Utah Jazz: Accept it! The Bulls deserved the series

The panel of referees doubted a similarly bad call could happen today with replay in use on 24-second violations. Two of the officials did think Bavetta erred by not consulting with the other officials because of the call's potential importance. The other two thought the play in real time was still close enough that too much shouldn't be read into the game crew's miss.

The refs noted how the lead official/crew chief (Bavetta in this case) in NBA games will work to establish themselves — even "over-officiating" sometimes in order to establish control of a game. The lead officials rarely ask for help, and the less experienced referees in the crew don't second-guess their calls on the court

But three points is still three points. So how important was the blown Eisley 3-pointer to the game's overall outcome? Again, our officials were split.

One thought it was very important. "That was huge," he said. "It (the call) wasn't even close."

But the other three thought it was early enough in the game not to be nearly as critical as Jazz folklore makes it out to be.

Later they compared Eisley's shot to the fourth-quarter, running jump-shot made by Ron Harper after the 24-second clock had expired, which Bavetta's crew incorrectly called good.

You can see both shots here, edited from a Spanish broadcast but clear and complete with replays: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGSiEEpF3WM

"Much closer," said the official who earlier thought the Eisley shot clock violation was critical. "That (missing the call) could happen at game speed. It's very close."

The other three also thought it was close enough to again cut the game officials some slack.

Now for that infamous Jordan push-off, which looks less obvious watching the replay on DVD with four sets of trained eyes — none who said they would have called it a foul.

View it at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKbj8nNkLQ or from a different angle at www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ra9ni9_C7A.

And this next comment is especially telling: "To me, it's indicative of the way the entire game was called," one panel member explained. "The players from both teams put their hands on each other like that the whole game. You look for consistency in the way the game is called, and that was consistent."