View Full Version : Is the NBA Fixed?

06-19-2006, 02:11 AM
I thought this might be interesting at this time...


Accusations of fixing the finals gnaws at the NBA's integrity

By Bill Peterson

Something is seriously amiss with the NBA on the eve of its championship finals, which are alleged to be more made for TV than the law should allow. Of course, speculation as to which teams the league would prefer on its June stage has run for so long as to have become a rite of spring. But the sides of the Milwaukee Bucks' mouths muttered the conspiracy theory with bristling detail last week, which is pretty damaging gossip whether it's true or not.

The Bucks ultimately lost the Eastern Conference Finals to the Philadelphia 76ers in seven games, so they're spared the prohibitive task of tipping off against the Los Angeles Lakers for the league championship. Even before their series ended, though, the Bucks all but came right out and said the fix was in. It wasn't the only sign that the Bucks, and the league, have lost their composure.

The Sixers made 186 trips to the free throw line in the series, compared with only 119 for the Bucks. On the face of it, the Sixers stand to go to the line more often, anyway, because they drive to the basket and the Bucks pull up for the jumper. But the Bucks were outraged by several specific calls, often of the ticky-tack variety on the perimeter.

Beginning after Game 4, when the Bucks said Glenn Robinson was fouled on a fourth-quarter possession that cashed out a layup for the Sixers, the Bucks were distracted by their sense of injustice. In Game 5, early touch fouls were called against Sam Cassell and Ervin Johnson, Cassell went berserk after being stung with a technical, flagrant fouls were called against Robinson and Tim Thomas and a moving screen call went against Jason Caffey. At the end of the game, Robinson missed from the baseline with the game on the line in the final seconds and Ray Allen missed the putback, later to say goaltending should have been called against Dikembe Mutombo.

After that game, Allen told reporters he's suspected the NBA was fixed since he was in high school, adding that members of his family told him they saw NBA Commissioner David Stern carrying on at a game as if he were rooting for the Sixers. Bucks coach George Karl said three other NBA coaches called him to raise the issue. It was Bucks power forward Scott Williams, of all people, who said the Bucks were losing their cool.

So, in Game 6, Sixers star Allan Iverson drove the lane and took an elbow in the face from Williams, who would have to be on his knees to elbow Iverson's ribs. After that game, the NBA revised the call against Williams to flagrant foul 2 from flagrant foul 1, requiring that Williams sit out Game 7.

Just as one hates to see the referees decide games with late calls that are largely subjective, it's disturbing when the league basically decides a series by making a key player sit out on a reversal of a subjective decision. Not that Williams is an All-Pro, but he makes a big difference for that team, which doesn't have enough inside presence even with him. And how the Williams foul is flagrant 2 when the infamous Juwan Howard hack that knocked San Antonio's Derek Anderson out of the playoffs isn't would take some explaining.

It would be wrong, though, based just on this year's playoffs, to conclude that the NBA fixes its results for maximum television revenue. After all, the NBA has lost millions on the Lakers' 11-game blitz through the first three rounds of playoffs, which could have been made longer and more interesting with a few well-timed calls.

But the problem isn't that the NBA is fixed. The problem is that the Bucks can be comfortable talking about the possibility so openly.

The problem isn't that perception is reality, but that perception is everything respecting the integrity of athletic competition. And the NBA doesn't help itself by dismissing and laughing off the suspicion, which, if not confirmed, remains a suspicion.

The NBA's silence on the matter is almost creepy. One would expect some kind of fine against Allen for conduct detrimental to the league. It wouldn't be unprecedented. The issue isn't a lot different from the controversy for which Pete Rose serves a lifetime suspension from baseball.

Whether a league is perceived to be compromised by gambling or its own machinations, any suspicion that the games aren't fairly played and honestly won cuts at the integrity of the competition. Without that integrity, the NBA is professional wrestling or the XFL. The NBA ought to walk every last mile to protect that integrity. Instead, the league just hopes the problem goes away.

Maybe it will. Because the Bucks are right -- the NBA clearly has an interest it pitting the Sixers against the Lakers in this year's finals, which is exactly what it's got. It's national star power and two huge television markets. It's the Lakers, the defending champions and the hottest team in the game, against the Sixers, featuring the MVP who's also the most discussed figure in the league.

Iverson will never be able to get rid of all those tattoos, which will always remind his detractors of his thuggish past. That's unfortunate, because he has otherwise made every effort to resist blowing on himself by saying the right things and acknowledging the right people. He plays hard and hurt and can even be said to be a team player when he hits six of 30, because it's only the threat of his scoring that illuminates the marginal talents with which he's surrounded.

Meanwhile, the Lakers have effected a remarkable transformation since Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant were openly bickering in January. Now they're playing together and patting each other on the back.

The Lakers haven't lost a game in two months, and longtime observers are saying they're playing better than the teams that featured Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain 30 years ago or Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbbar 15 years ago. That's rather extravagant praise, and it's pretty hard to confute.

Among the showcases in these finals is two coaches, Phil Jackson and Larry Brown, who have demonstrated just what an achievement it is to win with great talent. In Brown's case, he's pulled maximum grit out of his role players, who are walking wounded, while reversing his once contentious relationship with Iverson. It's been no small feat to win over Iverson, which has clearly been the key to Philadelphia's success.

Jackson appears to be on his way to winning his eighth NBA championship, but he's not a paragon of humility and a lot of people, frankly, are sick of seeing him win. In some ways, he's comparable with Sparky Anderson, even if the comparison is strained by Anderson's lack of a zen vocabulary. But both have been hammered for winning with talent, as if it's not a coach's prerogative to surround himself with guys who can play.

The problem with talent, though, is that talent knows it's talented, which isn't the same as talent being committed to winning. Anderson and Jackson both have fought that battle adroitly, basically by letting players settle their own conflicts. Both know what many professional coaches forget, that the players are the team. If the players happen to be pretty good, you don't have to say Anderson and Jackson have done their jobs well, so long as you don't forget to give them their rings.

Neither Jackson nor Anderson have been the type to sit quietly in the background, especially when speaking out can deflect pressure and criticism from the players. Sometime early in this finals series, if it doesn't break right for the Lakers, Jackson is sure to make some remarks about the officiating -- but he'll stop short of declaring a fix.

At this point, the NBA doesn't need the criticism. It already has the series it wants.

06-19-2006, 02:12 AM

Bucks think Sixers are getting all the calls
Associated Press

MILWAUKEE -- Stopping just short of alleging an outright anti-Bucks conspiracy, Ray Allen said Thursday that the NBA would prefer to see the Philadelphia 76ers face the Los Angeles Lakers in the finals.


"I think there's no question about that. The league, as a marketing machine, the bottom line is about making money," Allen said. "It behooves everybody for the league to make more money, and the league knows that Philadelphia is going to make more money with L.A. than we would with L.A." Coming off a crushing one-point Game 5 loss in which two flagrant fouls and a technical foul cost the Bucks dearly, Milwaukee now faces a must-win situation in Game 6 Friday night. The best-of-seven series is tied 3-3, with the winner of Sunday's finale in Philadelphia moving on to face the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA Finals beginning next Wednesday. The Bucks have complained about the officiating since Game 4, when they felt Glenn Robinson was fouled on a crucial possession late in the fourth quarter that turned into a breakaway layup for the 76ers. In Game 5, Sam Cassell's technical foul and flagrant fouls on Robinson and Tim Thomas resulted in a five-point possession and two four-point possessions for Philadelphia, and the Bucks admitted that those three mistakes cost them the game.
“ It behooves everybody for the league to make more money, and the league knows that Philadelphia is going to make more money with L.A. than we would with L.A. ”

— Ray Allen
But aside from what they felt was the questionable nature of those calls, the Bucks also had a problem with several other whistles -- touch fouls on Cassell and Ervin Johnson early in the game and a moving screen call on Jason Caffey late in the fourth quarter. Cassell's complaining began in the first quarter when he pump-faked Allen Iverson off his feet and Iverson whacked him hard on the arm. No foul was called, even though the play happened directly in front of referee Ronnie Nunn. "Nine times out of 10 when you have a referee you know there's no biases," Allen said. "But in the back of everybody's minds it's like Philadelphia and the MVP needs to play in the finals. "I used to always think the series were fixed when I was in high school, then when I got to the NBA I said there's no way they could be fixed. But even last year against Indiana in Game 5 (of Milwaukee's first-round series) it seemed like everything went against us," Allen said. The NBA assigns its veteran referees to work playoff games based upon merit. Different teams have complained throughout the years that superstars receive preferential treatment from the officials, and the Bucks are merely the latest upstarts to learn that playoff games at the end of May are often called differently than regular-season games. Complaining about specific calls is one thing; alleging a conspiracy is another. And though nobody on the Bucks came right out and said it, all the questions about a conspiracy theory found a welcoming audience. Allen said members of his family had told him that they were sitting across from NBA commissioner David Stern on Sunday and noticed him stand up to watch a replay after it appeared Allen got away with committing a foul against Iverson that wasn't called. "He jumped up real mad like he was cheering for Philly," Allen said. Bucks coach George Karl said conspiracy theories were "summer talk," although he claimed three other NBA coaches had called him after Game 5 to raise that very issue. "Sam Cassell said that Kevin Garnett and Rod Strickland had called him, so it's out there," Karl said. The NBA has always laughed off the charge, but conspiracy theorists often point to Game 7 of the 1993 Western Conference finals in making their case -- saying Phoenix got an inordinate number of calls against Seattle because the league wanted to see a Suns-Chicago Bulls final. "Here was the scenario: A Barkley-Jordan final, and Barkley did a commercial for NBC three weeks before the finals -- and he told me about it. And then they shoot 67 free throws in the final game," said Karl, who coached the SuperSonics in that game. There were 100 foul shots taken in that game, 64 by the Suns. Seattle was called for 38 personal fouls and had three players disqualified; Phoenix was whistled for 27 fouls and had no one foul out. "So there's a little paranoia there, but tomorrow night that means nothing," Karl said. "The board room is behind closed doors in New York City, so no one's ever going to know. NBA spokesman Brian McIntyre said the league had no comment on the Bucks' remarks. Supervisor of officials Ed Rush did not return a phone call to his Phoenix office. In the history of the NBA playoffs, teams that have taken a 3-2 lead in Game 5 have gone on to win the series 83 percent of the time. One of the exceptions was this year's Bucks, who dropped three straight games to the Charlotte Hornets in the second round before coming back and winning Games 6 and 7. The Bucks continue to defiantly insist they are the better team, and they believe they will win Games 6 and 7 if they continue to hold Iverson in check. Iverson has shot just 33-for-120 (27 percent) from the field during the series as the Bucks have hugely overplayed him to his right, forcing Iverson to go to his left. "In the Toronto series everybody said you had to double-team him, but have you seen him go left and score?" Allen asked. "That's all he wants to do is go right, and if he goes left he's going to jump back to the right. "So he can't score going to his left unless he passes the ball, but if he goes right he's the biggest scoring threat in the world." Only Game 6 will tell if that strategy will continue to work -- and whether people will continue to believe that an anti-Bucks conspiracy exists. "I'm not alleging a conspiracy, I'm not getting caught up in anything that I think the league has going on or what they might want," Allen said. "I'm just saying if we control what we can control, we'll be in L.A. playing the Lakers. "If we play like we're capable of playing and not let the referees have a hand in the outcome of the game, then we'll have nothing to worry about."

06-19-2006, 02:12 AM

Perception more harmful to NBA than reality
By David Aldridge
Special to ESPN.com

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The NBA has a problem.

The problem is not that there is a conspiracy to put the Lakers (or, in their day, the Bulls) in the Finals, or that playoff games are fixed.

The problem is that so many otherwise rational people think there is a conspiracy to put the Lakers (or, in their day, the Bulls) in the Finals, and that playoff games are fixed. The problem is that the very teams who compete now state openly that they expect to get screwed in important games.

