Comments on: Just Another Game, Right?: Lakers 107 – Bucks 106

By: Heard It Through the Grapevine » The Two Man Game

Heard It Through the Grapevine » The Two Man Game — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:19:20 +0000

[...] Sham Sports has come up with a nice nickname for the Milwaukee Bucks’ Ersan Ilyasova (who has been having a terrific season, by the way): Turk Nowitzki. (Link via TrueHoop, Bucksketball) [...]

By: UB

UB — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:09:39 +0000

Jeremy – 24-second shot clock. Bell got an offensive rebound with 32 seconds left, so the Bucks couldn’t take the clock down below 8 (and, in fact, Redd’s last shot was with 8 seconds remaining). If the ball doesn’t hit the rim after a 24-clock violation, the clock is reset to the point of time when the violation happened.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:02:21 +0000

With regard to moving feet, nowhere in the NBA rule book does it say that a players feet have to be stationary in order for a charge to be called. It’s a pretty blurry rule, as are many NBA rules, and that’s why it’s so open to interpretation and argument. I agree that if the Bucks simply hit a few shots it’s all moot, but that doesn’t change the fact that it disappoints me that the NBA is still firmly entrenched in a star system. That only serves as feed for those who think the NBA is rigged.

By: Flippydaze

Flippydaze — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:23:43 +0000

For anyone who actually watched the game… first possession of OT Bynum wraps up and fouls Bogut on the ground, the ball’s around Boguts waist and his back to the basket and they called a shooting foul. Two points. Bad calls go both ways. To be honest, overall, I remember thinking the Bucks were getting more favorable calls most of the night.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:55:51 +0000

I’m a Laker fan, but I have to say this about the foul and continuation heard ’round the world. I believe, completely and with my soul, that Bogut’s feet were not set. I’ve watched it in slow motion and Bogut’s still sliding. That’s a block.

However (how-evah!), the continuation was ridiculous. Kobe got two steps on the spin and gather (legal under the “new” travelling rules) before the contact, but he should not have gotten an extra step (and half?) after the contact. There should have been no continuation.

Having said that, Bucks, make a shot! Make a foul shot! Game’s over if you do that. Skiles, double-team the best player of his generation when there’s less than 5 seconds on the clock. If Artest or Odom make a game winner, you live with it. Just don’t let Kobe Bean Bryant take that shot.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:46:22 +0000

Calling that continuation was pretty laughable. The Bucks did control their own destiny for most part and couldn’t make the play or two they needed to to win the game. For example, with seven seconds left, why not just throw the ball up to the ceiling, by the time it comes back all they’d have to do is tip it and it’d all be done. Why don’t guys ever do this?

By: Alex Boeder

Alex Boeder — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:36:39 +0000

Wish I could take credit for “Turk Nowitzki,” but that’s all ShamSports: http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/playerProfiles/profileDisplay.jsp?id=220

By: UB

UB — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:10:29 +0000

Tough loss. Bucks outplayed the Lakers all game, really. Questionable officiating aside, they still controlled the outcome of the game with the ball in their hands, more than once. If one more late jumper (or FT) falls, game over.

Surprising to see Mbah a Moute sit basically the entire 4th Q and OT. Against a team with length like the Lakers, you’d think the Bucks’d want a guy like Luc who can match that somewhat.

Question – even if the call on Bryant was theoretically correct, shouldn’t it be 2 shots, not continuation? I get that if they’re going to call a block, then it’s not a travel, because that contact happens first. But even if a player’s “going into his shooting motion,” there has to be some limit on what he can do from that point, no?