144 replies to this topic

[lostjumper]

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.

The one thing Dick Bavetta has in his favor is he is someone Stern can count on to adjust the outcomes the way he wants them. And that's why he's still refereeing at 70 when there are younger, faster, and better officials.

[slamminsammya]

The one thing Dick Bavetta has in his favor is he is someone Stern can count on to adjust the outcomes the way he wants them. And that's why he's still refereeing at 70 when there are younger, faster, and better officials.

Honestly cant tell if this is sarcasm or if people are trying to become caricatures of themselves.

[DrewDawg]

Just because it's a difficult sport to officiate doesn't mean we can't tell a shitty official when we see one. He stands out in comparison to other NBA refs. That's how you know he's shitty. Or, at least that he was shitty in this case.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Just because it's a difficult sport to officiate doesn't mean we can't tell a shitty official when we see one. He stands out in comparison to other NBA refs. That's how you know he's shitty. Or, at least that he was shitty in this case.

Who are you talking about here? Bavetta or Marc Davis? And if you're talking about Marc Davis, can you be kind enough to isolate the calls that were so bad?

[wutang112878]

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.

Very good point about the review system, that helps NFL refs for sure. But even if they are just left with holding; pass interference, late hits, leading with helmet hits, determining if a WR or CB caught a ball or not, thats still a great deal of stuff to look at every play. They dont get it correct 100% of the time, but in every NFL game I have every watched when there are easily a good 10 plays a game that they show in slow motion and I am really impressed with how the refs made the correct call in full speed.

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.

I think part of problem is how we critique the officials in each league. In the NFL there are maybe 1 or 2 calls that if made incorrectly really can impact the outcome of a game. Whereas in the NBA I think the problem with the officials is the bias towards super-stars or just a consistent trend of giving calls to one team over another.

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.

I am with you 100%, sometimes the ref assignments just seem 'odd'.

If Marc Davis officiates another Celtics game this postseason, it will be an absolute disgrace. me

Yet the NBA lets that happen all the time.

I think the same thing happened with Billy Kennedy and I forget if it was last year or the year before in the playoffs, but thats a guy that should never officiate a Celtics playoff game again but he has. Ditto with Joey Crawford and the Spurs. The NBA or should I say Stern unfortunately just really doesnt have an interest in fixing these types of issues

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.

I thought the show that Mike Pereira used to do on the NFL network reviewing all the controversial calls was a great way to handle the situation. He explained calls that were made correctly and misunderstood, but more importantly he would admit when the refs got something incorrect. He didnt throw the refs under the bus, but it was nice to see because it really made me think that they cared about getting the calls right and could admit if they were wrong.

[redsahx]

I thought the show that Mike Pereira used to do on the NFL network reviewing all the controversial calls was a great way to handle the situation. He explained calls that were made correctly and misunderstood, but more importantly he would admit when the refs got something incorrect. He didnt throw the refs under the bus, but it was nice to see because it really made me think that they cared about getting the calls right and could admit if they were wrong.

Perreira is a great ambassador for NFL officials, and can speak of his experience as one as well. He acknowledges they are human, and don't put themselves on a pedestal. He also demonstrated that he will stand up for them when they are unfairly critcized. He absolutely tore into Jon Gruden this year for his comments during a broadcast, and mentioned how Gruden was one of the more obnoxious coaches he had to deal with as an official.

The NBA could desperately use someone like that, but Stern seems to have gotten a bit too comfortable after 30 years in power and for some reason doesn't understand public perception on this.

[redsahx]

Just because it's a difficult sport to officiate doesn't mean we can't tell a shitty official when we see one. He stands out in comparison to other NBA refs. That's how you know he's shitty. Or, at least that he was shitty in this case.

Of course there are bad officials, and games where the officiating is inexcusably bad. I scratch my head all the time wondering what a ref is thinking, or if he is sticking it to one team. I only bring up the degree of difficulty because shaky calls happen at all levels, just about every game, and too many people immediately start up the whole "NBA must be rigged" nonsense as soon as they disagree with a couple of calls.

[Brickowski]

Perreira is a great ambassador for NFL officials, and can speak of his experience as one as well. He acknowledges they are human, and don't put themselves on a pedestal. He also demonstrated that he will stand up for them when they are unfairly critcized. He absolutely tore into Jon Gruden this year for his comments during a broadcast, and mentioned how Gruden was one of the more obnoxious coaches he had to deal with as an official.

The NBA could desperately use someone like that, but Stern seems to have gotten a bit too comfortable after 30 years in power and for some reason doesn't understand public perception on this.

The NBA tried this with Ronnie Nunn, but it didn't last long. Nunn almost never owned up to blown calls, only those where the replay showed the ref got it right.

There just isn't much more room under the rug for all the dirt. The more things change, the more they remain the same. http://sports.yahoo....=aw-stern083007
The fact that Stern has to impose huge fines to keep coaches, players and owners for criticizing the officials is a de facto admission that the league has a serious problem.

Edited by Brickowski, 03 May 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[Marbleheader]

The refs mirror the personality of the commissioner. A wholesale turnover of both would do a world of good.

[denilson3]

rick carlisle was real pleased with marc davis last night, too.

[LESDL]

rick carlisle was real pleased with marc davis last night, too.

I saw part of a replay of him freaking out and having to be (very forcibly) restrained, but didn't catch what happened to cause it. Can anyone summarize the play in question or post a clip?

[Grin&MartyBarret]

This site has the whole play:

http://network.yardb..._video/10716734

I'm not sure if he's pissed at the missed charge or the ball being above the rim.

[knucklecup]

So last night there were two "Celtics commercials" for the NBA playoffs. In the first weekend, there were none.

I don't know when these were filmed but it seems like the Celtics never got this kind of respect, even when they were completely dominant.

Perhaps the NBA has realized that the Bulls are a fraud of 2008 Cleveland esque proportions, and those 50/50 calls will begin going the Celtics way leading up to the Heat series.

Of course, if we get there, Wade will be allowed to football tackle Rondo and take him out of the series without being penalized.

[nocode51]

Actually i saw Celtic commercials last weekend. There was one with Pierce and it was on during a non-Celtic game (I can't remember which game). The refs are awful but I'd repeat what was said above, if there was a conspiracy it would NOT be to help the Hawks. The Celtics have a whole BUNCH of big marketable stars and I'm sure if the NBA had their wish they would meet Miami in an epic 7 game showdown that the Heat would win.

[TomRicardo]

NBA would prefer a long seven game series for the most interesting first round series since the Knicks have no chance against the Heat

[riboflav]

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.

I mostly agree, but I have a big problem with his call on the Teague baseline drive. He called it from across court and it wasn't his Primary Coverage Area or even his "secondary" coverage area. In fact, there were several players in his PCA that he should have been focused on but apparently he was watching the ball - a HUGE no-no.

FWIW, coaches have a saying that the only good screen is an illegal one. And KG did it the way I teach my players. 90% of the time it's not called and leads to easy baskets.

[amarshal2]

Now the Hawks are complaining that they never get any calls (and calling KG dirty in the process).
http://espn.go.com/b...dirtiest-player

So is the money on the Celtics or the Hawks? Do they want the series to go 7 or end in 5?

NBA officiating is terrible. Other than that, there's nothing to see here.

[minischwab]

Bill Kennedy among the officials tonight. Not good news for Doc and the C's:
http://www.weei.com/..._medium=twitter

The NBA has assigned Derrick Stafford, Eric Lewis and Bill Kennedy to referee tonight's Game 6 between the Celtics and Hawks. Celtics coach Doc Rivers has a history with Kennedy. After being thrown out of a game in 2009 against the Bulls by Kennedy, Rivers called it "The most unprofessional technical by a ref I've ever had."
Rivers was fined $25,000 by the league and Kennedy was fined an undisclosed amount.

[slamminsammya]

Bill Kennedy among the officials tonight. Not good news for Doc and the C's:

Is it bad news because Kennedy has never T'd up anyone in the Hawks organization? One technical three years ago is probably not going to be a factor tonight...

