144 replies to this topic

[CaptainLaddie]

The title is sensational on purpose.

But check out this compilation of foul calls from the last Celts/Hawks game and tell me that SOMETHING isn't up.



(via Simmons)

Edited by CaptainLaddie, 30 April 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[Andrew]

The officiating in the last segment of that game was off-the-charts bad.

[Ed Hillel]

It's not possible it is anything but intentional. No idea what his motivation is, but it's clear as day. Nobody, not even NBA refs, are that incompetent. More of the same shit last night. Combined with the hilariously awful game 1 in Miami, it's just more of the same.

Edited by Ed Hillel, 30 April 2012 - 03:41 PM.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

There were certainly some bad calls and a couple of calls that were technically correct but of the sort that you generally let slide in key situations. The Pierce push off at the end, for instance, is probably a foul--he extends his arm and pushes Josh Smith's face, but more often than not that sort of thing isn't gonna be called in a key situation like that.

[Section15Box113]

Interesting to see Rondo jawing with Davis after several of those calls.

Does not justify any (intentional) shove, but there's clearly frustration here going back some time. Which, to me, helps explain Rondo's short fuse.

Easy to imagine him saying "you almost cost us one in the regular season and now you're doing it again in the playoffs!" In that situation, my fuse would be short too.

Again, doesn't justify contact with the official, but it's not like Rondo was just ticked off by one bad call and reacting disproportionately to that single call.

[Derek's Friend]

That clip was an absolute joke. Me thinks that they ought to be looking into the gambling issue again.

[Soxy Brown]

Certainly adds more context to Rondo's actions. Not that he's off the hook by any stretch, but it helps explain his anger. I remember watching the game above, but I didn't realize it was the same official. By the end, it was just a total farce.

Josh Smith's head-flop a good second after Pierce's hand left his face was pretty hilarious.

[beezer]

The most frustrating part of the calls last night and in the first Atlanta game was that a lot of the whistles came well after the foul. It seemed as though the refs were waiting to see whether the shot fell before calling the foul. You can clearly see that in the mcgrady foul from the video above where the whistle comes after the rebound. It just makes the foul calls seem so indecisive and really ruins the flow of the game more than calling the foul during the act.

[Wills Eeks]

The most frustrating part of the calls last night and in the first Atlanta game was that a lot of the whistles came well after the foul. It seemed as though the refs were waiting to see whether the shot fell before calling the foul. You can clearly see that in the mcgrady foul from the video above where the whistle comes after the rebound. It just makes the foul calls seem so indecisive and really ruins the flow of the game more than calling the foul during the act.

Worse, it makes it seem like the refs are predicating their calls based on the result of the play.

[TheoShmeo]

Josh Smith's head-flop a good second after Pierce's hand left his face was pretty hilarious.

However you view that last call against Pierce, the two prior calls against KG and Stiesma are infinitely worse. In neither case did the Celtics player do anything that could remotely justify a foul call.

I have no idea if Davis is corrupt. I do know that the NBA is a sad joke for not suspending him for that display of, at best, rank incompetence.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

However you view that last call against Pierce, the two prior calls against KG and Stiesma are infinitely worse. In neither case did the Celtics player do anything that could remotely justify a foul call.

I have no idea if Davis is corrupt. I do know that the NBA is a sad joke for not suspending him for that display of, at best, rank incompetence.

The KG call (against Teague) was a correctly called moving screen.

[radsoxfan]

The KG call (against Teague) was a correctly called moving screen.

Not really. KG screened and rolled, while Teague latched onto him and (because he knew he couldn't get to Rondo) tried to draw a moving screen foul. In my opinion, KG wasn't moving to get in Teague's way, but just to go toward the basket. Teague pulled a crafty veteran play when he knew he was beat and got the ref to bite. Unfortunately, it appears the ref was looking for any reason to bite on just about every acting call the entire game in the Hawks favor......

Not an easy call since its very subjective, and reasonable mind can differ on it sometimes. But thats not a moving screen in my book.

Edit: I think the best indictment of the officiating in that game was Mike Gorman on the last Stiemsma call. Mike is usually semi-embarrased by Tommy's rants and tries to diffuse the situation or change the subject when Tommy goes overboard. Rarely does he chime in with "that was just a hooooorible call".

I was watching that game live, and it really was that bad all game. I don't know nearly enough to declare a conspiracy. But Davis in that game was either wildly incompetent or a felon. Not sure which, but they are both unacceptable.

Edited by radsoxfan, 30 April 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[TheoShmeo]

The KG call (against Teague) was a correctly called moving screen.

Disagree. KG's jersey is being held by Smith from behind and he's being pushed or guided into Teague. But you're right that it's not as clear cut as the phantom call on Stiesma thereafter.

