# Game 6 WCF 2002 Kings-Lakers



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

I always hear people talk about how terribly this game was officiated based on the fact that the Lakers shot 27 free throws in the 4th quarter. But I've never understood the complaint. Weren't most of those fouls INTENTIONAL? The Kings were INTENTIONALLY fouling Shaq and then INTENTIONALLY committing fouls to extend the length of the game down the stretch. Then they look at a box score and get all upset? I don't get it.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

I don't remember the whole end stretch of the game, but _Hibachi!_ and _IceMan23and3_ were arguing about it here.

Theres also a good play-by-play posted there. From the play-by-play and what I gather from what was said, Adelman did NOT employ the Hack-a-Shaq much at all throughout that last quarter, and there were only 3 intentional fouls in the last minute or so of the game.

A lot of the criticism probably also comes from specific plays that highlighted the (supposed) officiating bias. Eg. in the above thread, they also mention the foul called on Bibby (where Kobe elbows Bibby in the face) - thats one of the more frequently discussed calls.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

If looking at your opponent, breathing in their direction, putting your hands straight up while remaining stationary, or getting hit in the face with an elbow is an intentional foul, then you're absolutely right.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

there were no intentional fouls until the very end. Off the top of my head, I can also recall 3-4 calls that Pollard and Divac were whistled for against Shaq when replays showed that there was no contact. There was no hack-a-Shaq emoployed.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

KingSpeed said:


> I always hear people talk about how terribly this game was officiated based on the fact that the Lakers shot 27 free throws in the 4th quarter. But I've never understood the complaint. Weren't most of those fouls INTENTIONAL? The Kings were INTENTIONALLY fouling Shaq and then INTENTIONALLY committing fouls to extend the length of the game down the stretch. Then they look at a box score and get all upset? I don't get it.


You obviously didn't see the game


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

NewAgeBaller said:


> I don't remember the whole end stretch of the game, but _Hibachi!_ and _IceMan23and3_ were arguing about it here.
> 
> Theres also a good play-by-play posted there. From the play-by-play and what I gather from what was said, Adelman did NOT employ the Hack-a-Shaq much at all throughout that last quarter, and there were only 3 intentional fouls in the last minute or so of the game.
> 
> A lot of the criticism probably also comes from specific plays that highlighted the (supposed) officiating bias. Eg. in the above thread, they also mention the foul called on Bibby (where Kobe elbows Bibby in the face) - thats one of the more frequently discussed calls.


That Bibby foul was called correctly. He was practically in Kobes shirt hugging him when Kobe tried the football "swim" move to go around him. You stick your face in there don't cry if you get smacked. 

As for the game 6 calls, sure it was slanted in the Lakers favor. Just like it was slanted heavily in the Kings favor in the last 5:30 of game 5. Some of the calls to end that game 5 were ridiculous, including Webber knocking the ball out of bounds and the Kings retaining possession. Webber setting a moving screen on the Bibby game winner. Bobby Jackson holding Kobe on the last possession and pulling his shirt out of his shorts then hitting him on the arm on the last shot.

The "managing" of the games by the refs in games 5 and 6 just to insure a game 7 makes you sick as a basketball fan. The series would have gone 7 anyway without all the controversy and the league doesn't suffer the black eye it did after the series.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

im kinda glad that there's so much controversey... i really hope david stern can be removed as commissioner of the NBA. there's just something about him that gives you the feeling he's a snake.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

No... There were only 6 free-throws at the end that were intentional. The rest were regular calls. Well... If you want to call them regular.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> That Bibby foul was called correctly. He was practically in Kobes shirt hugging him when Kobe tried the football "swim" move to go around him. You stick your face in there don't cry if you get smacked.


:lol: Have you ever seen an inbounds play in your entire life? 










Bibby goes up to defend him (like every other inbounds play he goes up to him and gets in his jersey) Kobe then wraps his left arm around Bibby's back, pulls him in to use him as leverage for the swim move (as well as put Bibby off balance) and then elbows him in the face. Sweet jesus I mean I know sometimes calls can go either way, but holy ****...


