It was backcourt violation

Mavs wrote:
> <BigELilE05.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1150754658.138869.45900@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Link to the NBA rule that says that? There was a ref standing right
> > there at 1/2 court, if that were the case, I think there would have
> > been a whistle blown. Plus, Pat Riley mentioned the fact that Dallas'
> > defense was so good on that play that Wade had to come into the
> > back-court to get the inbound pass.
>
> It's common knowledge that you cant catch it in the air while transfering
> from one side to the other.

Really. Then why wasn't it called? The was a ref standing right there
at 1/2 court.
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation 

<BigELilE05.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1150755014.064825.149510@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mavs wrote:
>> <BigELilE05.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:1150754658.138869.45900@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Link to the NBA rule that says that? There was a ref standing right
>> > there at 1/2 court, if that were the case, I think there would have
>> > been a whistle blown. Plus, Pat Riley mentioned the fact that Dallas'
>> > defense was so good on that play that Wade had to come into the
>> > back-court to get the inbound pass.
>>
>> It's common knowledge that you cant catch it in the air while transfering
>> from one side to the other.
>
> Really. Then why wasn't it called? The was a ref standing right there
> at 1/2 court.
>

It wasn't called because when the calls don't go your [in the generic sense] way
it's conspiracy to have your team lose. The refs were obviously told to let the
Heat win. At least, that's what these crying idiots would have us believe.
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation 

"Lee Watkins" <spamisforsandwiches-lwatkins DeleteThis @falcon.tamucc.edu> wrote in
message news:e7766r$nfs$4@news.tamu.edu...

> not to be inflammatory this time...but someone posted the rule in another
> forum. the way it was worded was vague and open to interpretation as far
> as throwing an inbounds pass in.
>
> regardless of the physics of it, the ref didnt call it, thus it wasnt a
> backcourt.

It was a back court violation. It wasnt called though.
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation 

<BigELilE05 RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:1150754658.138869.45900@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> Link to the NBA rule that says that? There was a ref standing right
> there at 1/2 court, if that were the case, I think there would have
> been a whistle blown. Plus, Pat Riley mentioned the fact that Dallas'
> defense was so good on that play that Wade had to come into the
> back-court to get the inbound pass.

It's common knowledge that you cant catch it in the air while transfering
from one side to the other.
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation 

<BigELilE05 RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:1150755014.064825.149510@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Really. Then why wasn't it called? The was a ref standing right there
> at 1/2 court.

Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is that he wasnt thinking about it,
but instead thinking there is 9 seconds on the clock so lets keep an eye out
for any contact.

However that didnt seem to be the case either because Jason Terry was shoved
out of bounds by the man (wade) with the ball.
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation 

"James_" <_no_.DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:0f2dnV25-srasgrZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@midco.net...
> <BigELilE05.DeleteThis@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1150755014.064825.149510@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> It wasn't called because when the calls don't go your [in the generic
> sense] way it's conspiracy to have your team lose. The refs were obviously
> told to let the Heat win. At least, that's what these crying idiots would
> have us believe.

Heat fans havent been around long so they wouldnt quite understand the
conspiracy. But its a little more indepth than youre making it out to be
bandwaggoner.
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation 

>
> However that didnt seem to be the case either because Jason Terry was shoved
> out of bounds by the man (wade) with the ball.

Terry flopped - quite obviously. That was a flop worthy of Laimbeer at
his best. Kudos to the ref for not being dumb enough to call that.

As for citing a rarely called obscure NBA rule as an excuse for losing
- when it didn't affect anything and is ambiguous at best.. well..
that's weak.
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation 

Mavs wrote:
> "Lee Watkins" <spamisforsandwiches-lwatkins DeleteThis @falcon.tamucc.edu> wrote in
> message news:e7766r$nfs$4@news.tamu.edu...
>
>
>>not to be inflammatory this time...but someone posted the rule in another
>>forum. the way it was worded was vague and open to interpretation as far
>>as throwing an inbounds pass in.
>>
>>regardless of the physics of it, the ref didnt call it, thus it wasnt a
>>backcourt.
>
>
> It was a back court violation. It wasnt called though.
>
>

please post and cite the rule and explain why.

lee
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation 

BigELilE05.TakeThisOut@msn.com a écrit :
> Link to the NBA rule that says that? There was a ref standing right
> there at 1/2 court, if that were the case, I think there would have
> been a whistle blown. Plus, Pat Riley mentioned the fact that Dallas'
> defense was so good on that play that Wade had to come into the
> back-court to get the inbound pass.

But he wasn't before getting the ball.
That's the point.

He wasn't in backcourt even when he touched the ball by the way.
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation 

Thomas a écrit :
>> However that didnt seem to be the case either because Jason Terry was shoved
>> out of bounds by the man (wade) with the ball.
>
> Terry flopped - quite obviously. That was a flop worthy of Laimbeer at
> his best. Kudos to the ref for not being dumb enough to call that.

He flopped as much as the utah jazz guy on Jordan's shoot.


>
> As for citing a rarely called obscure NBA rule as an excuse for losing
> - when it didn't affect anything and is ambiguous at best.. well..
> that's weak.
>
 >> Stay informed about: It was backcourt violation