[Curtis Pride]

Please forgive me for being a bit confused... Are we sure that the video shown was of the game last night? I reason I ask is that 1) the scoring doesn't match last night's game, 2) the the clip shows the game going into OT, which last night's game never did, and 3) the clip shows that it was played in the Garden, when I thought the game would be in Atlanta.

[NWsoxophile]

I don't know that NBA officiating has been significantly better at any point since I began watching in 1980. It has been basically atrocious during that entire stretch. I highly doubt that this is even acknowledged as an issue by the league and have absolutely zero hope that it will be addressed and improved. They are constantly spouting about what a great job the officials do, how it's such a difficult job and how they almost always get it right. I understand why they have to make those kinds of proclamations, but those claims are dubious at best. On all too many occasions NBA officiating is a downright joke, which is hard to understand considering there are three of them on the court at all times.

[amarshal2]

It's not possible it is anything but intentional. No idea what his motivation is, but it's clear as day. Nobody, not even NBA refs, are that incompetent.

This video is far from conclusive. No doubt it looks bad. Circumstantially, it doesn't help that 50% more fouls were called on the Celtics. That said, there's generally a number of bad calls against both teams in every game. Officiating basketball is hard. For this to be a "fair" comparison, you should really show all the questionable calls against the Hawks as well. It's only natural when presented with a video like this that it will look bad. I could probably make a video full of bad calls and non-calls against the Hawks last night that taken in similar context would look like systematic bias.

Actually figuring out if there is something to look out for in terms of cheating or bias should not be very difficult with the amount of data that exists. I'm a regression/psychology novice and I could design a fair test. The NBA or a motivated team/individual could easily do it. Hopefully someone is.

edit:

Please forgive me for being a bit confused... Are we sure that the video shown was of the game last night? I reason I ask is that 1) the scoring doesn't match last night's game, 2) the the clip shows the game going into OT, which last night's game never did, and 3) the clip shows that it was played in the Garden, when I thought the game would be in Atlanta.

It's this game: http://sports.yahoo....?gid=2012041102

Edited by amarshal2, 30 April 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[radsoxfan]

Please forgive me for being a bit confused... Are we sure that the video shown was of the game last night? I reason I ask is that 1) the scoring doesn't match last night's game, 2) the the clip shows the game going into OT, which last night's game never did, and 3) the clip shows that it was played in the Garden, when I thought the game would be in Atlanta.

Good work Sherlock.....

Obviously this is from a game earlier in the year. It featured the same shitty official Rondo bumped last night and was also against the Hawks, thats the link to todays discussion.

[collings94]

I can't honestly think that refs are not susceptible to being biased about making calls. When your a fan, you always think your team is getting screwed, right? And assuming Referees are fans, I feel like they have to choose sides on who they want to win. There has to be plenty of Refs out there that don't want James to win a title. So when it comes to make split second decisions, they are going to lean towards their bias.

[mikeford]

Please forgive me for being a bit confused... Are we sure that the video shown was of the game last night? I reason I ask is that 1) the scoring doesn't match last night's game, 2) the the clip shows the game going into OT, which last night's game never did, and 3) the clip shows that it was played in the Garden, when I thought the game would be in Atlanta.

Its not. Nor was it supposed to be. However, last night's terrible official Marc Davis is the star of the clip and that is the point.

[Marbleheader]

I lasted 1 game, and I'm done for the playoffs. Screw that league.

[Ed Hillel]

This video is far from conclusive. No doubt it looks bad. Circumstantially, it doesn't help that 50% more fouls were called on the Celtics. That said, there's generally a number of bad calls against both teams in every game. Officiating basketball is hard. For this to be a "fair" comparison, you should really show all the questionable calls against the Hawks as well. It's only natural when presented with a video like this that it will look bad. I could probably make a video full of bad calls and non-calls against the Hawks last night that taken in similar context would look like systematic bias.

Actually figuring out if there is something to look out for in terms of cheating or bias should not be very difficult with the amount of data that exists. I'm a regression/psychology novice and I could design a fair test. The NBA or a motivated team/individual could easily do it. Hopefully someone is.

edit:



It's this game: http://sports.yahoo....?gid=2012041102

The calls in this particular game were definitely one-sided. I'm not calling it a gambling conspiracy or anything like that, but I've seen enough to believe that some sort of bias exists as it pertains to Davis. He could just think the Celtics are whiny, for all I know, but he's not impartial.

[CaptainLaddie]

Please forgive me for being a bit confused... Are we sure that the video shown was of the game last night? I reason I ask is that 1) the scoring doesn't match last night's game, 2) the the clip shows the game going into OT, which last night's game never did, and 3) the clip shows that it was played in the Garden, when I thought the game would be in Atlanta.