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

buduan said:


> That Bibby foul was called correctly. He was practically in Kobes shirt hugging him when Kobe tried the football "swim" move to go around him. You stick your face in there don't cry if you get smacked.
> 
> As for the game 6 calls, sure it was slanted in the Lakers favor. Just like it was slanted heavily in the Kings favor in the last 5:30 of game 5. Some of the calls to end that game 5 were ridiculous, including Webber knocking the ball out of bounds and the Kings retaining possession. Webber setting a moving screen on the Bibby game winner. Bobby Jackson holding Kobe on the last possession and pulling his shirt out of his shorts then hitting him on the arm on the last shot.
> 
> The "managing" of the games by the refs in games 5 and 6 just to insure a game 7 makes you sick as a basketball fan. The series would have gone 7 anyway without all the controversy and the league doesn't suffer the black eye it did after the series.



you mean this?









edit: hibachi got it before me.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

Hibachi! said:


> :lol: Have you ever seen an inbounds play in your entire life?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yup. Question is, are you blind? Bibby is hugging him around the waist with his right arm. Clear foul and was called correctly.


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

buduan said:


> Yup. Question is, are you blind? Bibby is hugging him around the waist with his right arm. Clear foul and was called correctly.


Holy ****! You're not being series, are you?


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

buduan said:


> Yup. Question is, are you blind? Bibby is hugging him around the waist with his right arm. Clear foul and was called correctly.


i hope this is sarcasm. its okay to admit your wrong sometimes. terrible.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

buduan said:


> That Bibby foul was called correctly. He was practically in Kobes shirt hugging him when Kobe tried the football "swim" move to go around him. You stick your face in there don't cry if you get smacked.


No it wasn't. Watch the reverse angle sometimes, you'll see that Bibby puts his arm out _after_ getting smacked in the face with the elbow. And _football_ plays aren't legal in basketball. I know you Laker fans are kind of fuzzy on that. Most of you still think that the refs made the correct call in game 1 when they whistled Kendrick Perkins for getting hit by an illegal chop block thrown by Fisher.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

buduan said:


> Yup. Question is, are you blind? Bibby is hugging him around the waist with his right arm. Clear foul and was called correctly.



Lakers fan I assume?


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

Are you guys effing kidding me? I guess you see what you want to see. I have that game on tape and multiple angles show Bibby with his arm around his waist BEFORE the swim move. All the questionable calls in that 4th quarter and you guys try and hang your hat on that one?

Hilarious.


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

buduan said:


> Are you guys effing kidding me? I guess you see what you want to see. I have that game on tape and multiple angles show Bibby with his arm around his waist BEFORE the swim move. All the questionable calls in that 4th quarter and you guys try and hang your hat on that one?
> 
> Hilarious.


:whofarted


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

No it doesn't. I'm looking at it right now on YouTube and Bibby's arm _isn't_ around Kobe and Bryant's arm is clearly in Bibby's face. So you're lying here. I have to say, you Laker fans are a laugh riot.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

buduan said:


> Are you guys effing kidding me? I guess you see what you want to see. I have that game on tape and multiple angles show Bibby with his arm around his waist BEFORE the swim move. All the questionable calls in that 4th quarter and you guys try and hang your hat on that one?
> 
> Hilarious.


Everybody except you sees Bibby being fouled and your ace in the sleeve is "you see what you want to see"? Yeah, I think we know that based on the fact that you are seeing something that no one else is.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Again with the generalizing of the "you Lakers fans." It's one person, not every Lakers fan that posts here or every Lakers fan that exists. 

I clearly remember that call, and being shocked that Kobe wasn't called for an offensive foul. I can't say I wasn't happy, but I wasn't stupid, either.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Basel57 said:


> Again with the generalizing of the "you Lakers fans." It's one person, not every Lakers fan that posts here or every Lakers fan that exists.


