The news that has Tim Donaghy's lawyer releasing the former NBA referee's claims that refs in the 2002 Western Conference finals were encouraged to extend that series to a money-makin' seventh game isn't surprising in the least. That's sort of the point. Donaghy's a dope, but he's no dummy, and he knows that he needs a little added credibility, and that the biggest black mark on the NBA's officiated history is rife for some "explanation."

It's not an "explanation," as most right-thinking people know, it's a desperate and last-ditch stab at credibility by a little, little man; but that's not going to stop some people for thinking that the fix is in. Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals was easily the worst-called big game in recent NBA history, and easily one of the worst-called NBA games I've ever taken in.

But it wasn't a fix. That's a silly, stupid line of thinking that would involve believing that referees Dick Bavetta, Ted Bernhardt, and Bob Delaney gave a rip about whether or not that classic series went the full seven games.

And on the flip side, it hardly means that we should summarily dismiss Donaghy's claims, as David Stern wants us to, only because this guy is a convicted felon.

There has to be some nuance, some batch of think-through, in this case. We can't jump to quick conclusions just because they sound right, or feel good. That gets us nowhere.

What we have to do is try to recall the context of that game, think about what we know regarding the NBA's relationship with its referees, and try to place a motivation behind Bavetta/Bernhardt/Delaney's madness.

The game itself was an absolute mess. I was bartending that night, didn't return back home until after 3 am, and before I'd even hit "play" on my tape of the game, I'd read a half-dozen emails sent to me (on a Friday night, mind you) by people complaining about the referees in Game 6. So I was paying pretty crisp attention to the zebras even before things started to go badly. Not that I needed the extra motivation, because they called a terrible game.

And, probably worse than a "terrible" one, they called a game that was completely different than the other contests in this series. The first five games of this one had everyone's eyes rolling and the complaints coming fast and furious as the Sacramento Kings continually dived to the floor at the slightest brush of contact, while raking in the "charges." Embarrassed by a sweep at the hands of the Lakers the year before, the Kings were doing whatever it took to get to the Finals.

And it was working. Game 5 saw Kobe Bryant saddled with foul trouble, and Shaquille O'Neal foul out. And a few calls went Sacramento's way that probably cost Los Angeles the game. Referees like to think they work in a vacuum, and by and large they do a brilliant job trying to pull that off, but they're also human, and they knew exactly what was going on - the Kings were getting away with quite a bit, and probably took in a win they didn't deserve.

So they entered Game 6 with a mindset, just as the referees (led by Delaney) entered Game 2 of this year's Finals with the idea of cleaning up the clutching and grabbing away from the ball that was a little too prominent in Game 1. There's nothing wrong with that, and we should encourage that.

Just as coaches and teams have to make adjustments, both between games and in games, referees should too. And it's up to the teams to make in-game adjustments to the adjustments made by the opposition between games, and how the referees are calling this game.

And the Kings did not. Just as the Lakers didn't in Game 2 of this year's Finals. Much worse, though, is the way the referees did not make in-game adjustments to just how physical the Lakers were starting to play as a result of being able to move without getting whistled for a charge.

The game got out of hand. Los Angeles shot 27 free throws to Sacramento's nine in the fourth quarter alone (though, as Henry Abbott's interviewee pointed out in this fabulous post, ten of those free throws came as the Kings were whacking Shaq, while six came towards the end of the contest as the Kings attempted to stop the clock and extend the game; take those out, and an 11-9 disparity doesn't seem as egregious). The refs stunk.

And that's about it. It really is. Donaghy pointed this one out because, in the annals of recent NBA lore, ten out of ten NBA fans and 9 out of 10 semi-fans (the latter is who he's going for, here) would point to this particular game as having the fix in way above all others. It makes sense. It's what people think they want to believe. It's why those urban legends about Mariah Carey saying disturbing things about starving kids get so much play - because they feed into exactly what people think they should think about something they don't know about for sure.

Here's what you need to know - the referees in that game made a point to go into the contest calling the game a specific way, and the reasons behind that had nothing to do with extending that series seven games.

The refs had absolutely nothing to gain by making sure NBC got their seventh game on Sunday night. Their checks clear, no matter what. What the refs did want to do is get those who were complaining about Sacramento's machinations - and there were a TON of people complaining back then, believe me - off their back.

The game was one giant make-up call that got out of hand. Way out of hand. It doesn't make Bavetta (notorious for playing to the home crowd), Bernhardt (a local guy, I've heard odd stories, I'm stopping right here), and Delaney right in this instance, and it certainly doesn't mean they were encouraged by anyone in the league office to worm their influence toward a seventh game.

Why? Because of something the media never brings up - the NBA and its referees have an adversarial relationship, to say the absolute least.

The Referees Union is way, way more at odds with the NBA than the Players Union is. Way more. They hate the one-man (Stern) judge and jury, they don't agree the paces the league makes them go through research-wise (not the research itself, just the way it is done), they don't like being hung out to dry in public by the league, they don't like the way they think the NBA aides in their pitiful public image, and there are rumors every summer about a possible referee strike when the Union convenes for their annual meetings. The referees don't want to do the league office any favors. At all.

But you never hear that because, well, what Donaghy brings up makes sense. It plays right up to the stereotype that people want to believe. It's the idea that Keith Richards gets a new bag of blood anytime he has to detox. It sounds right. It feeds off of what people know (Game 7s = more money, better ratings; Los Angeles = better market, better ratings in the Finals), and most of all, gives them an answer they can live with that goes beyond incompetence.

And this is where Stern screwed up. In telling us that we should outright dismiss what Donaghy threw out there merely because he's a felon, he's not giving us enough credit (though I easily concede that the great lot of commenters that throw in that "NBA is fixed" twaddle at the bottom of these pages don't deserve a lick of credit), and he doesn't think we can handle a nuanced batch of truth.

Talk to us about that poorly-called game, David, and call it "a poorly-called game." Remind us that, had some NBA representative made their way into the referees' rooms at any time between Games 5 and 6, the ref union would be crying foul and outing the NBA rep even before NBC's pre-game show took to the air. Talk about what went on over the course of that entire series. Talk to us. Talk to us. Talk to us. Don't tell us.

That chance has passed, though. And those who enjoy fanciful soap operas and can't stand the idea of actually thinking things through will jump in a second toward something that excites them more than the idea of switching the way you call a off-arm forearm follow-through on a jump hook between games of a series. It's easy to believe in a fix because it takes no thinking; and us Yanks are at a time in our national history where that fits right into some people's wheelhouse.

Believe what you want, but please understand that there are no easy answers in this, or most instances. It's your call as to how much effort and thought you want to put into this issue.