Kelly Oubre Jr. made a drive that resulted in him lying on the ground as the Clippers celebrated their victory.
The final play of the matchup was particularly contentious, with Kelly Oubre Jr.'s layup attempt being denied by officials.
The Philadelphia 76ers and the Los Angeles Clippers faced off in a highly anticipated game on Wednesday night.
The Philadelphia 76ers and the Los Angeles Clippers faced off in a highly anticipated game on Wednesday night. The final play of the matchup was particularly contentious, with Kelly Oubre Jr. making a drive that resulted in him lying on the ground as the Clippers celebrated their victory.
The no-call at the end of regulation time was widely criticized by both players and coaches from both teams, who believed it should have been called for foul play. The officials denied any wrongdoing, stating that they interpreted Oubre's drive as a jump shot rather than a layup attempt.
Despite this controversy, the game was ultimately decided in favor of the Clippers with a final score of 108-107.
The Clippers won the game against the 76ers with a final score of 108-107.
Kelly Oubre Jr. made a drive on the last play that resulted in him lying on the ground as the Clippers celebrated their victory.
Tim Bontemps reported for ESPN that there should have been a foul called on Kelly Oubre Jr.'s drive, but crew chief Kevin Scott interpreted it differently and did not call it.
Accuracy
Kelly Oubre Jr. had the ball and was driving towards the basket when Paul George made contact with him while in mid-air, impeding his shot.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that there was a foul called on Kelly Oubre Jr.'s drive on the final play of the game when in fact no foul was called. Secondly, Tim Bontemps quotes crew chief Kevin Scott as saying that he interpreted Oubre's drive as a defender jumping vertically and therefore did not call a foul. However, postgame video review showed that Paul George drifted to his left slightly during the play which should have been enough for Scott to rule it a foul. Thirdly, Bontemps quotes Nurse storming onto the court and getting restrained by his assistants after he disputes the non-call of Oubre's drive. However, this is not deceptive as Nurse was simply expressing his frustration with the call.
The title of the article implies that there was a foul called on Kelly Oubre Jr.'s drive on the final play of the game when in fact no foul was called.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a dichotomous depiction. The author describes the play as chaotic and intense while also describing it as being in real time and interpreted by the crew chief. This creates a contradiction between two opposing views on what happened during the final drive.
The play capped a chaotic final minute of action, one that saw multiple reviews, a wedgie that resulted in a jump ball, two costly 76ers turnovers,
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a clear example of ideological bias. The author is reporting on the NBA game between the Philadelphia 76ers and Los Angeles Clippers, but he also includes quotes from both teams' coaches that reveal their political leanings. Nurse stormed onto the court to dispute a non-call by officials, which suggests his support for Trump or other conservative politicians who have been critical of sports referees in the past.
I looked at it on our computers a couple times. I thought it was certainly contact, certainly as much of the last two or three that got called and-1s at the other end.
Nurse stormed onto the court to dispute a non-call by officials
The final no-call was incorrect according to Crew Chief Kevin Scott.
Kelly Oubre Jr. made a drive on the last play that resulted in him lying on the ground as the Clippers celebrated their victory.
Accuracy
Kelly Oubre Jr. had the ball and was driving towards the basket when Paul George made contact with him while in mid-air, impeding his shot.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Oubre apologized for his reaction to the no-call but does not provide any evidence of this apology. Secondly, the article quotes Scott as saying that George drifted slightly left before committing a foul which contradicts footage from multiple angles showing no such movement. Thirdly, the article implies that there was only one pivotal call in question when in fact there were two.
The author claims Oubre apologized for his reaction to the no-call but does not provide any evidence of this apology.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains two fallacies: Appeal to Authority and Inflammatory Rhetoric. The appeal to authority is evident when the official says that the final no-call was incorrect, which implies that their opinion should be taken as fact without any evidence or reasoning provided. This statement is not supported by any facts or data presented in the article, making it an inflammatory rhetorical device used to sway public opinion. Additionally, Oubre's reaction to the officials and his use of inflammatory language such as
Official says no-call was wrong to end Sixers loss
Oubre apologizes for reaction
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes the officials by saying they 'interpreted' a play as if George jumped vertically when he didn't. This is an example of religious bias as it implies that God would not have made such a mistake. Secondly, Oubre apologized for his reaction to the no-call but then went on to say that he still doesn't deviate from his view of the officials down the stretch and continues to criticize them. This is an example of ideological bias as it implies that there are only two sides in this issue and one side is always right. Thirdly, Oubre says 'they were getting and-ones' which suggests he believes they should have been called for fouls but then goes on to say the officials didn't see any contact when he barely touched George. This is an example of monetary bias as it implies that money can influence decisions made by referees. Finally, Oubre says 'they said this and that without giving a clear explanation' which suggests they are not being transparent about their decision-making process. This is an example of political bias as it implies there may be some sort of agenda at play.
Oubre apologized for his reaction but then went on to criticize them down the stretch
The ball deflected off Oubre's right hand out of bounds, despite his claim that it did not go off him.
The officials interpreted the final no-call incorrectly
They were getting and-ones which suggests they should have been called for fouls but then goes on to say the officials didn't see any contact when he barely touched George.
The final no-call was incorrect according to Crew Chief Kevin Scott.
Kelly Oubre Jr. made a drive on the last play that resulted in him lying on the ground as the Clippers celebrated their victory.
Accuracy
The final score of the game was reported as 108-107 in favor of the Clippers.
Kelly Oubre Jr.'s drive on the last play resulted in him lying on the ground and a victory for the Clippers.
Nick Nurse argued with officials after a missed foul call that would have sent Kelly Oubre to free throws.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author implies that Philadelphia was incensed by the non-shot at the end of the game when it was actually their failure to get off a shot after being impeded by Paul George that upset them. Secondly, Nurse's argument with officials over a missed foul call is deceptive as he claims there was enough contact for it to be called, but in reality, his team had been committing similar fouls at the other end and they were not consistently called. Thirdly, Oubre pointing out each of the referees after the game is also deceptive as he implies that they made a wrong call when in fact there was no clear evidence to support this claim.
Nurse's argument with officials over a missed foul call is deceptive as he claims there was enough contact for it to be called, but in reality, his team had been committing similar fouls at the other end and they were not consistently called.
The author implies that Philadelphia was incensed by the non-shot at the end of the game, but it was actually their failure to get off a shot after being impeded by Paul George.
Oubre pointing out each of the referees after the game is also deceptive as he implies that they made a wrong call when in fact there was no clear evidence to support this claim.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority when he quotes Nick Nurse's displeasure with the no-call and his belief that it was a foul. This is not evidence of any logical fallacy but rather an attempt to persuade the reader through expert opinion.
Nick Nurse immediately jawed with officials over his displeasure about the apparent no-call
The game winning points came off a two point basket and subsequent free throw as Nurse said from Kawhi Leonard.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Philadelphia 76ers and their head coach Nick Nurse. The author uses language that dehumanizes the referees by saying they 'missed a foul call' which implies they are incompetent or corrupt. This is an example of monetary bias as it suggests that money, specifically winning games, is more important than following the rules and making fair calls.
Nick Nurse reacts during the second half of the 76ers loss to the Clippers.
The author uses language that dehumanizes the referees by saying they 'missed a foul call' which implies they are incompetent or corrupt. This is an example of monetary bias as it suggests that money, specifically winning games, is more important than following the rules and making fair calls.
