# Game 16 vs Heat 11/29



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

*







V








Los Angeles Clipper(2-13) VS Denver Nuggets(9-5)

WHEN: Saturday, November 29 at 7:30 PM
WHERE: Staples Center in Los Angeles, California
TV: FSN Prime Ticket
Radio: ESPN AM 710
Season Series: First Game 










Clippers Projected Starters







|







|







|







|








Baron Davis | Eric Gordon | Al Thornton | Zach Randolph | Marcus Camby

Key Reserves







|







|








Mike Taylor | Steve Novak | Brian Skinner

Injury Report

Ricky Davis is doubtful with pain in left knee
Chris Kaman is a game-time decision with plantar fasciitis in left foot 
 










Heat Projected Starters







|







|







|







|








Mario Chalmers | Dwyane Wade | Shawn Marion | Udonis Haslem | Joel Anthony

Heat Key Reserves







|







|








Chris Quinn | Daquean Cook | Michael Beasley

Injury Report

 Dorell Wright is out due to knee surgery.

Q's Quote:
"Lets just win."


Q's Prediction: 92-87 loss
Q's Prediction Record: 6-9
*​


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

I think this is the game the Clippers finally win. I am concerned on who guards Wade though.


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

Great, no Kaman now and Baron is a game-time decision



> Chris Kaman is now doubtful for tonight's game against Miami with plantar fasciitis in his left foot; but a new player has been added to the injury list.
> 
> Baron Davis has come down with the stomach virus that took out Jason Hart and Brian Skinner the other night and will be a game-time decision.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

another reason clipper training staff has to go. They dont even know how to quarantine guys who are sick so that they dont contaminate others.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Hoping for a good game tonight guys. :cheers: 

Hopefully we shouldn't have a stupid loss after our win over Suns.


----------



## DaFranchise (Jun 29, 2005)

Beast said:


> Hoping for a good game tonight guys. :cheers:
> 
> Hopefully we shouldn't have a stupid loss after our win over Suns.


Well Im hoping for that stupid loss.


----------



## joser (Nov 29, 2005)

Eric Gordon continue to impress me on the offensive end.


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

We are cursed. Start playing well, then Ej goes down and now Camby is limping. What the hell is going on. 

Nice trey by Zach. Can't seem to get excited about it though until I find out EJ and Camby are alright.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

What in the f*** was that??

I'm completely disgusted right now.


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

Clippers escape and claim their third victory after 16 attempts. Zach Randolph and inconsistent Thornton were the keys. I'll type up more later on.

About the last play, the refs originally made the right call from the angles I saw as it seemed like Wade touched the ref, who IS an extension of the court. Should have been Clipper ball, but I'll take it anyway that I could.


----------



## Showtime87 (Jun 27, 2005)

Oh man, that was way too close. As you said, I'll take the win any way it comes, but it should never have come down to that. That call was nothing short of disgraceful, since Kirkland was obviously convinced Wade made contact with him after the steal, which meant he was, by definition also out of bounds. To be talked out of the call by his fellow officials was unbelievably poor judgement on his part. Though maybe I should say he was talked out of it by the Heat and Dwyane Wade himself? Give me a break, you would never have seen that happen in the NBA of the 1980's, or even 90's. I couldn't imagine Dick Bavetta or Jess Kersey ever being convinced by a player that he made the incorrect call. Those guys would have told the almighty MJ to shut up and walk away.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

Woooooooooooooo! Finally a win. The Clippers played well offensively, defensively not so much but they got the win so I am happy. Thornton and Randolph were huge tonight. It was nice seeing Thornton attack the rim, I think he only took one jumpshot and he made that one. 

Anyone else see DeAndre at the L.A. car show segment? He seems like a cool guy to hang out with.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

Oh yeah btw that was a terrible call by the ref, it was clear that he touched prior to passing the ball so the ball should have gone out to the Clippers as qross explained. I hope both Camby and Gordon are ok, the Clippers need them both.


----------



## joser (Nov 29, 2005)

woot! a win. I was nervous when the call went Heat's way. I hope that Randolph can sustain the same level of play. 

btw, is it me or it seems like there is more chemistry without Kaman?


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

That was not pretty, but it was good for this team. A win is good, but a clutch win is exactly what I believe we needed in order to gain some confidence before we head off in this road trip. We wrap up the month of November with an abismal 3-13 record, and are already 6 games out of the 8th and final seed in the Western Conference. We have a tough 4 game roadie coming up, and I firmly believe we can win 3, but will probably settle for 2, which isn't good, but it'll work. 