[minischwab]

Is it bad news because Kennedy has never T'd up anyone in the Hawks organization? One technical three years ago is probably not going to be a factor tonight...

This season, he ejected Pietrus from a game but did not call a single T on a Hawks player. Last season, he hit Nate with 1 and PP with another, but he also called 1 on Joe Johnson and 2 on Zaza.

But the bigger issue is that the NBA took money out of his pocket because of an incident with Doc. Its highly unlikely that he was forgotten about that and may still want to stick it to Doc for getting him in trouble with the league (at least that's how he probably sees it).

Edited by minischwab, 10 May 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

This season, he ejected Pietrus from a game but did not call a single T on a Hawks player. Last season, he hit Nate with 1 and PP with another, but he also called 1 on Joe Johnson and 2 on Zaza.

But the bigger issue is that the NBA took money out of his pocket because of an incident with Doc. Its highly unlikely that he was forgotten about that and may still want to stick it to Doc for getting him in trouble with the league (at least that's how he probably sees it).

I find this line of thinking sort of ridiculous. If anything, wouldn't he be that make him more hesitant to make a call against Doc? He was fined for making giving Doc an unwarranted technical 3 years ago, and you think he's been holding such a grudge about it that he's out for revenge now? Seems silly to me.

[wutang112878]

I find this line of thinking sort of ridiculous. If anything, wouldn't he be that make him more hesitant to make a call against Doc? He was fined for making giving Doc an unwarranted technical 3 years ago, and you think he's been holding such a grudge about it that he's out for revenge now? Seems silly to me.

I would submit this as evidence of refs holding grudges for a long, long time. This little beef between Duncan and Joey Crawford went on for years, until Crawford called a 2nd T on Duncan because he was laughing on the bench, and Crawford was suspended. This is another good one, at one point the Mavs were 2-16 in playoff games officiated by Danny Crawford but 48-41 in the rest. Yes, Kennedy was punished, but these guys really do hold grudges against teams, coaches and players as long as they want, because they never really get replaced. Its a sad system.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

With 9 seconds left in this game and the C's up 2, I would say that the refs have put the whistles away the last handful of minutes. It's been refreshing...

If they fuck these last 9 seconds up, I'll commit Seppuku...

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I would submit this as evidence of refs holding grudges for a long, long time. This little beef between Duncan and Joey Crawford went on for years, until Crawford called a 2nd T on Duncan because he was laughing on the bench, and Crawford was suspended. This is another good one, at one point the Mavs were 2-16 in playoff games officiated by Danny Crawford but 48-41 in the rest. Yes, Kennedy was punished, but these guys really do hold grudges against teams, coaches and players as long as they want, because they never really get replaced. Its a sad system.

So, Joey Crawford makes a series of bad calls against Tim Duncan, and logically I'm supposed to agree that Bill Kennedy is still out to get Doc Rivers because of an incident 3 years ago? Seems reasonable.

[wutang112878]

So, Joey Crawford makes a series of bad calls against Tim Duncan, and logically I'm supposed to agree that Bill Kennedy is still out to get Doc Rivers because of an incident 3 years ago? Seems reasonable.

I will fully admit that Kennedy was really a non-factor last night, I have to give him credit. And just because refs have held grudges doesnt mean that all grudges will continue, but I was just providing some examples of instances where the grudges went on for a long time. Unfortunately this stuff happens, not all the time but it does.

[amarshal2]

I will fully admit that Kennedy was really a non-factor last night, I have to give him credit. And just because refs have held grudges doesnt mean that all grudges will continue, but I was just providing some examples of instances where the grudges went on for a long time. Unfortunately this stuff happens, not all the time but it does.

No, you were looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. If Kennedy had made a couple bad calls last night that happened to go against the C's, you and a dozen others would be holding it up as evidence of a grudge against the Celtics.

Because of one asshole, it's not ridiculous to question the neutrality of NBA referees. It is absolutely ridiculous to create a climate, like the one we have on this board, where 1/3 of the NBA referees are under suspicion for hating the Celtics.

[slamminsammya]

I will fully admit that Kennedy was really a non-factor last night, I have to give him credit. And just because refs have held grudges doesnt mean that all grudges will continue, but I was just providing some examples of instances where the grudges went on for a long time. Unfortunately this stuff happens, not all the time but it does.

Non factor? Lets take the homer glasses off for a second and get real. The refs were a huge factor last night - in favor of the Celtics. Think about the final 15 seconds. Pierce does not get called for what was probably a clean block, but arguably could have been called for a significant amount of body contact on the Johnson drive. Then, Daniels is called for a foul on the inbounds which they somehow say occurred during the pass saving our asses big-time. Then in the final seconds Rondo is not called for what could have easily been interpreted as a foul on Teague's last second attempt.

Again, the confirmation bias that goes on with this stuff is very strong. It seems like for many people that if Doc had gotten a technical last night, even if it was deserved, the shouts would have been "O looky here KENNEDY HOLDING A GRUDGE!" etc. etc.

[wutang112878]

No, you were looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. If Kennedy had made a couple bad calls last night that happened to go against the C's, you and a dozen others would be holding it up as evidence of a grudge against the Celtics.

Did you look at the examples I noted? Joey Crawford hated Duncan, and Danny Crawford hated the Mavs, neither are against the Celtics. So I did provide some evidence that wasnt Celtics related.

And while yes I do look for NBA ref conspiracy theories, considering the lack of improvement of officials and the lack of actual actions by the NBA to make officiating better, I think we conspiracy theorists have decent reason to question these guys.

Non factor? Lets take the homer glasses off for a second and get real. The refs were a huge factor last night - in favor of the Celtics. Think about the final 15 seconds. Pierce does not get called for what was probably a clean block, but arguably could have been called for a significant amount of body contact on the Johnson drive. Then, Daniels is called for a foul on the inbounds which they somehow say occurred during the pass saving our asses big-time. Then in the final seconds Rondo is not called for what could have easily been interpreted as a foul on Teague's last second attempt.

Very fair, I should have said 'not an anti-Celtic factor', because the calls were in favor of the Celts without a doubt. However, I would suggest that the Celts were going to the hoop much more than the Hawks were, didnt they have something like 20 points in the paint in the 3rd? I forget that specific call on Pierce, but I remember the one on Daniels, and I am willing to be this is what happened. The call was made, and I forget if the refs chatted or not, but whoever called it realized that towards the end of the game they are really supposed to swallow their whistles and the Daniels contact was really not that bad, just jostling for position, and suddenly they found a way to make sure that call wasnt a big factor in the game considering Daniels being physical really wasnt a big factor in that play.

[lars10]

Did you look at the examples I noted? Joey Crawford hated Duncan, and Danny Crawford hated the Mavs, neither are against the Celtics. So I did provide some evidence that wasnt Celtics related.

And while yes I do look for NBA ref conspiracy theories, considering the lack of improvement of officials and the lack of actual actions by the NBA to make officiating better, I think we conspiracy theorists have decent reason to question these guys.

Very fair, I should have said 'not an anti-Celtic factor', because the calls were in favor of the Celts without a doubt. However, I would suggest that the Celts were going to the hoop much more than the Hawks were, didnt they have something like 20 points in the paint in the 3rd? I forget that specific call on Pierce, but I remember the one on Daniels, and I am willing to be this is what happened. The call was made, and I forget if the refs chatted or not, but whoever called it realized that towards the end of the game they are really supposed to swallow their whistles and the Daniels contact was really not that bad, just jostling for position, and suddenly they found a way to make sure that call wasnt a big factor in the game considering Daniels being physical really wasnt a big factor in that play.

There was a ton of contact both ways all game. Atlanta was clutching and grabbing all game. I don't think there was bias either way last night. Pierce could have been called, but I think if you rewatch the game you could find multiple instances of calls that were not made on the other end as well... or maybe you think Pierce's headband fell off by itself, or that Allen threw himself out of bounds (two arm shove by Dampier)? etc. Last night seemed like old school officiating where they just let the players play...and get away with a lot of physical play. To make those calls against the C's would have been counter to what they'd been letting go all game.