It is from a few days ago when the two played at the end of the regular season.

[LESDL]

I can't honestly think that refs are not susceptible to being biased about making calls. When your a fan, you always think your team is getting screwed, right? And assuming Referees are fans, I feel like they have to choose sides on who they want to win. There has to be plenty of Refs out there that don't want James to win a title. So when it comes to make split second decisions, they are going to lean towards their bias.

Good lord.

Edited by LESDL, 30 April 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[JohnnyTheBone]

That video is epic. It's Exhibit A of why so few hardcore sports fans take the NBA seriously. My favorite part is at the 5:10 mark, where the microphone picks up an incredulous fan ranting to the official: "That is horrible. That is horrible! That is the worst call I've ever seen! What are you doing??"

The NBA: Where hoping it's just incompetence happens.

[DukeSox]

it's the circus.

[Curtis Pride]

I'm not sure if there was a bias against the Celtics, baut rather he gets a bit whistle-happy, and usually that hinders a tightly defensive team. So the foul disparity may be more of Celtics defending more closely than the Hawks and an official who calls ticky-tack fouls, even in crunch time.

[lars10]

I'm not sure if there was a bias against the Celtics, baut rather he gets a bit whistle-happy, and usually that hinders a tightly defensive team. So the foul disparity may be more of Celtics defending more closely than the Hawks and an official who calls ticky-tack fouls, even in crunch time.

people need to stop creating excuses for bad officiating.
Your point may be somewhat correct if the same ticky tack fouls are called both ways, but we know they often aren't.
In many games in fact one team is allowed to play a far more physical type of defense than the other.

Your comment seems to imply some kind of consistency (that could then be adjusted to or follows some sort of logical pattern) that just isn't there.

[slamminsammya]

What calls do people specifically have problems with? To me, the only bad calls are the Stiemsma tussle with Smith where Smith elbows Stiemer and then gets rewarded for it and the call on Bradley where he is trying to front Johnson and gets called basically because he loses balance and falls over.

The KG call which fouled him out is to me an obvious moving screen, which he gets away with all the time (SUPERSTAR LEAGUE!!!), and the Pierce call is obviously a foul as well. He deliberately smacks Smith in the face. It gets exaggerated by Smith but is nevertheless a foul.

I know some people like to say that sometimes calls are "technically correct" but should not be called when the game gets close. To me, that whole philosophy is ridiculous. A foul is a foul regardless of game situation; that the 4th quarter should somehow be different than the rest of the game makes no sense to me. And to the people who believe in the situational refereeing idea, why would you want to introduce more subjectivity and potential for bias into a situation you feel is already marred by an excessive influence of subjectivity and bias?

Edited by slamminsammya, 01 May 2012 - 04:56 AM.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Not really. KG screened and rolled, while Teague latched onto him and (because he knew he couldn't get to Rondo) tried to draw a moving screen foul. In my opinion, KG wasn't moving to get in Teague's way, but just to go toward the basket. Teague pulled a crafty veteran play when he knew he was beat and got the ref to bite. Unfortunately, it appears the ref was looking for any reason to bite on just about every acting call the entire game in the Hawks favor......

Not an easy call since its very subjective, and reasonable mind can differ on it sometimes. But thats not a moving screen in my book.

If the screener moves in the direction that the defender is heading and makes contact, it's a moving screen. It doesn't matter if Garnett is moving towards the basket or not, he has to stay in place until he's no longer in contact with the defender. And from my vantage point, though it's obviously hard to tell, it looks like Garnett is the one who hooks Teague's arm. Regardless though, there's a reason you're taught to set screens with your arms set at your side. When you don't, that call will be made every time.

Edit: The Stiemsma call is pretty bad, particularly given the time left on the clock. There's enough contact that if that were the 2nd quarter, I can see why a ref would call one of those two guys for a foul (and it's pretty much a toss up who they'd call it on), but yeah, with 53 seconds left there's no reason to make that call.

But basically the valid complaints in this thread aren't really about bad calls, so much as they're about late calls and/or calls that ordinarily would be let go in crunch time. There's a pretty big difference there. But at this point Bad NBA refereeing is a self fulfilling prophecy for a lot of people and they're gonna feign outrage over a video like that regardless of its content. This thread consists of 5 or 6 people having a reasonable discussion of the calls in the video, and a bunch of people acting like they just watched a surveillance video of David Stern telling Marc Davis that he hates the Celtics. (Also, should say that I'm not directing this at you in particular, radsoxfan.)

Edited by Grin&MartyBarret, 01 May 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[crystalline]

This thread consists of 5 or 6 people having a reasonable discussion of the calls in the video, and a bunch of people acting like they just watched a surveillance video of David Stern telling Marc Davis that he hates the Celtics. (Also, should say that I'm not directing this at you in particular, radsoxfan.)

