apparrently smyth reacted to a pushing foul called on Willie who was gaurding Wethers and Wethers made 4/4 free throws inside the last minute.

crap!!!!

I would love to see some footage of the incident- giving a tech foul with 40sec left!? He would have had to have said something about the refs mother

Hopefully some details will come out regarding the tech foul as everyone is hanging out to hear about it. It was such a crucial time of the game, I doubt Phil would have deliberately jeopardised the team's chances of winning that game. Considering Phil is usually such a cool and calm character, something terribly wrong went on there to aggravate him to that extent.

What did Smyth do? With all the abuse and walking on court that most other coaches get away with at the Dome, We can only imagine .....

As was stated above by flatshot, Farley was defending Wethers and was called for a pushing foul. Wethers sank 4/4 FT in the final moments of the game.

Would've been a very handy win, but the Sixers did split a road double so I'm sure Smyth wouldn't be devastated.

I thoroughly disagree Isaac. We wouldn't be giving up any wins voluntarily, particularly with an important Tigers game coming up on Wednesday. The Tigers will be more hungry than we will for that win so this game against the Pirates would have been an important one to win to us. Its not just the split thats important, its positioning on the ladder leading into playoffs.

Read all of Smyth's comments in the paper and find me an example of a split road double that seems to have overly concerned him.

From what I've read, he's realistic. I don't think he'd be devastated by winning one of two away from the Dome.

Whether you, I or other fans think it's a game that would've been very valuable to win is a different story and wasn't my original point. It would've been great to pick up the win and move to the top of the ladder.

would have been great to win as other teams around us lost but at least they havent jumped clear!!!

Our positioning on the ladder is critical as far as how well we go in the playoffs. Every win from here on is a valuable win. Its a fact that the Sixers are more successful at home, so its important to position themselves to get home court advantage come playoffs. I am not denying that a split on the road is a good result, but I disagree that Phil would have dismissed the importance of winning it.

Read in the paper Boti thought that a more experienced referee wouldn't have teched Phil...it was a VERRRRY gutsy call by the ref

This is a quote of what Boti said "Veteran observers at the game said it was "highly unlikely" Smyth would have received a technical foul from a more senior referee". Smyth himself says that he cannot reveal details of the tech foul because of NBL rules. I cannot understand why there is this wall of silence when there is a good chance that a ref (a less than senior one)has made a bad call. Particularly when it directly affects the outcome of the game. Refs make mistakes all the time. Why can't they be reviewed and action taken accordingly, even if it means a replay of the last 5 minutes of a game to re decide the outcome. I know it doesn't make economical sense to do that, nor does the schedule allow for it, but its worse to allow a team to lose a game on a ref's error. Teams put in a lot of blood, sweat and tears into making the championship, to lose it to ref errors is ludicrous. For Heaven's sake, they are NBL accredited refs and there's 3 of them on the court at all times, surely they can get it right.

A replay of the last 5 minutes of a game to re decide the outcome. I think we have a nomination for stupidest post of 2005.

Just on recent refereeing incidents, did anyone see Melb v Perth where none of the three saw a a shot hit the underside of the ring and thus let the shot clock expire??

I guess the one(s) supposed to be watching was unsighted, but its a pretty amazing thing to miss!

I thought Fisher was going to pop something!

For those who are interested, I sent an email to Marc Howard (NBL) as I wanted some feedback on whether the matter was reviewed by them due to contraversial circumstances on whether it was a fair calling or not by an official. I was very pleased to get a response from him but as I expected, it didn't really answer my questions. This is the response I received;

"My understanding of the situation surrounding that particular technical foul is that the Adelaide bench received a warning in the first half and again immediately prior to the tech being issued. That being the case, the officials are perfectly justified in tech fouling the Adelaide bench. In fact, they could have done so earlier rather than issue a second warning."

From this response, it suggests to me that the Tech Foul call was made not based on that particular instance alone but out of frustration to a second warning which in itself may not have justified that call. Also, if the officials could have issued a tech foul in the first instance as stated by Marc, that would have been better than in the dying seconds of a close game that gave the Sixers no chance of fighting back.

I know my opinion on this matter is not shared by everyone, but I strongly believe that the Sixers were disadvantaged in this game. Not issuing a tech foul when it may be justified and then issuing it when it may not be justified tells me a lot about the capabilities of the refs at that game.

When are coaches going to be penalised for walking on the court during play? Some are constantly standing, walking and crossing over the lines of the court which I thought was illegal.

Smyth has been around long enough to know the rules and know that they may be subject to variation in interpretation so he has to take responsibility for his contribution to the problem.
We often focus on the last minute but i am sure we could isolate a variety of aspects of that game -eg missed free throws, willie going 0 of 7, or any number of situations where a bit of extra effort could have reversed an earlier score, or dragged in an extra board or cut off a pass. I think it is a waste of time going in to bash ref made or catastrophising this aspect of 1 game. A critical loss given the games that we are facing.

Refs are refs...some days you get the good calls some days you get the shit ones.

Anonymous...it is an interesting rule what constitutes a shot.

If it's not a shot till it hits the ring, how could it ever be goal tending?? Because, in theory it isnt a shot :)

I recall something back when I used to ref in the rule book being "a valid shot attempt"..which made the whole thing open to interpretation....maybe one of our refs could give us a clear cut definition?

Basically we need to live with the fact that in the NBL the Refs often decide who wins and loses with little regard to the official rules. As long as we the paying fans accept this the NBL will allow it to go on. However we are not alone. Tim Duncan rode the bench a lot at Athens because FIBA refs decide on the calls differently to NBA ones

it was a pleasent site seeing phil angry for once