Player Reports:
Baron Davis: 15/9/5 but a horrid 6-21 shooting in 43 minutes.
Baron was under the weather this morning, and decided to give it a go. Glad he did, his defense was solid, made some great passes, but pulled a Mobley by chucking up long jumpers as opposed to trying to get to the rim. 

Eric Gordon: 5/2 in 29 minutes.
EJ got hurt and couldn't return. Liked his constant attacking of the rim, and he played solid D on Wade. I'm pissed he got injured, now we have no shooting guards.

Marcus Camby: 12/12 with 4 blocks in 34 minutes.
Marcus' hustle was a big part of the victory, dude was relentless on the glass and on loose balls. Then throw in his interior connections with Zach, I'm glad we acquired him, and I really hope we keep him for the long term. 

Zach Randolph: 27/13 and a clutch trey in 41 minutes.
How great is it to have a PF that doesn't shy away from jumpers in the clutch situations and has great range. Didn't play like the blackhole people said he would be, had a few good connections with the Cambyman. 

Mike Taylor: 6/2 in 23 minutes.
What Shackles contributed tonight, doesn't show up on the box score. Intensity, energy, pride is everything he brings. Love how he doesn't shy away from any contact and will get into the paint.

Paul Davis: 5/4 in 11 minutes.
Dude is relentles on the offensive glass, played a key part. When we get the triple towers back, Skinner better not be given much time ahead of Paul. Sure, Brian is a better defender, but Paul is better at every other facet of the game.


----------



## sertorius (Sep 24, 2005)

So... uh, I guess a win is a win, and at this point just about anything is better than yet another loss, but not really a lot to get excited about here. The way the players just keep getting injured on this team makes me seriously wonder what the hell Jasen Powell does at all, and the lack of execution in the last minute was ridiculous. Bad call or not, it should never have gotten to the point it got to in the last minute, when the team was originally up by six, and got away with a win after a Wade miss.


----------



## Flash is the Future (May 12, 2006)

Just for clarity, I believe that players in mid-air _can _touch refs out of bounds without being considered out of bounds. That appears to be what Rule 8 Section I indicates by using the term "object" in place of "person." Regardless, good game guys! It was very hard fought on both sides. :cheers:


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

You guys (Clips fans) are misunderstanding the rules. If the ball itself hit the ref and the ref was out of bounds then it would have been an out of bounds call.

Just because a person (in this case the ref) is standing out of bounds and the ball carrier bumps them doesn't make the ball out of bounds. If that was Baron Davis that Wade jumped into then Wade still wasn't out of bounds just because Baron was. Wade was perfectly legal because he was in the air and his feet didn't touch the ground.

They admitted that he accidentally exhaled into his whistle causing an inadvertent whistle. They wanted to replay the play but thank god they didn't go that far in screwing us over.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

its really not encouraging to see the clippers struggle THIS MUCH against the Heat 
its tough to say ...
but i think we could potentially be the 2nd worst team in the league (next to the thunder) 
and we shouldnt be not with baron davis as our Pg


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Wow, we lost to you guys.. No offence but damn, the Clippers and w/o Kaman..

Marion for Thornton..? Yes?


----------



## DaFranchise (Jun 29, 2005)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Wow, we lost to you guys.. No offence but damn, the Clippers and w/o Kaman..
> 
> Marion for Thornton..? Yes?


No thanks to that trade. The Matrix has never been the same since leaving D'Antoni's system.


----------



## sertorius (Sep 24, 2005)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Wow, we lost to you guys.. No offence but damn, the Clippers and w/o Kaman..
> 
> Marion for Thornton..? Yes?


No offense to you either but... get over yourself. The Heat are not that great, and in spite of their record, the Clippers are talented enough to beat a lot of teams in the league, including the Heat.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_8.html?nav=ArticleList



> Section I-Player The player is out-of-bounds when he touches the floor or any object on or outside a boundary. For location of a player in the air, his position is that from which he last touched the floor.


To be it sounds like from this Wade is out of bounds and it makes sense that he is. If he wasn't then what is stopping him from grabbing on to the ref and not touching the floor or pushing off the ref to be get in bounds? I personally don't see how it could be deemed that he was still in bounds.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Weasel said:


> http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_8.html?nav=ArticleList
> 
> 
> 
> To be it sounds like from this Wade is out of bounds and it makes sense that he is. If he wasn't then what is stopping him from grabbing on to the ref and not touching the floor or pushing off the ref to be get in bounds? I personally don't see how it could be deemed that he was still in bounds.


Ugh, I had a response all typed out and then it was lost.

If Yao was posting up Shaq could Shaq stretch one foot out of bounds and then when Yao backed into him Yao would be out? The ball carrier's position is determined by the last place he was on the court. The rule that you cited specifically mentions objects and not persons. 

Just a question, why would you think that a player brushing against an official would make that player out of bounds? Incidental contact with an official has always been ignored and treated as incidental contact with another player.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

I don't want to get into this because it is waste but next time a player is off-balance I want to see what the call is if he uses the ref or fan who is out of bounds to stabilize himself as according to your notion is is ok. Btw an object can be a person.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Weasel said:


> I don't want to get into this because it is waste but next time a player is off-balance I want to see what the call is if he uses the ref or fan who is out of bounds to stabilize himself as according to your notion is is ok. Btw an object can be a person.


What's the difference if he uses an opposing player to stabilize himself or a ref? What about if he passes the ball to himself off the backboard? What if the player passes a ball and it is clearly going out but it contacts the official and stays in are you going to say that he used the official to stabilize his pass and that is illegal? No. You treat it as incidental contact and play on. Besides, intentionally contacting a ref would result in a technical.

It was an inadvertent whistle by the way. That's why the refs gave us the ball.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

Like I said I want to see what the call would be during the game if such a thing happened regardless of player, fan, coach, or ref. I think it would be deemed out of bounds. That is my personal belief and I am just going to agree to disagree as I don't feel like going back and forth.


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

The '93 Heat said:


> What if the player passes a ball and it is clearly going out but it contacts the official and stays in are you going to say that he used the official to stabilize his pass and that is illegal?
> It was an inadvertent whistle by the way. That's why the refs gave us the ball.


To answer that question, the referee is an extension of the court. Lamar does it in that video. 

And if it was an inadvertent whistle, the ball would have been Miami's right after the first time the officials huddled, but they changed the call after Miami's griping.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

qross1fan said:


> To answer that question, the referee is an extension of the court. Lamar does it in that video.
> 
> And if it was an inadvertent whistle, the ball would have been Miami's right after the first time the officials huddled, but they changed the call after Miami's griping.


They thought they would replay it but that's not what the rules call for on an inadvertent whistle and we let them know.

You are taking my analogy of using the ref to "stabilize" literally and applying it to a situation that isn't analogous because Wade touched the official not the ball so the ball was not out. Weasel and I were talking about using the ref to remain in bounds.

The ball carrier's position is determined by his place on the court. Brushing against a person that is out of bounds doesn't make you out of bounds. That's why Shaq can't stretch a toe out of bounds and then let Yao Ming back into him just to get Yao Ming out. Once again, why would you think that brushing against an official would make Wade out of bounds? That's simply outrageous and that's not the way they do things in the NBA.


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

The '93 Heat said:


> They thought they would replay it but that's not what the rules call for on an inadvertent whistle and we let them know.


Really, now where you in the huddle? Like I said, the only reason they gave it to the Heat was because the amount of griping that took place after they already said it was Clipper ball. Heat were LUCKY to get the ball. 



> You are taking my analogy of using the ref to "stabilize" literally and applying it to a situation that isn't analogous because Wade touched the official not the ball so the ball was not out. Weasel and I were talking about using the ref to remain in bounds.


You asked what happens when a player passes a ball that is headed out of bounds, but is kept in due to touching an official that is inbounds, and I showed you what happened. Wade touched the official, who was out of bounds, while also having possession of the ball. 



> The ball carrier's position is determined by his place on the court. Brushing against a person that is out of bounds doesn't make you out of bounds. That's why Shaq can't stretch a toe out of bounds and then let Yao Ming back into him just to get Yao Ming out. Once again, why would you think that brushing against an official would make Wade out of bounds? That's simply outrageous and that's not the way they do things in the NBA.


Apples and oranges. Referees ARE an extension of the court, the situation your bringing up is entirely different.

If that is the case, can I get my entire bench to lay down on the floor right at the end line, and have my players in the game when they are trying to save ball and use it as leverage to avoid the out of bounds area?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

qross1fan said:


> Really, now where you in the huddle? Like I said, the only reason they gave it to the Heat was because the amount of griping that took place after they already said it was Clipper ball. Heat were LUCKY to get the ball.


A beat writer confirmed it with the refs after the game http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-1130heat,0,6111837.story



> Apparently, the confusion was exacerbated when Wade, after his steal, fell into referee Courtney Kirkland, who exhaled into his whistle. Under league timing rules, once a referee sounds his whistle, the game clock automatically is stopped.






> You asked what happens when a player passes a ball that is headed out of bounds, but is kept in due to touching an official that is inbounds, and I showed you what happened. Wade touched the official, who was out of bounds, while also having possession of the ball.


I didn't really ask ask it was a rhetorical question.



> Apples and oranges. Referees ARE an extension of the court, the situation your bringing up is entirely different.


The only thing that determines whether the ball carrier is out of bounds is his position on the court. Contact with an out of bounds player or official does not make the ball carrier out of bounds. All contact between ball carrier and ref is considered inadvertent and the ref avoids it explicitly because of that. Now, if the BALL were to contact the official standing out of bounds then it would be an out of bounds call. I don't care how you have to remember these rules, saying the official is an extension or whatever, but these are the facts of the matter and that is how legal position is determined.


----------



## CowboyBebop (Mar 20, 2006)

Hello THe93Heat. According to the replay Wade DID NOT Touch the official. He touched the official's pant leg which is an object that is outside of the boundary. So technically he was out of bounce and should have been Clipper's ball.


----------



## Flash is the Future (May 12, 2006)

CowboyBebop said:


> Hello THe93Heat. According to the replay Wade DID NOT Touch the official. He touched the official's pant leg which is an object that is outside of the boundary. So technically he was out of bounce and should have been Clipper's ball.


Now that's just semantics. So are we to assume that when they say "person" in the rules it also means "object" because the "person" is wearing clothes which are "objects"? :laugh:


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

CowboyBebop said:


> Hello THe93Heat. According to the replay Wade DID NOT Touch the official. He touched the official's pant leg which is an object that is outside of the boundary. So technically he was out of bounce and should have been Clipper's ball.


Inadvertent contact between the ref and the ball carrier happens all the time in the NBA. Guys falling on the endline to save a ball run into the official all the time. It's treated as inadvertent contact because that's exactly what it is. Unless it's intentional contact with an official which is a technical. Why on earth would you think that a ball carrier would be out of bounds because he brushes against an official?


----------



## Flash is the Future (May 12, 2006)

qross1fan said:


> To answer that question, the referee is an extension of the court. Lamar does it in that video.
> 
> And if it was an inadvertent whistle, the ball would have been Miami's right after the first time the officials huddled, but they changed the call after Miami's griping.


That is a completely different situation covered by Rule 8 Section II. In that case, yes, refs are an extension of the court and the ball would be considered out of bounds as the rule makes specific reference to it touching a person.



> Section II-Ball
> a. 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.


That rule makes specific reference to "any other person," which is why the referee is considered out of bounds.

However, that is in reference to a loose ball. When the ball is controlled by a player, then it falls under Rule 8 Section I, which does not make reference to a person being out of bounds. So no, referees are _not_ treated as extensions of the court in this case. 



> Section I-Player The player is out-of-bounds when he touches the floor or any _*object *_on or outside a boundary. For location of a player in the air, his position is that from which he last touched the floor.


Object, not person. People (and their clothes), are not objects. Now obviously, you can't make intentional contact with a referee to stay in bounds. That would be a technical foul, as The '93 Heat said. But, accidental contact with a referee who is out of bounds doesn't mean that the player is out of bounds if the player is hovering in midair. 

Question: Did the Clippers' color commentators explain this rule on during the game on the Clippers broadcast? If they did, I think they probably misinterpreted the rule which caused all of this confusion.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

i agree with the heat fans... that NBA rule is kinda messed up. what if the defender were out of bounds and decided to touch the player.. is that out of bounds and a turnover?

"object" can include player.. but the nba rules should say "object or player" to clarify. 

on a different note, if a ball is heading out of bounds but hits a referee and stays in... it's still in play right? i think i remember that happening a few times.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

DaFranchise said:


> No thanks to that trade. The Matrix has never been the same since leaving D'Antoni's system.


Agreed, but someone has to take Marion at this point.. :sigh:




sertorius said:


> No offense to you either but... get over yourself. The Heat are not that great, and in spite of their record, the Clippers are talented enough to beat a lot of teams in the league, including the Heat.



Calm down buddy. Your Clippers were 2-13 before the win, no need to take offence at what I said, its not like it was unwarranted or even an attack. And despite the Clippers being _"talented enough to beat a lot of teams"_, they havn't been doing it. Atleast half of our losses could have been wins too you know..

Earlier in the thread, someone (sry forget who) says: _"its really not encouraging to see the clippers struggle THIS MUCH against the Heat, its tough to say ..."_, despite the Clippers even picking up the W.

^ Your 3-13. Should I take offense?

And not to mention I said "the Clippers w/o Kaman"..


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/basketball/heat/sfl-whistle1130,0,6209017.story



> While such an inadvertent whistle cannot be overturned with an appeal, a league official noted that as Wade was falling out of bounds following his steal, and before he had released his pass, his right shin brushed against Kirkland's waist.
> 
> By rule, contact with an official stationed out of bounds would have made Wade out of bounds, thereby allowing the Clippers to retain possession.


Here is the proof that Wade should have been called out of bounds so no more need to argue about it since this answers that question.


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

Geeze, in a game where everyone was saying we finally got the love from the officials, they were wrong.


----------



## Flash is the Future (May 12, 2006)

Weasel said:


> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/basketball/heat/sfl-whistle1130,0,6209017.story
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the proof that Wade should have been called out of bounds so no more need to argue about it since this answers that question.


Hehe, if that's the case then I think officials get too much flak, just because the wording of Section I and Section II is odd. If "object" includes "persons," then why is "person" specified separately from "object" in Section II but not Section I? They should probably clarify that. Regardless, good find Weasel!


qross1fan said:


> Geeze, in a game where everyone was saying we finally got the love from the officials, they were wrong.


I'd still like to see a formal statement from the NBA on this rule (not the situation), because I don't think that the current rendition of the rulebook conveys the spirit of the rule that they were getting at. But, Ira's generally reliable with NBA rules, so I can go with him on this for now.


----------



## sertorius (Sep 24, 2005)

Calm down buddy. Your Clippers were 2-13 before the win, no need to take offence at what I said, its not like it was unwarranted or even an attack. And despite the Clippers being _"talented enough to beat a lot of teams"_, they havn't been doing it. Atleast half of our losses could have been wins too you know..

Earlier in the thread, someone (sry forget who) says: _"its really not encouraging to see the clippers struggle THIS MUCH against the Heat, its tough to say ..."_, despite the Clippers even picking up the W.

^ Your 3-13. Should I take offense?

And not to mention I said "the Clippers w/o Kaman"..[/QUOTE]


I am calm. The truth is you easily could have made this post on the Heat board and had everyone there agree with you, however you made it here for very specific reasons, and I for one refuse to let you just come here and basically belittle the team I root for because you feel they are not up to the standards of the Heat. 

As a side note: NO ONE cares that half of the Heat's losses could have been wins. Clipper fans could say the same thing and even point to some of the worst BS refereeing as a further reason the team lost, yet at the end of the day, the only thing that counts is that it was a loss.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

sertorius said:


> I am calm. The truth is you easily could have made this post on the Heat board and had everyone there agree with you, however you made it here for very specific reasons, and I for one refuse to let you just come here and basically belittle the team I root for because you feel they are not up to the standards of the Heat.


Right, go on thinking that then. It was hardly an attempt to _"belittle the team you root for"_ but wateva.

Check the Heat's numbers last season. If you were a team fighting for a playoff spot and came onto the Heat board and made a similar post when we were playing poorly (and we knew it), I really doubt you would have gotten any "get over yourself" responses. We more than likely would have agreed with you.. :laugh:



sertorius said:


> As a side note: NO ONE cares that half of the Heat's losses could have been wins. Clipper fans could say the same thing and even point to some of the worst BS refereeing as a further reason the team lost, yet at the end of the day, the only thing that counts is that it was a loss.


Wow, you completely missed the point..

YOU said, _"in spite of their record, the Clippers are talented enough to beat a lot of teams in the league, including the Heat"._

I was pointing out by applying YOUR logic in the quoted section, that the Heat could also have had atleast half our losses translate into wins - doesn't really mean anything in the end. Thus, the Clippers were still 2-13 or wateva.

In other words, in YOUR OWN words, _"at the end of the day, the only thing that counts is that it was a loss"_.

I don't care how "talented enough to win games" a team is, if they have such a record, it obviously makes the loss that much more unbearable.


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

this is truly a strange argument. i've never seen two people agreeing with each other while disagreeing at the same time.

carry on


----------

