Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Period 3- Basketball

Due Date: Wednesday, May 18th




As we are wrapping up and 3 on 3 unit, I thought it would be a good idea to start taking a look the NBA play-offs, since 5 on 5 will be our next unit.  As a player and Coach, I often question officiating.  Please read the article below and answer the following questions.

The insane details of the best 13.5 seconds of the NBA playoffs





SAN ANTONIO – Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinal series between the San Antonio Spurs and Oklahoma City Thunder was possibly the best game so far during the NBA playoffs – with the Thunder emerging with a 98-97 win Monday night to even the series at a game apiece – but the only thing anyone will be talking about Tuesday is the wild final 13.5 seconds.
It was a memorable sequence for a variety of reasons – one that included several possible violations and fouls, none of which were called. And, in a strange twist that basically didn’t matter, San Antonio got a chance to take the lead in the final moments.
Here’s how those final seconds played out, including thoughts from virtually everyone involved in the play, which you can see in its entirety below:

13.5 seconds left
After LaMarcus Aldridge was fouled by Serge Ibaka on a three-pointer and made all three free throws to pull San Antonio within 98-97, the Thunder called its final timeout. Coach Billy Donovan had Dion Waiters inbound the ball on the sideline.
As referee Marc Davis handed Waiters the ball and began counting off five seconds, Waiters knew, with no timeouts left, that he had to get the ball inbounds.
“Man, to be honest with you, I was caught up in the game,” Waiters said. “I don’t really know what happened, to be honest with you.
“My whole thing was trying to get the ball in there with no timeouts.”
As Waiters moved perilously close to committing a five-second infraction, he appeared to panic. First, he used his arm to push Manu Ginobili, who was defending him on the play, away from him to create enough space to inbound the ball.

“I was trying to rip the ball, and he kind of created room with his elbow,” Ginobili said. “But things happen. It’s a very awkward play, doesn’t happen very often, so I guess they didn’t see it.
“I don’t know what it is, to tell you the truth, what type of violation it is. It had to be something.”
It turned out to be something, as crew chief Ken Mauer said to a pool reporter after Monday’s game that Waiters had committed an offensive foul on the play, and the ball should’ve been given to San Antonio.
“On the floor we did not see a foul on the play,” Mauer said. “However, upon review, we realize and we agree we should have [called] an offensive foul on the play. It’s a play we’ve never seen before, ever. We should have had an offensive foul on the play.”
Waiters then committed a second violation – he jumped in the air to make the pass, which an inbounder is not allowed to do.

Waiters contended that Ginobili had committed his own violation: stepping over the out-of-bounds line.
“I didn’t really get a look at it,” Waiters said. “But hopefully they’re going to look at it and they’ll see he stepped out and it should’ve been a tech, too, but it’s not up to me.
“If you go look at it, you’ll see. It should’ve been a tech and the ball back. But when they go look at it and they’ll figure it out, and they’ll see the truth, it’s a play on.”
What was unclear was whether Ginobili stepped over the line (he appeared to step on it, which is apparently allowed, but not over it, which is not). And it’s also unclear if Ginobili gave Waiters enough room to inbound the ball.
12.9 seconds left
Waiters eventually lobbed the ball into Kevin Durant at center court – where he was being guarded by Spurs guard Danny Green. For some reason, though, the game clock started before anyone touched the ball, meaning an extra half-second went off before Durant’s hands got on it.
“I thought maybe they would call something [on Waiters],” Green said. “I wasn’t sure. I was trying to see where he was going, I tried to deny. [Then] I thought maybe he would call timeout, and I was just at that one point, once you deny, I was trying to play safety.
“I could see where [Waiters] was looking, and I thought maybe we would’ve got a call, but we didn’t. But he threw it up, and I just went to try to go get it.”
As Durant fell to the ground, it appeared Green may have gotten a piece of him as he poked the ball away. But after Green hesitated for a moment — only to realize nothing was going to be called — he immediately began to seek an opportunity to press his advantage.
10 seconds left
Once Green had the ball, he saw two people ahead of him — Thunder center Steven Adams and Spurs guard Patty Mills. Green tried to loop the ball over Adams’s head to Mills, but his pass was long, forcing Mills to almost go under the basket to catch it. On top of that, Green had missed Ginobili streaking past him on his right. If he had seen him, it would’ve resulted in a simple 2-on-1 and a likely layup for the Spurs.
“I saw Adams in front of me. I didn’t know if they called [a foul] or not, but I wanted to make sure I got the ball first,” Green said. “But I saw Adams in front of me, I saw Patty, and [Adams] is a big body so I just tried to throw it over top of him.
“It was a lofty pass, it wasn’t a good one, and it took some time to get there, but I didn’t have a chance to see who was to the right of me, and it was Manu.”
Eight seconds left
After Mills wound up with the ball under the basket, he swung it over to Ginobili, who had run past Green and back into the play. From there, Ginobili dribbled into the lane — where Adams was there again, standing between Ginobili and the basket.
“We were just trying to inbound it and then it was just a scramble, mate,” Adams said. “I just tried to do the best I could.
“The team did, scrambling, and contest everything. We got lucky. We got really lucky.”
So Ginobili, in typical dramatic fashion, flipped a pass over his head right to Mills, who had hustled to the corner, for what appeared to be a wide-open three-pointer.

“[Patty] threw it to me, and I didn’t think I had an open look, so I just tried to bait towards the middle to let Patty get to the corner,” Ginobili said.
But Adams, making yet another absolutely spectacular play, raced across the court, leaped in the air and contested Mills’s shot — causing it to fall well short of the hoop.
“I don’t know, man,” Adams said when asked if he affected Mills’s shot. “I saw the pass and did my best to contest it. I don’t know if I influenced his shot, but I’ll take it.”
Three seconds left
This is where the real insanity begins.
As Mills’s shot fell short, a battle broke out under the basket, with players from both teams descending on the rim to get their hands on the ball. Thunder forward Serge Ibaka found himself between both Kawhi Leonard and LaMarcus Aldridge, and was doing whatever he could to keep either one of them from grabbing a loose ball for a potential game-winning offensive rebound and putback.
“I knew it was the last minute, and I had to give everything I had,” Ibaka said. “I had to give everything I had for my team, you know?
“I knew it was very important, so I got up against Leonard. .. I had to choose which one and so I bumped him a little bit, and when I saw Leonard had the ball, I tried to tip the ball and go Aldridge’s way.”

What Ibaka actually did, as the above picture shows, was grab Aldridge’s jersey and nearly rip it off his body. He basically never let go, as Aldridge tried to corral the ball and go back up with it, ensuring Aldridge — who finished with 41 points — never had a real chance to make a game-winning basket.
“I thought I had the ball,” Aldridge said. “I thought [Ibaka] had a good chunk of my jersey. I thought there were some things happening that maybe shouldn’t have happened.
“But it’s over now. You can’t keep harping on it.”
“Those are the kind of plays, you have to make them nasty,” Ibaka said. “You have to make them nasty, to do whatever it takes to get a win.”
Meanwhile, Adams found himself in another situation when, after barreling past Mills to contest his three-point attempt, he had his arm held by a fan as he tried to climb back onto the court and potentially get back into the action.

To be fair, it looked like a woman Adams ran over as he contested the shot was simply trying to get back on her feet. But it wound up being a fitting final moment to what was an insane final 13.5 seconds of Game 2.
For all of the potential controversy about the result, however, one thing isn’t changing: the Thunder came away with the victory, and despite the no-calls on both sides, the Spurs still had their chances to win the game.
“It’s not the play that decided anything,” Ginobili said, “because we got the steal, we got the shot, we got an offensive rebound.
“It doesn’t matter, and it’s over. I’m not going to be able to change it. Nobody’s going to change it. We’ve got to try to go to [Oklahoma City] and try to win a game.”
That may be true. But it won’t stop the next three days from being an endless debate about the merits of these final seconds of Game 2, and how everything on all sides — from the way both teams played it to how the referees called it — was handled from start to finish.



1.  After watching the video.  What do you think the call should have been? Violation on the inbounder or the defense?


2. Why?

3.  Do you think officiating alone causes team to win or loss? Why?

4. Which team won the game?




29 comments:

Anonymous said...

1. I believe the call should've been a foul on Waiters but at the same time Ginobili stepped on the out of bounds line meaning that was a violation on the Spurs.
2. It should've been a foul on Waiters because of the shove he gave Ginobili.
3. I do not think the officiating caused a team to win or lose because after the inbound the Spurs had multiple chances to put the ball in the basket.
4. The Oklahoma City Thunder won the game.

Supreme Velazquez

Anonymous said...

Luke Russell

1. Dion Waiters (offence) should have been called for an inbound violation or offensive foul.
2. Because Waiters seemed to have pushed Ginobli, who flopped convincingly, to create space to get the ball in and avoid the five second violation. Also, Waiters jumped in the air to make the pass, crossing the sideline, which is also a violation.
3. Most of the time, bad passes, turnovers, and fouls to key players contribute to losses, but the Refs need to be sure to call the game fairly and not miss big fouls, such as Ibaka grabbing Aldridge, or make bogus calls or miss calls.
4. Thunder won

Anonymous said...

Ben Blutstein
Period 3
1. I think it should have been a violation on the inbounder
2. It should have been a violation because he pushed the defender out of the way while inbounding and he also jumped in the air to make the pass which are both violations.
3. No, because both teams had an opportunity to win the game and San Antonio could have still lost even if the offensive foul on the Thunder was called.
4. The Oklahoma City Thunder beat the San Antonio Spurs, 98 - 97.

Anonymous said...

1) It should be a violation on the defense.
2) I think this because Ginobli didn't give Waiters enough room and he stepped out of bounds, this caused Waiters to frantically elbow him. Therefore, since Ginobli had the first violation that provoked the next one, a foul should have been called on the defense.
3)Officiating doesn't cause a team a win or loss, that is determined by the how the players play, but it does impact the opportunity given to each team and ultimately have a minor impact on the outcome.
4) Thunder won, that is what the board says and no matter what happens on the court or with the refs, the board says who wins, and it read Thunder.

Gelila Yimam period 3

Anonymous said...

Ethan Cohen
1. Defense
2. It looked like he was trying to draw contact and may have been a flop. Also his foot was on the line
3. Yes, if a travel or something else is missed, it could cause a team a possible possession needed to tie or win the game
4. Okc thunder

Unknown said...

1 defense
2 it looked like he flopped and his foot was on the line
3 yes if a travel is missed that could cause an opposing team a chance to tie or win
4 okc thunder

Anonymous said...

1. I think it should have been a violation on the defense
2.ginobili was too close to the inbounder
3. I think officiating is a factor but it doesn't cause losses. Teams have many chances to play well
4. Thunder

Costa Borsas

Hannah Johnston said...

1. i think the call should have been on the inbounder

2. I think this because in the video i didn't see Manu Ginobli step over the line. the inbounder broke multiple rules by pushing the defender and jumping to throw the ball.

3. I think that the officiating could have changed the game however calls don't always go in your favor and you have to work with every opportunity you are given and not waste any opportunities.

4. The Oklahoma City Thunder won the game.

Hannah Johnston

Anonymous said...

1. It should be a violation on the inbounder
2. The inbound isn't allowed to make contact with the defender
3. I think officiating can play a big part in who wins or loses, especially in close games like this one. One bad call and the other team can capitalize and seal the game.
4. The Thunder won

Derrick Daoust

Anonymous said...

1. Yes
2.because he illegally touched manu
3.no the Spurs lost themselves the game no one else
4.The thunder won
Shiva Choudhary
Shiva

Anonymous said...

Alex Zhang
1.Violation on the defense
2. Because the defender was on the inbounder
3. Yes because without the free throws Oklahoma should won
4. Spurs

Anonymous said...

Luke Russell
1. Violation Dion Waiters
2. He crossed the sideline while inbounding the ball
3. People don't pay to watch the refs blow whistles. Refs should let the players play and call only obvious fouls to keep the game flowing.
4. Thunder won the game

Unknown said...

1) the defense
2) ginobli was out of bounds guarding waiters. He should have gotten called for that and it occurred before he pushed Waiters
3)Yes, all playoff teams are somewhat capable of winning, skewed refs can cause one team to get a serious advantage
4)OKC
Eric Liu

Anonymous said...

