Home > Dallas Mavericks, LA Lakers, Missed travels, Out of bounds call, Refs fall for a flop, Traveling > Lakers-Mavericks (Game 3): Round-up of select calls and no-calls

Lakers-Mavericks (Game 3): Round-up of select calls and no-calls

Since the Atlanta-Chicago game was never really in question last night, we’re going to focus on the LA-Dallas game.

There were more travels called in the Laker-Mavericks game, more than usual, so you have to give the refs credit for calling it more.

However, there was one travel that wasn’t called that really exemplifies much of what we’ve written recently on how players can gain an unfair advantage by manipulating their dribble to sneak in an extra step and blow by their defender for a layup.

The refs miss it, as do most announcers. It happens so quickly at real speed, it’s very hard to detect. But the refs should get more training on detecting it. Like they say, “If it looks too good to be true, it probably isn’t.”

  • Fishbelly

    I keep seeing Ed Malloy’s name when comes to bad calls….

    NBA really needs to keep track of ref records and performance reviews instead of unconditionally protecting them

  • Pessimism

    On the Bynum travel, Stafford made the correct call, but he was standing at halfcourt at the time (the ref at the baseline is another ref). Meanwhile, on the same play, it looks like Malloy (on the far side of the court) wanted to call a foul on the Mavs.

    The Bynum offensive foul (Chandler flop) was a bad call and is precisely the type of call that has severely degraded the quality of the NBA game.

  • JumboJet

    I find it perplexing that you call Chandler’s flop a ticky-tack foul, yet you still keep pounding away on the ‘gather step’ allowed to dribblers.

    I mean, Chandler had postion and Bynum went to body him out of the way. Isn’t that against the rules technically?

    Also, I’ll have to disagree with your assessment of the Bynum travel. It looked like he caught the rebound, established himself, dribbled once, then jumped a quarter turn and stopped without shooting. That was probably the walk that was called (late by the trailing official) instead of him slidding his supposed pivot foot an inch which the he probably couldn’t have really seen among all of the bodies in there.

    • RefCalls-TopFlops staff

      The traveling rules are much more concrete and objective than the “incidental contact” language where refs are given alot more leeway in deciding if contact was meaningful or not. For this call, we think the ref shouldn’t have called anything. It’s not necessary to call a foul on every contact, especially little contact that has no bearing on the play; otherwise, there would be fouls all night long.

      Regarding Bynum’s “jump,” he landed his feet at different times, which are two different steps. After that, he can’t take another step without dribbling again.

      • JumboJet

        According to page 43 of the rulebook, section 1A under Personal Fouls; A player shall not hold, push, charge into, or impede the progress of a player by sticking out a limb or by contorting their body in an unnatural way. Contact that results in re-routing an opponent is a foul which is called immediately.

        Andrew Bynum charged into Chandler, re-routing him by forcing him out of the position which he was set in. Nowhere in the rule is there mentioned anything about incidental contact, except when a defensive player makes incidental contact to an offensive player and its incidental and not a foul if the contact doesn’t effect the players speed, quickness, balance, or rhythm. Even if we were to hold Bynum to the same standard, he still knocked Chandler off balance by his body check. By rule, it appears that this is a foul.

        You are right though, if the ref’s were to call it like this all night long it would make for a very long, very boring game…but wouldn’t calling all of the border traveling calls have the same effect?

        I will retract my statement on Bynum’s travel though. I think watching it at different speeds really screws with my perception of events. Almost looks like he dribbled once, caught it, and then jumped over, which looks fishy depending on how long he caught it for.

  • username

    Okay, think about this for a second. If it looks too good to be true, it probably isn’t too good to be true? No, it probably *IS* too good to be true. Sorry to be the grammar police, but you’ve used that simple phrase incorrectly twice now.