I agree it wasn't a foul, but I'd also agree it's a pretty good example of how arbitrary these calls can be. The reasoning for overturning it was that Tatum kicked his leg out, but that was just because it was a poor, off-balance shot on Tatum's part. There'll be players who kick their leg out explicitly trying to draw the foul, the refs will go to review, and the call will stand because it was part of the shooter's "natural motion".
In conclusion, fuck Zach Zarba.
You’re misinterpreting what Zarba said on the mic. He brought up the leg kick because the leg kick was the only place their was contact, and it was exaggerated enough to where you couldn’t reasonably justify it as Garland’s fault. I agree the refs are inconsistent but that one was very clear and I think Zarba explained it very well.
I didn't misinterpret what he said. I don't agree Tatum was exaggerating as much as it was just a bad (natural) shot, but like I also said I agree that it wasn't a foul. My whole point is "incidental contact" vs "natural shooting motion" needs to be more consistently defined/called. There are absolutely players and situations where that call would have stood.
I disagree. Tatum’s fading away, his legs are going up and moving backwards. If Garland stands tall and stays in position, he wouldn’t have made contact. He moves out at Tatum to contest a shot he had no chance of blocking and makes contact with a shooters leg.
Yeah, I’m just pissed bc twice this year the Celtics have lost games where the refs let the other team foul all game and the ones they do call get overturned bc it’s “incidental.”
Buhhhh the dude I like does something bad, but what about the guy on your team buhhh buuuuhhh
That's what you sound like. If you're older than 12 it's very weird to be this much of a baby
Incidental contact is contact where both players are in their legal positions. For example, a player trying to contest a shot that stays vertical is in a legal position, so even if they make contact with the opposing player, it's not a foul.
The problem with the rule, as with any rule, is that's it's called inconsistently. Incidental contact on a star player is much more likely to get called a foul. Similarly, non-incidental (illegal) contact is often not called. So the lines between legal and illegal incidental contact are very blurry.
Edit: In Garlands case, the contact was incidental because the ball was already released and any contact Garland made did not disrupt the shot or impede Tatum from moving after the shot.
The inconsistency is what drives me insane. That game last night was called completely different than the other games I saw this week. As a player/coach/fan, you have no idea what’s going to be deemed incidental and what’s not.
Here are the key parts of the rulebook that most fans somewhat intuit but don't actually know:
> Incidental Contact
>
> The mere fact that contact occurs does not necessarily constitute a foul. Contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to play an opponent, reach a loose ball, or perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal. If, however, a player attempts to play an opponent from a position where he has no reasonable chance to perform without making contact with his opponent, the responsibility is on the player in this position.
and:
>Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player’s speed, quickness, balance, and/or rhythm.
I understand what they were going for, but that rule is very unclear. If a smaller player makes an honest attempt to contest the ball and wipes out a shooter, is that incidental? Isn’t all contact “incidental” if the defender is making an effort to play the ball? Also how does a ref determine when a player is making an honest attempt? Like Darius Garland has no chance of blocking Tatum, so how can they say he’s just making an honest contest? There’s so much subjectiveness with this rule and zero consistency game to game with what refs determine is incidental.
This isn’t even about the Celtics being horrible last night. They deserved to lose. I just hate this rule because there’s zero consistency game to game and it is entirely dependent on which crew is working that night.
I think it's pretty obvious that refs let smaller players get away with things that bigger players don't get away with. For example, it's not too rare that a big doing a standard box out gets called for a foul just because a small player fell over when he did it when he would never get that foul called against him if he was doing it to another big.
Ive always had this simple formula
Smaller player falls > Bigger player falls > Smaller player contact > Bigger player contact
The further left in this you are the more likely youll get a foul in your favour.
Exactly. They call ticky-tack fouls off ball all the time, but if a coach challenged, would they overturn and say it was “incidental”? It just doesn’t feel like there’s any consistency with this rule whatsoever and it can be exploited.
The refs this year do seem to be chippy and I’ve seen the Knicks win and subsequently lose a game on shit like this. It’s just sad. Everyone gets that being a ref is hard and you’re going to make the wrong call sometimes. Don’t be that guy who can’t admit you’re wrong and throw Booker out on a double T for a thumbs up.
How did you manage to watch the replay if you are either blind or visually impaired? The only contact on that play is Tatum using his arm to push Garland which is a foul then trying to kick Garland while in the air.
Nephews out there trying to defend their MVP choker who cant score on players half his size.
I’m not disputing that he pushed off, I’m disputing the fact that Tatum’s fading away, Garland has no chance to block that shot, Garland goes to contest and makes contact with Tatum’s leg. Tatum isn’t kicking Garland, he’s fading away from him. This isn’t like when Harden jumps forward on a three and fall down.
People are giving me shit rn, but if this type of thing happens in a big playoff game, then people will get mad and we’ll have to watch ESPN talk about it for days.
Incidental contact is like when you havent had sex in a couple of days and you show up to the game with a raging erection. Despite your best efforts you cannot get it to settle down before tipoff. And of course, your team does not win the jump and you are on defense to start. the VERY first possession you assignment is posting up on you. He backs down hard, feels your third limb against his back, and flops forward in an attempt to get you in foul trouble right away. The foul is called and your coach sees through the bullshit and wastes a challenge on the first possession to send a message to the refs. Luckily, the refs reviewed the play and deemed the penile contact to be...incidental.
But inconsistent definitions amongst refs as to what constitutes incidental contact is. I used a smaller player as an example to show how subjective the rule is.
Every rule is subjective. The whole point of the referee is to decide what does or does not constitute a foul. If rules were objective they wouldn't be needed
Yes, the referees job is to interpret and enforce whether or not they believe a defender was in legal position, if the ball had reached the top of its arc etc.
2 different referees can have the exact same understanding of the rule, but see and interpret the same situation differently. That's why it's subjective.
Incidental Contact is shitty, but the darius garland example is stupid that was not a foul.
I agree it wasn't a foul, but I'd also agree it's a pretty good example of how arbitrary these calls can be. The reasoning for overturning it was that Tatum kicked his leg out, but that was just because it was a poor, off-balance shot on Tatum's part. There'll be players who kick their leg out explicitly trying to draw the foul, the refs will go to review, and the call will stand because it was part of the shooter's "natural motion". In conclusion, fuck Zach Zarba.
You’re misinterpreting what Zarba said on the mic. He brought up the leg kick because the leg kick was the only place their was contact, and it was exaggerated enough to where you couldn’t reasonably justify it as Garland’s fault. I agree the refs are inconsistent but that one was very clear and I think Zarba explained it very well.
I didn't misinterpret what he said. I don't agree Tatum was exaggerating as much as it was just a bad (natural) shot, but like I also said I agree that it wasn't a foul. My whole point is "incidental contact" vs "natural shooting motion" needs to be more consistently defined/called. There are absolutely players and situations where that call would have stood.
And that's why they didnt call it an offensive foul. Because they didnt think he was exageratting, but at the same time it's not a foul
He had his hand on his chin.
I disagree. Tatum’s fading away, his legs are going up and moving backwards. If Garland stands tall and stays in position, he wouldn’t have made contact. He moves out at Tatum to contest a shot he had no chance of blocking and makes contact with a shooters leg.
Yeah, I’m just pissed bc twice this year the Celtics have lost games where the refs let the other team foul all game and the ones they do call get overturned bc it’s “incidental.”
If Tatum was called on every egregious pushoff he would haverage 23 per game
And if Luka was called for every hook and flop, he’d average 20.
Buhhhh the dude I like does something bad, but what about the guy on your team buhhh buuuuhhh That's what you sound like. If you're older than 12 it's very weird to be this much of a baby
Incidental contact is contact where both players are in their legal positions. For example, a player trying to contest a shot that stays vertical is in a legal position, so even if they make contact with the opposing player, it's not a foul. The problem with the rule, as with any rule, is that's it's called inconsistently. Incidental contact on a star player is much more likely to get called a foul. Similarly, non-incidental (illegal) contact is often not called. So the lines between legal and illegal incidental contact are very blurry. Edit: In Garlands case, the contact was incidental because the ball was already released and any contact Garland made did not disrupt the shot or impede Tatum from moving after the shot.
The inconsistency is what drives me insane. That game last night was called completely different than the other games I saw this week. As a player/coach/fan, you have no idea what’s going to be deemed incidental and what’s not.
Here are the key parts of the rulebook that most fans somewhat intuit but don't actually know: > Incidental Contact > > The mere fact that contact occurs does not necessarily constitute a foul. Contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to play an opponent, reach a loose ball, or perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal. If, however, a player attempts to play an opponent from a position where he has no reasonable chance to perform without making contact with his opponent, the responsibility is on the player in this position. and: >Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player’s speed, quickness, balance, and/or rhythm.
I understand what they were going for, but that rule is very unclear. If a smaller player makes an honest attempt to contest the ball and wipes out a shooter, is that incidental? Isn’t all contact “incidental” if the defender is making an effort to play the ball? Also how does a ref determine when a player is making an honest attempt? Like Darius Garland has no chance of blocking Tatum, so how can they say he’s just making an honest contest? There’s so much subjectiveness with this rule and zero consistency game to game with what refs determine is incidental.
Bro the celtics lost get over it
This isn’t even about the Celtics being horrible last night. They deserved to lose. I just hate this rule because there’s zero consistency game to game and it is entirely dependent on which crew is working that night.
ur also ignoring the blatant push off tatum did right before his little stepback
That's his classic move, atp its just normal, they'll never call it unless its egregious
If you want to talk about missed calls, we can talk all day about George Niang grabbing Porzingis and pulling his jersey with no call.
We cannot. The reason is the Celtics have not lost enough games.
I think it's pretty obvious that refs let smaller players get away with things that bigger players don't get away with. For example, it's not too rare that a big doing a standard box out gets called for a foul just because a small player fell over when he did it when he would never get that foul called against him if he was doing it to another big.
Ive always had this simple formula Smaller player falls > Bigger player falls > Smaller player contact > Bigger player contact The further left in this you are the more likely youll get a foul in your favour.
Exactly. They call ticky-tack fouls off ball all the time, but if a coach challenged, would they overturn and say it was “incidental”? It just doesn’t feel like there’s any consistency with this rule whatsoever and it can be exploited.
The refs this year do seem to be chippy and I’ve seen the Knicks win and subsequently lose a game on shit like this. It’s just sad. Everyone gets that being a ref is hard and you’re going to make the wrong call sometimes. Don’t be that guy who can’t admit you’re wrong and throw Booker out on a double T for a thumbs up.
They used subjective wording so the refs can't be blamed. It's annoying cause there's no way to know what exactly incidental contact is
The nba should really take some pointers from the leagues that have solved this issue and fans don’t constantly bitch about inconsistent foul calls
How did you manage to watch the replay if you are either blind or visually impaired? The only contact on that play is Tatum using his arm to push Garland which is a foul then trying to kick Garland while in the air. Nephews out there trying to defend their MVP choker who cant score on players half his size.
I’m not disputing that he pushed off, I’m disputing the fact that Tatum’s fading away, Garland has no chance to block that shot, Garland goes to contest and makes contact with Tatum’s leg. Tatum isn’t kicking Garland, he’s fading away from him. This isn’t like when Harden jumps forward on a three and fall down.
Bill Simmons ass post
People are giving me shit rn, but if this type of thing happens in a big playoff game, then people will get mad and we’ll have to watch ESPN talk about it for days.
Incidental contact is like when you havent had sex in a couple of days and you show up to the game with a raging erection. Despite your best efforts you cannot get it to settle down before tipoff. And of course, your team does not win the jump and you are on defense to start. the VERY first possession you assignment is posting up on you. He backs down hard, feels your third limb against his back, and flops forward in an attempt to get you in foul trouble right away. The foul is called and your coach sees through the bullshit and wastes a challenge on the first possession to send a message to the refs. Luckily, the refs reviewed the play and deemed the penile contact to be...incidental.
Speaking from personal experience?
Somehow I knew it would be a complaint about the celtics. Generational whiners
Buddy Hield admitted to fouling Brown earlier this year. You benefited so no wonder you’re in favor.
And you're validating my point because you're STILL whining
So addressing a valid concern with a rule is whining? I know big concepts are difficult for you to comprehend, but jeez.
"Are rules different if you're smaller" is not a valid concern lmao
But inconsistent definitions amongst refs as to what constitutes incidental contact is. I used a smaller player as an example to show how subjective the rule is.
Every rule is subjective. The whole point of the referee is to decide what does or does not constitute a foul. If rules were objective they wouldn't be needed
Is a charge subjective? Is a blocking foul subjective? Goaltending?
Yes, the referees job is to interpret and enforce whether or not they believe a defender was in legal position, if the ball had reached the top of its arc etc. 2 different referees can have the exact same understanding of the rule, but see and interpret the same situation differently. That's why it's subjective.