Biggest question! Did the referee whistle over the Grizzly Bears?

The worst thing about competitive sports is that the referee becomes the protagonist, and the focus of public opinion during and after the game is on the fair and just spokesperson referee. People are not talking about technical tactics and strength competitions, but about whether the referee's blowing penalty is fair, and the beauty of competition is completely destroyed.

The warriors and Grizzlies were like this in the first two games of the series, and A few comments from industry authorities are just a few:

"Referees are the Warriors' biggest opponent this season," ESPN expert Brian Windhorst said after the Warriors' G1 death-defying victory over the Grizzlies.

Jaren Rose said: "Great teams always beat the referee, and the Warriors did it in the first game. ”

After the second game, ESPN star Stephen A-Smith said publicly: "The referee gave this game to the Grizzlies. ”

These are only some of the comments that question and satirize the referee, and the mainstream view after the first two games is that the referee is biased towards the Grizzlies. So, is the referee really biased towards the Grizzlies? What is the reason for the repeated controversies caused by referees?

Free throw comparison is not the main cause

In this season's playoffs, many managers and players have been fined for bashing the referee, and they are basically dissatisfied with the disparity in free throws between the two sides. However, this is not the case in the Warriors' series with the Grizzlies. The Warriors' first two free throws were 20 and 18, the Grizzlies were 24 and 21, and the Grizzlies had seven more in both games. The Grizzlies each had 23.1 free throws in the regular season, 2.8 more than the Warriors, and the number of free throws on each side in the first two games of the series was normal.

The Warriors' low number of free throws is easy to understand, they have a large number of shots concentrated outside the three-point line, as a team known for projection, their impact on the basket is not high, and the free throw rate is naturally low. The Grizzlies' basket shot ratio is not too much in the league, their penalty area offense has a lot from the second offense, although they have Morant, a breakthrough master, but making free throws is not the Grizzlies' strength. In addition, the Warriors' strategy to play the Grizzlies is to shrink as much as possible, allowing the Grizzlies to shoot three points inaccurately. In the first two games, the proportion of three-point shots by the Grizzlies soared, and the proportion of shots under the basket decreased.

As for Morant's number of free throws, there is no need to dwell on it. He made 16 free throws in two games, three times in the first and 13 in the second. Four of Morant's free throws came from the final stages of Game 2, two were rebounding fouls for Draymond Green and two were Warriors tactical fouls. Morant averaged only three free throws with 25 breaks per game, while Morant averaged 20.9 breaks per game in the regular season to get 3.9 free throws.

The referee did not give Morant a better blow-off treatment because he broke through more, and looking at Morant's offensive highlights, it can be seen that Morant has a large number of breakthroughs that will deliberately avoid defense and do not give opponents the opportunity to foul, and he is not the type of deliberate physical contact deception foul. Rather than cheating fouls, Morant prefers to rely on bouncing, stagnation and waist and stomach strength to put the ball into the basket in a difficult way.

Therefore, the number of free throws and the number of free throws are obviously not the key to the referee's controversy.

Second-degree malicious fouls are controversial

Judging from the remarks of industry insiders and Warriors, the second-degree malicious foul of Green in the first game and the second-level malicious foul of Dillon Brooks are a major incentive for the outside world to question the referee.

Originally, it was all second-degree malicious fouls, and no one was qualified to say anyone. The point is that the industry's evaluation of the two malicious fouls and the different results caused by the two malicious fouls have directed the focus of the discussion to the point of whether the referee's blow is fair.

In the first game, Green's action against Brandon Clark was blown into a second-degree malicious foul, and the referee thought that Green's action of hitting Clark in the face and pulling Clark out of the air was excessive and unnecessary. At the time, Green felt wronged, and Curry and Cole were shocked by the referee's blowing scale. In social media and video programs, many active players, celebrities, and commentators believe that the referee's sentence is too heavy, and Green's actions are at most first-level malicious fouls, which do not constitute second-level malicious fouls.

After the game, the league upheld the original judgment after review, and did not relegate Green's second-degree malicious foul. Originally, Green and the Warriors general said that this matter has been turned over, and they will look forward. But in the second game, not long after the start, Brooks maliciously fouled Payton Jr. on the defense. The referee watched the video and gave Brooks a second-degree malicious foul to expel him.

