Ralph Nader and game 6

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by djh3
Okay, here is a better analogy. You take the car to have the oil changed. After the oil is changed, as you are driving away, you notice a trail of oil leaking out of your car. Do you have to be a mechanic to know there is something wrong? Heck, even without being a mechanic you might be able to look inside and tell the oil filter is not seated correctly, or that the drain plug is not installed. I don't need a mechanic to figure that part out.

If you are so sure there is no bias in the league, then do this exercise. Watch the tapes for this series, calculate how many times the three second rule could have been called in the game against each team. Compare the number for the lakers and the number for the kings, and then compare it to the number of times it was actually called. The ratio should be similar. If there is a significant difference, then there is a bias.

That would be an objective way of measuring whether or not there is bias towards a team, or a player. The rule is the rule, regardless of the player or the team, right? All you need is a stopwatch and a tape of the game.

Knowing that something is wrong and know WHY something is wrong is two different things. Ralph Nader and Mark Cuban want to be experts about officiating and have probably never actually sat down and talk to an actual official. Ralph Nader flat out called the officials bais and for the Lakers without any concrete evidence or any thing other than the "oil is leaking" so it must be something wrong with the mechanic. Now the "oil leaking" might just be because the person that owns the car was not doing their job, despite the advice of the "professionals" that actually fix cars.

Funny, I have never heard Ralph Nader or Mark Cuban or any major critic of the officials use the rulebook. They only say what should or should not be, but cannot back it up with rules or mechanics to justify their position. I guess the next time Ralph Nader goes into court as a lawyer he will just tell a judge that this is wrong and not give evidence of why other than his opinion. I wonder what a judge would think about that?

Peace