Tweet
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IfSfIrhE8X0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en& feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IfSfIrhE8X0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en& feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
If that stupid ass referee wasn't in the way, we'd have taken the lead off a fast break Marion dunk.
If that stupid ass referee wasn't in the way, we'd have taken the lead off a fast break Marion dunk.
Wade runs into referee Courtney Kirkland, who is out of bounds. Even though the refs ruled in favor of the Heat here, after the game Wade seethed that the whistle prevented an easy game-winning layup for Miami.
"It was a clear steal," an angry Wade said after the game. "I was shocked they came back and tried to overturn the call and say they (saw) me step out of bounds. It was some (expletive).
"It wasn't even close to being a call. I don't even know how you can call something like that. We won the game. They took it from us."
Clips Nation notes, however, that Wade was out of bounds with the ball when he ran into Kirkland. Is that right? I looked up the rule, and it's less than perfectly clear but should nonetheless give pause to Wade in his ranting about the stolen game.
Rule No. 8, Section 1: The player is out-of-bounds when he touches the floor or any object on or outside a boundary. ... Section 2a: The ball is out-of-bounds when it touches a player who is out-of-bounds or any other person, the floor, or any object on, above or outside of a boundary or the supports or back of the backboard.
The first rule cited indicates that Wade is out-of-bounds when he runs into Kirkland. He obviously still has the ball at this point. Since Wade is ruled out-of-bounds by virtue of touching Kirkland, and since Wade has the ball, the ball is out-of-bounds. L.A. should have gotten it back. The refs had it right the first time, and there's no clear reason as to why their minds changed.
If Wade would have scored once Miami inbounded the ball, the Clippers would have reason to protest the game. Thankfully, it ended correctly. It's too bad it came to this: if Kirkland weren't in that exact spot, Miami would likely have taken the lead on a Shawn Marion dunk. But the Heat can hardly argue they got screwed by the refs' judgment.
"It was a clear steal," an angry Wade said after the game. "I was shocked they came back and tried to overturn the call and say they (saw) me step out of bounds. It was some (expletive).
"It wasn't even close to being a call. I don't even know how you can call something like that. We won the game. They took it from us."
Clips Nation notes, however, that Wade was out of bounds with the ball when he ran into Kirkland. Is that right? I looked up the rule, and it's less than perfectly clear but should nonetheless give pause to Wade in his ranting about the stolen game.
Rule No. 8, Section 1: The player is out-of-bounds when he touches the floor or any object on or outside a boundary. ... Section 2a: The ball is out-of-bounds when it touches a player who is out-of-bounds or any other person, the floor, or any object on, above or outside of a boundary or the supports or back of the backboard.
The first rule cited indicates that Wade is out-of-bounds when he runs into Kirkland. He obviously still has the ball at this point. Since Wade is ruled out-of-bounds by virtue of touching Kirkland, and since Wade has the ball, the ball is out-of-bounds. L.A. should have gotten it back. The refs had it right the first time, and there's no clear reason as to why their minds changed.
If Wade would have scored once Miami inbounded the ball, the Clippers would have reason to protest the game. Thankfully, it ended correctly. It's too bad it came to this: if Kirkland weren't in that exact spot, Miami would likely have taken the lead on a Shawn Marion dunk. But the Heat can hardly argue they got screwed by the refs' judgment.
Comment