The Golden State Warriors lost to the Cleveland Cavaliers, 118-110 on Saturday night, but Bay Area fans will be left thinking about how this one may have turned out had they had Draymond Green available to play until the final buzzer. Green was ejected with over six minutes remaining in the third quarter after he drew his second technical of the game.
The nature of the technical foul was definitely curious. Green bumped Cavs guard Donovan Mitchell in-play on a Cleveland offensive drive. In the following play, Mitchell traversed the court, finding Green to shove him intentionally in retaliation.
That provocation got Green and Mitchell into a shouting match, but nothing about the post-play scuffle quite amounted to that of a technical foul.
Here's the sequence:
Green was assessed a technical when play stopped for the bump that had happened the play before the stoppage. Steve Kerr let his frustration unleash after the game.
Steve Kerr comments on officiating, timing of serving technical foul to Draymond Green
Steve Kerr, like plenty of Warriors fans, was frustrated with the technical on Green, in particular the timing of it:
Here's the sequencing, to summarize:
- Drive 1: Draymond Green shoves Donovan Mitchell in a fast-break situation
- Drive 1: Cavs score and play progresses normally
- Drive 2: Mitchell seeks Green out and shoves him
- Drive 2: Play is stopped
- Drive 2: Green assessed a technical for actions on Drive 1
The timing of things does appear to miss any logical thinking or refereeing philosophy. Looking at it from a transactional standpoint, it almost appears as if Mitchell and the Cavs are rewarded for retaliating over what they felt was a missed call since Green is assessed a penalty for a play that happened before the stoppage.
Kerr is right that it's definitely uncommon. Whether right or not, most -- if not all -- incidents amounting to that of a technical foul happen then and there.
The NBA has yet to comment on the incident, but it'll be interesting to see whether or not the league approves of the officiating decisions made in Saturday's games. The precedent set here would be interesting since an approval of the incident might be viewed as approval to assess technical fouls in retrospect.