Plus, a bunch of people (like me) who are going to be unhappy with games like that, unless and until the NBA seems to make an actual good-faith effort to improve the officiating. Starting with NOT assigning refs with a history of conflict to work that team's games. And making a transparent effort to judge the quality of officials. Also, post-hoc fines for flopping/exaggeration, diagnosed from replay, would help a lot.

Until then, yes, I'm going to wonder if NBA refs are biased whenever see a badly-officiated game. You can't be surprised by that, can you? The NBA has done nothing but sweep ref issues under the rug.

And my feeling seems pretty universal. Nearly *every* sports fan I know compares the NBA to the WWF. My sample is not the same as the entire cross-section of NBA fans, but I can't imagine this sustained reffing disaster doesn't hurt the NBA.

[lostjumper]

I lasted 1 game, and I'm done for the playoffs. Screw that league.

I haven't watched a game of the playoffs so far, and it seems that's the correct choice. It's honestly healthier for me as my blood pressure is so much better when I don't watch the NBA.

The NBA has the worst officiating in all of sports, and I include WWE in "sports". When for years people aren't sure whether the officials are corrupt or incompetent, you know you have a problem. And what is the excuse Stern has trotted out for years? "The game is too fast now". Well, the game has also gotten faster in the NFL and NHL as well, and the officiating is not nearly as atrocious. Those leagues as well has baseball have made improvements and updated technology to keep up with the speed of the game. Meanwhile, the NBA sticks its head in the sand and keeps trotting out Danny Crawford.

The only way that improvement is possible will be if fans stop consuming the product and spending money on it.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Plus, a bunch of people (like me) who are going to be unhappy with games like that, unless and until the NBA seems to make an actual good-faith effort to improve the officiating. Starting with NOT assigning refs with a history of conflict to work that team's games. And making a transparent effort to judge the quality of officials. Also, post-hoc fines for flopping/exaggeration, diagnosed from replay, would help a lot.

Until then, yes, I'm going to wonder if NBA refs are biased whenever see a badly-officiated game. You can't be surprised by that, can you? The NBA has done nothing but sweep ref issues under the rug.

And my feeling seems pretty universal. Nearly *every* sports fan I know compares the NBA to the WWF. My sample is not the same as the entire cross-section of NBA fans, but I can't imagine this sustained reffing disaster doesn't hurt the NBA.

But my point is this: Marc Davis made a couple of questionable calls in a basketball game. He also made a couple of correct calls in a basketball game at times when you might think he wouldn't. So, where's the conflict? There's nothing about the above video that makes me think that Marc Davis should never be assigned to a Celtics game again. It's incredibly ironic how so many people in this thread, people who have extremely biased views of NBA refereeing, are claiming that Marc Davis is the biased one.

And again, when has the NBA swept refereeing issues under the rug? The Donaghy thing was investigated thoroughly and what else is there? Teams are encouraged to submit tapes of questionable calls to the league, and each referee is graded during the regular season and assigned a percentage grade based on their call accuracy for every call they make during the course of the season. Those grades then determine how many rounds of the playoffs they work, which results in additional salary of up to $60,000. What more would you like?

And frankly, people who compare the NBA to the WWF are stupid. Honestly, they're stupid. There's no comparison at all.

[BigSoxFan]

What more would we like? How about refs who stop trying to be so confrontational, leading to further escalation? You see this all over the league, especially with "hard ass" guys like Joey Crawford. Baseball has this to a lesser extent. I don't care if a ref gets called every name in the book, if a player yells in their face, T them up and walk away. If they continue to follow you and make contact, as Rondo did, then stand your ground. But I'm sick and tired of watching these guys and their hall monitor attitudes. You can almost see these guys thinking "come on...come on.....there we go...technical foul...I win!"

[Grin&MartyBarret]

What more would we like? How about refs who stop trying to be so confrontational, leading to further escalation? You see this all over the league, especially with "hard ass" guys like Joey Crawford. Baseball has this to a lesser extent. I don't care if a ref gets called every name in the book, if a player yells in their face, T them up and walk away. If they continue to follow you and make contact, as Rondo did, then stand your ground. But I'm sick and tired of watching these guys and their hall monitor attitudes. You can almost see these guys thinking "come on...come on.....there we go...technical foul...I win!"

That's completely reasonable. But when I asked "What more would you like?" it was meant more in the vein of the whole NBA is the WWF and all refereeing issues are swept under the rug and ignored.

[BigSoxFan]

That's completely reasonable. But when I asked "What more would you like?" it was meant more in the vein of the whole NBA is the WWF and all refereeing issues are swept under the rug and ignored.

Oh, yeah, well I don't subscribe to that. Games in the NBA are decided by the players and occasionally influenced by refs. There's a big distinction there.

[Curtis Pride]

people need to stop creating excuses for bad officiating.
Your point may be somewhat correct if the same ticky tack fouls are called both ways, but we know they often aren't.
In many games in fact one team is allowed to play a far more physical type of defense than the other.

Your comment seems to imply some kind of consistency (that could then be adjusted to or follows some sort of logical pattern) that just isn't there.

I'm not making excuses for bad officiating, just doubting whether there's a bias against the Celtics.. Besides, the game shown in the video the Celtics won, and in Game 1 the Celtics shot poorly and dug themselves a hole, and i just think it's quite silly to blame Marc Davis for the loss.

However, I do think the NBA needs a better system for evaluating and assigning referees. Maybe a better way to look at it is that there are three refs assigned to a game, and while two of them are good enough the third one is the one people complain about. It's almost like the worst official of the three is the weakest link, goodbye!

[24JoshuaPoint]

My favorite part is at the 5:10 mark, where the microphone picks up an incredulous fan ranting to the official: "That is horrible. That is horrible! That is the worst call I've ever seen! What are you doing??"

That was pretty funny. I couldn't tell if it was maybe an assistant coach totally fed up or a fan. And it's not like the fan is trying to be funny; he sounds like he's legitimately pissed and about to cry!

[bosox188]

That was pretty funny. I couldn't tell if it was maybe an assistant coach totally fed up or a fan. And it's not like the fan is trying to be funny; he sounds like he's legitimately pissed and about to cry!

I may be wrong, but I thought that was Mike Gorman himself who you could hear, assuming he moved the mic away for a moment.

[redsahx]

I haven't watched a game of the playoffs so far, and it seems that's the correct choice. It's honestly healthier for me as my blood pressure is so much better when I don't watch the NBA.

The NBA has the worst officiating in all of sports, and I include WWE in "sports". When for years people aren't sure whether the officials are corrupt or incompetent, you know you have a problem. And what is the excuse Stern has trotted out for years? "The game is too fast now". Well, the game has also gotten faster in the NFL and NHL as well, and the officiating is not nearly as atrocious. Those leagues as well has baseball have made improvements and updated technology to keep up with the speed of the game. Meanwhile, the NBA sticks its head in the sand and keeps trotting out Danny Crawford.

Comparing the NBA to the NFL or NHL when it comes to officiating is ridiculous. Basketball is a MUCH more difficult sport to officiate, and requires more input from the officials. It's also ridiculous to assume that the NBA is the only level of basketball where officiating is questioned. I coached High school basketball for a few years, and believe me, the refs are so bad at that level I was worried I was going to lose my cool and embaress myself on many nights. I'd also say whenever I go to a big Providence College game in the Big East, the home crowd always turns on the officials at some point. Heck I've even seen people get thrown out of rec league games.

Now I am not excusing all referees and their behavior or performance. The worst thing you can have is a hot-headed official who refuses to accept the fact that emotions run high with players and coaches during a game (hello Joey Crawford). I always appreciated it when an official would politely warn me and give me an opportunity to cool down if I got worked up over a call or series of calls (rather than him baiting me into escalating the argument). From that point on, even if the official was doing a terrible job, I found it much easier not to blow my top. I also wish the NBA would be a little more selective in who they assign to officiate games. For example, there was no reason for Joey Crawford to keep getting assigned to Spurs games until he eventually crossed the line with Tim Duncan and got himself suspended, and I don't know why Marc Davis got assigned game 1 of this series.

All that said, even though I get as frustrated at officiating as anyone, I am sick of having to hear speculation about sinister conspiracies every time there are shaky calls in a game. I'd love to see Stern step aside for the sake of new blood, but even that won't solve the fact that it's much easier to screw up calls in a basketball game.

Edited by redsahx, 02 May 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[mandro ramtinez]

If the screener moves in the direction that the defender is heading and makes contact, it's a moving screen. It doesn't matter if Garnett is moving towards the basket or not, he has to stay in place until he's no longer in contact with the defender. And from my vantage point, though it's obviously hard to tell, it looks like Garnett is the one who hooks Teague's arm. Regardless though, there's a reason you're taught to set screens with your arms set at your side. When you don't, that call will be made every time.

Garnett stays in contact with Teague at least in part because Smith grabs his jersey as KG steps away from the screen. Smith's foul precedes any illegal move by KG and should have been whistled if anything was. I'm also not entirely sure that Teague isn't the one who grabs KG's arm. There is a solid argument that KG's foul was an incorrect call.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Garnett stays in contact with Teague at least in part because Smith grabs his jersey as KG steps away from the screen. Smith's foul precedes any illegal move by KG and should have been whistled if anything was. I'm also not entirely sure that Teague isn't the one who grabs KG's arm. There is a solid argument that KG's foul was an incorrect call.

Eh, I suppose I can see that. Smith grabs Garnett's jersey, but Garnett's already left his screening position and is moving in the same direction as Teague--Smith grabbing Garnett's jersey helps to make the moving screen more apparent, because it shows that how quickly he moved out of the screening position and headed towards the basket.

And sure, you could definitely call Smith for grabbing his jersey. But doesn't this conversation just speak to just how difficult a job calling NBA games is? There are three reasonable, different takes on what happened on that play and who could have been called for a foul. Teague could have been called for grabbing Garnett's arm, and it would have been a reasonable call. Garnett was called for the moving screen, and it was a reasonable call, and Smith could have been called for grabbing Garnett's jersey, and it would have been a reasonable call as well. We have the benefit of a slow motion replay; the referee making the call did not. We have no idea where his eyes were focused, or what he could see from where he was positioned. And plays like that happen a dozen times in each NBA game. It's an extremely difficult game to officiate.

I still just don't see what calls in the video above are so egregious that they make Marc Davis being assigned to game 1 indicative of some terrible conspiracy against the Celtics. It seems self-fulfilling to me. I can basically set my watch to certain posters in this forum stopping by to complain about officials without adding anything of substance in regards to actual basketball discussion.

[redsahx]

Garnett stays in contact with Teague at least in part because Smith grabs his jersey as KG steps away from the screen. Smith's foul precedes any illegal move by KG and should have been whistled if anything was. I'm also not entirely sure that Teague isn't the one who grabs KG's arm. There is a solid argument that KG's foul was an incorrect call.

That's fine, except that KG gets away with illegal screens all the time, to the point that I get nervous every time he comes up to set a pick because he is usually right on the borderline. To some I suppose the times Garnett gets away with an illegal screen could simply be used as further evidence that the NBA is rigged WWE style, or that the refs simply had their money or their kneecaps on the Celtics that night.

[mandro ramtinez]

But doesn't this conversation just speak to just how difficult a job calling NBA games is? There are three reasonable, different takes on what happened on that play and who could have been called for a foul.

I agree with you about this. Refereeing an NBA game is extremely challenging and I think the difficulty in reffing a game that moves so fast diminishes the claims that the NBA is rigged.

[wutang112878]

Comparing the NBA to the NFL or NHL when it comes to officiating is ridiculous. Basketball is a MUCH more difficult sport to officiate

I think the NFL is a very fair comparison. In the NBA there are 3 officials and 10 players on the court at all times, in the NFL there are 6 officials for 22 players, so the official to player ratio is about the same. The NBA court is 50 feet by 94 feet, or 4700 sq feet, but the action really only takes place on half of the court at a time so there is about 2300 sq feet for the officials to watch. The NFL field is huge, and even if plays are just limited to 30 yards thats 4700 sq feet, and even on running plays the refs have to look at least 15 yards which is 2300 sq feet, so the sq footage is comparable as well.

The last comparison is the speed of the game and complexity of calls. I will fully admit that its very difficult to call fouls in the NBA, how much of a nudge is part of the game and when does it really impede the offense player, how much body contact should be accepted when player drive to the basket. However, in the NFL things like holding and pass interference are just as difficult to judge. How much should they allow corners to touch receivers and where do you draw the line on holding which literally happens every play. Those are all very difficult judgement calls. As for the speed of the game, while NBA players are very fast/quick, WRs and CBs in the NFL are also equally quick. And while the players arent moving as fast, calls like illegal hands to the face that take place at the line happen very quickly and are difficult to officiate because of the speed.

There are certainly missed calls all the time in the NFL, but we really never critique those officials to the level that we critique the NBA refs.

[lexrageorge]

In MLB, there are no contact calls to make. Probably the most difficult are balls and strikes, and an ump's strike zone can have a pretty significant impact on the game. I don't want to minimize the difficult of judging the exact location of a ball whizzing down at 90+ mph, all the while potentially breaking in some unknown direction. And the peanut gallery that is MLB dugouts would probably make most NBA players blush. But there is still only one location and one object to watch.

NHL has its challenges as well. It is by far the fastest game of the 4 major US sports, and probably the most physically demanding of officiating positions. But there's usually not that many candidates for penalties; last night's triple OT game (aka, 2 games in one) had only 7 penalties; the other NHL game last night had 9. There is some judgment involved as well; when to let marginal penalties go in the waning minutes of a tight, well-played hockey game, for example. But, despite John Edwards' histrionics, most NHL penalties outside the old Montreal Forum are fairly obvious infractions when you see them on replay.

Wutang makes a good point about the NFL. Except that there are really only a relatively few plays were pass interference comes into play. For example, typical NFL game may have 70 pass plays. Of those, quite a few of them will be fairly obvious non-calls. I'm guessing that there may be at most a half-dozen truly close calls on when to call PI. Yes, those calls are challenging, especially if they occur away from the official. But consider that last night's 3 NBA games had 34, 35, and 46 fouls called, plus who knows how many "non-calls", and you can get an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

The problem is that the NBA trots out the same officials time and time again, despite obvious deficiencies in their ability (hello Dick Bavetta and Joey Crawford). I have to think that there are better candidates out there to officiate an NBA game than those two.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

There are certainly missed calls all the time in the NFL, but we really never critique those officials to the level that we critique the NBA refs.

That's because the sheer number of controversial calls is much less than in the NBA. Think about the PI call - how often is that call controversial during one game - maybe a few, maybe a handful? And as so far as holding calls go, yes the NFL refs could probably call something every play, but I think one big difference is that call is generally away from the ball and in a scrum of humanity, so if the refs miss a holding call on the center (for example), people don't get worked up about it because it may not directly impact the play.

OTOH, with the NBA, every time someone drives to the hoop, the refs have several distinct calls to make - whether they guy took too many steps; charge/block; whether the defender is playing good defense or he is impeding the carrier; whether the defender goes straight up or at an angle to block the shot; whether the defender gets ball or body. And that's not even including the things that are happening that the ref simply can't see - like the arm wrestling or the jersey grabbing or the stuff like that.

And the worst thing is since the camera follows the ball, each play is capable of second- or third-guessing.

To me, the NBA is by far the most difficult sport to ref because the refs have to decide hundreds of times a game how much physical contact to allow in a game that was initially designed to prohibit physical contact.

[wutang112878]

Wutang makes a good point about the NFL. Except that there are really only a relatively few plays were pass interference comes into play. For example, typical NFL game may have 70 pass plays. Of those, quite a few of them will be fairly obvious non-calls. I'm guessing that there may be at most a half-dozen truly close calls on when to call PI. Yes, those calls are challenging, especially if they occur away from the official. But consider that last night's 3 NBA games had 34, 35, and 46 fouls called, plus who knows how many "non-calls", and you can get an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

This is a great point, but let me flip this issue around for a second. In the NBA the "penalty" is 2 FTs or less than 2% of the total points scored in a game, so a mistake really isnt that bad in comparison to the penalties in the NFL. In the NFL the penalties arent always directly related to point but 10 or 15 yards on a football field is probably worth more than 2 points in basketball, IMO anyway. In addition, a lot of the fouls called in the NBA are somewhat meaningless, if they call a non-shooting foul on a guy who comes off the bench unless the opposing team gets into the penalty its really a worthless call. In the NFL there really are not any worthless calls, holding, pass interference, late hits, etc all change field position.

The problem is that the NBA trots out the same officials time and time again, despite obvious deficiencies in their ability (hello Dick Bavetta and Joey Crawford). I have to think that there are better candidates out there to officiate an NBA game than those two.

Dick Bavetta is the best example. He is over 70 years old, and he can barely run. I have to believe his vision is not 20/20 at this point. But I guess what the NBA is telling us is that his officiating skill is so amazing that there isnt a younger, faster, ref with better vision that could do a better job? That is a complete joke.

[wutang112878]

That's because the sheer number of controversial calls is much less than in the NBA. Think about the PI call - how often is that call controversial during one game - maybe a few, maybe a handful? And as so far as holding calls go, yes the NFL refs could probably call something every play, but I think one big difference is that call is generally away from the ball and in a scrum of humanity, so if the refs miss a holding call on the center (for example), people don't get worked up about it because it may not directly impact the play.

OTOH, with the NBA, every time someone drives to the hoop, the refs have several distinct calls to make - whether they guy took too many steps; charge/block; whether the defender is playing good defense or he is impeding the carrier; whether the defender goes straight up or at an angle to block the shot; whether the defender gets ball or body. And that's not even including the things that are happening that the ref simply can't see - like the arm wrestling or the jersey grabbing or the stuff like that.

And the worst thing is since the camera follows the ball, each play is capable of second- or third-guessing.

To me, the NBA is by far the most difficult sport to ref because the refs have to decide hundreds of times a game how much physical contact to allow in a game that was initially designed to prohibit physical contact.

Just food for though, and completely subjective but why is it we pretty consistently have threads about officiating in the NBA, but we very rarely do in the NFL???

I agree that there are less calls to critique in the NFL, but the ramifications of the calls are much greater in the NFL than the NBA. For example, 400 yards of offense in the NFL is very good, so a 10 yard penalty is 2.5% of a good offensive output. 100 points is very good in the NBA, and with an average FT% of 70% 2 FTs are worth 1.4% of offensive output. The way I see it, the calls in the NFL have greater ramifications and there are fewer to be made so the small sample size puts a premium on the refs performance.

I agree that in the NBA there are more things to watch, but some of them really arent that difficult. Things like traveling, charges/blocks, carrying, etc are not in the 'speed of the game' category, maybe charges/blocks are difficult to judge because of the speed, but I think 90% of the calls that are difficult because of speed are the driving to the hoop and does the defender really make enough contact to call a foul. And I would argue thats where we critique the NBA refs the most, on the contact fouls, I really cant remember the last time I really got upset about a traveling or carrying call.

So lets say the NBA is the most difficult sport to officiate, how much more difficult do you think it is than the NFL? Is it 20% more difficult, and are the refs in the NFL 20% better than the NBA? Thats part of my problem with NBA officiating is that I will agree its very difficult to do, but when I compare it to the NFL considering the difficulty involved I dont think the NBA Is really doing as well as the NFL

[redsahx]

Just food for though, and completely subjective but why is it we pretty consistently have threads about officiating in the NBA, but we very rarely do in the NFL???

[snip]...............

So lets say the NBA is the most difficult sport to officiate, how much more difficult do you think it is than the NFL? Is it 20% more difficult, and are the refs in the NFL 20% better than the NBA? Thats part of my problem with NBA officiating is that I will agree its very difficult to do, but when I compare it to the NFL considering the difficulty involved I dont think the NBA Is really doing as well as the NFL

While the NFL is certainly the only other sport that approaches the NBA in degree of officiating difficulty, NFL officials also have the benefit of replays to cover catches, fumbles, out of bounds, yardage, and now every touchdown & turnover automatically. So they are protected from screw ups there. You are left with having to judge holdings (offensive and defensive), pass interference, and 15-yard penalties. and a few others. They can also prematurely blow a play dead on a fumble. NFL officials have screwed these calls up regularly, and in turn significantly effected the outcome of games. Unlike the NBA, the NFL doesn't have a problem acknowledging when their officials screw up.

We actually have seen occasions in the last few years where NFL officiating blunders have been a major story. Had Green Bay come back and beaten the Giants in their playoff game this year, it would have been one of the biggest screw jobs in history on the part of the officials, but the NFL was bailed out of that one.

[redsahx]

Getting back to NBA/basketball officiating, I still do have my gripes, don't get me wrong.

I believe some officials do stick around too long in both college and the pros. I'd also like to know how exactly the NBA is determining ref assignments for playoff games. I'm not sure their merit system is up to par with that of the NFL or MLB. If Marc Davis officiates another Celtics game this postseason, it will be an absolute disgrace. Even if you make him free from blame for the Rondo incident, there is no way the NBA can ask (or expect) him to go out and handle calling the Celtics and Rondo to the best of his abilities given the recent history. He likely would either be inclined to have a shorter fuse with Rondo, or, perhaps even go out of his way to be more lenient with Rondo to diffuse the situation. In either event, I can't see the NFL assigning an offical to a major playoff game involving a team which that official has had a major run-in with a player or coach, or has a shaky history with. Yet the NBA lets that happen all the time.

Stern is also overprotective of the officials. When Jeff Van Gundy was coaching the Rockets a few years ago and let slip that he was told the officials were going to be calling Yao Ming differently in the playoffs, Stern essentially threatened to ban him (or blackball him) for life unless he gave up his source or retracted. I am not asking Stern to throw officials under the bus when they screw up, but doing something like the NFL where they address controversial calls with something other than a "What, you got a problem with that" attitude would help public relations significantly. They can even throw in the disclaimer that the sport is difficult to officiate and some calls will be missed, but they have the best officials in the world, yada yada yada. That's about all you can ask of the NBA. Don't hold your breath thinking that there is a fix that would actually reduce the number of bad calls. Fans instinctively flip out on some plays where they think a call was missed, and often times replays show the officials were right. It's the unfortunate part of the game that officials have to blow their whistle and inject themselves into the game so much.

The Donaghy incident opened the door for conspiracy theories to run wild, but you have to believe the FBI and prosecutors would have liked nothing more than to uncover a vast ring of crooked refs. They certainly must have sniffed every lead, and ultimately settled on just Donaghy. With all the public scrutiny that has come since then, the idea that there are a bunch of refs with sinister motives, or that the league is directing officials to influence games to set up favorable matchups for the league is absurd. But people cling to that belief the same way 911 truthers and Obama birthers cling to their delusions despite unfavorable evidence.

Edited by redsahx, 03 May 2012 - 10:18 AM.