OK, OK, OK. I full well admit that it's the 1% of Lakers fans that make the other 99% look _good_. :bsmile:

(Just for the record you definitely belong in the 1%  )


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

buduan said:


> Are you guys effing kidding me? I guess you see what you want to see. I have that game on tape and multiple angles show Bibby with his arm around his waist BEFORE the swim move. All the questionable calls in that 4th quarter and you guys try and hang your hat on that one?
> 
> Hilarious.


rly:


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

By the way, is there any way to watch the ends of Game 5 and Game 6 online from that series? I remember both being officiated badly, but I don't remember every little detail. I'd really love to re-watch them and go back and see how many of the calls were legit and how many weren't.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

The only YouTube video on game 6 is via TV news report (that I can find anyway). The NBA seems to have an aversion to _that particular game_ having highlights online. Highlight clips from every other game that series are up though.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> No it doesn't. I'm looking at it right now on YouTube and Bibby's arm _isn't_ around Kobe and Bryant's arm is clearly in Bibby's face. So you're lying here. I have to say, you Laker fans are a laugh riot.


Nope. Even in the GIF posted you can clearly see his arm around his waist. You're the liar here.


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

This is going nowhere fast.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

buduan said:


> Nope. Even in the GIF posted you can clearly see his arm around his waist. You're the liar here.


Again, looking at the reverse angle, I can clearly see Kobe's arm at Bibby's face level before Bibby's arm goes around Bryant. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong, Braynt was _not_ reacting to being tied up, and the swim move isn't legal in the NBA (and Bryant isn't doing it as he's making zero attempt at getting his arm over Bibby's head). Bryant committed a flagrant foul.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

I don't mind it when you consider the refs practically gave the Kings game 5 and game 3


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

ehmunro said:


> The only YouTube video on game 6 is via TV news report (that I can find anyway). The NBA seems to have an aversion to _that particular game_ having highlights online. Highlight clips from every other game that series are up though.


I actually wonder if you might be right about the NBA making sure there's no videos on youtube of that game. Ever since Donaghy made that statement about the game, I've been trying to find some clips on youtube but I just can't seem to, which is very weird considering how infamous it is.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

all I gotta say is that if this is false and the ref is lying, he damn well picked the right game to lie about. That game was ridiculous.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

ezealen said:


> I actually wonder if you might be right about the NBA making sure there's no videos on youtube of that game. Ever since Donaghy made that statement about the game, I've been trying to find some clips on youtube but I just can't seem to, which is very weird considering how infamous it is.


ESPN requested the post-game reports for game six as a follow up, and the NBA refused the request. So they're definitely hiding something.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Yea, i was shocked Kobe wasn't called for an offensive foul there.

But also the Laker fans have a point that the end of game 5 wasn't officiated well either.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

You should all try to contact this guy from OCRegister... apparently he has the game; maybe on his computer! 

Quote:
!I just finished watching the 4th quarter of the 2002 game 6 versus the Kings and cannot believe anyone would believe a conspiracy theory.

I’ve analyzed every single free throw (27) the Lakers took in the fourth quarter and have come up with the following:

- Six of the free throws were intentional fouls by the Kings in the last 19 seconds of the game to preserve the clock. That essentially turns the 27 free throws to 21 since the officials were actually helping the Kings by calling immediate fouls.

- 10 other fourth quarter free throws were shot by Shaq, who was (not) being covered by Scott Pollard, who fouled out at the 11:33 mark, Divac, who fouled out at the 3 minute mark, and Funderburke, who was just awful. Of the 10 free throws, I would say either 6 or 8 of them were legit since 1 or 2 of the fouls were pretty iffy. No one could guard Shaq, and he was going to the line so easily because he was getting nailed by players who simply could not stop him otherwise.

- I’m sure a lot of people are going to make a big deal out of the non-call against Kobe when he nailed Bibby in the nose with an elbow, as he was being held around the waist by Bibby and was not able to break loose to receive a pass. The call could have gone either way, but when an offensive player is obviously being held back from receiving an inbound pass, the officials will more than likely call the play against the defensive player.

When all is said and done, exhibit A in favor of the officials NOT rigging the game occurred with 21 seconds left. With the Lakers leading 101 to 98, Rick Fox got called for an extremely iffy blocking call. Mike Bibby could have easily been called for the offensive charging foul, if the game was in fact, being rigged. The call could have gone either way, and it went against the Lakers and Bibby nailed both free throws to cut the deficit to 1 (101-100). Then the Kings decided to keep fouling the Lakers on purpose (at 19, 12, & 2 seconds respectively).

