|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24761
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:36 pm Post subject: Sacramento Kings filed protest after controversial loss to Memphis Grizzlies |
|
|
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/16/kings-filed-protest-after-controversial-loss-to-grizzlies/
| Quote: | Kings filed protest after controversial loss to Grizzlies
The Kings lost a heart-breaker in Memphis on Thursday, after Vince Carter found Courtney Lee for an alley-oop reverse layup that the referees ruled was made before the final buzzer sounded.
But Sacramento didn’t see it that way.
Not only do the Kings believe that the shot should have been waved off due to there being only three tenths of a second remaining before the inbounds pass (meaning there couldn’t have been enough time for Lee to catch and shoot the way that he did), but they also think that the pass was tipped by Ryan Hollins before it landed in Lee’s hands.
If the ball was tipped, time would have expired, and the Kings would have come away with the victory.
Because there are two separate instances here where Sacramento feels it was wronged, the organization has filed a protest with the league office.
From Bill Herenda of CSN Bay Area:
Kings GM Pete D’Alessandro confirmed to Comcast SportsNet CA Kings filed protest regarding Memphis game & “feels strongly” about it
And from Sam Amick of USA Today:
Kings protested result based on alleged Ryan Hollins tip AND claim that Lee didn’t get shot off in time. No verdict yet from the NBA.
Unlikely they win, but Kings are pushing the protest – which costs $10k to do – out of principle, if nothing else.
Speaking of principle, that’s as good a reason as any for the NBA to deny the protest. Not only did the Kings blow a 26-point lead, but they hit two extremely low-percentage shots during the contest, as well. Enough went Sacramento’s way in this one; despite the controversial ending, the Kings have only themselves to blame for this loss.
The NBA last granted a protest back in 2008, but the circumstances were far less subjective than they are in this particular case.
The Heat protested the game because, with 51.9 seconds remaining in overtime, the Hawks’ scoring table personnel incorrectly disqualified the Heat’s Shaquille O’Neal – asserting that a foul committed by O’Neal was his sixth foul of the game, when in fact it was only his fifth. The error occurred because the Hawks’ Official Scorer mistakenly attributed to O’Neal a foul at 3:24 remaining in the fourth period that was actually called against the Heat’s Udonis Haslem.
NBA Commissioner David Stern found that the Hawks were grossly negligent in committing this scoring error, since they failed to follow league-mandated scoring procedures and failed to respond effectively when the members of the statisticians’ crew noticed the mistake. Because of this conduct by Atlanta’s personnel, Miami suffered a clear competitive disadvantage, as O’Neal – the Heat’s second leading scorer and rebounder that night – was removed from a one-point game with only 51.9 seconds remaining. Under this unprecedented set of circumstances, the Commissioner granted the Heat’s protest, and fined the Hawks $50,000 for their violation of league rules.
The result was a double-header of sorts two months later, where those final 51.9 seconds were replayed before a full game was played afterward as scheduled The irony, of course, is that O’Neal wasn’t even involved, because he had been traded to Phoenix before the replayed contest took place.
It would be difficult to see how the league could rule in the Kings’ favor here. There doesn’t appear to have been a similar level of “gross negligence” by anyone in Memphis, and the video evidence seems inconclusive, at best. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23899
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think they have a valid complaint that the ball was tipped but there's no way the league is going to overturn the outcome based on a judgment call.
They have no valid argument with the 0.3 other than that. Lee got that shot off within the 0.3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, after seeing the video evidence analyzed by CBS's expert, I'd have to say that the ball was most likely tipped. But how can the league overturn it? Were the referees wrong to say that the video evidence is not "clear and conclusive"? If it takes a video expert to make a case for the Kings, then I'd say the evidence was not clear and conclusive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24761
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/17/kings-protest-loss-to-grizzlies-on-courtney-lee-buzzer-beater/
| Quote: | NBA will hear Kings’ protest of loss to Grizzlies on Courtney Lee buzzer-beater
The Kings beat the Grizzlies, 111-110, last Thursday.
For now.
Memphis guard Courtney Lee made a layup on a play that began with 0.3 seconds remaining, but Sacramento center Ryan Hollins might have tipped the inbound pass, which would have started the clock and led to the game expiring before Lee’s attempt.
Also at issue, even if Hollins didn’t touch the ball, Lee might have held the ball for longer than 0.3 seconds.
So, the Kings want the NBA to take a second look.
NBA release:
The National Basketball Association announced today that the Sacramento Kings have protested the team’s 111-110 loss to the Memphis Grizzlies on November 13 at FedExForum. The basis for the Kings’ protest is that Courtney Lee’s game-winning shot should have been disqualified as having been made after time expired. Under the protest procedures in the NBA Constitution, Memphis and Sacramento each will have an opportunity to submit evidence in support of its position and the protest will be decided by December 2.
I’m not sure why it could take so long to get a verdict. The Kings had to submit their protest within 48 hours of the game, and the NBA constitution states:
Upon receipt of a protest, the Commissioner shall at once notify the Member operating the opposing Team in the game protested and require both of said Members within five (5) days to file with him such evidence as he may desire bearing upon the issue. The Commissioner shall decide the question raised within five (5) days after receipt of such evidence.
