Lakers Shafted, Still Win

[Isaac]

NBA conspiracy theorists must reckon with the fact that the Los Angeles Lakers, the biggest ratings draw in the league, received some of the worst officiating of the playoffs tonight in San Antonio. No contact with Spurs players was too minor for the officials to blow the whistle. The first half was particularly egregious: Lamar Odom and Derek Fisher were forced to sit out with foul trouble, and what should have been a double digit halftime lead was only six points.

But stop right there, because on the last play of the game Fisher clearly fouled Brent Barry and the refs didn't make the call. So, let the conspiracy theories commence. Still, on balance, the Spurs got the vast majority of breaks tonight. And Barry should have taken Charles Barkley's advice and jumped into Fisher directly, rather than trying to get off a clean shot. If he'd done so, he surely would have gotten three free throws.

As for the Lakers, they now go up 3-1 and continue what has been a remarkable playoff run. I was skeptical a few nights ago when the TNT crew speculated that this Lakers team might be as good as the Lakers championship teams from the early part of the decade. But now, on the heels of very impressive series' wins over Utah and Denver, they are a win away from vanquishing the mighty Spurs in five games. (Remember, too, that they have been playing in arguably the best conference in NBA history).

Comments

Also, Odom's block was clean, not goal-tending.

this Lakers team might be as good as the Lakers championship teams from the early part of the decade.

Might be better. They're certainly deeper. But that Shaq was such an unstoppable force that it's hard to compare the two teams.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 28, 2008 9:39 AM

I would tend to agree that the Lakers didn't get the benefits of calls throught the game with Fisher and Odom in foul trouble. But when it came down to game-deciding fouls, the defending champs were shafted in their own building. This type of stuff never happened to the Shaq Lakers or the Jordan Bulls. Parker was slammed into the stands on the block by Odom and that was clearly a foul by Fisher on Barry. I'm not saying it's fixed but based on the track record of the NBA and officating from last year, if someone proved that it was fixed, I wouldn't be shocked.

Posted by Political Savage | May 28, 2008 9:46 AM

Still, on balance, the Spurs got the vast majority of breaks tonight.

By far. And not just fouls - Duncan walked from Europe on one of his dunks.

I don't think this team is better than the great Shaq teams - but there are definitely more players who can put the ball in the hoop.

The mighty Spurs are older. Ginobli - arguably their best player all season - is dinged up and consequently inconsistent. Going through New Orleans took a toll. They've had a harder draw than the Lakers, especially since Denver decided not to show up in the first round.

These Lakers are younger and relatively fresh. If the Celtics go 7 every series and come into the finals with a Ray Allen who can't shoot - the Lakers will appear more dominant than they actually are.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 28, 2008 9:49 AM

I would tend to agree that the Lakers didn't get the benefits of calls throught the game with Fisher and Odom in foul trouble. But when it came down to game-deciding fouls, the defending champs were shafted in their own building. This type of stuff never happened to the Shaq Lakers or the Jordan Bulls. Parker was slammed into the stands on the block by Odom and that was clearly a foul by Fisher on Barry. I'm not saying it's fixed but based on the track record of the NBA and officating from last year, if someone proved that it was fixed, I wouldn't be shocked.

Posted by Political Savage | May 28, 2008 9:49 AM

You don't call that foul in the last seconds of a Western Conference Finals game. Every NBA analyst last night said so. The Lakers said so. And even the Spurs and Brent Barry said so.

The only people complaining are Spurs fans and a few others who don't know the game. The Spurs benefited from the refs the entire game. If the ref made that last call, then we'd be talking about how the refs gave the game to the Spurs (with assists from Fisher, Gasol, and Bryant).

The Lakers were simply the better team.

Posted by Mike | May 28, 2008 9:51 AM

this Lakers team might be as good as the Lakers championship teams from the early part of the decade.

Possibly (I'm still skeptical, I didn't think much of the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, but I still think they were better than the 2008 incarnation), but this team doesn't match up well with the Celtics at all. Of course, if Ray Allen and Paul Pierce continue to lay bricks, they'll get the Pistons. But the C's have defensive strength everywhere the Lakers have offense. Obviously, nobody stops Kobe, but I said the same thing about LeBron before the Cleveland series and they handled him pretty well (excepting game 7).

And of course, the wildcard is always Doc Rivers. I've never seen a coach so completely lacking in gameplan. He just throws players out there in seemingly random order and blames them for the outcome. He's just horrible.

There, I took a Lakers post and made it a Celtics post. MY would be proud.

Posted by Crusty Dem | May 28, 2008 9:55 AM

Zero. That's how many free throws Kobe attempted last night. And don't forget the bad call that led up to Brent Barry's play. The refs didn't reset the 24 second clock even though Fisher's shot hit the rim forcing Kobe into a shot with 2.1 seconds left on the 24 second clock. They get that call right and Kobe is shooting free throws.

Posted by keith | May 28, 2008 9:55 AM

Possibly... but this team doesn't match up well with the Celtics at all.

Um... who guards Kobe?

Posted by right | May 28, 2008 10:00 AM

These comments are riddled with errors. Kobe was shooting jump shoots. Why would he be getting fouled? If he drove to the lane more, I'm sure he would have shoot a ton of free throws. It's not as if he was getting fouled and the refs weren't calling it. Every NBA analyst said you don't call that foul. All those guys either played in the NBA or sell the NBA's product, what do you expect them to say? The NBA is fixed? The NBA provides them with their earnings. C'mon. I have to agree with right, Celtics will get murdered by Kobe. Ray Allen is a liabilty on defense. Joe Johnson killed him in that series and Joe Johnson is no Kobe.

Posted by Political Savage | May 28, 2008 10:12 AM

Best conference in history my ass.

