From: cs161fir@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Anthony Minkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Suns lose again
Date: 24 Jan 93 09:06:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1993Jan21.210247.14194@microsoft.com>,
paulg@microsoft.com (Paul Goode) writes:
>What you had to know is that there was no way that any NBA commissioner
>would change the  outcome of a game based on an incident that occurred
>without the ball in play, especially given the time left in the game.

Really?  Well, let me describe the last protest upheld in the NBA
(the following is excerpted from the Phoenix Gazette 1/6/93):

        The last NBA protest to be upheld, ironically,
    involved a game in San Antonio.
        On Nov. 30, 1982, the Spurs were clinging to a two-
    point lead with three seconds left with Norm Nixon of the
    Lakers at the free-throw line.
        The idea was for Nixon to miss and try for a tip in,
    but Nixon stopped in midmotion, and players from both
    teams fell into the lane.
        Referee Jack Madden called it a double-lane violation,
    the Lakers won the resultant jump, a basket by Nixon tied
    the game, and the Lakers went on to a 137-132 double-
    overtime victory.
        However, the Spurs argued successfully that since
    Nixon had never released the ball, no lane violation had
    occurred and Madden simply should have repositioned
    everybody for another free throw.
        "Upholding a protest is an extreme measure," then
    Commissioner Larry O'Brien said, "but in this case, it is
    clear that a misapplication of the rules adversely
    affected San Antonio's opportunity to win the game."


How does this meet your criteria, Paul?  The ball was not "in
play"-- no more so than a ball ready to be inbounded, anyway-- and
the time left in the game was similar.

This situations are remarkably similar, in fact, and the only way
David Stern was able to deny the protest was ruling (incorrectly)
that the referees had applied the rules correctly in the first
place.

>My guess is that all the officials in question had to say was either
>
>a) we made a judgement call or 

This was not a "judgement" call.  There was no question as to
whether there were six men on the floor (there were), or whether
the ball had been handed to Avery Johnson (it had been), or whether
it had been inbounded (it hadn't been).  The only question was what
the rules state about this situation.

>b) one of us shouldn't have given the ball to Avery Johnson while
>   the other was allowing a substitution, but we can't see how
>   that merits taking the game away from the team that earned the 
>   win 

It is not the referees' position to decide which team "earned the
win."  It is their duty to enforce the rules consistently, and to
call them as they see them.

>And let's face it: The Suns did let this one get away. They not 
>only blew a very defensible lead, they couldn't take advantage of David
>Robinson fouling out midway through OT.

That is totally irrelevant to the merits of the protest.

I agree that the Suns *didn't* deserve this game.  If the protest
had been upheld, I'd have been the first to call the Suns an
incredibly lucky team that won yet another game because of their
opponents' choking in the clutch (if putting an extra man on the
floor and drawing a 'T' in a tied game with .4 on the clock isn't
choking, I don't know what is).

However, their protest was a valid one, and should have been upheld.

Tony
-- 
Tony Minkoff                            aminkoff@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
cs161fir@sdcc10.ucsd.edu                cs163wav@sdcc8.ucsd.edu
"This quote is in this .sig for no particular reason."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro