Toyota was declared as champion of the 1975 PBA second conference champion after Crispa forfeited the fourth game of the best-of-five title series. It was the second straight crown for the Comets after beating the Redmanizers in the finals of the first conference.
Toyota named champ as Crispa forfeits game
Bulletin Today
Published Tuesday November 22, 1975
The board of governors of the Philippine Basketball Association yesterday declared Toyota champion of the PBA second conference after Crispa forfeited its scheduled game with Toyota at the Araneta Coliseum.
A press release issued by the PBA yesterday stated that Crispa had decided, during an emergency meeting of the PBA board of governors to “voluntarily concede” its game with Toyota scheduled at 6:45 p.m. today.
The board ruled that “voluntarily conceding” of a game is not allowable as per provisions of the PBA constitution. It declared Toyota champion, with Crispa runner-up.
It also ruled Noritake winner of third spot and Royal Tru-Orange fourth place. The Porcelain-makers were leasding the Orangemen, 2-1, in their own best-of-five series for third place.
Toyota was also leading Crispa, 2-1, prior to their scheduled fourth game today.
Consequently, the board ruled that “voluntarily conceding” of a game is punishable as per provisions of Section 32 of the PBA constitution. The fine for such offense is P50,000.
The amount goes to Toyota, which by winning the second conference, duplicated its victory in the first conference, also at the expense of Crispa.
PBA legal counsel Rodrigo Salud said last night that PBA Commissioner Leo Prieto may still impose additional penalties such as suspensions on Crispa “if he wishes to.”
When contacted, Prieto said he will now weigh the matter along with other PBA officials and hopes to come up with results by next week.
Prieto said foremost in his list is the possible action the PBA would take against Crispa in the third conference - now billed as the Challenge of Champions - slated Nov. 30 to Dec. 18.
The PBA board also said that it will not be cowed by member clubs threatening to forfeit a game or to withdraw from the association.
“All teams must submit themselves to the rules of the game,” the board said. “And this attitude holds true not only in basketball but in all other phases of life.”
The three referees, the PBA averred, are the league’s top-rated game officials today.
Left out were Estefanio Bernos, Venusto Marquez, and Rodolfo Manuel, the three referees whom Floro wanted to be included in the raffle to choose today’s two referees.
The eight-man PBA board of governors turned down Floro’s appeal at noon yesterday. Six voted against the appeal while Toyota owner-coach Dante Silverio and Floro himself abstained.
The representatives of Tanduay, Presto Ice Cream, Carrier, Universal Textiles, Royal Tru-Orange and Noritake voted against Floro’s appeal.
Also, as an offshoot of Thursday’s match, the PBA suspended Crispa coach Baby Dalupan for one game for accosting referee Bartolome after the game.
Dalupan became the second coach in the league to receive such penalty.
The first team to forfeit a game during a championship series was Yco. It happened during the heated rivalry between the Painters and the Ysmael Admirals in the early 60’s.
Floro, however, denied he had conceded the fourth game to Toyota and charged that the PBA board “unilaterally” declared the Comets winner of today’s scheduled match.
In a letter to Prieto, Floro said:
“Please, remember that I was given up to 5 p.m. of even date (Nov. 21) to make known my final decision to refuse playing with Toyota, after proper consultations with our group. It appears that the board did not wait anymore for our final decision and unilaterally ‘declared’ Toyota winner of the fourth scheduled game.
“To reiterate my stand, we could not properly play said game with referees Santarina and Bartolome (possibly) officiating, and without our coach, Baby Dalupan, at the helm.”
Dalupan also wrote Prieto yesterday, expressing surprise over his suspension.
“This is so because your office has arbitrarily made a conclusion thereby imposing a penalty without benefit on my part to be heard in a meeting for the purpose.”
The Crispa mentor requested Prieto for a reconsideration “with the end to view of giving me a chance to explain my side on the matter before any judgment of suspension and fine will be rendered against me in accordance with the provision of our constitution and by-laws.”
No comments:
Post a Comment