defense was aggressive, there was some contact. The shot didn't go in. That's that.
Allow a defender to be aggressive and defend. refs shouldn't blow the whistle unless it's blatant hacking.
No, there was a foul, and that's when the whistle should blow. I understand that every call doesn't get made throughout the course of a game, but with the game on the line and the shooter gets fouled (clearly), you have to make the call. Those are the rules.
The problem with the NBA's officiating is that there are too many judgment calls, and when you have a relatively big game like this that is impacted by a bad call or a no call, then the refs get dragged through the mud. Sometimes they deserve it, but I can understand not wanting to blow the whistle in this case. You're right, it wasn't a hard foul, but there was clearly contact, and it clearly affected the shot, and ten times out of ten, that's a foul. It's not the refs' fault that the defender fouled the shooter; it's the defender's fault. And taking "judgment" out of it, according to the rules, Durant should have been at the line shooting free throws. It would really suck if the game ended with him at the line, but those are the breaks when you foul the shooter at the buzzer.
The way it stands, the NBA blew a(nother) call because the refs judged the severity of the violation and determined that it wasn't a big enough foul, and that's not the way officiating should be. I understand that judgment comes into play when you're officiating basketball, especially with how big and athletic NBA players are, but when the shooter gets fouled (which Durant did), you have to call it. No two ways about that.