Buck Harvey: NBA tries to diminish its crea …

看板Spurs (聖安東尼奧馬刺)作者abysssss (BALABALA)時間17年前 (2008/05/30 08:12)推噓2(2推 0噓 0→)

留言2則, 2人參與討論串1/1

FROM http://0rz.tw/f746E Buck Harvey: NBA tries to diminish its creation Web Posted: 05/29/2008 12:18 AM CDT Buck Harvey San Antonio Express-News LOS ANGELES — According to the NBA league office, Joey Crawford was wrong. So was Gregg Popovich. There should have been a foul after all. "那終究是一個犯規" That’s what the league said Wednesday, and such a statement was unexpected. What Crawford and his fellow officials chose to do at the end of Game 4 judgment call, not a rules violation. Since when has anything like this been discussed and released to the public? 這是聯盟在星期三說的，這樣的聲明讓人意想不到。Crawford和他的同伴們(指裁判) 在第四戰結束後選擇做的是評論，而不是改判。時點在這件事被大眾討論和公開後。 Since now. Since the Lakers and Celtics are on the cusp of tel Since the post-Tim Donaghy world has produced a conspiracy behind every bad call. Since Crawford was assigned to another pivotal Spurs playoff game — and botched the last call. 直到現在、直到 Lakers和 Celtics都在電視的涅盤頂端、直到the post-Tim Donaghy world在每個不佳的吹判前謠傳這是一件陰謀、直到Crawford被分派到另一場阿刺們的重要季後賽—並最後一哨有著拙劣的判斷。 Given that, the NBA thought it needed to address this no-call that added to the perception of a conspiracy. 有鑑於此，NBA官方覺得需要去發表評論對這個被添入陰謀論的未吹判。 When the league had created the perception. There is no conspiracy. David Stern would love to see the Lakers and Celtics in the Finals, and he would love more revenue. But any businessman would, and Stern would be risking everything for short-term profit. 當聯盟創造了印象。沒有陰謀。David Stern想看的是L.A.在決賽對上Boston，因為收益會比較好。任何商人都會這麼想。Stern會冒險，一切為了短期的利潤。 Besides, if Stern were so determined to fix it so that only large markets made it to the Finals, he’s failed miserably over the past 10 years. The franchise with the most championships comes from one of the smallest markets. 除此之外，如果Stern決定只讓大市場球隊進決賽。那麼這將反應他在過去十年的作為都是失敗的。過去十年拿到最多冠軍的球隊來自小市場的其中一個。 But there are a lot of people who don’t believe that about Stern. And so Wednesday, with replays so clear that even sportswriters understood a foul should have been called, the league admitted something that won’t change a thing. Brent Barry won’t shoot two foul shots, and the Spurs will still face elimination tonight. If the Spurs lose Game 5, what is their recourse? Put an asterisk on the Lakers’ championship? 但有很多人不相信者就是Stern的真面目，就像星期三所發生的。重播清楚的告訴運動評論家們那是一個犯規。聯盟卻不去做些什麼。 Barry爺沒有投出那球，阿刺們今晚仍將面對考驗。如果阿刺輸了第五戰，就沒什麼好依靠了。在湖人的冠軍上打個星號嗎？ If anything, the league’s acknowledgement is nothing more than an irritant. “ With the benefit of instant replay,” a league spokesman said, “it appears a foul call should have been made.” It appears? Nearly everyone not on the floor Tuesday night thought the same. In hindsight, Tuesday night’s reaction is funny. The Lakers, for example, were certainly convinced Derek Fisher had landed on Barry in such a way that nothing should have been called. Had they argued, sure, a call could have been made, then that stance would have been understandable. Instead they were certain of themselves, and that’s the Phil Jackson way. 如果有區別的話，一位聯盟的發言人表示即時重播是讓聯盟承認誤判最好的刺激良藥。它會顯示有些哨音是應該響起的。真的會顯示嗎？幾乎所有星期二在場的人們都有相同的看法。依後見之明，星期二夜晚的反應是可笑的。就像湖人隊也確定Fisher確實降落在Barry 爺身上沒被吹犯規。他們辯稱那是個可吹可不吹PLAY的立場我們可以理解。而那就是 Phil Jackson。 Jackson actually talked about officiating before, during and after Tuesday’s game. The before was the normal stuff, when he again referred to Bruce Bowen as Edward Scissorhands. The during came after the first quarter, when Jackson was asked by TNT’s Craig Sager what keyed a Spurs run. Jackson said, “To be honest with you, the guys with the whistles.” The after was about Fisher and Barry. Jackson acknowledged there was a bump, but he agreed with the no-call. Then Jackson launched into a lengthy critique of the shot-clock call that had gone against him. Jackson had talked about refs more in one day than Popovich has for a career. He whined once during the New Orleans series, and that’s why the moment was newsworthy. It was a first. JacksonJackson實際上也抱怨過幾次。提到包叔像剪刀手愛德華。當Jackson被TNT記者Crai 詢問什麼使馬刺隊運行時他說"誠實對待自己，帶哨之人。" 而那之後發生了Fisher跟Barry爺的碰撞，Jackson解釋那是個碰撞，但他同意沒犯規的判決。並發表了一些話語。 Jackson對此講了不少評論，不像Popo教頭已在對黃蜂的系列時發表過一次。因此Jackson的話也比較有新聞炒作度。 It also came after a Crawford game. Given that, no one would have blamed Popovich had he questioned everything about Game 4. Popovich, instead, tamped down his frustration. Asked about the no-call, he said, “If I was the official, I wouldn’t have called that a foul.” Popovich didn’t do this just to be noble. He's never seen the upside in postgame spin, and his staff stuck by the story Wednesday. It has a lot to do with getting the players to approach the next game the right way. By doing this, Popovich helped the league. He took the steam out of those ready to rage. Jackson, in the same position, would have heightened the firestorm. But the league is responsible. Crawford didn’t have to work another Spurs game, not after New Orleans, and when he did, the perception of a conspiracy crystallized about the time Fisher landed on Barry. Now the league has a response. 這也剛好是在一場Crawford吹判的比賽之後。鑑此，沒人怪罪Popo教頭他對第四場的結果出現的反應。面對這個挫折，Popo表示"我如果是聯盟，我也會說那不是個犯規。" Popo沒有這樣做，這只是要高尚。他從來沒見過在季後賽如此混亂，Popo和他的助手有很多工作要做，在下場比賽讓大家重回正軌。這樣，Popo幫助聯盟消滅那些流言。Jackson也是。但聯盟也是有責任的，不要再讓Crawford吹任一場阿刺們的比賽。這樣流言就會終止。現在聯盟有反應了。 Sorry. 抱歉 bharvey@express-news.net -- (A) 再一會就要第五戰了刺刺們加油三連勝逆轉湖人進FINAL拿冠軍拼連霸衝衝衝 (B) 翻得沒有不是很好想說都翻了還是貼一下有錯麻煩指正有些地方有跳過 (C) 看到一半發現這篇 ... 嗯馬刺必勝 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 203.73.152.185 ※ 編輯: abysssss 來自: 203.73.152.185 (05/30 08:13)