More on the officiating

Again, not even close to the reason the Nugs lost. SA was just better.
Period. But frankly, watching the way the last 4 games were officiated just
makes me want to watch the NBA less and less. Case and point again last
night, Nene gets into foul trouble on at least 3 completely phantom calls
out of his first 5. One particular sequence, when the game was still close,
Duncan clearly pushes off on one end to gather a defensive rebound. No
call, by the "he is Tim Duncan" rule. Other end, Duncan goes to the hole,
Nene passes in front of him but doesn't even touch him, foul on Nene.
Brutal, brutal officiating. And Duncan was the beneficiary of brutal
officiating for the entire last 4 games of the series. Melo and AI don't
seem to get the same unbelievable bias that Duncan does. Neither does
Parker, for that matter, and the refs weren't even buying all of Ginobili's
flops this time around. But why the special treatment for Duncan? Isn't he
already fricken good enough on his own (Ill answer that, yes he is, he is
damn good) that he doesn't need the additional advantage of having almost
every single effin call involving him and someone else go his way?

On Thu, 3 May 2007 14:55:29 -0600, "BobInBoulder"
<binb.TakeThisOut@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:

>Again, not even close to the reason the Nugs lost. SA was just better.
>Period.

The Spurs played the way the Spurs have for years. With confidence,
teamwork, workmanship, and defense. They expected to win in the end.

>But frankly, watching the way the last 4 games were officiated just
>makes me want to watch the NBA less and less.

Do you really think that officiating was better in the past?