There was one he had I beleive on rondo. The ball clearly hit its apex, but of course no call.
I'm sorry to pick on you, but I see this logic all the time and I don't understand it. Why do people use the word "clearly" when
clearly the situation isn't clear. Did I just make myself clear? Using your example above, if it was so clear that the ball hit its apex, then why wasn't the call made? Do you really think the ref saw it and said to himself, "Wow, that ball is
clearly at its apex. You know what, that's Dwight Howard - I'm not going to call it"?? I know there are some conspiracy theorists out there, but I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
The much more likely scenario is that it wasn't clear whether the ball was at its apex. In the case where it's not clear, the call could go either way. Maybe there is a bias towards Howard that allows the ref to give Howard the benefit of the doubt on an unclear play. I'd buy that. But I don't buy outright defiance of the rules.
So, my point is this: please don't refer to something being clear when clearly it's not.