SU has never blamed the refs for wins or losses. It’s an easy trap to fall into when your team is losing or you fall short in a big game. The Knicks lost game 3 in New York and yes, you can certainly point to the free throw disparity in the 2nd half (24 for the Spurs vs. 8 for the Knicks). To Mike Brown’s credit, he did not say that the Knicks were not fouling. But he was wondering if the Spurs somehow were not fouling in a game where they played very physical defense. What is going on here? SU has the answers for you:
- Apparently, the way it works is that different refs are used for each playoff game. I believe they are paid a bonus for being selected to work the finals and therefore, it’s financially rewarding for multiple refs to work the games. SU wonders if having so many different refs creates different environments for calling fouls as let’s face it: a foul in one game is not always a foul in another game. Might it be different if the same refs called the entire series? Something to consider.
- The Spurs have been playing very physical defense in all 3 games as SU has pointed out. Their guards pick up at half court or even full court on Brunson. He is bumped, grabbed, pushed – no calls. What happens in basketball is that the aggressor is rewarded for being aggressive with no fouls called. It’s wrong, it’s not fun to watch and in the end, the teams that play motion offenses are hurt. It makes the games unwatchable and it’s not what we see in the regular season. And Wemby gets away with flailing elbows and no calls. He tossed Brunson to the ground at one point – no call. Mike Breen even said in the 2nd quarter that the refs had to get the game under control as it was so physical. We all see it. A foul in January is a foul in June.
- But here is the bigger issue for the Knicks. Brunson is taking 25 – 30 shots a game, and KAT is marginalized on offense. In fact, the Spurs are putting a smaller player on KAT to prevent him from getting the ball up high and being able to orchestrate from there. To do that, they grab and hold him – no calls ever. BUT… the problem for the Knicks is that Brunson is just dribbling out the clock at mid-court and then going one on one. The Knicks only had 18 assists last night. Way too much of this offense. Way too Brunson-centric and they are going to lose the series if it continues. He is getting his points but they come at the expense of his teammates who are not getting in any type of rhythm. SU expects this to change in game 4 which now becomes a very crucial game for each team.
- The playoffs are all about adjustments game to game. Brown will surely do that now and the refs will start to call fouls on the Spurs in the 1st quarter for the grabbing and holding. SU is old and I have seen it before. Ask Phil Jackson.
SU fully expects the Knicks to win game 4. If you think about it, the Knicks played poorly for 3 of the 4 quarters last night and still almost won the game. The Spurs cannot play much better. On the other hand, the Spurs have outplayed the Knicks for the majority of minutes across the 3 games, and the Knicks are fortunate to be up 2-1. Change the Brunson-dominant offense and all will be well.
Thoughts? Or did the Knicks get jobbed and Brunson is the star and needs to be the focal point? The floor is open.
Sports Update Intergalactic 
The image of Brunson being thrown to the ground by Wemby which resulted in no foul called is a pretty bad one and I fully expect the refs in the next game to have this in mind. Wemby could see a lot more fouls called against him. While this one was bad, I’ll allow the refs to miss something happening away from the ball in real time. What was worse were two fouls that were reviewed for flagrant. The first was when Castle ran into Brunson and shoved him to the ground. It looked like a football play. But the review determined it was not flagrant because there was no “windup” and “no follow through.” As the announcers said, the run into Brunson WAS the windup and there clearly was some follow through. The second was when Champagnie shot a three pointer and landed on one of Brunsons feet. They reviewed the play and called Brunson for a flagrant even though he had his back to the shooter and the “landing zone” in this case was 2 or 3 feet inside the three-point line. I’m not sure Brunson was even in the landing zone, let alone trying to be there in any “flagrant” manner. I’m sure both of these calls are supportable based on a reading of the rules. But it should be embarrassing for a ref to get on the mic and explain how the football style play against Brunson was not flagrant but the landing zone one was. We all have eyes and could see one was obviously done with intention and the other was incidental.
I’d like to see Brunson take fewer shots. But the minutes with Alvarado and Clarkson on the court were very hard to watch.