That very well may be true IF you believe Donaghy. I don't, and it's obvious he'd throw that game out as an example simply because it was undeniably a controversially offiated game.
What does he have to gain by lying? I just wish he never used that game six to push his own agenda.
Msc, I see no reason the feds would ask that his sentence be reduced for this information; why would they consider that since he has already pled guilty? But to embarrass the League? THAT, I can see him doing. Lying in a federal court is why Barry Bonds faces federal prison. Since the idea is for Donaghy to ask for a REDUCTION in his sentence, lying to the feds would probably at this point do the opposite.
If it was mandated by the league to "force" a game 7, I think the refs would have spread the "fake" calls out over the course of the game to make it less obvious. Most of the calls were in the 4th quarter. As I said before, I honestly believe the refs were influenced by the crowd. I believe this happens a lot. If it's commonly agreed that players can be motivated or conversly intimidated by the crowd, why wouldn't refs be as well. It's human nature, no one can completely ignore and be immune to it.
If that were the case, you are arguing that every NBA game could be tainted because they all are played at someone's home court. What is much more likely is that the refs, by the fourth quarter of that game, decided to make the game more competitive and thereby watchable. I can see them doing that, even if the League did not directly sanction it. But I highly doubt they felt they would actually change the outcome; it just worked out that way. In my opinion, they probably were shocked themselves when they saw the disparity of fouls and the calls/non-calls they made that last quarter that benefitted only the Lakers when reviewing the game later.
So, yes, I agree with you that they got caught up in the momentum, but it had nothing to do with the energy of the Laker crowd. If they are not used to that sort of thing, they would have been fired by the League their first year on the job.
Actually I can imagine them blowing a huge lead because they have on several occassions. Maybe not in a WCF game 6, but it happens to every team. As I recall they blew a lead close to that size to New York earlier this year. Basketball is a game of momentum and stuff happens.
Neither the Kings nor the Lakers, in 2002, would have phyically been able to give up a 26 point lead without help; I think you would agree that the 2002 Laker team is
NOT similar to your 2008 version, even after the Gasol trade. That team in 2002 was much better.
What I can't imagine is the Lakers losing Game 7 at home after blowing a 26 point lead in game 6. I disagree that the Kings meltdown was due to their perception of being the redheaded step child of the NBA. If they were the better team they would have come home and come out with a vengeance.
There was tremendous pressure on the Kings that year that the Lakers did not have. So when things fell apart in the fourth quarter of game six, the residual could very easily have affected the Kings squad for game seven as it would never would have to the Lakers, because the Lakers always would have the easier playoff path in subsequent years. That is just how it is.
It was common knowledge
THAT King's team, in 2002, would probably be the only one to get that far. The Lakers are never going to have that problem, as you well know. Sure, a down year or two, maybe a bit longer, but the Kings team cannot attract free agents the same, other teams won't "magically" forget all business sense with Petrie, and the fan base will never match the size of the LA market so the League might, on occasion, look the other way if things fall into place for the Lakers to play far into the playoffs each year.
Money is money.
Having good luck is how the Spurs got Tim Duncan. Once. Since then, San Antonio has been gambling successfully on drafting foreign players and coaching great defense. This is how a well managed team in a small market competes.
But the LA Lakers? The Shaq trade? The Kobe trade? The Gasol trade? Even the second Shaq trade? Free agents agreeing to well below their market value to play for the Lakers? Calls "magically" going the Lakers way time and time again just when things look grim for your team? After a while, you have to see what the perception to outsiders to the LA experience might think. That type of "luck" could not happen of its own accord.
I don't recall having a problem with the officiating in that series. I did have a problem with Shaq getting 7 rebounds in a game against a 6'8" center. My point was that if the league wanted to maximize revenue by fixing games, why not force a game 7 at least?
You probably can blame that sixth game of the 2002 playoff series for that subsequent series, at least on how it was called. The fallout of that game sixth lasted what seemed (what SEEMS) years. It was certainly in the best interest of the League for the Lakers to disappear for a while by then, and frankly, if any of that game sixth was still stinking up the League office, you many have gotten what amounted to just a regularly called playoff series with no ref prejudices affecting games. Noticably fairly called, I would think.
I, for one, hope you stick around. This place wouldn't be the same without you poking your head in to stir up the pot.
Chances are I will stick around for now.
The problem will be if and when the Kings get back into the playoffs. There will always be some doubt about how the team will fare, especially if we play the Lakers again. It will affect the players as well, even if we were to get Lebron James, Garnett, and Dwight Howard to play here. The perception for this town after that 2002 playoff game still lingers and nothing will change that, so I am not looking forward to it happening again. Jackson can insult us all he wants, but with the
perception that his Lakers have the League's backing when things might tighten up in any series his team may play with the Kings, we know deep down he is covered and I think he knows it too.