Crawford is simply an awful ref..and has been suspended multiple times but has always been reinstated. If the game is so fast then they should try to not have refs that have been reffing for almost as many years as I've been alive and force some of the old guard to retire. IMO you can't say the game is too fast as an excuse as long as Crawford and Bavetta are employed.

[amarshal2]

And while yes I do look for NBA ref conspiracy theories, considering the lack of improvement of officials and the lack of actual actions by the NBA to make officiating better, I think we conspiracy theorists have decent reason to question these guys.

As he said, the confirmation bias is strong.

And really, the problem I have is not that you are looking for conspiracy, it's that everyone in this thread who's looking for conspiracy is basically on a witch hunt. This thread got started because a Marc Davis crew had a bad game and called a bunch of shitty fouls against the Celtics. There are thousands of games a year in the NBA. If you want to find instances where the calls were "too bad to be anything other than bias or cheating" you could certainly do it, but it could just as easily be an outlier. There are games where the calls are in the 99.99% of bad calls every single year. Pointing out that occasionally referees call unwarranted technical fouls is no different.

Edited by amarshal2, 11 May 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[wutang112878]

And really, the problem I have is not that you are looking for conspiracy, it's that everyone in this thread who's looking for conspiracy is basically on a witch hunt. This thread got started because a Marc Davis crew had a bad game and called a bunch of shitty fouls against the Celtics.

Here is a question that I have asked before but no one really has an answer to. Why is it that we consistently have threads about officials here, but we really never do for the Pats, Bruins or Sox? Not that they dont happen, but its very rare in comparison to the NBA complaining. Is it just the Celtics fans that post here that are biased?

[amarshal2]

It that NBA officiating is:
1) the worst/most subjective of the major sports and
2) the NBA had one major scandal that opened them up to conspiracy theorists

And there's plenty of threads around the Pats, though less. Generally the thread surround calls on PI which is just as bad/subjective as the calls the NBA refs have to make.

[BigSoxFan]

As he said, the confirmation bias is strong.

And really, the problem I have is not that you are looking for conspiracy, it's that everyone in this thread who's looking for conspiracy is basically on a witch hunt. This thread got started because a Marc Davis crew had a bad game and called a bunch of shitty fouls against the Celtics. There are thousands of games a year in the NBA. If you want to find instances where the calls were "too bad to be anything other than bias or cheating" you could certainly do it, but it could just as easily be an outlier. There are games where the calls are in the 99.99% of bad calls every single year. Pointing out that occasionally referees call unwarranted technical fouls is no different.

You don't think the truth is somewhere in the middle between the tinfoil hat crowd and the "move along, nothing to see here unless I see a rigorous 20 year study" group? Refs are human and they often let their human emotions get in the way of the right call. I mean, how many times have we seen a ball go out of bounds and a ref clearly has no idea who it went off of? And then he emphatically points that it's the home team's ball.

[bowiac]

You don't think the truth is somewhere in the middle between the tinfoil hat crowd and the "move along, nothing to see here unless I see a rigorous 20 year study" group? Refs are human and they often let their human emotions get in the way of the right call. I mean, how many times have we seen a ball go out of bounds and a ref clearly has no idea who it went off of? And then he emphatically points that it's the home team's ball.

Okay, but that's pretty different from thinking a ref is intentionally biased against one team or another. That's an example of a tough situation, and he just makes a call for the sake keeping the game moving.

That example is "nothing to here."

[amarshal2]

You don't think the truth is somewhere in the middle between the tinfoil hat crowd and the "move along, nothing to see here unless I see a rigorous 20 year study" group? Refs are human and they often let their human emotions get in the way of the right call. I mean, how many times have we seen a ball go out of bounds and a ref clearly has no idea who it went off of? And then he emphatically points that it's the home team's ball.

Yes, NBA referees are biased. Yes, they favor home teams. Yes, they are humans who let their emotions get in the way. And, Yes, I need to see significantly more proof before I accuse somebody of intentionally swinging a playoff game in favor of one team or another.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Here is a question that I have asked before but no one really has an answer to. Why is it that we consistently have threads about officials here, but we really never do for the Pats, Bruins or Sox? Not that they dont happen, but its very rare in comparison to the NBA complaining. Is it just the Celtics fans that post here that are biased?

It's completely self -fulfilling. People are inclined to be far more critical of NBA referees because of the popular perception that NBA officiating is terrible and/or crooked.

This thread is a perfect example. A video is posted and the usual crowd (I don't count you among that crowd, for what it's worth; you're always reasonable in these discussions) pipes up about how bad the NBA is, or about how this video should be exhibit 1 or whatever, but then completely disappears during the actual discussion of the calls in the video. The video in the first post of this thread doesn't contain evidence of anything except how difficult the NBA is to officiate.

[lars10]

As he said, the confirmation bias is strong.

And really, the problem I have is not that you are looking for conspiracy, it's that everyone in this thread who's looking for conspiracy is basically on a witch hunt. This thread got started because a Marc Davis crew had a bad game and called a bunch of shitty fouls against the Celtics. There are thousands of games a year in the NBA. If you want to find instances where the calls were "too bad to be anything other than bias or cheating" you could certainly do it, but it could just as easily be an outlier. There are games where the calls are in the 99.99% of bad calls every single year. Pointing out that occasionally referees call unwarranted technical fouls is no different.

I think to be fair... Marc Davis has had more than one bad game. His refereeing throughout the first round has been awful..regardless of whether or not the Celts were involved.

Edit: And I am one of those that has seen a lot of bias in the past... this playoffs I haven't seen as many outrageous calls or major discrepancies between teams as I've seen in the past. I guess that's mainly because the Heat were playing the Knicks so those games weren't really that good/close and fouls didn't seem to be a problem. I have felt like that this year has actually been pretty good overall (and not just because the celts are winning..i've been watching all of the games). I'd be interested in looking at numbers to see if they confirm what I've been seeing though or if I indeed am just an example of confirmation bias.

Edited by lars10, 11 May 2012 - 12:24 PM.

[simplyeric]

As he said, the confirmation bias is strong.

And really, the problem I have is not that you are looking for conspiracy, it's that everyone in this thread who's looking for conspiracy is basically on a witch hunt. This thread got started because a Marc Davis crew had a bad game and called a bunch of shitty fouls against the Celtics. There are thousands of games a year in the NBA. If you want to find instances where the calls were "too bad to be anything other than bias or cheating" you could certainly do it, but it could just as easily be an outlier. There are games where the calls are in the 99.99% of bad calls every single year. Pointing out that occasionally referees call unwarranted technical fouls is no different.

There's a big difference between a "conspiracy" and "some refs hold grudges, etc, and the league doesn't do much about that, so the league seems to be ok with it".

A conspiracy suggests Stern and his favorite refs hanging out in a smoky room actively deciding how the playoffs will go. That's tin-foil-hat stuff.

I think what's being suggested here is that it's pretty clear that something isn't quite right, but that Stern doesn't care anough to do anything about it. Calling it "looking for conspiracy witch hunt" is a straw-man argument.

(please note: obviously there are people here who DO talk about a straight-up conspiracy, and as I mantioned: that is almost certainly crazy talk)

[lars10]

Here is a question that I have asked before but no one really has an answer to. Why is it that we consistently have threads about officials here, but we really never do for the Pats, Bruins or Sox? Not that they dont happen, but its very rare in comparison to the NBA complaining. Is it just the Celtics fans that post here that are biased?

I think the main reason that people complain about NBA officiating more than any other major sport is due to the fact that Fouls directly translate to points in many cases (similar to penalty kicks in soccer (fouls=potential goals and are based on the opinion of the ref)). In other sports the correlation between a call does not necessarily directly lead to points scored..but in basketball it does or can at least. Those points are also scored while the clock is stopped..so foul shots become a huge part of the game.

[bowiac]

I think the main reason that people complain about NBA officiating more than any other major sport is due to the fact that Fouls directly translate to points in many cases (similar to penalty kicks in soccer (fouls=potential goals and are based on the opinion of the ref)). In other sports the correlation between a call does not necessarily directly lead to points scored..but in basketball it does or can at least. Those points are also scored while the clock is stopped..so foul shots become a huge part of the game.

I think is is about right. The football equivalent of a penalty which puts points on the board is the deep pass interference call. Just imagine what the refereeing thread in the Pats forum would look like if refs there were in the habit of calling 15-25 pass interference calls per game, per team.

I think one of the answers to this question is some more creative penalty enforcement. In hockey, you get a power play, not a penalty shot. While I'd love to see 4 on 5 basketball, I don't quite think that would work (would it?), so some other solution is needed there.

Edited by bowiac, 11 May 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[BigSoxFan]

Yes, NBA referees are biased. Yes, they favor home teams. Yes, they are humans who let their emotions get in the way. And, Yes, I need to see significantly more proof before I accuse somebody of intentionally swinging a playoff game in favor of one team or another.

Please define precisely what you'd need to see. That 2002 Kings/Lakers game is often given as solid proof of a serious ref bias but an analysis of the calls doesn't "prove" anything. All it shows is that the Kings got jobbed on a ton of calls. So, again, what would constitute "proof" to you?

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Please define precisely what you'd need to see. That 2002 Kings/Lakers game is often given as solid proof of a serious ref bias but an analysis of the calls doesn't "prove" anything. All it shows is that the Kings got jobbed on a ton of calls. So, again, what would constitute "proof" to you?

Before we get to what would constitute proof, can somebody even reasonably explain what the motive would be?

Everybody always talks about TV ratings, which leads to the NBA getting a larger TV deal, but can somebody explain to me why David Stern and the NBA would risk their multi-billion dollar league for a couple of million dollars in additional short term cash?

I just don't get it.

[amarshal2]

Please define precisely what you'd need to see. That 2002 Kings/Lakers game is often given as solid proof of a serious ref bias but an analysis of the calls doesn't "prove" anything. All it shows is that the Kings got jobbed on a ton of calls. So, again, what would constitute "proof" to you?

As I said way up thread, it would be very easy to set up some statistical analysis to check for potential repeated bias. While it wouldn't be court of law proof, it could at least be used to determine match-ups. It's hard to imagine you wouldn't find instances where one referee is harder on a specific player/team than others to a significant degree. If the NBA were serious about it, there's also ways of checking for bias in the way that psychologists find evidence of covert racism. It would be time consuming and expensive, but if the NBA were serious about it, then perhaps it's a good idea.

Beyond that, I'd want FBI style caught red handed to do anything about it.

Admittedly, a bunch of fans pointing at one playoff game is just never going to do it for me unless there is some extremely obvious behavior (the type that would never happen without significant bans/suspensions).

[wutang112878]

I think is is about right. The football equivalent of a penalty which puts points on the board is the deep pass interference call. Just imagine what the refereeing thread in the Pats forum would look like if refs there were in the habit of calling 15-25 pass interference calls per game, per team.

I said this upthread but I think its relevant here:

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.

The way I see it, the calls have similar ramifications in terms of the effect to offensive output. While calling defensive pass interference on a play that starts at the 50 doesnt directly translate to points it helps the offense, in a similar way that calling a foul for someone banging Rondo doesnt directly provide the Celts points but gives him 2 opportunities to hit FTs. Goaltending is the only call in the NBA where a player can not put the ball in the basket and actually get points.

[amarshal2]

I actually disagree with the "points on the board" argument. I think it's frequency. There's what, 30 fouls called per NBA game? The refs are basically in control of much of the flow and point scoring of the game. How many subjective contact penalties are called per NFL game? Occasionally the Patriots go an entire game without anything other than a false start.

edit: Which isn't to say that "points on the board" is entirely invalid. Certainly when there's a big PI penalty it's a really big deal in terms of points and will rile fans up.

Edited by amarshal2, 11 May 2012 - 01:50 PM.

[BigSoxFan]

Before we get to what would constitute proof, can somebody even reasonably explain what the motive would be?

Everybody always talks about TV ratings, which leads to the NBA getting a larger TV deal, but can somebody explain to me why David Stern and the NBA would risk their multi-billion dollar league for a couple of million dollars in additional short term cash?

I just don't get it.

That's the thing though - there is no risk. It's so impossible to prove any kind of ref bias that the NBA can just deny it and move on, just as they did even when you have a ton of people whining about it and Donaghy making high-profile claims. The simple reality is that American sports fans have short memories - we whine about stuff and then move on. The league will never fold because of a high profile game is reffed badly.

I will say that I think Stern and his team know what they're doing and I'll give the weak ass Artest suspension as "proof". Artest was involved in the biggest melee in NBA history, giving the league its worst story before the Donaghy stuff broke. He's been in trouble since then. And then he nearly decapitates Harden with an obvious blatant cheap shot. What's his penalty? 7 games. Conveniently, this suspension ends right before a much-anticipated series between LA and OKC, which could be memorable given the emotions at play. Now, if Denver beats LA in Game 7 (yeah right), my point will be invalid. But it's not likely.

[bowiac]

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.

Do you really feel referee performance in the NFL is better than in the NBA? Just casually, it certainly seems like the refs miss the same or greater percentage of call in the NFL as they do in the NBA. There's just fewer calls total.

I'd be fine with that outcome as well of course. Get rid of most calls, bring back the hand check, and just the game be played in a much more physical way.

[wutang112878]

As I said way up thread, it would be very easy to set up some statistical analysis to check for potential repeated bias. While it wouldn't be court of law proof, it could at least be used to determine match-ups. It's hard to imagine you wouldn't find instances where one referee is harder on a specific player/team than others to a significant degree. If the NBA were serious about it, there's also ways of checking for bias in the way that psychologists find evidence of covert racism. It would be time consuming and expensive, but if the NBA were serious about it, then perhaps it's a good idea.

It has been done, already actually looking at 13 seasons of data and a racial bias was technically found.

Sterns response: "We think our cut at the data is more powerful, more robust, and demonstrates that there is no bias"

QED: Stern doesnt care and wipes it under the rug.

[wutang112878]

Do you really feel referee performance in the NFL is better than in the NBA? Just casually, it certainly seems like the refs miss the same or greater percentage of call in the NFL as they do in the NBA. There's just fewer calls total.

I'd be fine with that outcome as well of course. Get rid of most calls, bring back the hand check, and just the game be played in a much more physical way.

Yes I do. I agree the NFL officials miss calls, for example there is holding on almost every single play but its rarely called. What I get on the NBA refs for is the biased calls, when say Lebron or Wade cant miss a shot in the paint without getting a foul called on them. So I dont think its the missed calls in the NBA that bothers me, its the calls that they make where I just wonder if they are giving a certain team a chance.

And I would be all for a more hands off approach in the NBA, that would probably really help and make the game easier to officiate. In the same way that all the recent NFL rule changes ensure that the officials dont have to make judgement calls, like 'could he have got 2 feet in bounds if he wasnt pushed out', removing a lot of calls from the NBA could help as well. But again, this would entail the NBA actually admitting that they have an issue and they want to fix it, neither of which Stern wants to do on his watch. The same was Tagliabue didnt want to cleanup the behavior issue with NFL players and it took Goodell to come in to cleanup the mess.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

That's the thing though - there is no risk. It's so impossible to prove any kind of ref bias that the NBA can just deny it and move on, just as they did even when you have a ton of people whining about it and Donaghy making high-profile claims. The simple reality is that American sports fans have short memories - we whine about stuff and then move on. The league will never fold because of a high profile game is reffed badly.

The NBA did not simply deny Donaghy's claims and move on. It's simply not true. Both the FBI and an independent investigator performed thorough investigations. His claims weren't shown to be valid.

And I really have no idea how you can feel that there's no risk for the NBA when it comes to rigging games or intentionally favoring certain teams or playoff match-ups through officiating. A rigged game show resulted in a Congressional investigation and prison terms. This would dwarf that.

And again, what's the motive?