NBA president Joel Litvin said..

[darkwitzki]

“At the end of the Dallas-Denver game this evening, the officials missed an intentional foul committed by Antoine Wright on Carmelo Anthony, just prior to Anthony’s 3-point basket.”

Carlisle : It's just a shame, because Mark's a good official, an experienced official," "I assume they know that we have a foul to give and we would take it in that situation. I'm yelling at Antoine, 'Get him, get him, take it.' And no whistle blows. It's just extremely disappointing.
"These guys have met adversity with unity, with a collective will," Carlisle said. "It happened in November; we got off to a 2-7 start. It happened in January; we lost four games in a row and everybody said we wouldn't be a playoff team. It happened after we lost to Oklahoma City ... and it's obviously going to happen now. But, hey, that's what this is about. When it gets tough, you've got to stick together and keep fighting."

Jason Kidd : “The game didn’t come down to that last play,” , “You’ve got to make plays down the stretch, and we just didn’t do that.”

Dirk Nowitzkii : “This is about as tough of a loss as I’ve been a part of in my 11 years,” “That’s a game we’ve got to have.” . "If I was the league, I wouldn't say that," Nowitzki said. "I don't think it makes anybody feel better. We don't get the last seven seconds back to kind of play it over again. More than anything, I think it made it worse."

Antoine Wright : “What do you want me to do ... take him out and then I get a flagrant two late in the game?” Wright said. “I made a play on the ball like I was told in the huddle and the call wasn’t made.”

George Carl ; "I thought it was a great non-call."
"It's a very difficult play for the defender to make," he said. "You don't know how hard to hit him. You don't know if the shooter is going to go up and take a 3. If we are going to take the foul, we definitely tell the referees. We try to tell all three of the referees. And then usually the defense is front of us at the end of the game, we yell "foul, foul, foul."

Carmelo Anthony : “I have hit a lot of big shots in my short career, but never in a situation like this,” “It was a thin line between 2-1 and 3-0.”

[nowhereman]

George Karl officially has no credibility when it comes to anything. ever.

The league lost all credibility a long time ago. I just feel empty after watching that game. And sorry for Dirk.

Incidentally, when can the good people who paid to see the game expect their refunds?

[mav4ever]

flagrant my ass, tackle the muthafucka

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by nowhereman

George Karl officially has no credibility when it comes to anything. ever.

The league lost all credibility a long time ago. I just feel empty after watching that game. And sorry for Dirk.

Incidentally, when can the good people who paid to see the game expect their refunds?

Empty is a good word for how I think a lot of us feel. It's not even worth getting mad about. Even though I did. I threw my car keys across the room and my little automatic lock/unlock/alarm burst into ten pieces that I had to then find and put back together.

Sigh.

[ghazi]

I've smoked a lot of cigarettes out of angst since the end of the game.

NBA IS GIVING ME CANCER!

edit: and I dont even smoke

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by darkwitzki

Antoine Wright : “What do you want me to do ... take him out and then I get a flagrant two late in the game?” Wright said. “I made a play on the ball like I was told in the huddle and the call wasn’t made.”

this is key for me. I see a lot of people complaining that he should have wrapped him up or fouled harder - ok, then what? then he gets called for a flagrant so they'll get shots AND the ball? or keep trying to foul him so then the ref calls it in the act of shooting?

Wright's timing was perfect and he fouled him plenty hard enough. Hit him with the body AND came down on his arm. Ref was right there looking at it. Sure, games aren't made by one play alone, but that was a glaring error right there.

[mqywaaah]

And so in other news... the NBA is like the WWF. Only better.

[92bDad]

Like Jose Canseco...I feel vindicated...yet also like Jose Canseco, nobody cares to listen...

another day another conspiracy...you gotta love this game!!!

[horse900703]

"George Carl ; "I thought it was a great non-call. "
Go to hell Carl!

[DubOverdose]

Originally Posted by horse900703

"George Carl ; "I thought it was a great non-call. "
Go to hell Carl!

I don't think that sentence was complete.

"I thought it was a great non-call for my team"

[DavidDaMonkey]

This team basically has two options now regarding game 4. They can either come out with every bit of fire they have and play incredibly hard (possibly too hard) basketball and come out to do some damage

...or...

in the wake of such a blatant screw job (whether intentional or not) they should not even play game 4 in protest.

Those are really the only two things I see as being acceptable. Anything in between will be a total embarrassment.

[MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs]

It was a terrible non-call. But the only thing Wright should of done is tell the ref before hand "I'm going to foul him" That's a common thing to do in that situation so that there's no misunderstanding. That said, the NBA and their corrupt ass refs.

[tcat075]

Originally Posted by MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs

It was a terrible non-call. But the only thing Wright should of done is tell the ref before hand "I'm going to foul him" That's a common thing to do in that situation so that there's no misunderstanding. That said, the NBA and their corrupt ass refs.

Carlisle was standing beside the referee screaming "foul him" as Wright bumped and slapped Melo across the arms.

[tcat075]

Originally Posted by DavidDaMonkey

This team basically has two options now regarding game 4. They can either come out with every bit of fire they have and play incredibly hard (possibly too hard) basketball and come out to do some damage

...or...

in the wake of such a blatant screw job (whether intentional or not) they should not even play game 4 in protest.

Those are really the only two things I see as being acceptable. Anything in between will be a total embarrassment.

I almost wish they did the second thing. Bench all the starters, say, "We don't see any reason to play this game if the refs have already decided it."

But its not a classy thing to do. I don't know. If Cuban and Carlisle went that route, then I would have no problems with it. I sincerely doubt they will.

Of course, maybe this fires the team up. I'm not saying we win the series, but can we make Denver sweat a little? Win a couple games, play hard, whatever.

That's why you don't give up. This team should be pissed off as hell, and it might make a difference. Hopefully we go and blow Denver out by 40 in Game 4. I know the player's don't want to give up yet.

However, we need to be really careful with Josh, whatever we do.

[GoNugs]

Reminds me of a Nuggets game years ago where Doug Moe ordered his team to stop playing defense in the 4th quarter (because they were playing like crap)....and they did.

[MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs]

Originally Posted by tcat075

Carlisle was standing beside the referee screaming "foul him" as Wright bumped and slapped Melo across the arms.

Thats not quite the same thing. Before the play even starts its common to tell the ref "I'm going to foul him" that way they are right on top of it and call it.

But regardless the call should of been made.

[tcat075]

Originally Posted by MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs

Thats not quite the same thing. Before the play even starts its common to tell the ref "I'm going to foul him" that way they are right on top of it and call it.

But regardless the call should of been made.

I agree, they should have said that.

But just out of curiosity, how do we know Carlisle didn't?

[SMC0007]

Saying that a ref needs to be told that there is a foul about to take place is ridiculous. Not directed at anyone just saying. That happens but it shouldn't be necessary for a professional referee to make the correct call.

[Hmm]

Josh Howard: "Howard made a beeline for referee Mark Wunderlich, the one whose whistle didn't blow after Antoine Wright's attempted foul on Carmelo Anthony, and gave him a high-decibel piece of his mind. He followed that by swiping at a photographer's camera."

[SMC0007]

Good for him.

[dude1394]

The nba screwed up...period. Wright coulda, shoulda, woulda, yadda, yadda, yadda.....Wright fouled him liked hundreds of other teams have done...

George Karl is ridiculous. Even the NBA has more credibility than he does.

[Zki41]

George Karl thinks he is Phil Jackson.

[Dtownsfinest]

Originally Posted by nowhereman

George Karl officially has no credibility when it comes to anything. ever.

The league lost all credibility a long time ago. I just feel empty after watching that game. And sorry for Dirk.

Incidentally, when can the good people who paid to see the game expect their refunds?

I think Karl was being a wise ass by that comment. It was a great non call because Melo hit the shot lol.

[MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs]

George Karl's never had any class.

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs

Thats not quite the same thing. Before the play even starts its common to tell the ref "I'm going to foul him" that way they are right on top of it and call it.

um, i'm not sure how much more "on top of it" the ref could have been? Have you seen the overhead view of the replay? It is clear that he is staring DIRECTLY at the contact on the arm from literally 2 feet away.

[tremaine]

Originally Posted by MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs

George Karl's never had any class.

Every year he comes up with new ways to screw with the world of basketball.

Here's another classless thing Karl did earlier this season. In interviews with the Denver Press, he created the false impression that it was a real good thing for Denver that Allen Iverson was traded for Chauncey Billups, because Chauncey is a much better point guard than is Allen Iverson. Trouble is, Iverson seldom played point guard for the Denver Nuggets; it was Anthony Carter most of the time.

If you are a true basketball fan, you know that Iverson has been mostly a 2-guard in the NBA, due to Larry Brown.

So the main part of his statement, that it was a good trade, was true. But the reason was a lie. So overall, it was a lie.

Why did Karl lie in order to try to blame Iverson for the Nuggets' lacking offense last year, which resulted in a monumental blowout loss to the Lakers? Easy, Karl wanted to make sure that no one would ever even think of criticizing him for how bad the Denver offense was last year, when it was actually mostly his fault.

Now this year, apparently knowing he doesn't know how to coach playoff offense, or worse still, thinking it is not needed, he has come up with this scheme where the Nuggets offense is completely based on the fast breaks and in transition automatic scores coming off of uncalled fouls, long rebounds, and steals.

This is classless too, because although as long as the referees are not calling a lot of fouls, you can pound on the teams that are about as good as you are by doing this, you can not possibly beat the better teams such as LA and Cleveland by doing this. The Nuggets are still looking at a 4-0 sweep by the Lakers, or 4-1 at best.

[chumdawg]

I disagree vehemently. That Denver team is GOOD. I'd be surprised if they didn't send the Lakers series to seven, if not win it. They are a very, VERY good team.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I disagree vehemently. That Denver team is GOOD. I'd be surprised if they didn't send the Lakers series to seven, if not win it. They are a very, VERY good team.

These Nuggets are legitimate. They're playing as well as anybody in the playoffs other than the Cavs.

[GoNugs]

Originally Posted by tremaine

Every year he comes up with new ways to screw with the world of basketball.

Here's another classless thing Karl did earlier this season. In interviews with the Denver Press, he created the false impression that it was a real good thing for Denver that Allen Iverson was traded for Chauncey Billups, because Chauncey is a much better point guard than is Allen Iverson. Trouble is, Iverson seldom played point guard for the Denver Nuggets; it was Anthony Carter most of the time.

If you are a true basketball fan, you know that Iverson has been mostly a 2-guard in the NBA, due to Larry Brown.

So the main part of his statement, that it was a good trade, was true. But the reason was a lie. So overall, it was a lie.

Why did Karl lie in order to try to blame Iverson for the Nuggets' lacking offense last year, which resulted in a monumental blowout loss to the Lakers? Easy, Karl wanted to make sure that no one would ever even think of criticizing him for how bad the Denver offense was last year, when it was actually mostly his fault.

Now this year, apparently knowing he doesn't know how to coach playoff offense, or worse still, thinking it is not needed, he has come up with this scheme where the Nuggets offense is completely based on the fast breaks and in transition automatic scores coming off of uncalled fouls, long rebounds, and steals.

This is classless too, because although as long as the referees are not calling a lot of fouls, you can pound on the teams that are about as good as you are by doing this, you can not possibly beat the better teams such as LA and Cleveland by doing this. The Nuggets are still looking at a 4-0 sweep by the Lakers, or 4-1 at best.

Your post lacks factual accuracy. To my knowledge, Karl never said that Billups was a better point guard then Iverson....I challenge you to find the quote where he did.....

He did say that the team makes fewer bad plays with Billups instead of Iverson...and that is true.....with Iverson...you basically had either him or Melo blackholing whenever they got the ball. Karl was asked to explain some differences in the two teams (pre/post - Billups) and he did...honestly. It wasn't a direct knock on Iverson.

There is more to the Nuggets then fouling and fast breaking....but it appears pointless to conivince you otherwise. Melo has turned into a pretty decent teammate this year - something many Nuggets fans...including myself...didn't think possible a year ago.

The Lakers will definately be favored...however...this Nuggets team is much better than last years team....Karl has something to do with that.

The only thing I don't like about Karl is he voted for President Obama.

[tremaine]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I disagree vehemently. That Denver team is GOOD. I'd be surprised if they didn't send the Lakers series to seven, if not win it. They are a very, VERY good team.

Yes, they are good, but also extremely lucky, and they still have not faced a team in the playoffs that is a true test.

The Hornets were just a MASH unit and Josh Howard was limping around for you.

The biggest lucky break of all for the Nuggets this year was getting Chris Andersen, who was unemployed and out of the League last summer. Chris Andersen is like one of the best bench defensive players in the history of the NBA, and yet the Nuggets picked him up for no money, because all the GMs were asleep at the switch regarding this player. Either that or the Nuggets just plain lucked out.

You can not judge them by the routs, because as I said, the way they are playing does have the effect of building big margins against teams that are not used to this extreme defensive style of play, especially if the teams being routed are banged up.

Laugh at your own risk if you want, but this is just another George Karl scheme that is ultimately weak, but unlike most of his other schemes, this one has far more people fooled than previous ones.

The only thing that has me even a little worried right now is that if you lose game 4, and the Rockets somehow push the other series to 6 or 7 games, (how they could do this with no Yao beats me) the Nuggets will be far more rested than the Lakers will be for that series.

So you can not judge the Nuggets until the LA series. The Nuggets were crushed by both the Lakers and the Cavaliers during the regular season, absolutely crushed (except they did beat the Lakers once in Denver when the Lakers were playing on back to back nights and the Nuggets were rested.

But bet, I'll be back here on this forum during that series and admit I'm wrong if I am, but I doubt I will be admitting anything.

[jacktruth]

The bottom line to me is this. . .yes, the league acknowledged it, said they were sorry, whatever.

The real problem with the league is that there is nothing they will do to change it. They know how flawed their officiating is. They know that it is considered practically rigged in the playoffs. It's been like that for a very long time.

It's thier unwillingness to do anything to change that reputation that puts them within an arms reach of the WWF.

[chumdawg]

Dude, you are nuts if you think the Nuggets are just a "George Karl scheme." Absolutely nuts.

[GoNugs]

Originally Posted by tremaine

Yes, they are good, but also extremely lucky, and they still have not faced a team in the playoffs that is a true test.

The Hornets were just a MASH unit and Josh Howard was limping around for you.

The biggest lucky break of all for the Nuggets this year was getting Chris Andersen, who was unemployed and out of the League last summer. Chris Andersen is like one of the best bench defensive players in the history of the NBA, and yet the Nuggets picked him up for no money, because all the GMs were asleep at the switch regarding this player. Either that or the Nuggets just plain lucked out.

You can not judge them by the routs, because as I said, the way they are playing does have the effect of building big margins against teams that are not used to this extreme defensive style of play, especially if the teams being routed are banged up.

Laugh at your own risk if you want, but this is just another George Karl scheme that is ultimately weak, but unlike most of his other schemes, this one has far more people fooled than previous ones.

The only thing that has me even a little worried right now is that if you lose game 4, and the Rockets somehow push the other series to 6 or 7 games, (how they could do this with no Yao beats me) the Nuggets will be far more rested than the Lakers will be for that series.

So you can not judge the Nuggets until the LA series. The Nuggets were crushed by both the Lakers and the Cavaliers during the regular season, absolutely crushed (except they did beat the Lakers once in Denver when the Lakers were playing on back to back nights and the Nuggets were rested.

But bet, I'll be back here on this forum during that series and admit I'm wrong if I am, but I doubt I will be admitting anything.

How long ago was it that Karl had an affair with your wife?

[NugsFan]

Originally Posted by GoNugs

Reminds me of a Nuggets game years ago where Doug Moe ordered his team to stop playing defense in the 4th quarter (because they were playing like crap)....and they did.

haha, and could anyone tell the difference!?

[tremaine]

Originally Posted by GoNugs

Your post lacks factual accuracy. To my knowledge, Karl never said that Billups was a better point guard then Iverson....I challenge you to find the quote where he did.....

Here you go:

Unquestionably, the Allen Iverson experiment produced some scintillating moments for the Nuggets and their fans. But the more coach George Karl watches Chauncey Billups run his offense — and watches Iverson lead the Pistons — it has become clearer that Iverson, well, wasn't the answer.

