NBA News

Lao Zhan had already suffered a loss before chasing his dream 🧠Detailed explanation of the “Time Back” of the Qiyong Battle

Lao Zhan had already suffered a loss before Dream Chasing 🧠 Detailed explanation of the "Time Recall" in the Cavaliers' battle. In today's game when the Warriors lost to the Cavaliers, the referee used "Time Recall" and called Dream Chasing a technical foul. He accumulated two A technical prisoner was deported. After Meng Chai's elbow was called back by the referee during the game, both Meng Chai and Cole expressed their disapproval of the referee's "

In today’s game when the Warriors lost to the Cavaliers, the referee used “time back” and called Chai Dream a technical foul. He was expelled for a total of two technical fouls.

Chai Meng’s elbow was called back by the referee

After the game, both Dream Chasing and Cole raised objections to the referee’s “time back” decision change. However, according to the rules, the referee did call according to the rules. There is no problem. Let’s learn from it.

NBA video review The viewing mechanism can be triggered by many conditions.

In today’s game, the referee determined that Mitchell had committed a foul, but was not sure whether he was a bad foul, so he opened the game under this condition Watch the video again.

This is item a (3) in the rule “Trigger conditions for video playback”. The original text is as follows:

Under each “trigger condition”, the content that the referee can judge is different. Under today’s a(3) trigger condition, There are two things the referee can look at:

1. How should this foul be called – an ordinary foul? Technical offender? A first-degree criminal? Level 2 criminal?

2. Are there any other illegal or unnecessary actions before and after this foul? ——This is today’s “time review”.

The referee used this rule today, calling Chai Meng a technical foul and expelling him.

The whole incident is simple To put it simply:The referee watched the video on the grounds of event A and eventually blew the whistle on event B.

Although it sounds abstract, this is indeed a bragging method that complies with the rules.

This rule is actually I have studied before, The case at that time also came from the Cavalry Battle – Durant knocked down James, and the referee finally changed the decision to block James.

At that time, Durant knocked down James with the ball, and referee Ken Mauer immediately whistled Durant for an offensive foul. , but the far-end referee Blazes called James for blocking, and the two referees disagreed, so they had a discussion;

After the discussion,the referees asked to see the video on the grounds that they were “not sure whether James was standing outside the circle”;

After watching the video,the referees responded with “James didn’t”Stand the defensive position in advance” was the reason. James was sentenced to a defensive foul. Durant then made two free throws to equalize the score.

This is also a penalty of “watching the video on the grounds of event A, but ultimately calling event B”.

Related content>>

🧐Detailed explanation of the rules | James’ difficult decision to change the decision in G1 of the 2018 Finals

What's your reaction?

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *