I've had enough with the crying about Scott Foster and the officiating, and so has Rick Carlisle

The Pacers' coach defended Foster after the Game 4 loss. Good for him.

Last week, Rick Carlisle defended TV analyst Doris Burke when stories appeared that suggested she would be ousted from the network’s No. 1 NBA announcing team. Then Monday, he took issue with the social media and media criticism of Game 4 official Scott Foster.

Now, yelling about social media is like the old man screaming at a cloud meme. There’s no controlling social media, or the louts who produce the kind of nonsense that we’ve all read in recent days. Calling Foster incompetent and worse, calling him “The Extender,” the idea being he tries to call games in a way that extends series and puts money in the NBA’s and the network’s pockets. I mean, it’s all so nonsensical, but in this day and age, we need something or someone to blame. Never mind that the Pacers’ offense stagnated, that they made just 5-of-18 shots, that they amassed just a single assist or that Benn Mathurin missed three key free throws. It’s never the home team’s fault. It’s all about the officiating.

Ridiculous.

“I think it’s awful, some of the things I’ve seen about the officiating and Scott Foster in particular," Carlisle said. “I’ve known Scott Foster for 30 years. He’s a great official. He’s done a great job in these playoffs. We’ve had him a lot of times.”

Now, is Carlisle just trying to ingratiate himself and his team to Foster and the officials? I guess, in theory, that could be behind his comments – playing chess instead of checkers -- but I doubt it. I was very disappointed in the Indianapolis Star, running a short story quoting Bill Simmons criticizing Foster’s work. Are we really going to reduce ourselves to writing stories quoting another media member? Does this seem incestuous to anybody else? Are we really going to start quoting other media people in our stories in an effort to gin up readership? Worse yet, they used the term “The Extender” in the headline. Dumb and unfair.

It's small.

It’s petty.

It’s homerism at its worst.

Just as a reminder, the Thunder had 38 free throws, the Pacers 33. The big difference was, the Pacers missed eight of their free throws.

But it was Foster’s fault.

Game 4 marked Foster’s 26^th Finals game, more than any other active referee. He’s also done 262 playoff games, most among active officials. He’s clearly well-regarded by the league, consistently earning these plum assignments. You want to argue there was a missed call or three? Absolutely. But that’s sports. That’s the human element. Calls are subjective judgments, judgments made by flesh-and-blood human beings. They’re doing their best and for the greatest part, Foster did his job well. The players determined the outcome Friday night. And the Pacers came up short --- period.

Now, I have a deep affinity for the The Star and the people with whom I used to work, but I feel like they’ve tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator, not only with regard to Foster, but with this whole stupid Stephen A. Smith Plays Solitaire garbage. First, it’s terribly invasive for someone – a fan, I’m assuming – to take a photo of Smith’s phone during the game. But I understand, you can’t control what people do with their phones. I just don’t think you turn it into a story – a short one, a “bright” we call it – but a story nonetheless.

All year long, I’ve heard complaints – reasonable ones – that the national media ignores the Pacers (Tim Legler excepted). But then when the national media shows up, we complain when they suggest that Oklahoma City has a very good chance of winning this series (hint: they do). Look, I understand the anger at Smith, who digs out the pom pons when his beloved Knicks are playing, and I’ve always been critical of journalists who brandish their fandom. We’re there as objective observers, not cheerleaders.

But enough already.

Enough with the two guys dressing up as the characters in “Dumb and Dumber”, referencing Stephen A. and Kendrick Perkins. Enough with taking photos over Smith’s shoulder to reveal him playing solitaire. What are we – 7 years old?

I know, I know. It’s all about eyeballs. It’s all about engagement. I’m a dinosaur. I get it.

Honestly, I love when the national media descends upon Indianapolis. I was flat on my back with bronchitis for a couple of days last week and consumed a lot of national media work, and damn, it was good. If you have a chance, check out two Ramona Shelburne pieces, one on Pacers assistant coach Jenny Boucek, another on the relationship between Tyrese Haliburton and Caitlin Clark. David Aldridge of The Athletic wrote a terrific story on the 2000 NBA Finals between the Pacers and Lakers. I read several X-and-O’s breakdowns, the kind you routinely get from Caitlin Cooper, helping readers understand the game at a more granular level.

I feel like it’s kind of cool to get new sets of eyes reporting on the local team.

I understand the fan experience, the desire to close ranks and see this as Indy vs. Everybody, but I’ve got to say, I’ve absolutely enjoyed seeing the Pacers in the media vortex. Everybody is talking about Indy and its revelatory basketball team. Let’s just enjoy our moment in the sun without turning it into something ugly and petty.