#1

SAN ANTONIO -- Faced with the possibility of having a second straight season end with a Game 7 loss, the San Antonio Spurs playe

in Dies ist ein Forum in der Kategorie 04.12.2017 08:00
von jokergreen0220 • 955 Beiträge

SAN ANTONIO -- Faced with the possibility of having a second straight season end with a Game 7 loss, the San Antonio Spurs played with emotion and let Tony Parker have some fun. Paul George Jersey . Parker scored 32 points and the San Antonio led by as many as 31 on its way to a 119-96 victory over the Dallas Mavericks, closing out a stressful first-round series Sunday in seven games. The finale featured Tim Duncan diving into Dallas bench to save a ball and the Spurs reserves continually on their feet to celebrate baskets. But no one had as much fun or hit the floor more than Parker. The All-Star point guard was 11 for 19 from the field and 10 for 13 on free throws as Dallas was unable to keep him from attacking the lane, despite a series of hard fouls. "I just knew that I had to be aggressive if we wanted to have a chance to win the game because of the strategy that the Mavericks chose," Parker said. "They just dared me to score." Manu Ginobili scored 20 points, Danny Green added 16 points and Tim Duncan and Kawhi Leonard had 15 points apiece for San Antonio. Dirk Nowitzki had 22 points and nine rebounds to lead Dallas. Last season ended for the Spurs with a Game 7 loss in the NBA Finals against the Miami Heat. Facing a much earlier end, San Antonio rode a raucous home crowd and overwhelmed Dallas. San Antonio advances to face the fifth-seeded Portland Trail Blazers, who upset the Houston Rockets in a six-game series. The series opens Tuesday in San Antonio. The Spurs got off to a quick start as they had done at home all series, but the Mavericks were unable to respond as they did in winning Game 2 on the road. Leonards 16-foot jumper gave San Antonio an 18-7 lead 6 minutes into the game and the lead swelled to 29 with 2 minutes remaining in the first half. "We gave ourselves a chance but today we got hit by a tidal wave early," Dallas coach Rick Carlisle said. "They had their best game today and we just werent able to do quite enough to stay in it early. "Its hard when you get hit with an onslaught early the way the guys did." Nowitzki struggled through much of the series, but the Mavericks pushed the Spurs to the brink of elimination behind strong post-season performances from Monta Ellis, Vince Carter, Devin Harris and DeJuan Blair. "On the court what confounded us was that theyve got shooters all the way around," San Antonio coach Gregg Popovich said. "Dirk Nowitzki gets a crowd, if you double him you, you leave a lot of other open shooters. So we played him pretty much one-on-one, so we could stay at home a little bit better. That and the ability to shoot it; spread the floor, run the sets that Rick does and the speed of Harris and Ellis was tough for us to handle." Dallas also played a physical series. There were two technical fouls and two flagrant fouls in Game 7 and two more flagrants reversed upon review. Parker was assessed a technical with 31.6 second left in the first quarter after making a layup on and jawing with former teammate Blair as the two ran down the court. The two had been talking to each other all series and Parker was clearly frustrated at times with the hard fouls committed by Blair on his drives earlier in the series. But Parker said it was all in good fun. "I was just laughing with DeJuan," Parker said of the technical. "Thats why it was so funny to get a technical for that, because I was not even cursing at him. DeJuan played four years (for the Spurs). He lived for a year at my house. I love DeJuan." Blair was later assessed a flagrant foul for elbowing Ginobili in the face on a drive. After the foul, Blair stared down Popovich, who was screaming at officials over the severity of the foul. The flagrant foul energized the Spurs, who went on a 14-2 run to take a 51-27 lead with 8 minutes remaining in the first half. "Everybody was active and kind of focused," Duncan said. "We had very little mistakes." San Antonio never led by less than 14 points in the second half. NOTES: The Spurs were 7-0 in games decided by three points or less during the regular season but were 0-2 against Dallas in such games in their first-round series. . Sundays game between Dallas and San Antonio was the 50th post-season game this season. It was also the fifth Game 7 of the first round. "I think its great for basketball and for the fans," Popovich said. "It drives all the coaches crazy. (But) for the game and everybody, its been a wonderful thing. " ... Blair was booed heavily each time he entered the game or committed a foul. Russell Westbrook Jersey . After losing Brett Cecil to groin tightness on Friday, the Blue Jays watched as R. Doug McDermott Jersey .Y. - Referee Ed Hochuli referred to replay official Tom Sifferman by his nickname Jungle Boy, which was heard on the in-stadium microphone during the Arizona Cardinals-Carolina Panthers NFC wild-card game Saturday. http://www.authenticthunderauthority.com/steven-adams-thunder-jersey-c-7/ . Casey Janssen was placed on the 15-day disabled list Sunday due to a strain in his left abdominal area and lower back.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Kerry, I appreciate your earlier comments on Torontos handling of the Vanek goal, and Im sure youve seen the Howie Rose-Kris King interview by now. Im still left with some basic questions about what the actual NHL rules are at this point, and was hoping you could provide some insight. 1. Does the situation room still need clear, incontrovertible evidence to overturn calls made on the ice? Every NHL announcer seems to think so, but Kris King clearly indicates that while that logic held in many cases there was a specific subset of calls (including kicking motion) where the situation room could take the on-ice call as purely advisory and didnt have to find incontrovertible video evidence in order to overturn. Is Kings view backed up by formal statements/rule changes? Do NHL refs uniformly understand that Toronto needs clear evidence to overturn in some cases but not in others? 2. Kings comments seemed contradictory in that he said the rules regarding kicking were defined so that neither refs or the situation room needed to make any judgment as to the players intent (i.e goals scored by kicking should be disallowed even if they could be considered unintentional or inadvertent), but also raised the point that "foot dragging" could be defined as "kicking" in this context. First of all, Rule 38.4 which you quoted in your initial comment does not mention foot dragging, and the "pendulum" motion it prohibits would seem to explicitly exclude the possibility of disallowing goals based on foot dragging. Has there been an internal memo or formal rule change that all NHL refs would be aware of that expands Rule 38.4 to include foot dragging? Secondly, outside of extraordinarily blatant cases, how could anyone disallow a goal on foot dragging grounds without judging the players intentions? Hundreds of goals go off skates where there has been no "pendulum" type kicking motion. How could anyone distinguish good from bad goals without determining whether they thought the player was trying to intentionally redirect a puck, as opposed to simply position themselves near the goal mouth where lucky bounces sometimes occur? We all understand that no set of rules can ever be perfect. The issue here is that you and most fans that saw the Vanek video believed the rule to be applied in that situation was one thing, and King may have implied (but never clearly said), no - the rule to be applied in that situation is different. If the rules are 100 per cent clear to refs and everyone in the league, it would still be useful to communicate changes more clearly so that announcers and journalists arent confusing the fans. Of course, if situation room personnel think they can establish rule interpretations that the on-ice staff isnt in sync with, that would raise a different set of issues. Hoping you can clarify what the real situation is. Hubert Horan Hubert: I truly believe that each person who staffs the Situation Room on a nightly basis in Toronto is a man of integrity and cares deeply about the game. They do not take the huge responsibility handed to them lightly and they do strive to get every call right through videoo review to the best of their ability. Kevin Durant Jersey. When a play, subject to review, is taken over by the Situation Room their judgment is independent of the referees and any decision rendered through video review is final. The only exception is when video review returns an "inconclusive verdict" at which time the call reverts back to the referee on the ice. In almost every case the referees initial call will then stand. The referees make the call from their vantage point in real time based on the rules as written and with the direction and expected standard of enforcement they are handed from their superiors. The refs recognize that their decision on the ice can be overturned for any reason, whether they agree or even like it! It would appear, at least from the perception of the personnel conducting the video review, that clear and incontrovertible evidence is present for them to overturn a referees call on the ice. That perception and ultimate decision is always subject to debate and scrutiny from the hockey community. While I cant ever recall Kris King agreeing with a penalty I assessed against him during his 14 season NHL career I know him to be a very good, honest and charitable person. As a former player that was most often cheered by adoring fans, Kris and his colleagues in the Situation Room can sometimes find their decisions challenged rather vehemently by various members of the hockey community. No differently than a referee experiences throughout his career, it goes with the territory! This might explain some of Kris apparent defensiveness during the interview with Howie Rose. What Kris didnt explain, but only alluded to, were instructions provided them by the general managers how to ascertain a "distinct kicking motion" beyond the definition provided in rule 38.4 (iv). If such instructions include a skate drag or worse yet, unintended contact with a players skate resulting from physical contact by an opponent, these new criteria should be clearly communicated to the rest of the hockey world. That I believe is the question that Howie Rose and the rest of us would like a clear answer to. I would be most curious to know if Isles GM Garth Snow and Habs GM Marc Bergevin (following Brendan Gallaghers disallowed goal) among others have signed off on the instructions Kris King alluded to. A referee often factors in "player intent" when imposing his judgment on infractions and calls. To suggest otherwise is illogical. At the present time a vast majority of the hockey community, including current and former officials, current and former players, broadcasters and fans cant logically understand decisions to disallow goals like the one that went into the net off the skate of Thomas Vanek. The answer to that question has to come clearly and definitively from Colin Campbell, current Executive Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations who holds the keys to the Kingdom. Finally, the integrity and accuracy of the video review process would be greatly enhanced if the NHL were to employ former referees to provide their specialized expertise and INDEPENDENT judgment in these matters no differently than the other major professional sports leagues have recognized is necessary. Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Jerseys From China Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Cheap Jerseys ' ' '

nach oben springen


Besucher
0 Mitglieder und 19 Gäste sind Online

Wir begrüßen unser neuestes Mitglied: Steve_Harrington
Forum Statistiken
Das Forum hat 9932 Themen und 13158 Beiträge.