For 15 years, I've listened to crackpots tell me how the league is no different than pro wrestling, that I should be ashamed to cover a sport where the results have been determined in advance by a cabal of power-mad men (the list is never the same but frequently includes David Stern, NBC Sports President Dick Ebersol, the heads of various Fortune 500 companies, and once -- only once -- Suzanne Somers). I laugh to myself, for there is nothing I can do to help these people.

And then comes a game like Friday's Game 6 of the Western Conference finals. There is nothing I can say that will explain 27 free throws for the Lakers in the fourth quarter -- an amount staggering in its volume and impact on the game. It gave me pause. How can you explain it? How can you explain a game where Scot Pollard fouls out when he's two feet from Shaquille O'Neal, or that Doug Christie is called for a ridiculous touch foul just as Chris Webber spikes Kobe Bryant's drive to the hoop, or that Mike Bibby is called for a foul deep in the fourth quarter after Bryant pops him in the nose with an elbow? Regardless of whether the fouls were called correctly or not, they put a black mark on what has been as compelling, dramatic and well-played of a series as I can recall in recent years.

What gives one pause, though, is not that these fouls were called against the Kings in this one game. The pause comes because these fouls were called against the Kings in Los Angeles two days after O'Neal fouled out of Game 5 in Sacramento -- the same game in which Bryant was saddled with five fouls. How can consecutive games be called so diametrically opposite -- with such dramatic differences in the impact on the respective teams?

This is my problem: the 180-degree turns from day to day in the playoffs. One day, Shaq is allowed to drop his shoulder and knock any defender senseless. The very next day, if Shaq looks at Bibby, he gets the foul. How can it be the exact opposite of what it was the game before? And I think people pick up on that, and think something is not right.

I am not speaking here of your garden variety fan who roots for his or her team passionately, sometimes nonsensically, and who will thus create boogeymen to explain his team's losses where none exist. Nor of the poor souls who have to assign the state of their own wretched lives to some unseen, omniscient force. Nor of the professional cranks and nutjobs who earn a living by finding gunmen in grassy knolls -- no, they fired from the bridge above! No, wait -- it was from the sewer below! But of ordinary folks who pay their taxes and hold themselves responsible for their lot in life.

After Game 6, I went out to dinner in L.A. with a couple of sportswriters and three or four other folks who aren't in the business. Each one of us at the table had a college degree. None of us had a dog in this Lakers-Kings fight. But us Sports Guys wanted to see if we were overreacting. So we asked the woman with the business degree who has season tickets to an NBA team (not the Lakers, not the Kings) what her immediate reaction was after watching Friday.

"They stole the game from the Kings," she said, matter of factly.

The next morning, I call for a bellman for help with the bags. The door is open five seconds when he says, and I'm paraphrasing here because I don't generally quote bellmen, "What was up with that game last night? I mean, I'm a Laker fan, so I appreciate the calls. But I don't want to win that way. It was like Chris Webber was saying, 'I can't win, so why should I play hard?' "

Which, if the bellman had been in the Kings' locker room on Friday, was exactly the demeanor he would have seen from Webber. His lip was literally quivering, he was so angry. He spoke in guarded tones about how "we're still the Sacramento Kings" and how he had been told it would be impossible to beat the Lakers Friday. "I was warned," he muttered. Twenty feet away, Vlade Divac was asked if he played O'Neal any differently than he had the first five games. "Of course," Divac smirked. "I thought 'Tonight, I will play him very aggressive and foul him every time.' "

You can dismiss this as sour grapes from the losing team. But this has gone on for so long in so many losing locker rooms over the years, it is now part of the postgame procedure: Winning coach compliments spirit of losing team, losing coach laments horrible officiating. It is so matter-of-fact as to be a cliche: We got the calls tonight; they'll get the calls tomorrow. Only in the NBA does a coach who's won eight championships whine more than a stuck engine valve about refs. You may hear Lou Pinella rant about the strike zone on Monday, but he's not still at it on Thursday. Officials blow calls every Sunday in the NFL, but that league makes sure you know about it on Tuesday, while the NBA still muzzles all discussion about its officials' performance.

