Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Will The NBA Address Its Biggest Problem?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1003 replies to this topic

#51 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,026 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 08:54 PM

I agree that the biggest issue is that the game is simply extremely difficult to call. However, the problems are real and even if not all have solutions, some do.

If they could even out the star calls versus the non-star calls--which seems to me the thing they could improve most easily, it would be a huge step forward. I find it infuriating that "a rookie doesn't get that call" is explicitly talked about as part of the game.

If the game is too fast--which it is-- it should be too fast when dealing with both stars and non-stars.


This is exactly right -- it's the star system.

NBA officials are probably better than their NCAA counterparts, but officiating isn't nearly as controversial in the college game as the pro game, because in college hoops most fans feel the missed calls are essentially random.

#52 CSteinhardt


  • "Steiny"


  • 1,701 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 10:48 PM

This is exactly right -- it's the star system.

NBA officials are probably better than their NCAA counterparts, but officiating isn't nearly as controversial in the college game as the pro game, because in college hoops most fans feel the missed calls are essentially random.


I was actually going to say the opposite - for example, when's the last time Duke won a close game without many fans crediting the refs instead of the players?

I think the answer is unfortunately that we've got the best officials available trying their hardest and they're inadequate to the task we're asking of them. This only leaves three possible outcomes: accept the best they can do, simplify their jobs, or find a way to attract a stronger pool of people to officiating as a career (perhaps this might involve paying enough that a failed NBA player becomes an official rather than playing in Europe, if it's an ability to keep up with the speed of the game that's missing?).

#53 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,026 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 08:19 AM

I was actually going to say the opposite - for example, when's the last time Duke won a close game without many fans crediting the refs instead of the players?



There is a lot of whining about Duke in particular, but that's about it. It's not a perennial topic in discussions of March Madness the way it is in discussions of the NBA playoffs.

#54 Curtis Pride

  • 826 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:15 AM

I don't think officiating is the biggest problem. I think the NBA needs to look at the rules and see what changes can be made to make the games better. The Harlem Globetrotters presented an interesting idea that might work in today's NBA: a penalty box. Player commits a flagrant foul, he has to sit in the penalty box for 2 minutes while his team has to play 4-on-5. That might cut down on the thuggishness of some games.

But I think the biggest problem might be that so many players came into into the league at 18 or 19 with egos inflated in high school and than get fabulously wealthy from the start that there's no incentive for them to grow up until they reach 30. Most MLB players don't enter until they're 23 or 24 at least. Most NFL players start at 22 or 21. The NHL have a lot of player entering at 21 or 22, but the younger ones arrive sooner have the talent to be productive, but still recognize the learning curve they have, so they still put in the effort.

There may be simply a matter of having too many teams in the NBA. If they relegated 4 teams to the D-League, then with fewer spots for players, there may be more incentive for them to work on some fundamentals to improve their quality of play.

#55 HomeRunBaker


  • sloppy seconds


  • 10,538 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 08:37 AM

There may be simply a matter of having too many teams in the NBA. If they relegated 4 teams to the D-League, then with fewer spots for players, there may be more incentive for them to work on some fundamentals to improve their quality of play.


Maybe Stern can sneak this into the ongoing labor negotiations........"oh and we're going to take 60 jobs from you as well."

#56 Curtis Pride

  • 826 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 10:57 AM

Maybe Stern can sneak this into the ongoing labor negotiations........"oh and we're going to take 60 jobs from you as well."

They won't necessarily lose their jobs... they just won't pay as much.

#57 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9,759 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 11:59 AM

They won't necessarily lose their jobs... they just won't pay as much.

Moving 60 jobs to the D-league is going to sound like eliminating them. Anyways - that's insanity. Send them down there to ensure more players are concerned with the fundamentals? I'm confused what problem you think this is going to solve. Inflated egos are a problem how?

#58 HomeRunBaker


  • sloppy seconds


  • 10,538 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:28 PM

They won't necessarily lose their jobs... they just won't pay as much.


This statement is preposterous. Max annual salary in the NBDL is $25,500......Min annual salary in the NBA last season was $473,604 for a first-year player, $762,195 for a 2nd year player, and continuing upward based on service time. Yes, you are correct that they won't pay as much.

#59 Curtis Pride

  • 826 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 01:58 PM

Moving 60 jobs to the D-league is going to sound like eliminating them. Anyways - that's insanity. Send them down there to ensure more players are concerned with the fundamentals? I'm confused what problem you think this is going to solve. Inflated egos are a problem how?

It's not so much the egos as the maturity. I was just thinking that with fewer spots available, more players will wait longer and come into the league a year or two older. Then they would be less likely to name Stephen Jackson as captain Perhaps not eliminating 4 teams, but raising the age eligibility another year would have the same effect. And kids looking up to them would realize that it would take a little longer and see better role models. Just think if Dwight Howard used that extra time between high school and the NBA to develop a decent jump shot. Wouldn't he be a better player than he already is now?

#60 Curtis Pride

  • 826 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 02:01 PM

This statement is preposterous. Max annual salary in the NBDL is $25,500......Min annual salary in the NBA last season was $473,604 for a first-year player, $762,195 for a 2nd year player, and continuing upward based on service time. Yes, you are correct that they won't pay as much.

Actually you're rght, it is preposterous. The players demoted would be the fringe players, who most likely worked hard to make the league, but don't have as much talent as the ones staying. So it probably wouldn't address the issue at all.

#61 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 9,759 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:29 PM

It's not so much the egos as the maturity. I was just thinking that with fewer spots available, more players will wait longer and come into the league a year or two older. Then they would be less likely to name Stephen Jackson as captain Perhaps not eliminating 4 teams, but raising the age eligibility another year would have the same effect. And kids looking up to them would realize that it would take a little longer and see better role models. Just think if Dwight Howard used that extra time between high school and the NBA to develop a decent jump shot. Wouldn't he be a better player than he already is now?

I find it hard to believe that the best center in the league was likely to have become an even better player by playing against inferior talent. Playing in college also imposes a bunch of practice time restrictions which don't exist in the NBA. It's possible Howard could be a better player than he is, but whatever lack of development you want to accuse him of is on him. It's no easier to learn a jump shot playing against ACC competition than against NBA competition.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the best way to become an excellent NBA player is to play a bunch of NBA basketball. If Howard had gone to college, if anything, I'd take odds on him being a worse player than he is, not a better one.

#62 Marbleheader


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,123 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 05:26 PM

I only caught part of the game today, but there was a stomach-turning sequence in the 4th where the Knicks were called for an offensive foul. 15 seconds later, a make-up call against JO negated a Ray 3 that would have been a dagger. Frustrating as hell. I can't watch. After watching a significant amount of hockey, football and baseball, the NBA is an inferior product to me because of the zebras, if for no other reason. All this bad press from the lockout and they hardly 'fixed' anything...other than the games.

#63 mwonow

  • 1,591 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 05:31 PM

I watched more of the game that that, and there was a sequence where it seemed like a whistle was blown pretty much randomly once every 8-10 seconds. You could tell the players had no idea what was going on...which I suppose means "I've got control!" to Crawford, but results in a very odd game for everyone else. The Knicks went from about 7 down to tied in a heartbeat, and I'm not sure they scored more than one field goal in the sequence - they definitely got as many points from Ts as from any other source.

#64 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,325 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 06:45 PM

And, the answer is no.

I told myself I wouldn't watch this year and still find myself doing it. But, day 1 only served to remind me how frustrating this sport is to watch. I know NBA officiating will never be perfect, but there has to be a way to make it better than it is.

#65 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,766 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 07:05 PM

And, the answer is no.

I told myself I wouldn't watch this year and still find myself doing it. But, day 1 only served to remind me how frustrating this sport is to watch. I know NBA officiating will never be perfect, but there has to be a way to make it better than it is.


We all know its a very tough sport to officiate, but one simple solution would include simply firing a couple of the worst guys.

Get rid of Joey Crawford and Bill Kennedy (2 guys who are bad, and both have clear a agenda and big egos) would be a very good start.

Hate to blame everything on the refs, but Crawford ruined the last 6 minutes of that game today.

Edited by radsoxfan, 25 December 2011 - 07:06 PM.


#66 Plympton91


  • loco parentis


  • 6,723 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 07:08 PM

Yup, there was the crazy technical foul call on (the C's new guy with an Eastern European name), where the replay showed that that Celtics player had taken an elbow and said pretty much nothing. That play right there epitomizes modern NBA basketball to me. It's impossible to truly "fix" an NBA game, because there are too many variables. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the officials go into every game with a "book" from the league as to how the game should be called, and that "book" is designed to tilt the scales toward one team or another.

The NBA is one step up from the WWF; I used to get sucked into watching that for the entertainment factor, too. Seeing the behind-the-back passes by Garnett and Rondo were worth the 2-1/2 hours by themselves, even with the frustrating loss.

#67 simplyeric


  • Professional Writer


  • 3,840 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 11:23 PM

Yup, there was the crazy technical foul call on (the C's new guy with an Eastern European name), where the replay showed that that Celtics player had taken an elbow and said pretty much nothing. That play right there epitomizes modern NBA basketball to me. It's impossible to truly "fix" an NBA game, because there are too many variables. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the officials go into every game with a "book" from the league as to how the game should be called, and that "book" is designed to tilt the scales toward one team or another.

The NBA is one step up from the WWF; I used to get sucked into watching that for the entertainment factor, too. Seeing the behind-the-back passes by Garnett and Rondo were worth the 2-1/2 hours by themselves, even with the frustrating loss.


I was watching that with the sound off ( the niece and nephew were singing Christmas songs I think ) and suddenly there was a technical foul and I had NO idea what was happening. It was truly baffling.

#68 LESDL


  • armed against all shadows


  • 1,619 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 11:38 AM

The game has been ruined for me.

I knew there would be trouble when I tuned in for the game and saw Crawford's name. After his second technical in the 4th I turned the tv off and left the room. I was completely disgusted.

The personal nature/dynamic of the refs is something that is not existent in the other major sports to anywhere close to the same degree. Sure, in baseball there are instances here and there and a player will be tossed, but that does not compare to the ability and power the NBA refs are given to affect games from their own personal feelings on such a consistent and continual basis.

Pavlovic was being abused by the guy he was guarding. He was bent over and then hit in the midsection, and was looking at Crawford who was standing right there with the exasperation of wondering why the offensive foul wasn't called. Instead, Crawford does his "You're looking at me wrong, I'm t-ing you up" BS. This is the same as the "You're talking to me wrong, I'm t-ing you up."

This has got to stop. I don't know how it can be stopped, but it is destroying the integrity. I would even go so far as to say that the technical foul has to be taken away from the refs on the floor. Something must be done to stop the refs from doing what they are doing.

Crawford is an embarrassment and disgrace to the league. I don't know if I can watch any more games where he is on the floor, I don't care if it's the finals. He is just that bad.

The games need to be called fairly. A foul-shot differential that we saw in the 4th quarter, and have seen countless other times, is just not indicative of a fairly called game.

It was the first game of the season, for pete's sake. This wasn't the playoffs. The refs did not need to show that they could exercise such control. What total BS.

#69 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22,736 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 05:42 PM

I only caught part of the game today, but there was a stomach-turning sequence in the 4th where the Knicks were called for an offensive foul. 15 seconds later, a make-up call against JO negated a Ray 3 that would have been a dagger. Frustrating as hell. I can't watch. After watching a significant amount of hockey, football and baseball, the NBA is an inferior product to me because of the zebras, if for no other reason. All this bad press from the lockout and they hardly 'fixed' anything...other than the games.

I was at the game, seated with Knick fans (95% of the place was in blue/orange, never been to a Boston team road game with so few Boston fans in the stands), and everyone around me agreed it was a makeup call.

And it takes very little convincing that there was a call from league offices at halftime that the game needed to be closer, for ad revenue and TV ratings, and maybe, just maybe, the last minute was "let 'em play and call it straight", but the rest of the second half wasn't. I mean, no Knick fouls in the first 6-7 minutes of the 4th Quarter, while the C's were already in the penalty?

#70 MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

  • 4,210 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:21 PM

The only explanation i can come up with is that the NBA powers think Crawford is a character that fans "love to hate" or something, and therefore adds value. Otherwise, it just makes no sense. The first rule of officiating is don't make yourself part of the game, and yet i've never watched a game with crawford reffing where he wasnt a constant topic of conversation.

#71 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:27 PM

The only explanation i can come up with is that the NBA powers think Crawford is a character that fans "love to hate" or something, and therefore adds value. Otherwise, it just makes no sense. The first rule of officiating is don't make yourself part of the game, and yet i've never watched a game with crawford reffing where he wasnt a constant topic of conversation.


interesting that Crawford and Donaghy went to the same high school..although years apart obviously.

To me the biggest 'excuse' for NBA refs has been the speed of the game... I don't know how one determines competency in keeping up with the game, but it would seem that having refs like Crawford (60) and Bevetta (74) would be a strike against the NBA in this regard. I don't know what the best age is, but it would seem to be somewhere in the 35-50 range seemingly (are there any signs of decline with age?). I would hope that at least the NBA would consider forced retirement at some point.

In my mind the league should have never let Crawford ref another game after throwing out Tim Duncan. Or at least never been reinstated after his scam with the airline tickets. David Stern allows criticism of his league and questioning of its legitimacy by keeping guys like this around (that and how he assigns referees that have had altercations or clear biases against certain teams in pivotal games). Nevermind the sheer lack of any kind of investigation of Donaghy's accusations of other refs being corrupt as well...how basketball wasn't brought to its knees because of that scandal is beyond me... it should have been a story that eclipsed steroids in baseball imo...but it seemed to die rather quickly.

Christmas' Knicks game reminded me of why I love/hate the NBA. Every call can be questioned. I know that often fans say that the Celtics don't go to the hole as often as other teams, but in my opinion (admittedly biased) I see Rondo get tagged far harder than many of the calls that were made against the C's on Melo for instance.

The simple fact that we as fans have grown to accept that stars are treated differently in the NBA is a sign that we are resigned to a flawed system. Does this happen in the NFL? NHL? MLB (admittedly there is the Rivera strike zone, rookies vs. veterans etc...probably the most parallels, but MLB has tried to start to address this problem seemingly). In every other sport it would seem that fouls are at least earned by the star getting 'special treatment'... in the case of the NBA I feel like I do when I saw Knoblauch clearly miss the tag on Offerman when I see the disparity with how players are treated and how some fouls are obviously a fiction created by the given referee.

Edited by lars10, 27 December 2011 - 12:30 PM.


#72 Brickowski

  • 3,723 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:37 PM

I've got two words for you: instant replay. Put the third official up in the booth with instant replay equipment instead of on the floor.Put in a reasonable challenge system so that coaches can require game-changing plays (including foul calls) to be reviewed.

Edited by Brickowski, 27 December 2011 - 12:37 PM.


#73 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:09 PM

I've got two words for you: instant replay. Put the third official up in the booth with instant replay equipment instead of on the floor.Put in a reasonable challenge system so that coaches can require game-changing plays (including foul calls) to be reviewed.


Never going to happen. How would one determine what fouls are to be reviewed? The only way I could imagine it would be on plays that are obvious flops (Fisher would be out of a job)... but David Stern has made it obvious he doesn't want his refs questioned.

I think David Stern made a huge mistake in giving the referees more power last year. It enforced their feeling of invincibility and added to their inflated egos and most likely gave them a feeling that what they were doing was correct and shouldn't be questioned...ever.

It was the exact opposite of what I thought should have happened and added to my feeling that Stern cares more about the image of the league and keeping yes-men around than actually having a competent staff of referees that had their egos in check and were actually worried about losing their job for stepping out of line and putting themselves in front of the game and players...rather than being rewarded for it. I wonder if Shaq's comments echo those of other players... I can't even imagine how frustrating it would be to play in a league like this where what equates a foul is so often in flux. There's something wrong with Lebron Averaging 25.15 FTA/48... and only averaging 2.29 PFs a game (his worst year) with the amount of contact that he creates on almost every play offensively or defensively.

#74 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3,512 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:10 PM

interesting that Crawford and Donaghy went to the same high school..although years apart obviously.

To me the biggest 'excuse' for NBA refs has been the speed of the game... I don't know how one determines competency in keeping up with the game, but it would seem that having refs like Crawford (60) and Bevetta (74) would be a strike against the NBA in this regard. I don't know what the best age is, but it would seem to be somewhere in the 35-50 range seemingly (are there any signs of decline with age?). I would hope that at least the NBA would consider forced retirement at some point.

In my mind the league should have never let Crawford ref another game after throwing out Tim Duncan. Or at least never been reinstated after his scam with the airline tickets. David Stern allows criticism of his league and questioning of its legitimacy by keeping guys like this around (that and how he assigns referees that have had altercations or clear biases against certain teams in pivotal games). Nevermind the sheer lack of any kind of investigation of Donaghy's accusations of other refs being corrupt as well...how basketball wasn't brought to its knees because of that scandal is beyond me... it should have been a story that eclipsed steroids in baseball imo...but it seemed to die rather quickly.

Christmas' Knicks game reminded me of why I love/hate the NBA. Every call can be questioned. I know that often fans say that the Celtics don't go to the hole as often as other teams, but in my opinion (admittedly biased) I see Rondo get tagged far harder than many of the calls that were made against the C's on Melo for instance.

The simple fact that we as fans have grown to accept that stars are treated differently in the NBA is a sign that we are resigned to a flawed system. Does this happen in the NFL? NHL? MLB (admittedly there is the Rivera strike zone, rookies vs. veterans etc...probably the most parallels, but MLB has tried to start to address this problem seemingly). In every other sport it would seem that fouls are at least earned by the star getting 'special treatment'... in the case of the NBA I feel like I do when I saw Knoblauch clearly miss the tag on Offerman when I see the disparity with how players are treated and how some fouls are obviously a fiction created by the given referee.


I don't want this thread to devolve into another discussion of the Donaghy scandal, but you might want to research that statement a bit before you make it. There was a detailed, long investigation performed by the NBA, independent investigators, and the FBI.




#75 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:11 PM

i also think that having a third official on the floor is better for the game (as long as their in the right position to make calls and not making calls under the basket from half court etc.). I wouldn't disagree that a fourth official in the booth could be helpful though.

#76 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:14 PM

I don't want this thread to devolve into another discussion of the Donaghy scandal, but you might want to research that statement a bit before you make it. There was a detailed, long investigation performed by the NBA, independent investigators, and the FBI.


ok. I didn't mean to devolve the discussion...and I admit that I'm going off of what I read about the story and my memory of how long the topic seemed to be in the media. I'll do more research as per your suggestion.

#77 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22,736 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:41 PM

i also think that having a third official on the floor is better for the game (as long as their in the right position to make calls and not making calls under the basket from half court etc.). I wouldn't disagree that a fourth official in the booth could be helpful though.

Heck, he doesn't have to be in the booth. The NHL does reviews just fine from New York City.

#78 Brickowski

  • 3,723 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:43 PM

Never going to happen. How would one determine what fouls are to be reviewed? The only way I could imagine it would be on plays that are obvious flops (Fisher would be out of a job)... but David Stern has made it obvious he doesn't want his refs questioned.

I think David Stern made a huge mistake in giving the referees more power last year. It enforced their feeling of invincibility and added to their inflated egos and most likely gave them a feeling that what they were doing was correct and shouldn't be questioned...ever.

It was the exact opposite of what I thought should have happened and added to my feeling that Stern cares more about the image of the league and keeping yes-men around than actually having a competent staff of referees that had their egos in check and were actually worried about losing their job for stepping out of line and putting themselves in front of the game and players...rather than being rewarded for it. I wonder if Shaq's comments echo those of other players... I can't even imagine how frustrating it would be to play in a league like this where what equates a foul is so often in flux. There's something wrong with Lebron Averaging 25.15 FTA/48... and only averaging 2.29 PFs a game (his worst year) with the amount of contact that he creates on almost every play offensively or defensively.


I agree with all of this. A decent replay system will never happen under Stern. We'll just have to wait for a commissioner who cares more about the quality of the product. Right now, the quality sucks becasue the players don't control the games, the officials do.

#79 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:57 PM

Heck, he doesn't have to be in the booth. The NHL does reviews just fine from New York City.


Shanahan doesn't usually review decisions in game though does he? Or are replays such as goal reviews really done in NYC?

#80 TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle

  • 4,811 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 02:10 PM

They are done in Toronto.

edit: They don't review penalties or suspendable offenses until after the game though.

Edited by TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle, 27 December 2011 - 02:23 PM.


#81 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 02:46 PM

They are done in Toronto.

edit: They don't review penalties or suspendable offenses until after the game though.


So..if I get this right... all questionable goal reviews are done in Toronto?

I don't think the NBA would benefit from having their instant replay all done in NYC or any other centralized location. It may add to consistency, but not consistency that would help the league image I would imagine. I also don't want to give even more potential control of games to Stern.

#82 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22,736 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 03:07 PM

They are done in Toronto.

Thank you for the correction. Toronto makes sense. And I meant just goal/no goal, which is the only real issue in the NHL. The NFL could also centralize reviews, makes no sense for the Ref to be the one determining things like he does now.

So..if I get this right... all questionable goal reviews are done in Toronto?

I don't think the NBA would benefit from having their instant replay all done in NYC or any other centralized location. It may add to consistency, but not consistency that would help the league image I would imagine. I also don't want to give even more potential control of games to Stern.

They could do plenty of centralized review (shot clock, out of bounds, last touch, end of quarter), but you'll never get instant replay to overturn flopping. What you need to do to stop flopping is call technicals, either at the time, if the ref sees it (NHL calls penalties on diving, in theory), or after the fact if it's blatant on tape, and fine and suspend guys for doing it.

#83 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 03:52 PM

Thank you for the correction. Toronto makes sense. And I meant just goal/no goal, which is the only real issue in the NHL. The NFL could also centralize reviews, makes no sense for the Ref to be the one determining things like he does now.

They could do plenty of centralized review (shot clock, out of bounds, last touch, end of quarter), but you'll never get instant replay to overturn flopping. What you need to do to stop flopping is call technicals, either at the time, if the ref sees it (NHL calls penalties on diving, in theory), or after the fact if it's blatant on tape, and fine and suspend guys for doing it.


I just meant that I wouldn't want a central office doing anything that would be considered a judgement call cause that may lead more into the idea of fixing games.

Re: flopping - I understand how hard it is to see in game...although there are plenty of instances where the NBA has taken points off the board for teams (even a quarter later) when they reviewed a 3 vs. a 2...and in some pretty crucial games...so although it may be difficult to implement I don't think it's too far out of line with that thinking (the intent being to keep the integrity of the game - to not reward a player with one less foul or one more foul for the opponent..although this admittedly has a fairly large butterfly effect)


My problem with flopping is that it has recently seemed to be rewarded fairly consistently. I do think players should be suspended for it.. or it should be a tech...similar to Soccer. It's hard to watch players like Fisher grab the player he's defending and then fall like he's been shot when the player yanks his arm away. People describe this as a smart, veteran play...which is also part of the problem. It used to be mainly European players that you could blame but I feel like I've seen it become more and more pervasive

#84 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 45,236 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 03:52 PM

That Knicks game reminded me almost exactly of game 7 in 2010. The insane 4th quarter change of pace was very dificult to watch. Crawford and Foster are 2 of the worst refs in any sport, they're biased towards their own egos, and yet they are continuously paraded out there during important games. It's embarassing in the least and suspicious at most.

#85 Oil Can Dan

  • 4,988 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:38 PM

I don't watch the NBA anymore because I got fed up with the lack of consistency via the officials. To be totally honest, I'll watch the playoffs if the Celtics are alive, but the game is really not very fun to watch as things currently stand.

I'm sure the NBA is doing just fine without my eyes and my money, but it's a shame that it's like this because I really used to like it. Hope they get it sorted out soon.

#86 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:47 PM

That Knicks game reminded me almost exactly of game 7 in 2010. The insane 4th quarter change of pace was very dificult to watch. Crawford and Foster are 2 of the worst refs in any sport, they're biased towards their own egos, and yet they are continuously paraded out there during important games. It's embarassing in the least and suspicious at most.


I remember feeling that when the Celtics were up by 11... this shouldn't be happening....and then the whole game changed. The celtics were going to the hoop that game...it was just that Bynum and Gasol weren't getting called for the same contact that the C's big men were. That year was the first year that I felt the ambivalence for the game that I have now. I remember feeling before game 7 that the playoffs felt tainted and that I wasn't going to enjoy the result even if the C's won. Last year seemed even more predictable. Of course Miami wins if they have +20 or more free throws every game. I'm trying to remember if this is how it was in the 80s and I've just forgotten or if this is a new phenomena

#87 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:55 PM

I don't watch the NBA anymore because I got fed up with the lack of consistency via the officials. To be totally honest, I'll watch the playoffs if the Celtics are alive, but the game is really not very fun to watch as things currently stand.

I'm sure the NBA is doing just fine without my eyes and my money, but it's a shame that it's like this because I really used to like it. Hope they get it sorted out soon.


The NBA can be a great product. My friends have loved it for the past few years so I've kept up with it...it's less frustrating to watch when I have no particular rooting interest in either team.
Celtic games recently have me seeing red too often for them to be enjoyable...especially when commentators and fans are telling me that what I'm seeing right in front of me isn't.

I think Miami's three stars colluding to band together is an unfortunate precedent and one that takes away even more interest in the game for me.

I've always been a college bball fan. The refs may be incompetent, but the favoritism for stars isn't there quite as much (stars are allowed to foul out and often do) ...if only the players were as good...but that adds to the beauty in a way since games swing back and forth so often.

#88 CaptainLaddie


  • dj paul pfieffer


  • 23,273 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 07:50 AM

Yeah I find myself watching a lot of non-Celtics games because I don't see red like I do watching the Celtics.

I'm still not over that Game 7, and probably never will. The Celtics were robbed in the worst way possible in that game and the only people who don't see that are Lakers fans.

#89 Toe Nash

  • 3,174 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 08:53 AM

What I saw of the Miami game was just as bad. Rondo got a tech in the first after he was clearly hacked by Bosh on a drive with no call. The C's ended up only shooting 8 fewer FTs than the Heat, but the way they were distributed was the bad thing: 1 foul on Wade all game, 3 on LBJ. Meanwhile Marquis got 4 fouls early in the 2nd quarter because he was guarding LeBron. It was predictable, boring and frustrating.

Another problem is that the telecasts rarely show replays of questionable fouls, especially when they involve stars. And Van Gundy is the only announcer that will even begin to say anything controversial (see Kerr's "you don't mess with Joey Crawford!" after the BS tech on Pavlovic). So it's often hard to tell clearly if they've missed a call from our viewpoint. I don't subscribe to many of the other conspiracy theories but it wouldn't surprise me if they had a directive from the league not to criticize the refs on-air. Surprisingly they showed a replay of the Rondo tech:


Edited by Toe Nash, 28 December 2011 - 08:54 AM.


#90 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • PipPip
  • 4,251 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 10:03 AM

Rovell had a tweet the other day about how surprised he was that the NBA would allow Van Gundy to criticize the league as typically that isn't allowed.

Somebody made the comparison to WWF the other day in the game thread and it's hard not to see similarities.

When you control how the game is called, what's said about those calls, which of those calls are replayed, etc. you have an incredible amount of influence.

This clearly isnt just Joe Fan, or some douchebag conspiracy theorist like myself questioning.

We have Doc commenting about it after the Knicks game, Forsberg writing a piece about it after that game. Had more media members picking up on it mid game yesterday (havent read everything yet to see what people are saying this morning) via Twitter. The fouls on JO, Sasha, and Marquis early were all questionable besides one of JO's (15+ free throws In the first, Miami was in the bonus 5.5 mins into game). We saw Rondo get T'd up for complaining, which despite being fouled by Bosh on that particular play, wasn't the reason for his lashing out IMO. We saw Doc get T'd up late for a reaction of his, which again IMO wasn't the result of that particular play but built up frustration. We saw the entire bench jump up in disgust when Bosh clearly lost the ball and yet the foul was already called because, as the announcers put it, he was "anticipating" the foul. We saw Cole leap into Bass on a fast break - Cole was literally still in the air - only to be given the charge call; lip reading, you could see Bass sitting there in disgust saying "WOW."

Keep in mind I was flying home from Boston mid game, saw the first quarter (thank you Jet Blue), twitter'ed the second and third, and got home for the entire fourth. I'm sure I'd have complaints like the ones I'm reading in the game thread had I been watching.

Also keep in mind that what Wade does pretty much every time he puts the ball on the floor, extending his arm and clearing out space, is a clear foul by definition.

Also keep in mind that Lebron and Wade are put on the line pretty much every time they put the ball on the floor, which I guess is fine because they're superstars.

Finally, I hate feeling as If this league is horseshit but its hard not to. The referee was anticipating the call? That's Kerr's excuse? Isn't that like a judge in a court of law anticipating the guilt or innocence of a crook? How about you watch the play unfold before blowing the whistle? What a fuckin concept...

#91 Stu Nahan

  • 3,898 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 11:14 AM

The best part about that replay of the Rondo play is they showed the foul once and Rondo's reaction twice. They even zoomed in for Rondo's reaction which got the bullshit T. It's only 2 games but I'm already supremely frustrated with the officials. Sunday's fourth quarter and last night were just flat out garbage.

#92 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 02:16 PM

What I saw of the Miami game was just as bad. Rondo got a tech in the first after he was clearly hacked by Bosh on a drive with no call. The C's ended up only shooting 8 fewer FTs than the Heat, but the way they were distributed was the bad thing: 1 foul on Wade all game, 3 on LBJ. Meanwhile Marquis got 4 fouls early in the 2nd quarter because he was guarding LeBron. It was predictable, boring and frustrating.


This is where I have a problem and where I will admit I am conspiracy theorist.

One way the NBA can dictate who wins a game is when fouls are called and on whom.
Last night was a prime example. Defenders on Lebron were called for I believe 4 separate calls on the blocks. These calls are innocuous on their face...none of them were replayed and the game goes on. The problem is is that those fouls put the Celts in the penalty very early in the game and in the 2nd quarter as well. The calls were also on the man that Lebron was being guarded by. In the playoffs last year many times you could tell how a game was going to go on how early one of the stars of any particular team got two fouls..or three. It seemed like each game at least one star had to sit most of the first and second quarter..the other team usually won those games. In series against the Lakers it was usually a big man... This is explainable by that's where the action is..but a foul call on the blocks could then be made every time down the floor.

Similar calls that are innocuous but can hugely effect a game: 3 seconds (offensive or defensive), traveling, offensive fouls on picks, offensive charges vs. blocks etc.

It's also bad enough that Wade does not get called for that body slam on Allen while touch fouls are being called the other way... totally changes how you play defense... but another consequence is that Lebron and Wade are never playing in foul trouble...they never have to worry about fouling out so they can play with literally reckless abandon. The physical contact that Lebron is allowed after coming down on his blocks is going to get someone injured at some point...it's irresponsible for the league to condone it...but I guess it's fun to watch. Eventually the Refereeing will catch up (as it did with Shaq and other physical specimens) with Lebron and he won't get away with as much..possibly.

My main overall problem is I think the Heat can beat the Celts without help. The Heat look lazy to me at the end of games... they've been coddled and handed games even though they don't need to be and they've grown to expect it from what I can see.

#93 Turrable

  • 2,279 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:02 PM

So, this is interesting.

https://twitter.com/#!/NBAOfficials

http://www.nba.com/official/

http://www.nba.com/v...ame_winner.nba/

#94 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22,736 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:34 PM

And when they get one wrong will they tell us?

#95 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 07:00 PM

And when they get one wrong will they tell us?


I think it depends on what level of wrong...because there have certainly already been some missed calls.
I'd like them, in all seriousness, to explain what constitutes a foul in the low or high post when establishing position.

Edited by lars10, 29 December 2011 - 07:00 PM.


#96 mwonow

  • 1,591 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 08:50 AM

And when they get one wrong will they tell us?


I guess the answer is yes, in a very low-key way. From this morning's Globe: "the technical fouls against O’Neal and Sasha Pavlovic in the season-opening loss to the Knicks were rescinded by the NBA. Both were called by Joey Crawford for arguing."

#97 jose melendez


  • Earl of Acie


  • 12,998 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:05 AM

I guess the answer is yes, in a very low-key way. From this morning's Globe: "the technical fouls against O’Neal and Sasha Pavlovic in the season-opening loss to the Knicks were rescinded by the NBA. Both were called by Joey Crawford for arguing."


So to be clear, the two techs, which basically determined the outcome of the game never should have happened. Will Crawford be disciplined in any way? Regardless, this is a good first step, and I salute the NBA for taking the smallest possible action after 40 years of denial.

#98 Brickowski

  • 3,723 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:44 AM

So to be clear, the two techs, which basically determined the outcome of the game never should have happened. Will Crawford be disciplined in any way? Regardless, this is a good first step, and I salute the NBA for taking the smallest possible action after 40 years of denial.



The call that really determined the outcome of the Knicks game was Daniels' clean strip from behind of Carmello with less than a minute remaining in the game, which was incorrectly called a foul on Daniels. Terrible, terrible call by Crawford. When is the last time you've seen a non-star be rewarded instead of punished for making a great play on a star when the game was on the line?

#99 lars10

  • 2,048 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 04:10 PM

So to be clear, the two techs, which basically determined the outcome of the game never should have happened. Will Crawford be disciplined in any way? Regardless, this is a good first step, and I salute the NBA for taking the smallest possible action after 40 years of denial.


They should make a video explaining how the two technicals called were incorrect. How many times has this happened? Especially with Joey Crawford? How can a ref be penalized for consistently calling bad techs? Technical fouls not only give a free throw to the other team which affects the final outcome, but the player has to be far less aggressive for fear of getting another tech. Joey Crawford just seems like he's never going to change and consistently makes the game about himself.

Now when will the Rondo tech from Miami be rescinded?

#100 fairlee76

  • 1,641 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 04:17 PM

So to be clear, the two techs, which basically determined the outcome of the game never should have happened. Will Crawford be disciplined in any way? Regardless, this is a good first step, and I salute the NBA for taking the smallest possible action after 40 years of denial.

The league has been rescinding techs for at least the last three years. Only useful insofar as bogus techs don't count towards total count and therefore cannot contribute towards a suspension. But still BS insofar as the bogus techs impact on the game in which they were called remains.

Based on my limited viewing thus far this season, the league has done nothing to address the officiating.