretty much non-existent when he came back into the game with 9 minutes or so left in the 4th quarter. Well, except the big 3 pointer he hit in the last minute of play. I think it would have been a good idea to stick Nate Robinson and Tony Allen to try and change the dynamic of the game. It is pretty much a given that Tony Allen is going to bring energy and toughness into the game. However, with Nate Robinson it is a toss-up but the fact that Kobe Bryant was sagging so much off of Rondo made it almost impossible for the Celtics to do anything. Nate Robinson coming in and actually given a chance to make a play would have hopefully extended the defence and open up space for other teammates.

Rebounding. In each game of these NBA finals whichever team won the rebounding battle was the team that won the game. In game 7, the Celtics weren’t just out-rebounded, they were manhandled. In total the Celtics had a -13 differential on the boards, but the key stat in this was that the Lakers had 23 offensive rebounds to the Celtics 8. Without those offensive rebounds there is no way that the Lakers’ poor shooting would have prevailed. Rasheed Wallace played great defence in the post but constantly was being out-matched on the boards. It wasn’t just the Celtics’ big men though, the smaller players were not gang rebounding. The colour guys on ABC pointed this out a number of times.

Perkins. Now I’m not sure how much Kendrick Perkins absence actually hurt the Celtics to the extent that I thought it would, but what I am sure of is that it couldn’t have helped. Any key player on an NBA team could be the difference in a 4 point game. Another what if, but what if Kendrick Perkins had been good to go in game 7?

Free Throws. The Boston Celtics made it way too easy for the Lakers in the 4th quarter because over and over they were giving them easy buckets at the free throw line. Kobe and Pau alone combined for 28 free throw attempts, but the Lakers were shooting so terribly yesterday that those two also missed 10 freebies. Overall the Lakers shot 37 free throws, 20 more than the Boston Celtics. That’s not going to get it done in the NBA Finals.

On the other hand, it wouldn’t be fair to give the Lakers zero credit for last night’s victory. Ron Artest played outstanding defence the entire night and had to have convinced his critics of his true importance to his team. Ron Artest stood out to me, but you can’t play good defence without all 5 guys on the floor being in sync and the Laker defence was 100% in sync last night. As I somewhat alluded to earlier the Lakers, although bigger, seemed to have more fight for those 50-50 rebounds, which ultimately gave them the opportunity to win.

For all you history buffs out there the Battle of Britain would seem to be a great comparison to yesterday’s game 7. Despite all the thing’s that the British did right, the Germans ultimately lost the Battle for themselves.

This pill will be a hard one to swallow for the Boston Celtics. However, it would be much harder to swallow if they didn’t already have that most important 1st ring from 2008.

%d bloggers like this: