JH: I don’t think there was intent to bias on the part of the official…
(Then JH writes): I do think he may have ben caught up in the heat of the moment hoping that Gonzaga would get a chance at a last shot…
(Which of course is a complete contradiction)
JH: I think after consulting with each other they concluded that Gonzaga had been afforded numerous opportunities to win the game and it would have appeared bad if they had given them the ball again for another.
(Another big contradiction)
SG: Jim just can’t help himself because he looks at everything from a skewed belief about officials and the league. There is no reasoning with Jim. He says they aren’t biased and then gives two statements that would indicate biased. I had to pick myself up off the floor laughing so hard 
Yes they should have discussed the call. But, KC fell and did not slide or drag his pivot left foot.
Grasshoppers are wise and mostly correct
So? He fell while in control of the ball. According to the rule, that is traveling. Not sure what dragging his foot has to do with anything. Apparently you don’t understand the rule.
Actually this is not a contradiction. If you understood what you read you would get that but you have always had a reading comprehension problem and I am not the only one who knows this.
There is a difference between “intent” and being caught up in the emotional excitement of the moment. That is what I believe happened in the moment of the call. Because the ref was so quick to make the call on a not so obvious call, I believe he was caught up in the moment and not exhibiting bias at that moment.
The second comment of mine related to the blocked shot by Austin and him running to collect it and going out of bounds. So you tell everyone why they consulted after that play? They were trying to decide whether the ball was out of bounds or if Austin had been fouled, causing him to go out of bounds.
The whole exercise is called in depth analysis of what is taking place during a game. I am sorry you are not capable of in depth analysis and must rely on stats to try and understand what is going on. It’s okay though, I’m sure you are good at teaching math or something like that…
Yeah, I understand what you are saying and I don’t have a problem with the call. It was my feeling that the official was caught up in the moment of the game and made a very quick call. I don’t fault him for that. I also don’t think KC slid or established a pivot foot, etc. It is just one of those weird situations that doesn’t happen very often either.
Hopefully SG will read and UNDERSTAND what we are discussing here and be more enlightened so he can participate in an intelligent way the next time. 
If he was hoping Gonzaga would get a chance means he intended to be biased. To suggest otherwise is balony 
Maybe as you get older you aren’t able to convey your true meaning like before when you were younger. Or, as I’ve pointed out before, the more you push your conspiracy the harder it is to convey the truth of the matter. As with all conspiracies, you get lost. It was clearly a contradiction 
I explained the comment and you still weren’t able to understand what I was saying and the context within which it was said.
Sorry, I tried…
Your explanation was just plain wrong. But, you are being to prideful to admit your prejudice 