The Pistons and Celtics had the two best records in the league THIS YEAR and the Celtics (.625) and Pistons (.652) had almost identical records against .500+ teams as the Lakers (.638). The best conference in my memory is the Eastern Conference of the early to mid 80s with great Celtics and 76er teams, and very good teams in Milwaukee and Atlanta.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 28, 2008 10:13 AM

Um... who guards Kobe?

Pierce and Posey, the same guys who handled LeBron (35.5% from the field). My fear is that Doc goes nuts and gives Allen (the only defensive hole for the C's) the assignment. That would be disaster.. I'd be all for leaving Ray Allen on the bench for the entire series (the only need for the Celtics to address in the off-season is 2 guard, and coach). They're better off with Tony Allen on the floor than Ray Allen, at least he plays D.

Posted by Crusty Dem | May 28, 2008 10:16 AM

poster already conceded "Obviously, nobody stops Kobe, but I said the same thing about LeBron before the Cleveland series and they handled him pretty well"

Posted by righter | May 28, 2008 10:16 AM

Um... who guards Kobe?

Tayshaun Prince.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 28, 2008 10:20 AM

It shouldnt came down to the last call.
the zebras missed equally important call seconds before. Fisher last shot hit the rim and 24 sec should reset. And Bryant wouldnt be forced to shoot with 2.0 sec left. Ran out the clock maybe free-throws. Bad call deserves another.

Posted by RJJ | May 28, 2008 10:24 AM

joe^3, I'll disagree w/you about Prince, but I'm on board with you about the "greatest conference" garbage. A lot of good teams in the West, no great ones (Lakers included). The Suns are old and slow (a problem for a fast-breaking team), the Spurs are old and broken-down, the Hornets are a year or two away and could use one more trade, the Rockets and Nuggets stunk, the Jazz play no D, etc. Two teams in the East (C's and Pistons) are better than every team in the West except possibly the Lakers (thanks to the ridiculous Gasol trade)..

Posted by Crusty Dem | May 28, 2008 10:26 AM

Shut lebron down only in two games did the C's shut LJ23 down... he unloaded on them in clev. and again in game 7 at boston.... Kobe and co. won on the road in Utah the hardest team to beat at home and on the road against San An. If detroit can win one in Boston LA def can! Kobe is unstoppable....

Posted by kbryantfan4life | May 28, 2008 10:28 AM

Whatever Joe is smoking or drinking or both, I want some of it. Best conference is the East? If you beat up on the Hawks, Bobcats, Knicks, Heat, and Bulls all season long, it's pretty easy to have two teams with records similar to the Celtics and Pistons. Hawks made the playoffs 7 games under .500. That is not a good conference in any sport. 9 teams with losing records in the East and two made the playoffs. I'm sorry but the facts are not on your side.

Posted by Political Savage | May 28, 2008 10:35 AM

Jeebus there are a lot of Laker apologists here today. Fisher's shot did not hit the rim, and Odom's goaltending was really goaltending, and Barry really was fouled.

But one thing I haven't seen discussed (although I didn't stay up to watch the post game on TNT), is that it probably wasn't a shooting foul - after all, Barry shot-faked and Fisher landed on his head, but after that Barry took one dribble to the side and only then went up for the shot. The Lakers were not in the penalty as far as I can tell (no fouls in the last two minutes, so they should have had a foul to give). IMO, should have been ball out of bounds to the Spurs with a second left.

That said, of course everyone is right that Barry should have jumped into Fisher as soon as Fisher left his feet to try to block the shot - guys like Jason Kidd do that all the time and draw the foul, but I guess Barry wasn't thinking that way.

Posted by Al | May 28, 2008 10:38 AM

I don't want to hear anything about Brent Barry and unfairness as it relates to the Spurs. They traded Brent Barry to Seattle as part of the deal that added Kurt Thomas, then former Spurs assistant GM and current Seattle GM Sam Presti waived Barry, then the Spurs resigned him as soon as it was allowed by the rules. If there is any karmic justice in the world Brent Barry should have no part in the Spurs winning a game of church bingo, nevermind an NBA playoff game. The NBA. Where Collusion Happens.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 28, 2008 10:47 AM

Fish's shot DID hit the rim (watch the replay and the trajectory change). Odom did block the shot before it hit the backboard (watch the replay). The Lakers were in the penalty so Barry would have shot two free throws.

Posted by Keith | May 28, 2008 10:51 AM

This post doesn't even mention the worst call of the night. Fischer's awful shot skimmed the rim. That had to be clear to anyone that was watching. If the Spurs would have won that game on free throws, the Lakers would have had a legitimate gripe.

Posted by Stacy | May 28, 2008 10:52 AM

Wait, I'm sorry, I didn't read all the comments. There are people on here actually claiming Fischer's shot DIDN'T hit the rim?!? It was clear on the play it hit the rim. You didn't even need the replay. Its amazing how being a fan can make you lie to yourself.

Posted by Stacy | May 28, 2008 10:54 AM

The Lakers were in the penalty so Barry would have shot two free throws.

If it's the case that the Lakers were in the penalty (and, in thinking about it, it probably was the case, since the announcers would have told us if the Lakers had a foul to give), then, yeah, two shots - but not three shots, since Barry was not in the act.

Posted by Al | May 28, 2008 11:08 AM

Uh, apparently none of you watched the Jazz series, which was the worst officiating I've seen in 20 years of watching, and to say that it favored the Lakers would be an enormous understatement. If you don't think that Kobe Bryant receives better treatment from the officials than any other player in the league, then you haven't watched the games, or you have suffered a traumatic brain injury. Heres the thing, guys-- there doesn't have to be a conspiracy for the officiating to suck. It just sucks, through and through, and it makes my favorite sport unwatchable. And there is no question that the Lakers have on balance benefited this year from that terrible officiating. None at all.

Also, if you think that this Lakers team is anything close to as good as the 2001 team, you are no longer allowed to watch basketball. (The fact that there are people who imagine Kobe to have had anything close to as good of a career as Shaq makes me throw up in my mouth.)

Posted by Freddie | May 28, 2008 11:13 AM

well, i've given isaac two shots on basketball: i won't be giving him a third.

Posted by howard | May 28, 2008 11:20 AM

I was at the game last night, so I have the bias of being a Spurs fan but not the bias of listening to the commentary on TNT or afterwards. I was sitting directly behind the basket, and certainly to my eye, the Fisher shot looked like an airball. Evidently the replays were fairly conclusive, so it was a missed call. But it was not an obvious missed call. Duncan clearly travelled on the pass from Udoka for the dunk - the pass surprised him, and he did a little hop to get his feet right, followed by two steps and a dunk. No question.

The Spurs strategy throughout has been to make Kobe a jump shooter. Bowen is playing a step off of him as soon as he catches the ball, and they are shutting down the driving lanes. At the same time, his shooting percentage has been awesome because we are late in contesting them because we are more concerned about the drive. Kobe is not getting to the line because he is taking that the Spurs are giving him, not because he is being jobbed.

There were missed calls in the Lakers' favor as well - the first foul on Bowen was just a blown call. Kobe reacted because he was hit in the head, but it was by Gasol and not by Bowen going for a rebound. And Turiaf pulled Duncan's left arm right off the ball on a shot attempt in the third quarter, causing him to miss a shot by three feet.

The Spurs and Joey Crawford have a long-running feud, to the point that the crowd was chanting Crawford sucks during the Phoenix series in a game he wasn't even working. But the officiating was largely invisible yesterday as much as that is possible in an NBA playoff game. There is no way you can call a foul thirty feet from the bucket - and if you call the foul, no way you give the continuation required to make it a three shot foul, either.

The Spurs lost because they were hammered on the glass, especially in the first half, and made a series of brain farts that kept them from ever getting over the top. Officiating had nothing to do with the outcome last night.

Posted by Curtis | May 28, 2008 11:34 AM

They've had a harder draw than the Lakers, especially since Denver decided not to show up in the first round.

That's the advantage of winning your conference. If the Spurs got the job done in the regular season (they had a chance with 2 games left), they'd have the easier time.

I think the Fisher no call was a makeup call for not resetting the shot clock violation. If you frame it that way, the refs' inaction makes more sense.

Also, for everyone who is hating on the West. Last I checked, GS would have been a 4 seed in the East and didn't even make the playoffs. Portland and Sacramento also would have made the playoffs in the other conference as well. So out of 15 teams, 11 would be playoff teams despite having to play better quality teams 1-15. Heck, the Celtics struggled against the worst playoff team in recent memory and were taken to 7 games.

Posted by Mo | May 28, 2008 11:37 AM

One doesn't have to be rooting for any particular team to note that NBA officiating is completely devoid of consistency, to the point that one literally does not know what the rules are anymore. It really is that bad, and don't even mention the fact that no other sport has the calls so influenced by what players are involved. Even the home plate umpires in MLB are not so influenced by whether a superstar is on the mound or in the batter's box. Not that Stern is looking to attract my demographic, but the officiating really detracts from my enjoyment of the games.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 11:47 AM

i want to pick up on curtis' comment: when the lakers beat the kings in that game 6 a few years back, that was a game when the refs controlled the results, and it was so egregious that you can still look up the columns of outrage it produced.

general run-of-the-mill nba reffing, as someone noted up above, is not especially good, and it's subject to all kinds of considerations, but that's life in the nba.

to confuse the latter with the former is the kind of thing i expect from a loudmouth in a bar, not something sufficient to waste precious electrons on the internets.

isaac has now posted twice on basketball: his first post was the "oh, spare us from the horrors of two fundamentals-oriented teams with no spectacular players meeting in the finals" piffle; his second an ill-informed pro-lakers whine.

that's what i call failure to provide a value-add, so i'll just wait for matthew's return....

Posted by howard | May 28, 2008 11:50 AM

SCMT, Odom's block was clearly a goaltend. They replayed it a couple times and I watched it a couple more on Tivo replay. At first I thought it was clean, too, but every time I watched it in slow-mo it was clear that the ball had hit the backboard.

As for Fisher and Barry, I think it was a foul before the shot. Were the Lakers in the penalty? If so, 2 shots. If not, take it out of bounds with like half a second left. There's no way that was a 3-shot foul. Fisher landed right on Barry, but Barry was dribbling at the time, not shooting.

I don't Isaac from Adam, so I feel kinda bad ripping on him, but his basketball posts are clearly less informed than Matthew's.

Posted by too many steves | May 28, 2008 12:02 PM

If I'm Brent Barry, I'm kicking myself this morning for not going up for the shot as soon as Fisher left his feet-Fisher's momentum was carrying him in to Barry and it was a certain 3 shot foul. By trying to get a clearer shot, he minimized the contact to the point where it was an acceptable non-call.

Posted by Chris | May 28, 2008 12:09 PM

isaac has now posted twice on basketball: his first post was the "oh, spare us from the horrors of two fundamentals-oriented teams with no spectacular players meeting in the finals" piffle; his second an ill-informed pro-lakers whine.

You can link to all the articles you'd like, but whining, flopping, and dirty play are not traditionally grouped with "fundamentals."

Kobe was shooting jump shoots. Why would he be getting fouled?

Kobe shoots jump shots at least as often as he gets into the paint, and he still draws fouls. It's fairly shocking--some would say sketchy--that he's able to do it, but he does in fact do it. Indeed, I seem to recall a four point play jump shot from the game before.

The Spurs lost because they were hammered on the glass,

Exactly. That, as I recall, is usually one of the Spurs' big advantages.

Also, if you think that this Lakers team is anything close to as good as the 2001 team, you are no longer allowed to watch basketball.