There should have been a call on the play for a violation on the in bounder and a foul on the baseline for grabbing his jersey

there was a foul on the play and the refs should have called it

yes it can because if there was a call then the spurs could have won that game

OKC Thunder

Zachary Nannen

Anonymous said...

1. It could have been either but definitely a fould. I would call it on the offense and waiters

2.I would say because waiters initiated the contact it should be called on him

3. I think officiating alone can definitlely cause a team to win or lose in a close game because they are so close that anything really can change the outcome

4. The Thunder won the game

Anonymous said...

1. On the defense
2. Because Waiters fouled his defender and he jumped to inbound the ball, both of which should have granted the Spurs possession
3.No, while it may affect a few plays, it still depends on which team scores more
4. Thunder won

Nick Bien

Anonymous said...

1 and 2After watching the video I believe there should have been a violation on Waiters so it would be Spurs ball.
3. I believe you can not lose a game on the officials part if they are bad just try your hardest to beat the other team
4. The thunder won the game
Garrett

Anonymous said...

Young Cho
1.it should of been a violation the inbounder
2.He elbowed the defender
3.yes because one wrong call can make a difference in the game
4. OKC

Unknown said...

Gabriel Barnaby
1. The defense
2. Because he was out of bounds before the offensive foul so the refs missed that
3. Yes, because if they called a foul on Waiters then the Spurs might have won.
4. OKC

Anonymous said...

1. Violation on the inbounder
2.Because Dion hit Manu with an elbow to create space to inbound the ball
3.It causes them to lose. Because last minute calls are usually most critically.
4.OKC Thunder
Egid Mills

Anonymous said...

1. Foul on the inbounder
2. Because he elbowed him when he was out of bounds
3. No they could've put themselves in a better position to win
4. OKC
JOHN BILLINGSLEY

Anonymous said...

1. The foul should have been against Dion Waiters and called an offensive foul, violation on the inbounder.
2. Why? Because you do not just elbow defenders in basketball. If that would have happened on any other part of the court or part in the game, it would have been a clear foul!
3. (The question is kind of confusing. BUT) If you mean officiating by one's self, then absolutely! The NBA needs to use their instant replay center. They spent all this money on the dang replay center, it was well in the last part of the game and if they were not sure about the call, then they should have reviewed it! Just like how they review flagrant foul calls between being and Flagrant 1 or Flagrant 2!
4. The Thunder won! (sadly)

Nick John P-3

Claudio Pachano said...

1. Violation on inbounder

2. Because Dion Waters elbows Manu Ginobili to create space

3. No, it can make a difference but it doesn't determine the final outcome

4. OKC WON


Andrew Bullis said...

1. Inbounder

2. because Dion elbowed Manu to create space

3. Yea because if effected the outcome

4. OKC

Anonymous said...

1) inbounder
2) he shoved defender
3) no both teams had chances to score
4) okc



dane meddings

Anonymous said...

1. The call should definitely be a foul on the inbounder.
2. I feel this way because he essentially shoved Ginobli out of the way to get the mall in.
3. I think officiating SOMETIMES causes a team to win or lose, because they make the most critical calls that can turn the outcome of a game around as fast as lightning.
4. OKC Won the game

-Brett Godsick

Anonymous said...


1. I believe the call should've been a foul on Waiters because he pushed Ginobli, which actually may warrant a flagrant or a technical
2. It should've been a foul on Waiters due to the unnesasary contact and the illegal move
3. I do think the ref can decide a game between two evenly matched teams, for if the ref doesn't see some fouls late in a game it could very well swing the difference to the other team
4. Thunder Won it

Nima kaffi

Unknown said...

1. It should have been a violation on the inbounder
2.It is a violation as he elbowed him to create space to inbound the ball.
3.Yes, as one call in the game can change the whole outcome.
4.Thunders won the game.

Anonymous said...

1. The call should have been on the inbounder
2. He illegally shoved Ginobili while he was inbounding the ball
3. No, because games span over 48 minutes and don't rely on one call
4. The Thunder
-Zach Smith