How does ANYONE who believes the game was fixed explain the non-call on Bibby??? Sure, there were some bad calls in the 4th quarter. But I really wish the media would actually take a half hour out of their lives and watch the 4th quarter. They would realize that there was no “grand conspiracy” at work.

Out of the 27 free throws taken in the 4th quarter, here’s a quick breakdown:

6 FTs intentional (at end of game)
1 FT intentional breakway foul by Jackson on Kobe at the 7:40 mark
10 FTs “trying” feebly to cover Shaq (6 of the 10 were pretty obvious)
2 FTs Devean George nailed by Webber at the 10:28 mark
2 FTs Rick Fox drilled by Funderburke at the 1:38 mark

I would say half the remaining FTs (3 of 6) were pretty legit.

*I actually think Tim Donaghy exploited the fact* that grandstanding Ralph Nader, Mr. “anti-everything” and political punching bag, made such a big stink about the officiating after the game (like his opinion means anything, or is taken seriously by anyone…just go away, please!).

I’m not saying that the officials called a good game. They didn’t. But I can’t see how anyone who takes the time to watch the game could say that the Kings deserved to win it, or that it was “fixed.”"

I particularly agree with the exploitation of an already infamous game part. Anyway it would be very interesting to see what the NBA's rebuttal will be. Although it's not a good sign that they aren't saying anything... even though being silent doesn't mean a thing, it's usually percieved as negative and seen as an intent to hide something. Very very interesting.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Gee, a Laker fan claims to have rewatched the game, got some of the facts wrong, and finds nothing wrong with the refereeing? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

I didn't post that as proof of objectivity. He apparently has the game, has re-watched it, unlike all of you here... I just thought his comments were interesting, Laker fan or not.

And since it was 6 years ago and I was 16 at the time and watched the game on the national TV with our Slovenian announcer who doesn't know **** about the NBA to begin with (and probably wouldn't recognize suspicious officiating if he would've been called for a foul for sitting in the booth) I would definitely love to see that game again... preferably with the original announcer. 

p.s.: you do realize you don't have to be so overly and annoyingly condescending all of the time?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I only look down on those that deserve it.


----------



## Jorbroni (Nov 24, 2004)

Here is the game 5 play that alot of people claims that justified game 6 suspicious calls.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8b-8sS1GplM&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8b-8sS1GplM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I don't buy it.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

ehmunro said:


> I only look down on those that deserve it.


I somehow have a hard time believing that. Especially on an internet board...

It's perfectly fine to be so confident about your intelectual abilities. It doesn't mean that your condescending tone isn't irritating as hell. Especially since it gets horribly repetitive. 

But I'm a Lakers fan. What would I know about intelect, right?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

:lol:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

ezealen said:


> I actually wonder if you might be right about the NBA making sure there's no videos on youtube of that game. Ever since Donaghy made that statement about the game, I've been trying to find some clips on youtube but I just can't seem to, which is very weird considering how infamous it is.


:lol: :yay: :lol: (click for link)



> Not that Kings fans needed more fuel for their conspiracy fire, but there is a rather odd development to the Game 6 controversy. Several of my colleagues say they've previously viewed video clips on YouTube of each game from the infamous 2002 Western Conference playoff series between the Kings and Lakers.
> 
> But as of today, clips of Game 6 are missing. All the other games are there. You can watch highlights of Kobe Bryant scoring 30 points in Game 1 and the clips from the deciding overtime in Game 7 remain. Another NBA blogger also picked up on the missing clips.
> Where did Game 6 go? YouTube won't say.


----------



## squeemu (Jan 25, 2006)

I'm certainly not a Lakers fan, but I'm curious as to what people say to the interesting no-call on Bibby that brought the Kings within one. Doesn't that help show that it's not a conspiracy, but just really poor reffing?


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

What no-call are you speaking of?


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

Jorbroni said:


> Here is the game 5 play that alot of people claims that justified game 6 suspicious calls.
> 
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8b-8sS1GplM&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8b-8sS1GplM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
> ...


I don't see anything in that play besides Derek Fisher flopping.


----------



## squeemu (Jan 25, 2006)

Hibachi! said:


> What no-call are you speaking of?


From the article Plastic Man quoted: 
"When all is said and done, exhibit A in favor of the officials NOT rigging the game occurred with 21 seconds left. With the Lakers leading 101 to 98, Rick Fox got called for an extremely iffy blocking call. Mike Bibby could have easily been called for the offensive charging foul, if the game was in fact, being rigged. The call could have gone either way, and it went against the Lakers and Bibby nailed both free throws to cut the deficit to 1 (101-100). Then the Kings decided to keep fouling the Lakers on purpose (at 19, 12, & 2 seconds respectively)."

Keep in mind I did not see this game, and don't have an opinion one way or another because of it. I'm just curious about this whole topic, because often times people claim conspiracy when it's just really poor reffing.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

ezealen said:


> I don't see anything in that play besides Derek Fisher flopping.


i think they're talking about the play before that 3 pointer by bibby... it shouldn't have been the kings ball.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

When you set a pick you are not supposed to stick your elbow out, that's not a flop. His body and feet weren't set either, that's a moving pick.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

Derek Fisher flopping? That's unpossible!


----------



## MacDanny 6 (Jun 7, 2002)

The conspiracy has nothing to do with game 5. The main thing was to make it go 7 games, and to do that the Lakers had to win game 6. Game 5 means nothing in this case.


----------



## FreeMason Jr. (Jul 12, 2004)

afobisme said:


> i think they're talking about the play before that 3 pointer by bibby... it shouldn't have been the kings ball.


Ok, good, cause I don't see how anyone could complain about the play up there. Got a vid of the real one then?

But really, what does a bad call in game 5 have to do with whether or not game 6 was rigged or not?


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

Jorbroni said:


> Here is the game 5 play that alot of people claims that justified game 6 suspicious calls.
> 
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8b-8sS1GplM&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8b-8sS1GplM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
> ...


It was a flop. Fisher was pretty much doing that crap all that season.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

buduan said:


> That Bibby foul was called correctly. He was practically in Kobes shirt hugging him when Kobe tried the football "swim" move to go around him. You stick your face in there don't cry if you get smacked.


I won't get into the play, cause everyones ripped into you already. But basically you're wrong and I agree with them.

Also, saying Game 5 was equally biased in its officiating doesn't mean anything (I don't believe it was by the way). What Donaghy says was the case is that a league official instructed match referees to ensure the series goes to a 7th game, and to do so, LA had to win Game 6.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

buduan - Wow. You, sir, are a disgrace to Laker fans everywhere.

I'll remember that ruling the next time I play basketball - elbow somebody in the face when I don't have the ball. It's totally legal, right?


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

I remember the Fakers getting all the calls in that game.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

The screen was fine, Fisher went under it and then dived when he knew he was screwed. Not going to get a weak call like that with the game on the line.

As mentioned, this is not the play in question.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Again, looking at the reverse angle, I can clearly see Kobe's arm at Bibby's face level before Bibby's arm goes around Bryant. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong, Braynt was _not_ reacting to being tied up, and the swim move isn't legal in the NBA (and Bryant isn't doing it as he's making zero attempt at getting his arm over Bibby's head). Bryant committed a flagrant foul.


Over 8000 posts on a basketball message board and you don't know jack about the rules? Shameful.

If a defender gets that close to a offensive player they have to live with the consequences with what happens when that offensive player makes their move. Ask Deke who took elbow after elbow in the nose in the '01 Finals. Or Brian Grant who chose to play defense at a angle when with his face at just the perfect height to get elbowed when Shaq turned.

It simply doesn't matter if Bibby's arm was touching Bryant. It was there, period. If you were defending me like a 40 year old at the local YMCA (you know, arms extended out on either side of me) everytime I make a move to the basket I'm drawing a foul on you. Easily.

Fact is Bibby gave Bryant no room to move other than backwards. Bryant made a basketball move that is done dozens of times in NBA games throughout the season. It's not his fault that Bibby is 5-6 inches shorter and took one in the chops because he chose to play him so close. 

Had Bibby been off of him a couple of inches and not going chest to chest with his arm hooked around him and Bryant STILL ran him over, then you'd have a case. 

But in this scenario you don't.