So why do NBA coaches do it?

Because it appears to work.

When Phil Jackson gripes about the Knicks and Pistons not allowing flow and freedom in a game -- when he says that Dennis Rodman is being persecuted; when he says that Shaq isn't being allowed the same freedoms a man six inches shorter receives -- he's not talking to the guy or gal that asked him the question in the news conference, and he's not talking to you, dear reader. He's talking to the three people in the striped shirts who will call the next game.

Please understand: I think NBA refs have the hardest job officiating of all the major sports, and that includes the guys who do it on skates. Basketball -- and pro basketball in particular -- has more subjective calls in a half than you'll see in a season of football. Block or charge? Did he jump straight up, or come over the back? Is he hooking, or using leverage? And I think because the game is so subjective to call, no one knows what to expect night in and out.

The NBA also suffers because of the nature of the game. One dominant player out of five will necessarily have more impact than one out of nine in baseball (including the pitcher, who only plays once every four or five days) or one of 11 in football. So someone like Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson or Larry Bird or Isiah Thomas -- or Shaq -- tends to win more often than in baseball or football. This tends to lead to the same teams winning championships -- which creates the impression that this is desired by the Commish, the networks and advertisers looking for common themes, one-name superstars and storylines to sell to the public.

(Of course, the public is as hypocritical on this as it is on so many things. The very people who say they're sick of seeing the same faces win year after year in the NBA are the same folks who stayed away in droves, and didn't watch, during the league's most democratic era -- the 1970s, when talented if nondescript teams like Golden State, Washington, Portland and Seattle won championships.)

I acknowledge I am at a loss about what to do. The Commish acknowledged last week that the game has gotten, in some ways, too quick for the refs, which is why he's now behind some form of instant replay. The Competition Committee will receive a proposal from the league for replay at its meeting this week. And here, the NBA can learn from the NFL, which is always perceived as tinkering with its game to improve officiating and make the game more pleasant for fans.

Of course, the NFL often does no such thing. But people think it does.

Perception is reality.

06-19-2006, 02:13 AM

Likewise, Chicago forward Antonio Davis indirectly accused officials of fixing games. After the Bulls lost Game 3 of their series with Washington, Davis spoke of poor officiating and added, "I guess they were only doing what they were told to do."

06-19-2006, 02:24 AM
The sad thing is that the Finals aren't fixed. The officiating truly is this bad.

06-19-2006, 07:31 AM
The natural reaction for losers is to assign blame to someone other than yourselves. No, it couldn't be MY team's inability to perform, it must be the evil Jew conspirators controlling the outcome. It's all about greed and capitalism. Stern just likes to sit around, counting his money while he sharpens his horns.

yeah right

06-19-2006, 07:51 AM
Will this be the end of Madape and Evilmav? They actually disagree on something? Which one will cave in? Will the two of them actually maintain opposite opinions on something? Let's wait and see. Is it even possible?

06-19-2006, 10:46 AM
My view remains this: fixed or incompetant, the inconsistency between possession to possession in the average NBA game is pathetic.

If the NBA is not going to allow clutching and grabbing, then call the damn clutching and grabbing early in the game. But don't allow the clutching and grabbing in the final minute.

I'll give you an example of how bad this has gotten. 1:19 seconds left in a game in Minnesota - 2003-04 season. The Pistons and Wolves are in a dog fight for this win. With 1:19 left, Rick Mahorn on the Pistons broadcast can be heard complaining about the Pistons not getting a foul:

"I'm suprised that wasn't a foul, George. But the referees are not going to let little things like that determine who wins this game."

Sprewell makes a shot with 57 seconds left with enough contact from Ben Wallace to make it a 3-point game, as it is, the Wolves take a 80-79 lead. With 45 seconds left, Mark Madsen crashes into Ben Wallace as he goes for an offensive rebound, and no foul is called - the Wolves gain possession. Rip Hamilton gets up in Sprewell's face, bumps him and Sprewell is forced to give up a shot to Garnett, who misses a jumper with 18.3 seconds left.

The tension mounts, the game is fast and furious - both teams playing all-out. Minnesota had a home winning streak on the line. The Pistons were trying to win a night after having their franchise-tying 13-game winning streak snapped.

In the words of Mahorn as Chauncey Billups advances the ball with 18 seconds left:

"Oh, yea!"

Chauncey makes his move left with six seconds to go. It's essentially Billups and Cassell to decide this thing. As Billups drives to the basket, Cassell is using his off-arm to on Chauncey from between the rings to the left box. No foul call. Chauncey gets by Cassell, Garnett rotates to stop Chauncey at the basket with 3 seconds to go. Billups throws it up over Garnett, the shot banks in with 2.0 seconds left - Pistons 81, Wolves 80 in a CLASSIC FINISH! Old school basketball, everything rocks!

Whistle. Offensive foul on Chauncey Billups.

It appears that contact is made with Garnett, but Billups didn't initiate it. He didn't push off on Garnett any more than Garnett leverages Billups. Garnett is still standing at the end of the play, Billups is not. Technically, it's a controversial offensive foul. In the final 2 seconds of a very physical game when the whistle has been at a minimum, it's stealing a game. How physical was it? The offensive foul was the Pistons first foul in the last two minutes. Minnesota had to in-bound the ball, get fouled, and with .8 seconds left on the clock (what should have been 1.3 seconds), the Wolves ice the game with free throws.

Players need to know from the referees how much they are going to allow in the course of a game. The inconsistent calls have led to more controversy, and more people thinking the game is fixed.

The call that night in Minnesota:

More Rick Mahorn: "No! NO! That was a baaad call."

George Blaha, a veteran of 33 years as a broadcaster for the Pistons:

"Chauncey with the double-clutch, drew contact, hit the deck, and they are going to make that an offensive foul?!?

That's got to be a no-call. These guys, I think, have let this game get a little too far out of hand. Maybe a lot of out hand.

Feel like you've been robbed? Call the police. I cannot believe that call. I cannot believe the call."

Now, for those who aren't familar with Blaha, he's a homer when he's calling the games. But you'll hear a lot of silence from him when he thinks something's messed up. He'll justify a way a call long before he'll publicly admonish the referees.

That's what I'm talking about in terms of consistency. Yes, a lot of whistles bug me. But at least I can put it aside if the referees are being consistent. They aren't.

That game - Game 6 of the LA-Sacramento series - the Lakers shot something like 22 foul shots in the third quarter. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader threatened to launch an investigation. David Stern probably laughed about all the free publicity. "At least they were watching Game Six."

06-19-2006, 05:43 PM
Will this be the end of Madape and Evilmav? They actually disagree on something? Which one will cave in? Will the two of them actually maintain opposite opinions on something? Let's wait and see. Is it even possible?

Ape and I have had differences of opinion on a great number of debates over the years, but I'm far more likely to disagree with my old fraternity brother over beers at a bar rather than by jotting down screeds or polemics on this board.

That said, I completely agree with Ape in his assertion that there was just no way in heck that Stern and the NBA somehow fixed last night's game, but I also believe that the officiating was poor when it came to Dwayne Wade (although it wasn't bad in most other facets of the game), and I'd say that the NBA in general is going to continue to leave itself open to criticism on the issue of officiating if the refs continue to make calls for the Lebron Jameses and Dwayne Wades of the league that they demonstrably do not make for lesser players. That's just my bum nickel though.

We certainly made enough mistakes last night to lose the game (Dirk, please, please wake up before this series is over), but that historic Dwayne Wade free-throw shooting record performance sure as heck left us with a razor thin margin of error to hazard in the business...

06-19-2006, 07:27 PM
The NBA only benefits from game a 6 or 7. I believe the NBA benefits most from Miami game 6 win. Shaq and Wade jersey sales will go through the roof.

Get real, the NBA is an entertainment business so doesn't everything in business ultimately come down to money?
The NBA is fixed, and if we think NBA executives aren't making business related decisions by influencing games then we're fooling ourselves...

Give me 3 good reasons to support the NBA not controlling game outcomes...

