Home > Ball out of bounds call, Blocking, Charging, Dallas Mavericks, Good calls, Good no-calls, Loose ball foul, Portland Trailblazers > Mavericks-Blazers (Game 4): Questionable calls/no-calls analyzed from classic comeback game

Mavericks-Blazers (Game 4): Questionable calls/no-calls analyzed from classic comeback game

Although there were some great playoff games played Saturday, the one between Portland and Dallas was incredible to watch, so we’re going to feature that one since it had some crucial ref calls and no-calls that could have had a bearing on the outcome. On Sunday we’ll feature a call or two from the Denver-Oklahoma City game.

The Indiana-Chicago game on Saturday was a close one, but surprisingly we didn’t see any controversial calls down the stretch that could have changed the outcome. Same goes for the San Antonio-Memphis game.

Rather than describe some of the Maverick-Blazer game calls through text, we’ll do it through the video below:

  • Bobboucher

    Nice website, first time I have seen it… Can we get a review of the 4th qtr of game one between Dallas and Portland?

    • RefCalls-TopFlops staff

      Thanks for the compliment. We just went live about a week ago.

      Obviously it’s hard to go back in time to analyze a game that was a week ago since lots of other games have been played and four games are being played today (unless someone paid us for it — our only revenue potential – haha). But we did do something similar a few days ago that might get close to what you’re looking for. You can check it out here: http://wp.me/p1uswc-5k

    • Theedge6342000@yahoo.com

      The charging call on nowitzki is the right call… Because it was consistent, a charge was called on batum early in the game, and chandlers feet were still slightly moving. I don’t think most people want perfection from refs… I think they want consistency. The quarter played out fairly even to be honest…. Portland was attacking…. Dallas settled for jumpers…. Wallace probably would secured that rebound I Chandler hadn’t slapped his hands… Anyways dirks been getting very generous calls all series… It was nice to see him not get “special” treatment in game 4.

  • Scott

    Nice site you have here! This should clear up a few controversies. Now when some homer fan complains from a “bad call” we can refer to this page and tell that person to clam up!

    • RefCalls-TopFlops staff

      Absolutely! Although we’re finding there are some homers who don’t care about what the rules say and will fight to their death in a nasty tone that they are right, or call us homers (which we aren’t). We’ll then respond to take a look at the rulebook to back up their claim and get back to us with a page and section number that supports their claim, and they can’t. Instead they will respond, “It doesn’t matter what the rulebook says, they have been making that kind of call (or no-call) for years.” That’s how sad the state of the rules being enforced has become in the NBA. Some people are okay with it, but we aren’t. Either change the rules, or enforce them. Kind of like the laws in our nation. It’s not up to the police or whoever to decide what they want to enforce or not — it can lead to favoritism, inequality, and abuse.

      Thanks again for the compliment on the site.

  • MikeH

    I’m not a fan of either teams…. but I gotta say. Why the fuck would you waste your time analyzing these games? Obviously it can cool down some verbal comment flame wars. But honestly, the game’s called and done with. No matter how precisely you analyze these calls, it’s not like it’s going to change anything.

    • RefCalls-TopFlops staff

      I don’t think you get the point of this site (some folks don’t because they just look at the post but not our “About” section), so we’ll repeat it one more time. The games we’re reviewing are not the point. It’s the way the refs are interpreting the rules in any game, and if they are correct or not. The players and teams we’re using are just a way to get people more interested. In theory, we could review games from a year ago, but how interesting would that be? It’s kind of like when you’re in school and the instructor tries to teach a subject using “current events” as the way to go back to study history, the Constitution, or whatever. What better way to bring up analysis of ref calls than to use current games to do so? Believe it or not, there are some basketball fans who actually like to discuss the rules and maintaining the integrity of the sport. You obviously aren’t one of them, and can’t even imagine how people would be interested in that topic. That’s fine. This site isn’t for you then.

    • Guest

      Totally agree w/ that synopsis – huge waste of time & effort. Regardless of what they say this site is about, “getting people interested in the rules” etc. whatever, the LINK of how I ended up coming here was shown in a way that makes it appear that MavsFan is just whining about losing game 5. So sure, go ahead & waste whatever amount of time & energy over this website, but expect to get miffed people like me who end up here from links embedded in innocuous places elsewhere who are just a bit baffled as to why such a website even exists in the first place. Further agree: who gives this much of a shit about the calls after the fact, the refs aren’t going to change them & there’s nothing anyone can do about them – except maybe set up whiney little websites like this & disguise it as being some sort of educational tool (well, “tool” might not be that far off). Seriously, the audacity of such an endeavor for whoever started this & maintains & contributes content to this website is way out there. The impression I’m picking up is that you think you can go out & call NBA games better than the NBA referees. The only positive here – & don’t get me wrong, this could & should be done in a very different more constructive way – would be to provide support for an initiative to push for the expanded use of instant replay in the NBA.

      • RB

        Hey, “guest,” they can’t control how people post links to their site under the auspices of the referring site saying, “look, these guys back up my team.” That’s why they have an About section so that people can read our viewpoint, if they’re not too lazy to read it.

        I get a kick out of how people are so complacent and say, “there’s nothing we can do about it so get over it” just bend over and take it like you do. If you don’t like their site, don’t come back. But to be filled with so much hatred for people who believe they can make a difference in improving a sport in the world is pathetic. They have received lots of reviews from smarter people like you who think the site is great. At the same time, you are probably one of these people if you get screwed by the police or whoever, you’re going to do something about it. If you’re not, then you’re a loser with no backbone (well, I think you already are, regardless). And how about the hundreds of thousands of season ticket holders who pay thousands of dollars in tickets, or just the regular guy who pays $60 on up for a decent ticket to see a flawed product? If you’re one of those suckers, then so be it. You’re an easy target to be taken advantage of.

        And you contradict yourself by saying the only positive thing here is the use of instant replay. How the hell do you think that’s going to happen unless there is pressure put on the NBA to make some changes from a grassroots level? If it hasn’t been done to this point when it’s a no-brainer (the NFL adopted it years ago), you think it’s going to happen by itself? It’s sites like these that bring more urgency to the conversation. And I saw a story the other day in New York how sites like these are having an effect already (http://www.kicksandchicks.com/sneakernews/11/04/new-nba-replay-referee-may-be-on-sideline-for-bad-ref-calls-in-basketball/). So go F yourself, “guest.” You’re so whiny yet have no backbone to provide your real name.

  • Grimmz4764

    Wouldn’t the correct call for the out of bounds play be a jump ball?

  • Anonymous

    Good work, but you are wrong about one point…it’s a huge (and unfortunate) misconception that the defense has to be “set” in order to draw a charge. A player can slide their back foot in to position as long as their lead foot is set and their shoulders are square with the offensive player before contact occurs. It has always been called that way, as far as I can recall. This fact makes charges possibly the hardest call to make for NBA refs, and the most infuriating for fans. That call on Dirk was a good call, no doubt about it.

    The Chandler foul was a late call. Clearly he wasn’t going to call it if Batum controlled the rebound…that’s the NBA for you. Even then, it was ticky tacky, and probably wouldn’t have been called at all in Dallas. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t technically a foul, but Dallas fans are understandably frustrated by it.

    • RefCalls-TopFlops staff

      Great comments on both points. You are right about the the defender needing to be “set” in order to draw a charge. We struggle with using that terminology because we know the rulebook doesn’t support that word, but for some reason almost all announcers seem to fixate on that one aspect of the play, and we know that the announcers are usually in good communication with the NBA, or at least you would think if someone from the NBA who is watching these broadcasts would try to have a discussion with the networks to try to help their announcers interpret the rules correctly because their refs are not just looking at the feet being set. But that hasn’t happened for way too long, so we’ve got to conclude that even the NBA (and vis a vis the refs) are using this one aspect way too much. We are going to publish a piece later this week talking about this misconception, and others. In the meantime, we are stuck in this quandary if when referring to the rules, do we look at the rulebook, or do we go off what’s being enforced. It really makes us uncomfortable, and I think it will do the same for others once people start talking about it (if it ever gets to that point, hopefully it will).

      We agree with you on your Chandler assessment, too. It was ticky-tack, but unfortunately we’ve seen way too many officials call a foul on such little contact. We wish the refs’ tolerance level for contact would go back to how it was in the 80s. It seems like the game has gotten too soft among alot of refs over the years. We loved how the first 3 quarters of Game 7 in the Finals last season was officiated — just like the 80s. But then the refs went back to 2010 style of officiating in the 4th quarter, which was really strange. I digress.

  • Blazer4Life

    Funny how for a team that is suppose to be so good has to rely on doing video editing and explanation of “poor officiating” because you can’t justify that the Mavs collapsed mentally in this game and struggle in the playoffs. Get over it, the Blazers outplayed the Mavs and all you know how to do just like the players for the Mavs is whine and moan.

    • RB

      You’re an idiot. Alot of those plays in the video actually supported the Blazers. You don’t even deserve a keyboard or computer.

      • http://www.facebook.com/JuanAntonioGonzalo Ben Billa

        You don’t seem terribly bright yourself, champ.

        • RC

          Nice comeback…not. You know you got caught saying a dumb remark, then try to get in the last word with some lame comment. And you even thought this was a Maverick site when it’s not. Dumb.

          • http://www.facebook.com/JuanAntonioGonzalo Ben Billa

            Dumb remark? And I didn’t think this was a Maverick site. I said they were analyzing the video as if they were Mavs fans–trying to support calls the Mavs got. Learn to read, genius. Also, nice use of “… not.” Now I feel bad that I made fun of you, since you’re clearly no older than 15.

          • RC

            I used “not” to dumb it down to your level so you could understand it. And you said, “Funny how a TEAM that is suppose to be so good HAS TO RELY ON DOING VIDEO EDITING and EXPLANATION of “poor officiating'”. That conveys that the team is behind this site, Sherlock.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JuanAntonioGonzalo Ben Billa

    You guys have the right idea with this site, but your analysis needs improvement. The charge call on Nowitzki was clearly correct. The loose ball foul on Chandler was not. Also, don’t see where there’s any “mini-flop” by Aldridge. Your “explanation” after Wallace getting fouled by Chandler on the drive makes no sense. “He did have only one foot in [the restricted area] when he jumped.” So…? What are you trying to say?Wallace went to the basket and there was a ton of body contact. Not a questionable call. Moreover, that was not Chandler’s 5th foul. The foul called on Batum on Nowitzki’s baseline jumper was clearly wrong. It’s not the best angle, but you can see there was no contact very clearly. Horrible call. Dirk’s been getting those calls all series. The out-of-bounds call was a bad call on the floor, and was correctly overturned. The overhead angle shows Chandler touching it last, and even without that angle, it’s clear that it was his hand that sent the ball flying. The only way it could’ve touched Wallace’s hand last is if Wallace’s hand was between the ball and Chandler’s hand. That would still be off Chandler–hand is part of the ball and it was Chandler who propelled the ball out of bounds. Finally, the national broadcast does a horrible job of replaying questionable calls. That’s not your fault. However, if you’re going to do this site right, you should make the effort to get footage from the local broadcasts. Otherwise your analysis is largely worthless. Even if you can’t get alternate footage, you should have the technical capability to slow down the video. I give you guys a C-.

    • RB

      Regarding Wallace having one foot out of the restricted area, you don’t get the rule they were explaining on that slide about how the NBA changed the rule a few years ago to prevent ‘undercutting’ players driving to the hole. They actually want defenders to jump straight up so they don’t get underneath a player driving to the basket and make them crash hard to the floor. Too many injuries were resulting from that. So they know the rules better than you thought. I got how they explained that.

      On Dirk getting fouled on that baseline jumper, the ref was right there and Dirk motioned by hitting his wrist that he was hit (not that it can always be trusted, but is a data point to consider), and Batum didn’t even complain. Even though it’s hard to see it at that angle, it looked like it was a foul.

      I think they actually don’t get on the refs about the Wallace-Chandler touch, and agree with how they ruled it. I think they’re just wanting to point out how hard some of these calls are to make, not jump on them all the time for bad calls.

      With all of these things, it sounds like you really were in favor of the Blazers getting calls. That’s fine, but it sounds like you have some bias since you didn’t bring up any calls that went against the Mavericks.

      And about getting footage from local broadcasts, are the locals even broadcasting any more during the playoffs? I know in San Antonio near where I live we had to watch TNT’s coverage tonight, so I don’t think what you’re saying is always true. And acquiring that footage for a group of volunteers that just started their Web site a week ago that doesn’t get any money for what they’re doing is a little too much to ask, unless you’re willing to volunteer getting them footage from your local broadcasts. I’m sure they’d appreciate the assistance.

      And I see they slowed down the video lots of times, so not sure what video you’re watching.

      • http://www.facebook.com/JuanAntonioGonzalo Ben Billa

        Your para. 1 is referring to the wrong play.
        Para. 2. Batum did complain.
        Para. 4. I said the call on Chandler foul on Batum was wrong, which was a call against the Mavs.
        Para. 5. Yes, the local broadcasts are still going. My friends in Portland watch the local broadcasts (and they’ve been showing the replays of all the calls against Portland). In game 5, the NBA used the mavs local broadcasters (and were able to hide an abundance of horrible calls and non-calls by doing so).
        Para. 6. This site did not slow down the videos–they were already slowed down in the broadcast. They should be able to slow down replays that weren’t already in slomo on the broadcast.