Your 2001 Lakers. Pick the third best player. The 2001 team is better because Shaq was just a monster at that age, but the rest of the team isn't obviously superior.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 28, 2008 12:10 PM

At first I thought it was clean, too, but every time I watched it in slow-mo it was clear that the ball had hit the backboard.

Fuck. Huh. I thought the replay showed otherwise, but perhaps my eyesight was obscured by anger.

When did we start letting facts infecting the comments section? Was there a vote?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 28, 2008 12:17 PM

Look, a call that people disagree about even after seeing it in super slow motion several times is obviously too close to do anything but guess on in real time, and it is silly to bitch about calls like that. The aggravating stuff is the flagrant traveling which so often is ignored, especially when a superstar is walking, or the obvious fouls which are ignored. Don't even get me started on the extremely dubious notion that referees should be conciously engaging in make-up calls.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 12:26 PM

Shouldn't the comparison be to the 2000 Laker team, which won 67 games, rather than to the 56-win 2001 team? The 2000 third banana was Glen Rice, who was at least a half decent player in his day. But, yeah, the 2000 or 2001 Lakers were probably better because they had a Kobe who was almost as good as today's Kobe, but they also had a Shaq who was in his prime as one of the top-20 or so best players ever.

Posted by Al | May 28, 2008 12:29 PM

SomeCallMeTim, how about I call you wrong? Sure he drives and shoot jump shoot at about the same rate typically. Last night was atypical. He shot 18 shots from outside of the paint and 11 layups. A few of those layups were on fast breaks. Was he fouled and the refs did not call it? No, I cannot remember one instance. Was Brent Barry fouled? Yes. Was Tony Parker fouled by Lamar Odom? Yes. I'm neither a fan of the Lakers or the Spurs. I just want one year of NBA playoffs where the fans don't feel like the game was rigged. It happened last year with the Suns and Spurs and the whole Amare stepping on the court incident. Now this year the call in the last few seconds played a factor. NBA officiating has been very inconsistent in the playoffs this year. It takes no conspiracy theorist to see that.

Posted by Political Savage | May 28, 2008 12:29 PM

somecallmetim: if i actually felt the spurs were all about whining, flopping, and dirty play, i would say so. they aren't.

will, just to back up a comment, actually i think baseball has come a very long way in establishing a uniform strike zone but in basketball (as in soccer), i don't really know how you establish uniform foul-calling, so my attitude is either you live with the fact that reffing in basketball (and soccer) is going to be subpar most of the time or you stop watching (i, for one, don't watch nearly as much basketball as i once did, but i watch enough to know that the spurs aren't all about whining, flopping, and dirty play. you would honestly think, to listen to somecallmetim, that the spurs were the piston bad boys, reincarnated, but worse...).

Posted by howard | May 28, 2008 12:34 PM

I guess the Spurs aren't "all about" whining flopping and dirty play, but any team that employs both Bruce Bowen and Robert Horry is too much about dirty play for my taste.

Thanks for that link, SCMT. I had forgotten how thin those Laker teams were. Dear God, Rick Fox started! This reminds me of two things: (1) Shaq was pretty awesome in his prime, clearly better than Duncan in his prime; and (2) the league was very weak for a while, to allow a team that thin to 3-peat.

Posted by too many steves | May 28, 2008 12:39 PM

Was he fouled and the refs did not call it? No, I cannot remember one instance.

He (and Phil) certainly can, though I think they'll take the win.

if i actually felt the spurs were all about whining, flopping, and dirty play, i would say so. they aren't.

Others disagree--these are hardly novel charges--which is why they take the position they do. It appears to be quite similar, procedurally, to the way you've formed your opinions.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 28, 2008 12:40 PM

I'm not alleging or implying anything, nor do I suspect anything nefarious, but I think it is obvious that in the wake of a NBA ref pleading guilty to the crime of fixing games, the league would have strong incentive to manage their remaining refs in a way that better promoted consistency.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 12:42 PM

somecallmetim: i've formed my opinion by watching the spurs. how do others form theirs?

as i've shown you previously, "flopping" goes back at least a half century in pro basketball. everyone does it today and has done it in the past. i have no idea why you would single out san antonio as some particularly egregious example.

whining is the most remarkable criticism imaginable: apparently players on the court are supposed to never respond if they feel like the call was in error. i have never in my life criticized a player for whining, on any team, and i ain't about to start now. (coach and fan whining? that's a different story!)

dirty play with the spurs usually comes down to people claiming that bowen and horry are trying to hurt people: i don't see it. you want dirty play? go read about jungle jim loscutoff (whose nephew i once met in a business context, but i digress) or ricky mahorn.

the spurs win because they take care of the ball, run their offense effectively, rebound well, and concede nothing on defense: i call those admirable traits. the fact that people repeat things that i think are untrue doesn't make them truer, so the lack of "novelty" in the charges that the spurs flop, whine, and play dirty isn't evidence of their veracity.

Posted by howard | May 28, 2008 12:49 PM

howard, I agree that it is a difficult task, but if the zebras could just start by agreeing to things like, say, a defender jumping up in the air, and landing on the player who has the ball, is a foul, or that traveling is traveling, it would be an improvement.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 12:51 PM

While the Spurs do play good, fundemental basketball, I find it hard to believe that anyone could say that they DON'T whine, flop, and play dirty more than any other playoff team. A starting lineup that has Parker, Ginobi, Duncan, Bowen, and Oberto? They are all notorious for one or more of those transgressions. All of them. Bowen is the worst because he encompasses all three. Anyone that intentionally slides their foot under the feet of the jump shooter should be suspended for half a season.

Posted by Stacy | May 28, 2008 12:54 PM

will, i'm with you: i would think that the nba would be concerned about the integrity of reffing, but in a fast-moving game like basketball, with lots of physical contact in a gray zone, getting the games to be called consistently is a challenge that i don't see a solution too.

i will note - as i have here in the past - that i missed the willis reed game 7, 1970, in order to protest the invasion of cambodia. when i finally saw the game a few years back on espn classic, the first thing that struck me was that if they called the game today like they called it back then, everyone on both teams would foul out in the first half: the degree of allowable contact back then was much lower.

so obviously, you could get more consistency if you went back to those standards, but i don't think anyone would like the outcome (at least for a few years, until the players adjusted).

Posted by howard | May 28, 2008 12:55 PM

(i, for one, don't watch nearly as much basketball as i once did, but i watch enough to know that the spurs aren't all about whining, flopping, and dirty play. you would honestly think, to listen to somecallmetim, that the spurs were the piston bad boys, reincarnated, but worse...).

Bruce Bowen is a very bad man.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 28, 2008 12:55 PM

I don't think the referees are conspiring to rig the games, they just don't have any guts to make the right calls. It's not just Kobe or Duncan getting the benefit of the calls, it seems to be almost every home team. Look at the disparity of fouls called in the LA-Utah series. And clearly Coach Jackson was right when he said the officials are intimidated in Dallas by Cuban. Hell, they're intimidated in every city by owners, coaches and mostly the fans. It's like they don't want to get booed. Home teams get the benefit of most calls. I'm a Lakers' fan and thought Fish fouled Barry, but it was clearly a make-up call for the missed call earlier becaused his shot did seem to hit the rim. It's like when a ref waits seemingly 8 seconds to call a close foul, just to see if the ball goes in the basket. They should be open to scrutiny. What's wrong with them being criticized? So they blow calls. They're human. Move on. But as long as players and coaches can't say what they feel about the terrible officiating (w/o getting fined), there is little incentive to get better.

Posted by Rick Murillo | May 28, 2008 12:57 PM

I don't think the referees are conspiring to rig the games, they just don't have any guts to make the right calls. It's not just Kobe or Duncan getting the benefit of the calls, it seems to be almost every home team. Look at the disparity of fouls called in the LA-Utah series. And clearly Coach Jackson was right when he said the officials are intimidated in Dallas by Cuban. Hell, they're intimidated in every city by owners, coaches and mostly the fans. It's like they don't want to get booed. Home teams get the benefit of most calls. I'm a Lakers' fan and thought Fish fouled Barry, but it was clearly a make-up call for the missed call earlier becaused his shot did seem to hit the rim. It's like when a ref waits seemingly 8 seconds to call a close foul, just to see if the ball goes in the basket. They should be open to scrutiny. What's wrong with them being criticized? So they blow calls. They're human. Move on. But as long as players and coaches can't say what they feel about the terrible officiating (w/o getting fined), there is little incentive to get better.

Posted by Rick Murillo | May 28, 2008 12:58 PM

Will,
NFL refereeing is just as bad. Holding is never called (especially for star linemen), star QBs get called for grounding less than journeymen (I'm looking at you Favre) and PI is inconsistently called in every game. NFL refs have an easier job because they only have to focus for 5 second spurts. Ask a Seahawks fan if the NBA is the only sport with egregious and inconsistent officiating.

As for the Fisher call, Barry did everything wrong to draw a foul, you either jump when the defender jumps or he should have continued his drive to get the blocking call. As things stood, Barry picked the worst option and got neither the block nor the shooting foul.

Posted by Mo | May 28, 2008 1:00 PM

I don't think the referees are conspiring to rig the games, they just don't have any guts to make the right calls. It's not just Kobe or Duncan getting the benefit of the calls, it seems to be almost every home team. Look at the disparity of fouls called in the LA-Utah series. And clearly Coach Jackson was right when he said the officials are intimidated in Dallas by Cuban. Hell, they're intimidated in every city by owners, coaches and mostly the fans. It's like they don't want to get booed. Home teams get the benefit of most calls. I'm a Lakers' fan and thought Fish fouled Barry, but it was clearly a make-up call for the missed call earlier becaused his shot did seem to hit the rim. It's like when a ref waits seemingly 8 seconds to call a close foul, just to see if the ball goes in the basket. They should be open to scrutiny. What's wrong with them being criticized? So they blow calls. They're human. Move on. But as long as players and coaches can't say what they feel about the terrible officiating (w/o getting fined), there is little incentive to get better.

Posted by Rick Murillo | May 28, 2008 1:01 PM

Stacy is getting into a different argument that I completely agree with. The Spurs are one of the worst fouling and flopping teams in the league. They rarely get called for blatant fouls but I think they were on the short end of the stick last night. Ginobili, Oberto and Bowen are hatchet men and world class floppers. I'm sure Oberto and Ginobili perfecting flopping in their native lands as soccer is the popular sport there. They probably played soccer for a few years and realized it could translate onto the basketball court. Plus there is no penalty for flopping in basketball unlike soccer. I'm not sure where Bowen picked up the flopping art form but he is a master. Oberto and Ginobili make me think back to the King's flopper, Vlade Divac. He was masterful.

Posted by Political Savage | May 28, 2008 1:03 PM

howard, it is interesting to speculate why the league went in the direction it did, in allowing much more contact. I don't know if I can even fathom a guess. The revival led by Johnson's and Bird's arrival doesn't seem predicated on that development, even alowing for the Mchale clothesline of Rambis in the finals. It certainly seemed by the late eighties and into the nineties the game changed a lot. Ya' got me.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 1:05 PM

Yeah, there is definitely something to the foreign players doing it more. Anderson Varejeo(sp?) is another example of a disgusting flopper. Strangely, though, Oberto, Ginobli, and Varejeo are all from South America I believe. You don't really see the same out of European players like Dirk or Pau Gasol. But Vlade is Eastern European, no? I guess what I'm trying to say is I have no hypothesis whatsover. But I know I don't like flopping!