06-19-2006, 08:36 PM
The NBA needs to go to a 5 man officiating crew so every matchup is watched by ONE ref. Maybe then we can have some consistenticy.

06-19-2006, 09:52 PM
The NBA should give out 30 championship trophies. That's the only way to stop fans from complaining about officiating.

06-20-2006, 01:20 PM
Evilmav, I don't at all think the league is 'fixed'. I do believe that the league is very poorly officiated.

Madape, go back to jerking off over your little buddy.

Serving Size
06-20-2006, 02:06 PM
If perception is reality, then yes, the NBA is fixed.

06-20-2006, 07:04 PM
it's not fixed, just heavily manipulated. There is no way to guaruntee who wins, but it can be swayed in one direction or the other.

06-20-2006, 11:14 PM
May not be fixed, but it sure is f*cked up in some areas.

06-20-2006, 11:45 PM
Tonight, it looked to me like there MIGHT have been a little fixing going on in the last couple of minutes. That call on Dirk with 26 seconds left was not only ticky-tacky (fourth quarter in the Finals with 26 seconds left!), but it looked like a wrong call on top of that. The ref that made that call should not sleep with a clear conscience tonight.

06-21-2006, 12:40 AM
The fix was in at the beginning and the end of 2nd quarter. Dallas tried to drive on several occasions, drew heavy contact: no call. On the othe end, Harris moved his feet quickly, established position, and Wade barrelled into him: foul on Harris. Daniels did not even touch Wade: foul on Marquis.

The end of 4th is also atrocious. Walker pushed Dirk in the back at 4:21 mark: foul on Dirk. Wade stiff-armed Dirk: foul on Dirk.

The last one convinced me that the NBA is fixed, and not just "poorly officiated" or "heavily manipulated." Heat were up 3. If Dirk got two shots off that offensive foul, game will be 1 point with seconds to go. That's got to me more exciting that a 5-point lead. So if NBA just wanted to see close games, that foul would have been on Wade.

Here is a thought experiment: on the last shot GP tugged at Terry's jersey. If Terry jumped abruptly backwards, hoisting up a shot, and fell to the ground, do you think he would get three FTs?

I say maybe. That travel call on Haslem is bogus, and it gave Mavs a chance to tie. Terry might actually get his three FTs, since Mavs wouldn't be able to WIN on those shots, unlike Wade's FTs in Game 5. The refs would make sure that Mavs lose in OT.

06-21-2006, 12:24 PM
May not be fixed, but it sure is f*cked up in some areas.
Word. This series was FUBAR.

06-21-2006, 06:40 PM
Its not fixed, hell game 5 is an example of why its not fixed. If it was then the officials wouldnt have allowed it to come down to two last second plays. As good as wade is anyone could have screwed either of those up. They just suck thats it.

06-21-2006, 08:11 PM
it's not fixed, just heavily manipulated. There is no way to guaruntee who wins, but it can be swayed in one direction or the other.

My first post, and I'll use it here....

That would be correct. You can't RIG a game, but the REFS can surely manipulate it to help one team. What that team does with it will decide if they will win. I would LOVE to call FOUL on several calls, and the one that first comes to mind came in the 1st quarter....and was the FIRST foul of the game against the Mavs. The shot where Terry fouled Wade just inside the arc....Terry was a full arms-length away, and his arms were at his side, and then turned to follow the shot, yet a whistle was blown??? There was ZERO contact, unless you are calling bad breath and the such. Then with 2 min remaining, Wade goes around a screen, and plowed thru Dirk, and DIRK was called for blocking??? Yes, the Refs were manipulating the game to get Miami to win, but Dallas could have pulled out the win....but they were dishing out of OPEN DRIVES to shot a 3!! They WANTED to lose!!! Game 5 goes to the refs, but Game 6 was all MAVS!! They didn't drive to score, they were driving to open up the 3. I can't YELLING, "Get 2, then a stop, then 2 and you get 4!!! Not dish for a 3 and MISS!!! DAMN!"

Were the calls against the Mavs? Yes. Should we have won anyways? Yes!