"There are less bad plays, more solid plays," Karl said. "I think the wasteful, cheap possessions that we used to have 10 to 15 a game, they don't exist very much anymore."

What always irked Karl was Iverson's inability to run the offense like a general. Arguably, Iverson shot too much, and like Karl said, Denver could outscore about half the teams in the NBA. But when it came to beating the elite teams, the Nuggets had too many questions with "The Answer" — about his shot selection, his dedication to defense and his ability/inability to trust his teammates.

"We have contested-shot charts, bad-shot charts and cheap defensive possessions," Karl said. "I would say that when A.I. was here, we had most games in the teens of contested, tough shots, sometimes in the 20s. And I don't think we've had a double-digit one since (Billups has) been here.

"I don't think there's any question coaching a team for many minutes, without a passing and point guard mentality, is frustrating for a coach. Sometimes I saw something, but I couldn't get it done on the court because I didn't have a playmaker out there."

But with Detroit, Karl thinks Iverson can thrive, because he is surrounded by more veteran playmakers and will trust his teammates, as opposed to forcing a shot he thought he had a better chance of making.

"A.I., at times, had trouble trusting the guy he's throwing it to," Karl said

Source

There you go, there is your source, nicely still up on the internet.

What a twisted version of history Karl is creating here. In other words, he is lying.

Iverson was designated point guard by the Pistons upon arrival, but with a rookie coach who could not stop experimenting with the lineup the whole season long, and a now too old Rasheed Wallace, it was inevitable the Pistons were not going to have Iverson designated point guard for all season long.

(For the record, the Pistons would have been much better off this particular season had they just kept AI at the point with Stuckey doing one more year as a backup. Stuckey was extremely inconsistent this year, hardly a starter.)

Anyhow, you can see from the above how Karl indirectly criticizes Iverson for not being as good a point guard as Chauncey Billups, though Karl never designated Iverson as a starting point guard the way the Pistons did from day one.

Karl implies that Iverson was asked to run the offense "like a general". Iverson was never asked to do that. Instead, Iverson was encouraged to shoot as much as he wanted.

And if Karl was so concerned about how many shots Iverson was taking, why did he not at least cut his minutes? Iverson played for more minutes than almost any other player in the NBA in 2007-08.

So Karl is trying to have it both ways: he is saying Iverson was not a playmaker, and that was why the Nuggets were offensively lousy even though they had offensive stars and superstars. But he never asked Iverson to be a playmaker.

Anthony Carter was the playmaker. Notice how Anthony Carter is not even mentioned in this article, either by Karl or by the clueless Post reporter. You would never know from reading this that Anthony Carter was the Denver point guard, not Allen Iverson. There is all this criticism of Iverson, yet Carter, who was the real life point guard, is not even mentioned!

All Karl is doing is taking himself off the hook, and mocking reporters and fans who do not understand basketball in detail to see through what he is doing. If you can not see that he is pulling the wool over your eyes, in order to dodge responsibility for his failure, there is nothing more I can do for you, because anyone who can think logically at a higher level can see through this.

Believe what he says at your own risk.

[GoNugs]

Originally Posted by tremaine

Here you go:



Source

There you go, there is your source, nicely still up on the internet.

What a twisted version of history Karl is creating here. In other words, he is lying.

Iverson was designated point guard by the Pistons upon arrival, but with a rookie coach who could not experimenting with the lineup the whole season long, and a now too old Rasheed Wallace, it was inevitable the Pistons were not going to have Iverson designated point guard for all season long.

(For the record, the Pistons would have been much better off this particular season had they just kept AI at the point with Stuckey doing one more year as a backup. Stuckey was extremely inconsistent this year, hardly a starter.)

Anyhow, you can see from the above how Karl indirectly criticizes Iverson for not being as good a point guard as Chauncey Billups, though Karl never designated Iverson as a starting point guard the way the Pistons did from day one.

Karl implies that Iverson was asked to run the offense "like a general". Iverson was never asked to do that. Instead, Iverson was encouraged to shoot as much as he wanted.

And if Karl was so concerned about how many shots Iverson was taking, why did he not at least cut his minutes? Iverson played for more minutes than almost any other player in the NBA in 2007-08.

So Karl is trying to have it both ways: he is saying Iverson was not a playmaker, and that was why the Nuggets were offensively lousy even though they had offensive stars and superstars. But he never asked Iverson to be a playmaker.

Anthony Carter was the playmaker. Notice how Anthony Carter is not even mentioned in this article, either by Karl or by the clueless Post reporter. You would never know from reading this that Anthony Carter was the Denver point guard, not Allen Iverson. There is all this criticism of Iverson, yet Carter, who was the real life point guard, is not even mentioned!

All Karl is doing is taking himself off the hook, and mocking reporters and fans who do not understand basketball in detail to see through what he is doing. If you can not see that he is pulling the wool over your eyes, in order to dodge responsibility for his failure, there is nothing more I can do for you, because anyone who can think logically at a higher level can see through this.

Believe what he says at your own risk.

You said that he said Billups was a better point guard...he didn't say that anywhere in that quote.

He said the team made fewere bad plays...WHICH WAS A TRUE STATEMENT. It wasn't a lie. He wasn't make stuff up. The team was better with Billups....even you said this.

Believe what he says at our own risk? Why would we believe what you have to say?

[tremaine]

Originally Posted by GoNugs

You said that he said Billups was a better point guard...he didn't say that anywhere in that quote.

He said the team made fewere bad plays...WHICH WAS A TRUE STATEMENT. It wasn't a lie. He wasn't make stuff up. The team was better with Billups....even you said this.

Believe what he says at our own risk? Why would we believe what you have to say?

The whole article is about how Chauncey Billups is a better playmaker than Iverson is. The title of the article is: "Point Guard Praise, Billups Over AI"! This is, assuming it isn't, as close to libel of Iverson as you can get.

No, neither Karl nor the Denver Post is stupid enough to come right out and say that Iverson was the point guard, they could theoretically get sued if they did that. But you have to be really dense if you don't understand that Iverson is being trashed by Karl (and the Post) in this article for not being a good point guard when he was never asked to be the point guard. Again, Anthony Carter was the point guard, not Allen Iverson.

If you don't get it now, there is nothing more I can do for you. I've done everything possible to make sure anyone who can understand this does.

Whether or not you understand Karl's Iverson bashing, and whether or not you like Karl, we will have to wait until the Lakers-Nuggets series to get to the bottom of this: to find out whether the Nuggets ways this year will amount to anything.

Because they have to win at least three games now in that series or the Nuggets were just fronting all along. Any team that blows out two teams in round 1 and round 2, with routs all over the place, should be able to at least take the West finals to 7 games. At a rock bottom minimum.

So we shall see.

[Blackspider972]

I'll judge Denver when they play a better team and a team that actually plays defense. I want to see them with some pressure on them. Down 2-1 or down 3-2 or a game 7 on the road. Yes, they are playing great but our team is no match athletically and we have a sorry defense. Same as the Cavs, they haven't played anyone yet, either. Nuggets have already shown they can be really tempered and you can take them out their games at times.

They remind me of the Golden State team from 2007. Looks GREAT against Dallas but play a better team than them as the road team and they will get it handed to them.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

this is key for me. I see a lot of people complaining that he should have wrapped him up or fouled harder - ok, then what? then he gets called for a flagrant so they'll get shots AND the ball? or keep trying to foul him so then the ref calls it in the act of shooting?

Wright's timing was perfect and he fouled him plenty hard enough. Hit him with the body AND came down on his arm. Ref was right there looking at it. Sure, games aren't made by one play alone, but that was a glaring error right there.

Completely disagree. Why did Wright raise his hands, as if attempting to avoid the foul?

He should have wrapped him up. That what you do in that situation.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Completely disagree. Why did Wright raise his hands, as if attempting to avoid the foul?

He should have wrapped him up. That what you do in that situation.

Completely agree. Wright got caught in no man's land. He was actually trying to avoid the foul, while trying to commit the foul at the same time.

The most interesting quote I read was the one where Wright said he was trying to "make a play on the ball," as he had been instructed in the huddle. That is, simply stated, not cerebral enough.

And it's why what happened, happened. It's why he raised his arms up to show that he hadn't made body contact.