Posted by Stacy | May 28, 2008 1:10 PM

will, i ascribe the biggest change to the red holzman knicks, by which i mean that although the russ celts were a defensive-oriented team, they played at a fast-break pace and the heart of their defense was russ as shot-blocker.

the holzman knicks were the first modern team (that is, since shooting percentages started to go up in the early '60s) to slow it down and look to play hard-nosed 24-second defense every possession. while they themselves weren't that physical (per my comment on that game 7), the general notion of slowing it down, control the tempo, contest everything got out there into the league and i think the bounds of allowable contact simply got larger and larger gradually, right up until the piston bad boys and the riley knicks took physical play to a whole other level on the (in my mind) perfectly justifiable belief that the refs weren't going to foul everyone out.

so when people talk about the spurs being dirty, i have to think that they just aren't that familiar with real hard-nosed, line-crossing defense the way that laimbeer et al or oakley, mason et al played it, but putting that separate line of argument aside, i'd say it's just one of those things that gradually evolved.

Posted by howard | May 28, 2008 1:12 PM

Flopping should be penalized by a technical foul, and the ball. just like "hack-a-Shaq." Fouling a player without the ball (and not just in the final 2 minutes) is not basketball. That's crap. Lets play basketball and quit being freakin' girls (no offense). If you play against a better player or team, don't punk out and foul their worst foul-shooter when he doesn't have the ball, and quit faking the charge. Better stated, change the rules so it's not allowed. Even better, anyone who flops or resorts to hack-a-shaq tactics should be penalized a "t" and forced to wear a skirt.

Posted by rick murillo | May 28, 2008 1:14 PM

For those of you that don't think Bowen is a dirty player should check this post and this photo out. Bowen isn't a dirty player because he plays tough defense. He's a dirty player because he plays defense in a way that is intended to injure the other player. Also, how do you get your leg that high "legitimately"? He's obviously kicking the shooter on the way up (and getting away with it).

All this is actually fine, John Stockton was notoriously dirty. It's all about players doing what they can without getting caught, but let's call a spade a spade. Also, I'm aware that the past players played rougher basketball, but dirty play is in the context of current rules, not historical standards (think going spikes up in baseball today vs. 30 years ago).

Posted by Mo | May 28, 2008 1:14 PM

Mo, grounding is hardly called, period, which is fine with me, because QBs are usually just too stationary, small, and vulnerable compared to the guys around them. Holding and PI are certainly inconsitently applied, but I don't think the superstars are as protected as much as they are in the NBA.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 1:16 PM

Will,
Sure superstars are protected (eg. Asante Samuel), but there are fewer superstars at those positions, so it's hard to notice. The marquee teams are also protected (Pats, Colts, Packers, etc). The Pats were called for 7(!) holding calls all of last season. They were a good, disciplined team, but there is no way they only had 7 holds all year, I watched almost every game and there were more than 1 hold every 3 games.

Posted by Mo | May 28, 2008 1:23 PM

Mo, I also thin the NFL should just frankly acknowledge that you can't have the modern passing attack without ignoring the technical letter of the current holding rules, and change the rules to allow holding behind the line of scrimmage, as long as it is above the waist, and the hands are not outside the offensive lineman's shoulders.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 1:24 PM

Bruce Bowen kickes people in the face in the course of defending jump shots. He goes under guys who are in the air, all the time. It's not rough play, like Rick Mahorn knocking you on your ass. It's dirty. And Bowen never has to explain himself. You say "Rick Mahorn" to a casual NBA fan and there's a good chance they'll say "thug." You say "Bruce Bowen" and they probably think, "scrappy, good defender." As for Horry, I have to paraphrase what Henry Abbott wrote during the Hornets series: imagine if Horry was playing in your pickup game and he did to you what he did to David West, elbowing you in the back when everybody knows you've got an injured back. How would you react?

I don't blame the Spurs much for flopping and whining, because everybody does it. I hate flopping and I wish the refs would call a technical on a guy who obviously flops, but that's not the world we live in.

Posted by too many steves | May 28, 2008 1:28 PM

When it comes to diry play, hard fouls and holding onto jerseys are one thing. Kicking and sliding your foot under the shooters feet in hopes of a sprained ankle is something else entirely. Bowen's an asshole. Which I guess is cool if you're a Spurs fan. But if you just like the game of basketball, I find it infuriating to watch.

Posted by Stacy | May 28, 2008 1:28 PM

Mo, I didn't say that superstars weren't favored the NFL. I said they aren't favored as much as they are in the NBA, which of course is partially a function of there being a lower percentage of superstars playing at any given time. I would also say that that offensive holding isn't ignored nearly to the degree, to the point that the nature of the game is changed, like traveling is ignored in the NBA.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 1:31 PM

No one has yet mentioned that in order for Barry to draw contact, he switched his pivot foot from right to left. That is in fact not a legal play. Now, of course, it is rarely called, but Barry would not have not have been able to draw contact without it. Justice was served.

Posted by Richard Vagge | May 28, 2008 1:40 PM

Thanks Mo. I checked out the post and photo. And I agree with you 100 per cent. But I just have to say, I somehow ended up reading comments from B, Brad, and Dave from a year ago regarding the Spurs, Suns, etc, and never laughed so hard! Your constant jabs at each other and comebacks are classic. Where are you guys? I could use a good laugh.

Posted by Rick Murillo | May 28, 2008 1:44 PM

The NFL equivalent to the NBA's tolerance of traveling would be if NFL refs commonly allowed receivers to drop passes, and then pick the ball up, and having such passes ruled as completions.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 1:45 PM

Thanks Mo. I checked out the post and photo. And I agree with you 100 per cent. But I just have to say, I somehow ended up reading comments from B, Brad, and Dave from a year ago regarding the Spurs, Suns, etc, and never laughed so hard! Your constant jabs at each other and comebacks are classic. Where are you guys? I could use a good laugh.

Posted by Rick Murillo | May 28, 2008 1:47 PM

yeah, the lakers are soooooooooo great. let's see, they barely win game 1, despite spurs travel woes and 7 game series. they win game 2 soundly, lose game 3 soundly, barely win game 4 even though manu clearly couldn't play (why did pop play him down the stretch rather than, say, someone who could shoot?).

looks like a healthy 2007/08 spurs beats them pretty easily. not sour grapes, the lakers are winning, deserve credit, etc. but lauding their play, comparing them to truly dominant teams, seems a little silly at this point.

Posted by dj superflat | May 28, 2008 1:53 PM

I think people aren't giving the NBA enough credit for the areas where officiating really has improved.
For instance, traveling is actualy called about half the time it happens now and it's almost always called when it give the player a clear advantage. The Duncan non-call wouldn't even have been an issue 10 years ago.

Also, refs call palming a lot more now. That single change has done more than anything else to ruin Allen Iverson's carreer.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 28, 2008 2:05 PM

Come on dj. Doesn't matter how they win, just that they win. And stop whining about the Spurs' health. First of all, Lakers are without Bynum, their starting center, despite the Gasol trade. Kobe's got a torn tendon or something of that nature in his SHOOTING hand, and Fisher has a torn ligament in his ankle. So lets see, the Spurs lose to the Lakers in game one, get blown out by 30 in game 2, win game three and lose AT HOME in game four, against a team without its starting center, a starting guard with a torn tendon in his shooting hand and another starting guard with a torn ligament in his ankle. Looks like a healthy 2007-08 Lakers team beats the crap out of a healthy 2007-08 Spurs team. One thing I do like about the Spurs--they are good winners, and more than that, they don't cry and make excuses when they lose. Pop played Manu because they got there with him. Just like Jackson playing Kobe and Fish despite their injuries--they got to this point with them. Don't be a sore loser because your team can't defend it's title.

Posted by rick murillo | May 28, 2008 2:07 PM

dj,
If the Spurs get to be 100% healthy, Kobe gets his pinky and the Lakers get Bynum. I think Laker fans would take that trade in a heartbeat.

Will,
Funny I was going to say traveling is like holding in the NFL. If you call it 100% to the letter of the law, you significantly disrupt the flow of the game.

By the way, I will say the great thing about watching the West finals is the quality of coaching on both sides. Either coach will have a field day in the Finals.

Posted by Mo | May 28, 2008 2:10 PM

But you are right. Comparing them to the great teams before winning anything is silly. Can't compare teams based on potential. Lakers can potentially win a few crowns when Bynum gets back and they're all healthy. IF, they stay healthy, and IF they retain their core players, and IF, they don't start fighting among each other, and IF...

Posted by rick murillo | May 28, 2008 2:13 PM

Mo, when you are talking about extremely large men smashing into each other, the letter of the rules becomes very problematic, just like reffing the paint was when Shaq was in his prime. Calling travelling to the rules would not harm the game, especially if fouls were called consistently. howard is correct, however, in saying the fans would not like the product while the players adjusted.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 2:22 PM

Willie, I agree that traveling and palming calls are better than 10 years ago.

Posted by Will Allen | May 28, 2008 2:26 PM

you all need to relax. i made very clear i think the wins are legit, the spurs deserved to lose, etc. as i said, not sour grapes.

i was responding to the claims that these lakers are great because they're beating the spurs. the lakers being called potentially great (those playing now, not bynum etc.) haven't really played that great, and have been just getting by against the spurs. yes, a win's a win. but truly dominant teams tend to, you know, actually dominate rather than just get by, particularly against tired old teams. put another way, truly great teams don't often make boneheaded plays to let a team back in the game when the game should be waaaaaaaaay done (the refs didnt' help the lakers much on this score, but still).

as for playing manu, that was just dumb. any number of guys on the bench could have given a lift, made a shot or two, particularly given the shooters on the bench. just one example: barry had been awesome all game, why have him sit out so much when manu was lousy? or add some D with ime (keep bowen out there).

Posted by dj superflat | May 28, 2008 2:35 PM

howard:

I'm at a loss to understand your confusion.

1. Saying that flopping and whining have a long history in the NBA answers nothing. So does dirty play, fighting, "gamesmanship," and cheating, none of which is made sacred by its long pedigree.

2. You should look at youtube if you want to find evidence that people have watched the game and come to the conclusion that the Spurs are dirty.

3. No one is saying that the Spurs are the dirtiest team of all time. Rather, what's irritating is that they're dirty and still considered the league's fair haired boy. The same can't be said of either the Pistons or the Knicks.

but truly dominant teams tend to, you know, actually dominate rather than just get by, particularly against tired old teams.

Hollinger tried to address this question. I'm too lazy to find the link. These Lakers scored--as judged by his methodology--much better against the Shaq Lakers than you might expect. (As I said above, I think it's basically impossible to account for Shaq's value then. So I'm a little suspicious of the result.) No one is claiming that they're a great team. People are wondering if they might be a great team. Just as some people wonder if Durant will be a multi-year All-Star.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 28, 2008 2:50 PM

i have no doubt that, particularly with a healthy bynum and some more experience for the young guys, the lakers could be a truly great team.

Posted by dj superflat | May 28, 2008 2:53 PM

what's irritating is that they're dirty and still considered the league's fair haired boy.

Really? Who considers them that? Everyone I read or talk to (who isn't actually a Spurs fan) pretty much agrees that Bowen and Horry, at least, are dirty as hell.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 28, 2008 2:59 PM

I think what SomeCallMeTim is trying to say is that when TV analysts talk about the Spurs, they talk about how "fundamentally sound" they are, or how smart they are. There's hardly a peep about how nasty they can be on defense, or how jump shooters tend to hobble away from against against Bowen.

