An Inconvenient Truth: NBA Office Biased toward San Antonio Spurs

Martin BlackContributor IJune 1, 2008

Before I begin, let me just say that I am a die-hard Phoenix Suns fan. However, I am not writing out of malice or sour grapes. I am writing because I am a concerned basketball fan who does not appreciate the NBA's tyrannical defense of the San Antonio Spurs.

Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals was a hell of a game. I was pulling for the Lakers because of my "bias" as a Suns fan, but overall I could really care less who won. With a minute to go, I figured it was over, as did every non-Spurs fan. When it came down to the final play, I was wondering what Gregg Popovich (who I respect and acknowledge as an exceptional coach) would draw up.

When Brent Barry got the ball closer to half court than the three-point line I was shocked. When he pumped and Fisher left his feet I screamed at the television, "Why would you leave your feet? Let him shoot!" I was relieved when Barry stupidly dribbled away from the contact and missed the rim.

During the post game, I was astonished when there was so much talk about "should a foul have been called?"  I admit there was contact, and if you are going exactly by the rule book, it probably would have been a two-shot foul.

But over the course of a game, there are so many of those occurrences that are never called; and especially in the final two seconds of a playoff game, that was a definite no-call.

When they went to Gregg Popovich's press conference after the game, I was pleased with his response that it was not a foul. I was pleased as well with Barry's response.

I kept waiting for them to say that Barry should have jumped into the contact instead of dribbling away, though. The next day, when I heard that the League Office announced that there should have been a two shot foul, I was furious. It was an idiotic and pointless move on their part to say the least.

First off, if they hadn't made it an issue, no one would still be talking about it. Also, there are so many things the league could apologize for. What I'm saying is that there are many other wrongdoings that the NBA Office could be addressing. It is ridiculous (and I would not call it incidental) that the NBA office chooses to side with the Spurs.

Let's go back to the 2007 Western Conference Semifinals between the Spurs and the Suns. After Robert Horry hipchecks Steve Nash into the scorer's table, when the game was just sealed and the players are already on their feet, Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw walk 10 feet from the bench and get suspended one game each (a quintessential Game 5, that I guarantee the Suns would have won if they were at full strength).

Robert Horry, however, got suspended two games. I would have been satisfied with Stoudamire and Diaw's suspensions if Horry were suspended a full season. It is unbelievable that a dirty play like that is only one game more than walking away from the bench. That's another instance that the League takes the side of the Spurs.

The league has also downplayed the issue of the Spurs' dirty play on several occasions. When Bruce Bowen kneed Steve Nash in the groin in the 2007 Playoffs, the issue was never addressed. When Robert Horry took out David West's back in this year's Playoffs, the issue was never addressed.

My question is, why does the League Office continue to hold the Spurs' hand time after time? This article has addressed the facts, and if it is accused of bias then that person is a Spurs fan hiding behind the truth—an inconvenient truth.