A Game of Consequence

That was actually Game 4 of the Spurs-Lakers series, not tonight's finale. One of the major contending teams lost at home (the previous consequential game was San Antonio's Game 7 win at New Orleans).

The game turned on a non-call (at home!) on the final play, a surprising finish and one that doesn't fit with my overall assessment of how NBA games are officiated.

To set the scene, Spurs with the ball down two. Brent Barry faked a shot, got fouled on an over-reaction by Derrick Fisher. After a collision, Barry dodged him, then got off a desperation lunge for a potentially-winning 3-pointer which missed badly.

The NBA league office today admitted the play should have been called as a two-shot foul. That would be more in line with expected behavior, and it happens to be the correct call. What they need in the rules is the idea which is called "playing the advantage" in soccer. The referee raises his hand when the foul occurs, but does not blow the whistle and call the defensive foul until the play is complete, so as not to take away the advantage if the offense can overcome the foul and score.

Would this take away the "continuation play", the "and-one" that is so popular on the street these days? Not necessarily; the situation is different because of the high rate of conversion in basketball and the low rate in soccer.