Posted by baseballhead | May 28, 2008 3:42 PM

Lakers did not get any calls as Kobe had 29 FGA and not one single foul when he drove to the basket several times? Plus Duncan took like 5 steps when he had that slam dunk.

Posted by Rod | May 28, 2008 4:37 PM

somecallmetim, you're just going to have to accept your loss, i'm afraid. i think it's downright silly to complain about "flopping" and "whining" incessantly, especially when reality tells us that the spurs did not, in fact, get an exceptionally large number of fouls called their way this season (to be quite precise, the spurs were 24th in the league in opposition fouls called).

this takes us to calling the spurs a dirty team because you don't like bruce bowen: i've looked at various videos (still photos, like someone suggested up above, aren't very helpful in a situation of constant motion like basketball) and i just spent a few minutes refreshing myself via google on the various sins bowen has committed, and all i can say is that if he really is a head-hunter, he is doing a piss-poor job of it. i was reminded that after amare accused bowen of kicking him deliberately in the achilles heel, coach d'antoni (and i quote from espn) "downplayed the incident involving Stoudemire.

"The league's going to look at it and they're going to examine past tendencies and stuff," he said. "I have no idea what Bruce Bowen does. I don't really care. I don't want to get into it because it's so minimal that it's no big deal. It really isn't."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?id=2866789

i agree. i think he's a very, very agressive defender playing an early-mid '90s style eastern conference game in an era that has passed that style by and so he stands out for it and for his utter willingness to play it that way.

if your real concern is that tv analysts don't see that as as big a deal as you do, don't worry: they're not doing it for me. i generally don't even have the sound on when i watch....

Posted by howard | May 28, 2008 7:01 PM

howard: Gee, you found a quote from a coach who doesn't want to get fined, appear to be making excuses, or give his opponent so-called locker-room material. Convincing.

What's the number-one way players get injured in the NBA? They land awkwardly on someone else's foot and twist an ankle or knee. So what does Bowen do? When a jump-shooter goes up, he slides his foot underneath, so that the shooter risks injury coming down. As a Knicks fan I can tell you that he's done that crap to both Steve Francis and Jamal Crawford, and every other jump-shooter he guards knows it and always has it on his mind. It's way beyond early-90's physical defense, which was about shoving, grabbing, and hip-checking. It's no minor thing, and it's not something he's done just once or twice. It's disgusting, it risks other players' careers, and he should have been suspended a long time ago for it.

You can find video of all this on YouTube, by the way. Not that I expect you to change your mind, really.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 28, 2008 7:41 PM

Bottom line with yesterday's game is that the team that won the game ended up winning the game. The Lakers won the game by outplaying the Spurs the entire game, even though the calls were slanted towards the Spurs heavily in the first half.

For those that continue to think the Spurs got the shaft, I direct you again to the fact that the "missed call" in the last 2 seconds would never have even helped the Spurs if the refs didn't miss Fisher's shot grazing the rim with ~5 seconds left after it went of Horry out of bounds (giving the Lakers a fresh shot clock to which they likely would have been fouled and gone up by 4). Besides, Barry traveled on the "missed call" prior to getting bumped by Fisher.

Like those involved in the game all agreed to (and whose opinions are the ones that really matter), it was a good no-call.

Posted by Wallace | May 28, 2008 7:49 PM

antid, you're a sensible sort and so is somecallmetim, so with all due respect: i simply don't agree, and i'm hardly alone, and yelling at me to look harder isn't going to change anything. the nba itself, while it has fined him for specific events (or maybe it was just one) has yet to go further, and it can hardly be because bruce bowen is so important to the league....

remember, the point here is whether the spurs are a team so dirty that you're not allowed to mention their strength in fundamentals, you must only say "what a dirty team of thugs they are," and the claim is based on bowen. even if i conceded the worst and said, oh, the wonders of youtube have convinced me even though when i've looked at the stuff in the past i've said he's a very physical player and that's life in the nba, but now (after 9/11 changed everything! just kidding!) i realize that it's just amazing that he hasn't been banned from the league for crimes against humanity, it still wouldn't make the team "dirty."

coaches that honestly believe the other guy is a headhunter don't give a flying fuck about being fined, by the way, not that i expect you to change your mind, really.

Posted by howard | May 28, 2008 10:44 PM

It's nice to see people come to their senses today. First, a lot of guys on ESPN were saying Fisher obviously fouled Barry, and now the league says, correctly of course, that it should have been a 2-shot foul.

I don't know how anyone can complain about flopping and then say Barry should have "sold" the foul. Barry should have thrown up a shot, so it would have been a 3-shot foul. But "selling" the foul is flopping, and it shouldn't be rewarded.

All I want is this, howard: the next time somebody gets Bruce Bowen to sit down for an interview, cue up one of those plays where he undercuts a jump shooter or goes in feet-first at somebody's face, and ask him, "so, what are you doing on this play? How'd this happen?" I just want to hear his explanation. Maybe he just has a unique style of defending people that involves kicking them in the balls.

Posted by too many steves | May 28, 2008 11:04 PM

Click my name for the story announcing the new league policy to fine players for flopping, starting next season.

Posted by dave | May 29, 2008 1:39 AM

Click my name for the story announcing the new league policy to fine players for flopping, starting next season.

Posted by dave | May 29, 2008 2:53 AM

Excellent post Isaac.

Posted by Jimm | May 29, 2008 5:53 AM

COMPLAINING about FOULS?

That's so LOW.

Calls did not make Spurs lose. Losing 20 points lead, losing 17 points do!!!!

If you cannot hold a 17 point lead, you are clearly not as good. You deserve to lose!!!

Posted by givemeagreak | May 30, 2008 6:06 PM