There have been two consecutive games of second-degree malicious fouls, and the melon-eating masses will inevitably have to be compared. Public opinion's attitude towards Brooks' foul this time is completely different from that of Green's foul, if Kerr and Curry attack brooks for playing dirty and dirty is a calf protector, then what about Matt Barnes and all the famous mouths? They all thought Brooks was too dirty for this foul. In particular, the foul led to the consequences of Payton's broken elbow, and Green's foul did not cause the Grizzlies to lose his staff (of course, not causing the opponent to be injured does not mean that Green's action was right), and several celebrities said on the show that Brooks' dirty foul benefited the Grizzlies.

In this case, the referee gave Brooks a second-degree malicious foul on the spot to expel him, and the real question was the referee in the first game. The referee in the first game was criticized for being overly sentenced, and after the second brooks malicious foul caused Payton to be injured at least after the series reimbursement, this comparison made the referee in the first game overreact.

There is another important factor in public opinion dissatisfaction with the referee, Brooks has become a new generation of evil men, his defense is full of physical confrontation, small actions, in the Grizzlies' home court, the referee is often acquiescing to the attitude, the outside world can not help but question the referee's home whistle.

The Warriors suffer more at critical moments

The outside world believes that the referee is biased against the Grizzlies, the most important reason is that both games have hit a critical moment, the referee report announced a total of 4 minutes of blowing penalties, the result of 4 missed judgments 3 times is not good for the Warriors, and some explanations are not convincing.

In the last two minutes of the first game, the referee missed 3 mistakes and 2 times against the Warriors.

1 minute and 46 seconds before the end of the game, Jaren Jackson violated the law for three seconds, and the referee missed the decision.

22 seconds before the end of the game, Curry had no problem blocking Morant, but then Curry received the ball and pushed back when he walked irregularly.

The most controversial was the time out of bounds 4.8 seconds before the end of the game, and the referee could not determine who actually touched the ball out of bounds, so the ball was awarded. The referee's report confirmed that it was Brooks who touched the ball out of bounds, and the ball should have been given to the Warriors.

In the last two minutes of the second game, the referee missed a judgment once, which was not good for the Warriors. 33 seconds before the end of the game, Morant singled out Wiggins to break through the throw, the Grizzlies extended the lead to 3 points, and the referee reported that Morant flipped his wrist when he broke through, and the referee missed the decision. One of the major dissatisfactions of public opinion is that Morant is not only this attack, many of his dribbles are suspected of flipping wrists, and many people on social media question morant's new generation of point guards who dribble too many wrists, but the league is a conniving attitude.

In addition to the above, there are two times that are the most controversial.

Five minutes and eight seconds before the end of the first game, Curry broke through and was whistled for an offensive foul, which was his fifth foul. The Warriors challenged the penalty but failed. For this decision, industry insiders generally believe that Brooks blocked the foul, curry should have received 2 free throws.

49.8 seconds before the end of the second game, Green was fouled when he grabbed a rebound, and the referee gave Morant two free throws, and Green dropped the ball to express dissatisfaction. The referee's report simply said: "Green knocked Morant out of his position when he grabbed the rebound. "This report is not convincing.

epilogue:

In the first two games of the series, there must be a problem with the referee's blowing, and the injury of Peyton Jr. and the emergence of controversial penalties have infinitely magnified the referee's problem.

Judging from the referee's report and the scale of the blowing penalty, the home whistle definitely exists, which exists in any series, including the Warriors, who have also been the beneficiaries of the home whistle. Each team is tired and tired in the regular season to compete for home advantage in the playoffs, not just to have one more home field in the playoffs, the home whistle is part of the game, and the objective existence cannot be eliminated. As for whether the existence of the home whistle is equivalent to the referee deliberately favoring the Grizzlies and ensuring that the Grizzlies win, there is a lot of room for discussion on these issues, and it can only be the wisdom of the benevolent.

In the end, the controversy over the adjudication can never be eliminated, and such controversy will never have a satisfactory outcome for all. It is better to pay attention to the referee's blowing than to pay attention to the content of the game itself.

As the side that was greatly affected by the referee's mistakes and missed judgments at key moments, the Warriors did not dwell too much on the whistle problem, and after the second game, they questioned Brooks's actions and turned the page. Kerr said they won't dwell on the last few penalties of the game, and what they'll have to do in the next few days of rest is a replay of the video, figuring out how to create better shots, how to make fewer mistakes and how to limit Morant on the defensive end. After all, in the end, it is the player's performance and tactical execution that ultimately determine the outcome.