Regarding refs.......

Though I'd give our recent ref disscusion it's own thread.

read this on another forum...........food for thought,

beat



Is the nature of NBA officiating so subjective that any team could be made to win on any given night? And if so, can we extrapolate from there that any team could be made to have the best record in the league, or sweep through the playoffs to the title?

Further, if this were to take place ... and, say, the Grizzlies were "reffed" into a 70-win juggernaut: would it be obvious to league observers what was going on? Or could it be done in such a way that no one would really "know" for sure?

For instance, consider shooting foul calls where instant replay shows no contact had been made. If one such call is not suspicious, would 10-15 such calls necessarily be?

Is that what it comes down to -- a matter of degree? The refs can "screw up" a handful of times in a game and it can slide because that falls within some human-error range -- is that right? But if you add some more "screw ups", when do you reach the point of obvious shenanigans? And just how many "screw ups" would the refs have to make to make the Grizzlies consistently beat the Spurs by 3-to-6 points?

You think its bad now? I had the pleasure of listening to Johnny Most right from the beginning in 1953 and like most others in those days depended on Johnny for the running description of the game. As the games started to appear on T V it became quite clear that Johnny's version of the officiating was far from the thruth. Now I have to listen to Tom Heinsohn and his constant ranting about the Officiating. Homerism is a way of life and I have learned to live with it. Check out below link.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=dw-refbiasedannouncers061308

swish

Swish, thanks for that read. I like the part about Stern saying the refs get it right about 90% of the time. Compare that with an umpire in baseball, who, if calling the bases not balls and strikes, probably most nights get 100% of the calls correct.

Can't say I've researched this at all, but my guess is the best referees in the world are found in the NBA.

bobc33
Umpiring a Baseball game is childs play when compared to officiating a Basketball game. Fans just love to make the Refs the scapegoat when the hometime boys lose. I did more than my share of bitching back in the 50's and 60's. as Johnny Most sure had me convinced that the Celts loses were a result of the refs favoring the other team. So to the younger fans I would remind you that times have not changed that much.

swish

It's human nature to view the refs as biased against the team a fan is rooting for. One doesn't notice or remember the calls that went for your team...only against. I think the average fan would like an unbiased refereeing of the game. Ultimately, we want the players to decide the outcome of a game not the referees.
I don't know what the policy is in the NBA but I hope that there is a constant review process of games worked by the refs so that their performances come under scrutiny. As long as there is an unbiased self corrective process in place, I don't know what more one can ask for. As long as humans referee (as opposed to machines) there will be human error. I can live with that.

beat

I was at a New Years Eve party last nite with great food and drinks and generally good people that we all met through our kids at school....anyway some great sports fans there and hoops talk came up and everyone engaged talked about how bad the refs are and how the new rules suck.A play everyone saw was Amare Stoudamires 5th foul in game against Magic,was a great block by Amare stopping Howard on a dunk at the rim,perfect timing and all ball,well the refs fucked up that call with the Knicks behind by 2 and for rest of game Amare lost all his aggresiveness because he couldn't pick up another one,that bogus call totally influenced the games outcome.I'm not a Knick fan,but I did happen to catch this game,and my friend at the party Scott also said how we got robbed in game 7 with Lakers going to the FT line 21 times in 4th,how that game was a disgrace and hes a Knick fan.There was also another recent game where Pierce drove the lane and got whacked on the forearm,couldn't even raise his arm and no call.Pierce yelled,let them know and got a tech,I woulda done the same fockin thing.That Pierce call and Amare call are such obvious bad calls,I'm glad Pierce got T'd so that he forced the issue and when reviewed that ref will know later he focked up.

What they should do is allow one challenge call a half,if your challenge is wrong,thats it no more challenge calls rest of half,if your right and call is overturned you have right to challenge another call that half.....thats it,just allow one challenge a half,these players are so much bigger and faster,alot of times refs don't have best angles or position to see the play correctly,somethings gotta be done,cause I was at game 3 of the Finals and still remember 2 focked up calls on Pierce for incidental contact that we see generally on virtually every play......somethings gotta be done,the refs have been bad for years,all fans are sick of it.

cow

pp threw his gum? imho if pp held joey (i am a cheat and a crook) Crawford and cattle branded a rat on his forehead so that it would be there forever.

I wouldnt support the move (due to the fact that Joe crawford who is a nationwide disgrace would REMAIN as one of Stern's minions and PP would be lifetime banned) but would i understand why pp did it? Oh hell yeah.

I would. It aint hard to see either. The emperor is buck ass naked. Again llok at Glen, who just gets brutally fouled for 35 minutes and doe not go to the line once. Not once. ZERO. NADA. NONe. goose. Not one time. He says soething to defend himself ITS AN INSTANT T...SO now he gets PENALIZED for OTHERS FOULING HIM.

that the celtics show the restraint they do is remarkable. Doc never says shit, danny never says shit. THe player have no other recourse

We used to turn the sound off on the TV, turn Johnny up and laugh our asses off at the difference between what we saw and what Johnny was saying. Johnny was the antithesis of objectivity, but he did bring the game alive. He's one of the reasons why I left the Knicks (growing up in NY with Reed, Frazier etal) and became a Celtic fan. How could I NOT be affected (infected?) with his enthusiasm and love of all things Green? Marv Albert, the Knicks announcer, was cool but he didn't make your blood boil at the opponents. He was smooth where Johnny was bombastic. Marv Albert was Keith Jackson (another GREAT announcer), Johnny was Howard Cosell.

As far as the difference between calling a baseball game vs basketball:

You can't really compare being a 1st base umpire with being an NBA ref. There is just soooo much more going on in basketball. How about comparing being the home plate ump to an NBA ref? I still think there's a big difference there. It's like the difference between trying to keep track of everything that's going on at a bumper car track vs parallel parking. All hell is breaking loose at the bumper car track. Everybody's moving, there are no lanes one must stay in and there's big contact and incidental contact. That's basketball. With parallel parking, only one thing is moving. The cars in front and back and the curb aren't. In baseball, once the ump decides what the strike zone is going to be for that game, he can call it that way every pitch and he's the only one doing it. If it ends at the knees, then anything below the knees is a ball. ALL contact is inappropriate, so there's no judgment calls there. If the ball hits the batter, he goes to first. The plate area doesn't move, nor do the players (batter and catcher) move. The ball always comes from the same mound. This means the ump doesn't have to move to get a better angle, which takes him out of position to see other things. Much more cut-and-dried.

bob

.

Bob

Agree umping a baseball game is childs play compared to an NBA's refs job, still amazes me how many blown calls an ump makes. They pride themselves in getting over 90% of the calls right..........geesh Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles would get 50% by just guessing.

Guess football might be close as you have 22 men moving but there are 6 umps watching too and they have their respective things they watch for. And after 4 to 5 seconds they get a 20-30 second break. Would another ref in hoops make it too much?

Think if they called the rules like it was meant to be, travel, palming, 3 seconds, illegal screens, ect the players woudl adjust. Contact might be lessoned somewhat and moving without the ball would become important again instead of the bull moose mentality of many of the so called stars, James Naismith never envisioned basketball like this i'm sure.

Seeing a clean block when you are actually too close is a problem. The underneath official even though he is the closest to the play has perhaps the worst field of vision to see contact up around the rim. Actually those calls should be made from an outside official as the underneath one should be watching for body contact that is illegal.

Also like the way the NFL officials get together when a call is questionable and many times the flag is picked up. Has there ever been an NBA official whom called a foul such has a blocked shot call that was overruled by another whom had a better view? Doubt it.

Anyway we are stuck with it and Stern seems to be quite content in his castle.

beat

castle siege!

jeb wrote:castle siege!

Don't we wish!

beat

BobH,

We Boston Drivers think parallel parking IS a bumper car track!

Sam