We know it : Mark Daigneault almost always uses his “challenges”, the coach loving to test the limits of this joker, which allows him to request slow motion to reverse an arbitration decision.
Except that yesterday, the Oklahoma City coach perhaps played too much with fire, in a particularly bizarre sequence. There are then 2 minutes 40 left to play in Game 1 between the Thunder and the Pelicans, who lead 90-88 at the Paycom Center. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander misses a 3-pointer and everyone jumps for the rebound. It's confusion while Chet Holmgren And Larry Nance Jr. both accompany the ball into touch, and the referees do not know who touched the ball last. In the blur, they then announce an in-between.
Mark Daigneault then intervenes and uses his “challenge” to ask the referees to review the sequence.
It's what comes next that's weird. Because at first, the official Tony Brothers announces that it was Chet Holmgren who touched the ball last, and that the throw-in is therefore for the Pelicans. But he still validates Mark Daigneault’s “challenge” since the decision was changed, giving him his time out.
Except that in the process, the Secausus “Replay Center” calls it, and the Thunder loses both possession of the ball and its last timeout. What the Technician of the Year doesn't understand…
“I’m quite disturbed because it’s really a huge inconsistency”
“I just looked again, to make sure I wasn't crazy.” I don't think I'm at fault because it happened this year.” he detailswhile he did the same thing against Utah, but then kept his timeout. “If I was wrong at Utah, they didn’t call me to tell me. I spent the season believing that was the rule. I'm quite disturbed because it's really a huge inconsistency. »
Mark Daigneault probably thought he was using a gray area in the regulations because NBA rule no. 14 only talks about the “success” of a “challenge”. In a classic case, where the referees whistle for one or the other team, we understand very well that the “success” of the challenge is the fact that the slow motion proves the referees' error in real time, and the inversion from the whistle. But in this case, the “challenge” concerned a jump ball, with the referees not knowing in real time who to give the ball to.
Did the Thunder coach really “won” the “challenge”? Yes if we read the regulations thinking that we win a “challenge” by changing the referees’ decision (which was the case). No if we understand that we win it by getting a whistle that favors our own team (which was not the case).
“If I was wrong in Utah, I would have liked to have been called” concludes Mark Daigneault, who undoubtedly imagined taking advantage of a free slow motion by “challenging” a jump ball. “If I was wrong tonight, it was a playoff game. That disappoints me a little. » Even if, in the end, victory must have quickly erased the bitterness.
