Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2018, 03:56:30 PMQuote from: Hugenerd on March 12, 2018, 02:39:16 PMQuote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2018, 12:36:50 PM
Again... if it was a foul, they are shooting at least one free throw anyway. They were in the bonus. He hit the free throw, second on the way as well.
I am not sure the nature of the call really changed the outcome, here.
Agree with you that that nature of the foul call had no impact on the game in retrospect, given he made both (including the second one, which he was trying to miss). However, the call in general obviously had a very big impact in deciding the outcome of the game.
Anyone is free to disagree with me, but I still believe that in any game, I hate to see it decided like that. Foul was still a borderline call in my opinion, would much rather see a game end on a team executing the play then a ref making a close call in the final second.
I hate even the premise that the refs should swallow their whistles. Many say, "let the players decide it." Part of letting the players decide it... is calling a foul on a player who decided (or even didn't) to foul. It might suck to put a player on the line to determine a game versus a play which is more dramatic... but so is taking a player down on a breakaway in soccer or ice hockey and giving them PK. It still should be called.
I think you are missing the point of my message. I didnt say anything about swallowing the whistle. The reason I didnt like the call is that I thought it was a borderline call. I would have had the same opinion of the call was made at the end of the first half. Yes, it further bothers me that it was to decide the game, but to me, it was just a very close call to make in that situation. Obviously the call was made and the result is decided, was just an anticlimactic ending to a great game.