Re:

[bird <birdw@aloha.net>]

>The game in Philly where they didn't call the foul on Pierce at the end. I
>would consider that a "rob" since he was fouled twice on the play and once it
>was totally obvious and it definitely affected the outcome of the game. I
>mean, you can miss the charges and illegal defenses and call 3 seconds
>inconsistantly and that can be attributed to a ref's discretion. But to make
>a nocall on a obvious hack on a guy going to the basket at the end of the
>game that affects the outcome, that's just stealing...

The thing with all those missed charges, three second calls and all 
are that they effect the outcome of the games, too, just not as 
obviously as the example you mentioned with Pierce in the Philly 
game.  Still, I think you're right: I should probably use "robbed" to 
describe those types of referee non-calls and the like.

I guess I have "issues" with the refs in the NBA -- things like the 
preferential treatment given to "stars" or "veterans", the calls 
being based on "respect" and not what actually happened.  Plus, 
things like there's a lane violation on virtually every free throw 
attempted in the league.  Why not call them?  It's like a couple of 
years ago when they "changed" the rules -- seemed like the old rules 
to me -- instead of just enforcing the (pretty good) ones they 
already had.

Though the Celtics don't seem to get a lot of respect (or "love") 
from the refs, and therefore few calls, they do beat themselves more 
than the refs beat them.

Regards,

Bill, Celticus "tirdius"