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

NewAgeBaller said:


> I won't get into the play, cause everyones ripped into you already. But basically you're wrong and I agree with them.
> 
> Also, saying Game 5 was equally biased in its officiating doesn't mean anything (I don't believe it was by the way). What Donaghy says was the case is that a league official instructed match referees to ensure the series goes to a 7th game, and to do so, LA had to win Game 6.


And the Kings had to be gifted game 5. Because if it wasn't the Lakers are closing the series out at home.

Here are the FT's for the series:



> FT's in the '02 series Lakers/Kings:
> 
> Game 1:
> Lakers 22
> ...


Kings and their fans have no reason to cry. They shot more FT's for the series and the disparity in game 3 was much larger than in game 6. How does a jumpshooting team get more FT's than a defending champ with two of the best in the game at drawing fouls?

Crazy.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

buduan said:


> Over 8000 posts on a basketball message board and you don't know jack about the rules? Shameful.
> 
> If a defender gets that close to a offensive player they have to live with the consequences with what happens when that offensive player makes their move. Fact is Bibby gave Bryant no room to move other than backwards. Bryant made a basketball move that is done dozens of times in NBA games throughout the season. It's not his fault that Bibby is 5-6 inches shorter and took one in the chops because he chose to play him so close.


You're criticizing for somebody not knowing the rules of basketball, then you drop a dousy like this?

Let's put this into play, here. A defender is establishing position, and an offensive player runs right through him. Um, by the rules of basketball, that is a charge. Not to mention Kobe held him by the small of his back and elbowed him across the face. How is throwing an elbow into somebody's face (while you hold them) a basketball move? I'll also bet that you think every charge in the NBA shouldn't be called because it was the defender's fault to stand in front of an offensive player.

Kobe is the master at goading a defender into commiting a foul if they are playing foolish defense. I see it every single game I watch Kobe Bryant. If Bibby was really holding Kobe like you claim, Kobe's smarter than to just run straight through him. He'd run to the side and exaggerate that he was being held (if he was), under normal circumstances. Fortunately for Kobe and the Lakers, the refs had their back anyway.

Your story is bull****, and it sounds to me like you need to learn the basic rules of charging/blocking... not to mention it just being acceptable to elbow somebody in the face when they're standing right in front of you. What a ****ing joke you are, professing that you have knowledge that nobody else does. Hopefully if we ever play a game of basketball, I'll just hit you in the face with an elbow and claim it to be my right as an offensive player, because you're GUARDING ME TOO CLOSELY.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

buduan said:


> And the Kings had to be gifted game 5. Because if it wasn't the Lakers are closing the series out at home.
> 
> Here are the FT's for the series:
> 
> ...



Once again, like I've said, referencing a box score to claim or disprove a conspiracy theory is bull****. Come up with some actual evidence, and not evidence that says "an offensive player can throw elbows and it'll be the defender's fault for fouling his arm with his face".


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Umm....people...hello...

The reason that Game 5 has been questioned isn't because Webber may or may not have set an illegal screen.

Sorry to rain on your Laker-bashing parade.

The fact is that the only reason the Kings had the ball at that point was because the officials incorrectly gave Sacramento the ball after Webber had bobbled it out of the bounds. It was a pretty obvious call that the refs messed up, and that was what Jackson referenced when he mentioned Game 5 in that press conference. It should have been the Lakers' ball with only 3-or-so seconds remaining, and the Bibby shot never would have happened.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Umm....people...hello...
> 
> The reason that Game 5 has been questioned isn't because Webber may or may not have set an illegal screen.
> 
> Sorry to rain on your Laker-bashing parade.


Who's bashing the Lakers?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

buduan said:


> Over 8000 posts on a basketball message board and I don't know jack about the rules?


I'm not sure where you made your other 7300+ posts, but I'm glad to see that you're finally coming to grips with your ignorance. Or are you seriously claiming that there's no such call as charging? Or is the reality that you're one the 99% of your team's fans that make the other 1% look like idiots?


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

I want to see this reverse angle people are claiming they have watched. That was you saying that ehmunro right? Post it here if you can please.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

It's the only game 6 footage available on YouTube. Just look up the news report on Donaghy's accusations re: game 6. It's somewhere around the two minute mark, Bryant's charging through Bibby, leading with his elbow.


----------

