Carlisle supports the referee, can the Pacers escape "fatalism"?

Pacers coach Carlisle was rarely moved and spoke out for a controversial referee. The gunpowder smell of this final came not only from the battle on the court, but also from the anger and doubts off the court. The finals were tied 2-2, and neither the Thunder nor the Pacers had a way out. Tomorrow, the Battle of Tianwang Mountain will usher in the fateful battle. But just before the eve of the battle, a person outside the court unexpectedly became the focus - referee Scott Foster. The "old acquaintance" referee's law enforcement in G4 has caused huge controversy. Fans, commentators and even some former players have bluntly pointed out that Foster's judgment on key balls, penalty standards, and tolerance for confrontation are obviously inclined to the Thunder.

And amidst the doubts, Pacers coach Carlisle stood up. He said firmly in the interview:

"The things I saw about the referee, especially about Foster, were too bad. He was an excellent referee and did a great job in the playoffs. The ridiculous reviews people are doing on him now are terrible, unfair, unjust and stupid." The words and firm attitudes made many people confused.

You should know that in Foster's law enforcement this season's playoffs, the Thunder's record was 4 wins and 0 losses, while the Pacers suffered a 5-game losing streak.

This set of comparison data is like a string of cold numbers, mercilessly revealing a cruel reality: Foster is present, and the Thunder often wins; the Pacers are all spared.

No one can draw a conclusion whether this is "god will" or "people's will". But in the fierce collisions of the playoffs, when one side suffers repeatedly and when the same referee frequently "creates" the trend, suspicion will naturally follow.

Carlisle chose to speak out at this moment, obviously trying to "cool down" the team. After all, tomorrow is the battle of Tianwang Mountain. The players' mentality will determine success or failure. The coach must stand up and provide the team with the bottom line, even if this is a "political incorrect" remark.

But the problem also follows.

When you face a referee who has lost all five battles and is constantly controversial, should you continue to believe in "fairness" or start to doubt the "rules"?

NBA has never been an absolutely rational league. The whistle of every game is like a needle, piercing the team's rhythmic nerves. A single call may change the score, and whether a block is fouled may affect the trend of the series.

What is even more ironic is that Carlisle is not someone who has not been "purged" by Foster. Many years ago, when he coached the Mavericks, he was fined $10,000 for throwing the tactical board with dissatisfaction with Foster.

So this time's strong support is more like a "hemostatic" attitude - in order to stabilize the morale of the army, rather than sincere recognition. The reason why the

referee issue is difficult to discuss is because it is vague, subjective, and uncertain, but its impact is real, specific and huge. Foster has long been labeled in the eyes of fans, not only because of his "script sense" of yelling the key battle, but also because he is burdened with countless controversies about victory or defeat.

Interestingly, whenever Foster enforces the law, the media will always dig out a series of "criminal records" in advance, and even things like "Foster enforcement win rate statistics table" appear, as if an NBA referee has become a key research object for bookmaker analysts.

G5 will be played at the Thunder home court, and the Thunder won all four games in Foster's law enforcement, and the location is still their territory. It is almost a "challenge fate" to make the Pacers want to turn the tables.

There are already voices in the outside world who are worried that if this game continues to be handed over to Foster for law enforcement, the credibility of the game will be seriously shaken. What the NBA needs is passion, confrontation and suspense, rather than a "direction" with many doubts and plots.

Of course, a real strong team will not just stare at the whistle.

To win, Pacers have to rely on Halliburton's control, Siakam's impact force, and the overall coordination of internal and external lines. Just complaining about the whistle can't win the game. Thunder also understood that even if the "time and place are in place" are all occupied, it is necessary to rely on "harmony" like Alexander to end the game.

Carlisle's words may not allow Foster to be whitewashed, but he at least showed the calmness and maturity of one coach. The finals should be a showdown between players, not a stage dominated by the "black whistle".

Basketball is a five-man sport, but it cannot keep another team hanging in their hearts because of the whistle in one person's hand.

Tomorrow's game will be a double contest between strength and psychology. If the Thunder wins again, they will inevitably step into the championship threshold; if the Pacers can withstand the pressure, they will completely wash away the public opinion storm of "being defeated by the referee". The ending of

is not important, what is important is whether this game can return to its essence, so that the outcome depends on the players, not the whistle.