Friday, March 14, 2008

More (UC)LA Times venom

Why is the controversial call on ASU's Jeff Pendergraph on USC's Davon Jefferson described by Bill Plaschke as "horrible, a dirty shame, filthy and bad," while the three controversial calls (non-calls) that gave UCLA two victories last week over Stanford and Cal were merely described by Bill Plaschke as "phantom, bad and illegal"

Maybe Penergraph's call was a "make-up" call (as Darren Collison called his fortuitous Stanford call) for the 39 to 11 free throw margin in ASU's favor on 3/1/08 in Tempe.

By the way, where was Plaschke's outcry article for Stanford's Lawrence Hill last week? Not one Times reporter even mentioned the controversial "blocking" call the day after the game. Only Channel 7 mentioned the controversial "block." The Times only mentioned the "phantom" call a few days later after, ESPN discussed it. Do I detect a UCLA biased, attempted cover-up again by the Times?

No comments: