after watching this video, some of these were terrible calls and some of them were legit calls, when i say legit calls, i mean that the only response that ican think of that somebody would use to argue against them is that "you should let them play" which is understandable
1. that play where their looking for a flagrant on shaq, looked to me like he was going for the ball, isnt that what determines a flagrant? this whole notionof an extra possession with two minutes left could have secured a Sac victory is pretty petty
2. that illegal screen on pollard is arguably legitimate to me in that his feet were definitely not set, looked like he was slowly walking forward but maybeits just me - this is one of those cases where u could argue about "letting them play"
3. that play at the end with kobe's elbow, was it clearly a foul? maybe, maybe not, how come there arent more angles? it could have easily have been aflop on bibbys part just as much as it could have been a foul on kobe. again, blaming the loss on a "missed foul opportunity" seems petty to meespecially when they didnt have the ball, were the lakers in the penalty?
4. the first play, where it looks like scott pollard loses the ball due to what looks like a foul and then runs back and "fouls" kobe - this isntthe first time we've ever seen that happen in a game, especially a playoff game, we've seen homecourt situations like these numerous times andwe'll continue to see them
5. shaq's 13 of 17 freethrows, i dont know what to say here other than that im sure those are violations and that they should not have counted - so thisseems like a valid argument to me, BUT honestly, his foot moved forwardevery time like a second after the ball was in the air and 13/17 for SHAQ seems pretty impressive to me, but its still a violation
-- as for the rest of those fouls that they called, vlade's 6th, pollard's 6th, Cwebb's 5th - all terrible calls, i guess on CWebb's 5th foulyou could have argued that it should have been a foul on Horry and that that could have given the kings the lead but its more petty arguing to say that CWebbwould have knocked those down and that it would have secured a kings victory
*** so all in all, i can understand why people would say that game was obviously fixed, do i think it was fixed? probably, i may even go as far as saying that chances of it being fixed were wayhigher than it not being fixed due to all the terrible foul calls at the end,
but you could also argue that it was the type of situation where those starters should never have been in those situations, howd pollard get his other 3 fouls?how'd vlade get his other 5 fouls? how'd cwebb get his other 4 fouls? the video doesnt show this kind of stuff