It seems the league is giving itself an extra week, but if the Kings get the win (and the their $10,000 protest fee – kept by the league if the current ruling is upheld – returned), I don’t think they’ll mind the wait.
But Sacramento could have a tough time here. The play was reviewed and upheld. Unless the NBA finds something went amiss in the review process, rather than just the review result, it’s tough to see the Kings winning their protest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those replayed endings are among the very rarest occurrences in the NBA. There was one between the Hawks and Heat in 2006, iirc (correction: 2008) and I think it was because of some mess up in the number of fouls a player had (correction: article says it was, Shaq had 5 fouls and the scorer's table had him with 6).
The last one before that was the Lakers and Spurs on 11/30/82. We won that game, but the league overturned it because Norm Nixon faked the release of a FT and players poured into the lane. The refs gave it out of bounds to LA, who were 2 points down. The reasoning was that Spurs players entered the lane before the release, so it was a lane violation on them even though a Laker bit on it as well. Then, the Lakers had a chance to tie the game on an inbounds pass, which did happen. Magic found Norm and he hit about a 16 footer to tie the game, Chick went GOOOOOOOOOD!!!! and we eventually won in OT.
League didn't like that finish, they felt it broke the spirit of the rules because it punished the Spurs for what they felt was an intentional ploy by Nixon to cause a lane violation. Chick went over it thoroughly and found that the official rule book and the separate CASE BOOK -- an expanded explanation of the rulebook -- clearly conflicted on what to call in that situation (back then there were TWO books going over the rules). The refs actually went by the letter of the official rulebook and the league went with the other book. So what happened was, we won the gm on 11/30/82 and it was overturned and they rescheduled 1.* seconds on their next trip to SA on 4/13/83. Norm was put back on the line with everyone in the same positions on the sides of the lane and all they could do was to try to tip in an intentional miss. It didn't work. We lost that one and then the full game right afterwards. Two in one night... The replay was anti-climactic. He tried to bounce it off the glass within Kareem's reach because, back then, they were allowed to just hit the glass instead of the rim, but it bounced too hard and the ball went awry. Chick said, "We waited 5 months for that?!..."
The previous instance to that was in 1974, iirc. I read about it a long time ago, but the details totally escape me. Long story short, 3 times since the 70s.
The Nuggz protested against the Lakers' win in Denver on 2/25/04 because the refs didn't give Denver the ball back in the final secs after Melo barely grazed the rim as the 24 sec clock sounded (a Nugget, probably Maybyner Hilario, rebounded it and they took their possession away). Then Kareem Rush (really) hit a 3 to give us a 112-111 win. The league tried to coddle all the upset anti-Laker fans by requiring that the newest guy on the ref team be retrained. His name was Michael Henderson. It was an unprecedented move and the other refs around the league wore their shirts inside out the next night in protest. The mandate fell thru tho, but I don't think Mike Henderson is in the league anymore. Must've been basketball reasons that those rats felt scared enough to react that way just because it happened to be the Lakers who won on a missed call. The ball barely grazed the rim to the point that you needed multiple replays to decide what happened and everyone still screamed bloody murder. Very easy to miss that call in real-time.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nevitt_smrek
Star Player
Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 2803
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
That reverse layup is categorized as an allowable tip in 0.3? Is it because it's not a full shooting motion?
_________________
Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23899
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nevitt_smrek wrote: | | That reverse layup is categorized as an allowable tip in 0.3? Is it because it's not a full shooting motion? |
You can camp at the 3 point line and take a full shot with 0.3. An alley oop layup counts easily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JaySole
Sixth Man
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Posts: 68
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kings have very valid points. I think it should be overturned since it was the last second which effected the outcome of the game. Memphis is like 10-1 anyways lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24761
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/28/nba-denies-kings-protest/
| Quote: | NBA denies Kings’ protest
The Kings protested their loss to the Grizzlies on Courtney Lee’s buzzer-beating layup.
Today, Adam Silver gave his verdict.
NBA release:
The National Basketball Association announced today that Commissioner Adam Silver has denied the Sacramento Kings’ protest of their 111-110 loss to the Memphis Grizzlies on November 13, 2014.
The basis for the Kings’ protest was that Courtney Lee’s game-winning shot should have been disqualified as having been made after time expired. Under league procedures, each team has an opportunity to make submissions in support of its position, and the protesting team is required to establish a misapplication of the official playing rules that had a clear impact on the game’s outcome.
The Commissioner determined that the game officials’ call that Lee’s shot was timely was within their judgment and not a misapplication of the playing rules. Sacramento’s protest therefore did not justify the extraordinary remedy of overturning the game’s result.
Key words: “extraordinary remedy.”
The referees might have missed the call – either because Ryan Hollins tipped the inbounds pass or Lee held the ball longer than 0.3 seconds – but everyone followed proper protocol. The referees made the call, and the review center upheld it. Any errors weren’t due to “a misapplication of the official playing rules.”
Protests, as frustrating as it is, aren’t designed to get the call right. They’re designed to ensure procedures were followed, whether or not the result was correct.
The procedures were followed here, and that’s why the Kings lost (again). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
