Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy
A thought I posted earlier on CB....but not sure why the Yao Ming thing is an issue.
Cube complained about illegal screens. So the league told the refs to crack down on Yao's illegal screens, not his legal ones. In my mind, that is a non-issue. Coaches do the same thing during the course of a game....the refs cant see everything, so the coaches point stuff out and sometims it changes how the game is called.
As for Game 6, anyone who wants to slag on Game 6 please first walk everyone through Game 5, which, uopn replay, showed that the ball last touched Webber. Instead, the kings get the ball, bibby takes it, and hits the three to win at the end of the game.
Should have been lakers 3-2 going into Game 6, not vice versa.
i have no problem thinking that game 6 was a gift to the lakers...because they got robbed at the end of Game 5 on a call.
It is a slippery slope to go down when you selectively point out one game or one call as evidnetiary of conspiracy.
|
Pointing to more than 25 free throws by one teamm in one quarter is not slippery at all. It sticks out horribly, unlike one bad (or questioanble) out of bounds call from the game before. I don't like the kings, so I ma not emoitionally invested here, but that game looked bad to me back then, even without little Timmy DOnaghy's story.
Plus, it is easwy to say they were only cracking down on Yao's 'illegal' screens, but the point is that they have trmendous power to influence the game's outcome when they selectively enforce, or more rigidly enforce, any rule against any given player. WHy don' tthey say "watch for illegal screens"? If Donaghy is right, the singled out Yao and that sort of selective hyper-enforcement is improper and could lead to managed outcomes.