REFS!

[liam]

The refs just keep on ruining the season. The NBA needs to do something. Just horrible... I hope all the legalized gambling doesn't have anything to do with this avalanche of really bad officiating...


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/blazers-to-reportedly-protest-game-vs-thunder-after-refs-miss-timeout-call-eject-chauncey-billups-054922496.html

I had the Knicks on the money line last night. With how heavily they were favored it was a dumb bet, that “miraculously” ended up in my favor.  I never bet more than lunch money, so it’s not like it had any sway, but I’m guessing someone bet more than me.  It’s impossible to not connect refs actions with how much gambling is integrated with sports now.  Or maybe someone had big money on Detroit with awesome odds to win?  I dunno.


The calls just seem so bad.  There has to be a reason.

Maybe, but I think you'd have a hard time proving it beyond a coincidence.

It's probably not worth it for anyone with the time to do so, but it could be interesting to see how the relaxation & regulation of sports gambling lines up with more games covering 'bold' money lines and all that.

Now, having said that, there's little likelihood an investigative journalist or an aspiring data scientist is going to have more information than the extreme scrutiny that is already on the league from the various regulating bodies & government agencies. In other words, the potential rewards and avenues to fix a game are so obvious that you'd have to be very, very careful not to leave any kind of trail, especially after Donaghy.

If the casual fan is noticing, in other words, then a whole lot of other people are (or should be) already looking at it - people with a high incentive to do so.

So then maybe there's no financial incentive, but just plain incompetence? In which case there still should be negative consequences for the referee, and those consequences should be communicated by the league to the public so that we know something's being done about it—as opposed to just saying, "Yeah, we made a mistake," and then moving on like nothing happened.

Sure, but not only are these two fundamentally different things -- one is someone doing a bad job (which the league can and, contrary to popular opinion, does address) and the other is cooking the books, but we presume that nothing happens behind the scenes regarding bad or substandard refereeing... with what evidence? The fact that you can still point to a handful of bad calls per season?

Good refereeing is supposed to be invisible, right? So our standard of 'better' refereeing is, what, a certain number of games without one blown call? Never going to happen. Officiating a basketball game competently is hard, and officiating an NBA basketball game is nearly impossible, especially now that everyone with access to the broadcast feed has a 'better' view of what's happening than the guys on the floor tasked with calling the game.

That's before we get into the fact that, as those of us who remember the 2009 ref walkout already know, the 'replacement refs' in the wings simply aren't up to the level of the 'bad' referees that are typically employed by the NBA.

Blown calls happen in every NBA game. That's a given but not seeing a blatant push at the end of a close game that decides that game is a whole other level. This has been happening all year and is the worst I've ever seen it.

Michael Jordan, Bryon Russell, 1998 Finals?

Agree with you on the off-the-floor referee, but I see the main problem there being that the game would inevitably slow to a crawl.

The off the floor ref process would have to be streamlined. It's crazy how long the video review process takes now. If it takes them 10 or so minutes to see an obvious call and still sometimes still get it wrong no wonder there is a major problem. Out of bounds calls, foot on the line calls, 3 second calls should all be able to be handled by a Cyclops type computer program.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

The refs just keep on ruining the season. The NBA needs to do something. Just horrible... I hope all the legalized gambling doesn't have anything to do with this avalanche of really bad officiating...


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/blazers-to-reportedly-protest-game-vs-thunder-after-refs-miss-timeout-call-eject-chauncey-billups-054922496.html

I had the Knicks on the money line last night. With how heavily they were favored it was a dumb bet, that “miraculously” ended up in my favor.  I never bet more than lunch money, so it’s not like it had any sway, but I’m guessing someone bet more than me.  It’s impossible to not connect refs actions with how much gambling is integrated with sports now.  Or maybe someone had big money on Detroit with awesome odds to win?  I dunno.


The calls just seem so bad.  There has to be a reason.

Maybe, but I think you'd have a hard time proving it beyond a coincidence.

It's probably not worth it for anyone with the time to do so, but it could be interesting to see how the relaxation & regulation of sports gambling lines up with more games covering 'bold' money lines and all that.

Now, having said that, there's little likelihood an investigative journalist or an aspiring data scientist is going to have more information than the extreme scrutiny that is already on the league from the various regulating bodies & government agencies. In other words, the potential rewards and avenues to fix a game are so obvious that you'd have to be very, very careful not to leave any kind of trail, especially after Donaghy.

If the casual fan is noticing, in other words, then a whole lot of other people are (or should be) already looking at it - people with a high incentive to do so.

So then maybe there's no financial incentive, but just plain incompetence? In which case there still should be negative consequences for the referee, and those consequences should be communicated by the league to the public so that we know something's being done about it—as opposed to just saying, "Yeah, we made a mistake," and then moving on like nothing happened.

Sure, but not only are these two fundamentally different things -- one is someone doing a bad job (which the league can and, contrary to popular opinion, does address) and the other is cooking the books, but we presume that nothing happens behind the scenes regarding bad or substandard refereeing... with what evidence? The fact that you can still point to a handful of bad calls per season?

Good refereeing is supposed to be invisible, right? So our standard of 'better' refereeing is, what, a certain number of games without one blown call? Never going to happen. Officiating a basketball game competently is hard, and officiating an NBA basketball game is nearly impossible, especially now that everyone with access to the broadcast feed has a 'better' view of what's happening than the guys on the floor tasked with calling the game.

That's before we get into the fact that, as those of us who remember the 2009 ref walkout already know, the 'replacement refs' in the wings simply aren't up to the level of the 'bad' referees that are typically employed by the NBA.

I understand that those two are different things. I don't expect perfect officiating, because it doesn't exist, but some things are just obvious. This wasn't a judgment call—"Was the defender in position to take the charge, or was he still not quite in position and therefore it's a blocking foul?" This is one guy diving into another guy's legs, which, as far as I know, is always a foul.

As far as consequences, we're told that referees get reviewed, but what outcomes do we see? As far as I know, we don't see referees get demoted to the G-League, and we don't see them get suspended for poor performance. Maybe they get shifted to different crews? Or maybe they're not allowed to work the playoffs? I don't know. But things like this are an obvious injustice that can have a ripple effect.

[Kernewek]

As far as consequences, we're told that referees get reviewed, but what outcomes do we see? As far as I know, we don't see referees get demoted to the G-League, and we don't see them get suspended for poor performance. Maybe they get shifted to different crews? Or maybe they're not allowed to work the playoffs? I don't know. But things like this are an obvious injustice that can have a ripple effect.

It's not the most widely publicised thing, because why would it be, it's not exactly hidden knowledge if you want to look for it.

Referee mechanics — where to stand, how to move, who makes which calls — weren’t taught uniformly in the NBA until the early 1980s, over 30 years into the league’s existence. The use of VCRs and videotapes for referee training wouldn’t begin in earnest until a few years later. The NBA didn’t even begin using three officials in its games full-time until 1988.

As the world around it has modernized, though, so has the NBA. Today’s league officiating department relies more than ever on a well-known sports buzzword: Analytics.

Every single call made by NBA referees — and many of those not made — is graded by impartial observers, then inputted into a vast database including every official in the league. This data is used in ongoing referee training and development, and it helps in determining ref promotions and playoff assignments. Teams are even given partial access to and are allowed to make some inquiries into specific calls.

This is no mom-and-pop setup. It’s a full-fledged operation involving more than two dozen full-time staffers, from former NBA officials to outside consultants and quantitative analysts. It’s also a realm into which the public has had very little window, even as analytics and technology have become larger and larger parts of the league’s officiating department in recent years.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-refs-the-nbas-referees/

But more to what you brought up:

Many executives within NBA franchises surveyed for this story care more about a different area of referee grading and data: The role this information plays in determining which officials are promoted from the G League, which are given crew chief assignments and, perhaps most vitally, which are selected to officiate playoff and NBA Finals games.

The NBA maintains that three primary variables are at play for such forms of promotion:

1. Referee grading analytics compiled by game reviewers and league analysts.
2. Specific input/rankings from each NBA team regarding individual referees (typically provided by a team’s coach and/or general manager).
3. Assessments of referees from the NBA’s developmental advisers and other top management/training staff.

The NBA steadfastly refuses to disclose the weights each of these three variables holds during any promotion or playoff assignment decisions.

Transparency is a constant tug-of-war. Some teams advocate for a sharing of the full referee grading and analytics data set with the entire league; the NBA has no such plans in the near future, per both Spruell and McCutchen. That’s for several reasons, including simple logistics, but one stands out in today’s era of newsbreakers: teams selectively leaking referee data to the media. It’s easy to envision a team losing a close game and feeling slighted by a given official, then leaking that official’s low rank in the league’s grading system to sway public opinion.

Some even call for this data to be released to the general public rather than just teams themselves. Spruell, a longtime executive at Deloitte whose process-oriented approach was praised by several of his subordinates,3 raised an interesting comparison in response.

“How many companies do you know that would just open up their confidential employee files? Not many,” Spruell said.

Spruell makes a fair point. So might those who reply that most companies aren’t like the NBA, which has public box scores for games dating back decades and clearly operates in the public eye. It’s easy to see both viewpoints, frankly.

Desires for transparency can border on quests for blood in some cases — understandable at the fan level, perhaps, but less so at the team level. Does being “transparent” mean sending a press release every time an NBA official is fined for misapplication of the rules (something that, per multiple league sources, happens several times per season)? Should the league publicize it when a referee is outright fired for continuously failing to meet the NBA’s accuracy and other quality thresholds?

Some earnestly believe the answer to those questions is yes. Is that really transparency, though, or are those just examples of punitive responses that do little to improve future performance?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-nba-uses-its-data-on-referees/

[liam]

As far as consequences, we're told that referees get reviewed, but what outcomes do we see? As far as I know, we don't see referees get demoted to the G-League, and we don't see them get suspended for poor performance. Maybe they get shifted to different crews? Or maybe they're not allowed to work the playoffs? I don't know. But things like this are an obvious injustice that can have a ripple effect.

It's not the most widely publicised thing, because why would it be, it's not exactly hidden knowledge if you want to look for it.

Referee mechanics — where to stand, how to move, who makes which calls — weren’t taught uniformly in the NBA until the early 1980s, over 30 years into the league’s existence. The use of VCRs and videotapes for referee training wouldn’t begin in earnest until a few years later. The NBA didn’t even begin using three officials in its games full-time until 1988.

As the world around it has modernized, though, so has the NBA. Today’s league officiating department relies more than ever on a well-known sports buzzword: Analytics.

Every single call made by NBA referees — and many of those not made — is graded by impartial observers, then inputted into a vast database including every official in the league. This data is used in ongoing referee training and development, and it helps in determining ref promotions and playoff assignments. Teams are even given partial access to and are allowed to make some inquiries into specific calls.

This is no mom-and-pop setup. It’s a full-fledged operation involving more than two dozen full-time staffers, from former NBA officials to outside consultants and quantitative analysts. It’s also a realm into which the public has had very little window, even as analytics and technology have become larger and larger parts of the league’s officiating department in recent years.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-refs-the-nbas-referees/

But more to what you brought up:

Many executives within NBA franchises surveyed for this story care more about a different area of referee grading and data: The role this information plays in determining which officials are promoted from the G League, which are given crew chief assignments and, perhaps most vitally, which are selected to officiate playoff and NBA Finals games.

The NBA maintains that three primary variables are at play for such forms of promotion:

1. Referee grading analytics compiled by game reviewers and league analysts.
2. Specific input/rankings from each NBA team regarding individual referees (typically provided by a team’s coach and/or general manager).
3. Assessments of referees from the NBA’s developmental advisers and other top management/training staff.

The NBA steadfastly refuses to disclose the weights each of these three variables holds during any promotion or playoff assignment decisions.

Transparency is a constant tug-of-war. Some teams advocate for a sharing of the full referee grading and analytics data set with the entire league; the NBA has no such plans in the near future, per both Spruell and McCutchen. That’s for several reasons, including simple logistics, but one stands out in today’s era of newsbreakers: teams selectively leaking referee data to the media. It’s easy to envision a team losing a close game and feeling slighted by a given official, then leaking that official’s low rank in the league’s grading system to sway public opinion.

Some even call for this data to be released to the general public rather than just teams themselves. Spruell, a longtime executive at Deloitte whose process-oriented approach was praised by several of his subordinates,3 raised an interesting comparison in response.

“How many companies do you know that would just open up their confidential employee files? Not many,” Spruell said.

Spruell makes a fair point. So might those who reply that most companies aren’t like the NBA, which has public box scores for games dating back decades and clearly operates in the public eye. It’s easy to see both viewpoints, frankly.

Desires for transparency can border on quests for blood in some cases — understandable at the fan level, perhaps, but less so at the team level. Does being “transparent” mean sending a press release every time an NBA official is fined for misapplication of the rules (something that, per multiple league sources, happens several times per season)? Should the league publicize it when a referee is outright fired for continuously failing to meet the NBA’s accuracy and other quality thresholds?

Some earnestly believe the answer to those questions is yes. Is that really transparency, though, or are those just examples of punitive responses that do little to improve future performance?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-nba-uses-its-data-on-referees/

Seems like the NBA is saying that they do things but won't tell you what they are. That info would be gold to the betting public!

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

As far as consequences, we're told that referees get reviewed, but what outcomes do we see? As far as I know, we don't see referees get demoted to the G-League, and we don't see them get suspended for poor performance. Maybe they get shifted to different crews? Or maybe they're not allowed to work the playoffs? I don't know. But things like this are an obvious injustice that can have a ripple effect.

It's not the most widely publicised thing, because why would it be, it's not exactly hidden knowledge if you want to look for it.

But it sort of is hidden knowledge. According to the excerpts you posted, there's a system in place for referee evaluation, but the public isn't allowed to see inside that system. So we have little idea of what actually is happening. I understand that there are pitfalls to divulging all of that information, but since the NBA is a very public enterprise, and we're told virtually everything that happens with players and coaches—we hear about suspensions (the reason and the length), we hear about fines (the reason and the amount), we hear about scandals—why not tell us more about the refs?

[liam]

As far as consequences, we're told that referees get reviewed, but what outcomes do we see? As far as I know, we don't see referees get demoted to the G-League, and we don't see them get suspended for poor performance. Maybe they get shifted to different crews? Or maybe they're not allowed to work the playoffs? I don't know. But things like this are an obvious injustice that can have a ripple effect.

It's not the most widely publicised thing, because why would it be, it's not exactly hidden knowledge if you want to look for it.

But it sort of is hidden knowledge. According to the excerpts you posted, there's a system in place for referee evaluation, but the public isn't allowed to see inside that system. So we have little idea of what actually is happening. I understand that there are pitfalls to divulging all of that information, but since the NBA is a very public enterprise, and we're told virtually everything that happens with players and coaches—we hear about suspensions (the reason and the length), we hear about fines (the reason and the amount), we hear about scandals—why not tell us more about the refs?

I'd love to see the pregame instruction that the NBA gives the refs.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

As far as consequences, we're told that referees get reviewed, but what outcomes do we see? As far as I know, we don't see referees get demoted to the G-League, and we don't see them get suspended for poor performance. Maybe they get shifted to different crews? Or maybe they're not allowed to work the playoffs? I don't know. But things like this are an obvious injustice that can have a ripple effect.

It's not the most widely publicised thing, because why would it be, it's not exactly hidden knowledge if you want to look for it.

But it sort of is hidden knowledge. According to the excerpts you posted, there's a system in place for referee evaluation, but the public isn't allowed to see inside that system. So we have little idea of what actually is happening. I understand that there are pitfalls to divulging all of that information, but since the NBA is a very public enterprise, and we're told virtually everything that happens with players and coaches—we hear about suspensions (the reason and the length), we hear about fines (the reason and the amount), we hear about scandals—why not tell us more about the refs?

I'd love to see the pregame instruction that the NBA gives the refs.

Me too.

[Kernewek]

As far as consequences, we're told that referees get reviewed, but what outcomes do we see? As far as I know, we don't see referees get demoted to the G-League, and we don't see them get suspended for poor performance. Maybe they get shifted to different crews? Or maybe they're not allowed to work the playoffs? I don't know. But things like this are an obvious injustice that can have a ripple effect.

It's not the most widely publicised thing, because why would it be, it's not exactly hidden knowledge if you want to look for it.

But it sort of is hidden knowledge. According to the excerpts you posted, there's a system in place for referee evaluation, but the public isn't allowed to see inside that system. So we have little idea of what actually is happening. I understand that there are pitfalls to divulging all of that information, but since the NBA is a very public enterprise, and we're told virtually everything that happens with players and coaches—we hear about suspensions (the reason and the length), we hear about fines (the reason and the amount), we hear about scandals—why not tell us more about the refs?

Yeah, it's a good point, and while it's clear that, from the league's perspective, the problem with sharing that information outweighs the benefits, it is worth keeping in mind that we can probably tease out more than we might think working backwards with the access to the information that we do have.

Consider how much heavy lifting 'virtually' is doing in your post. We hear some things about suspensions: for example, that players are suspended for violating the NBA's drug policy, but, at least in most cases, we don't know the specific substance. While this is a big hole if our goal is 'full transparency from the league', it largely doesn't matter because most of the time the specific substance is incidental to the on-the-court product.)

I bring that up regarding referees because while we may not have a public-facing CBA to govern the exact scenario when a referee is put on a PIP, in some ways that isn't very important, because of what we can observe and subsequently infer about how things work based on what we do know, which is quite a bit. To wit

• We know that the NBA evaluates referee performance after each game with a game observation report, and we know that these observations are fed back to the referees regularly
• We know that the NBA's officiating staff holds monthly meetings with members of each team's coaching staff around the league to discuss refereeing particulars - safe to assume that this feedback is inevitably also being fed back to the referees
  
• We know that referees are constantly monitored for call accuracy, and we also know that they receive an even more comprehensive end-of-season review, which takes into account coaching staff input, soft skills, and the aforementioned call accuracy - this is how referees get 'put on notice' (see quote below)
• We know the Players Association can can submit monthly reports on the conduct of the referees to the league, and can name names in those reports
• We also know (same link) that the Players Association and the league meet quarterly to discuss the relationship between the players and the referees
  
• We also know that, of the pool of referees, the NBA picks 36 to call the playoffs and 12 to call the Finals - choices that are directly tied to the in-season feedback, call accuracy, & soft skills being measured across the season
• We also know being selected for the post-season has a significant impact on how much money referees wind up making at the end of the season, since they are paid per-game
• We also know that Tony Brothers's favourite band is Earth Wind and Fire (page 27) and that Scott Foster's most memorable assignment is Game 7 of the 2010 NBA finals (not joking, page 43)

So, because we have an idea of the information floor that the NBA has regarding each referee, the ways that referees are given feedback throughout the season, and the incentives for them to get things right, the points of emphasis we can also approximate which NBA referees are 'doing the best', according to the NBA's metrics, because:

We can see how many games each referee works season on season, which pulls from https://official.nba.com/referee-assignments/

We can also evaluate how accurate each NBA referee is during their last two minutes, based on public information, here's a pair of good examples that I've found with a quick search: https://www.jordanvani.com/post/nba-referee-performance
https://medium.com/sports-x-analytics/using-data-science-to-breakdown-the-nba-l2-minute-report-8e9c4579243b

And so on.


Re: put on notice.

. Officials who aren’t meeting the league’s accuracy and consistency standards will be put on notice and given one year to improve in their areas of weakness, per Monty McCutchen, senior vice president of referee development and training. Many are able to; those who are not are dismissed, an event McCutchen reports doesn’t happen every season necessarily, but is still a periodical occurrence.

Sorry for the novella, I did try to keep this as short as reasonably possible. It's all to say that there is a lot we can find and infer about the process, even if it isn't 100% accessible or cleanly laid out in front of us.

[Moranis]

Refs are graded and it affects the playoff assignments so affects their bottom line if they don't get the playoffs or can't keep advancing later in the playoffs

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

As far as consequences, we're told that referees get reviewed, but what outcomes do we see? As far as I know, we don't see referees get demoted to the G-League, and we don't see them get suspended for poor performance. Maybe they get shifted to different crews? Or maybe they're not allowed to work the playoffs? I don't know. But things like this are an obvious injustice that can have a ripple effect.

It's not the most widely publicised thing, because why would it be, it's not exactly hidden knowledge if you want to look for it.

But it sort of is hidden knowledge. According to the excerpts you posted, there's a system in place for referee evaluation, but the public isn't allowed to see inside that system. So we have little idea of what actually is happening. I understand that there are pitfalls to divulging all of that information, but since the NBA is a very public enterprise, and we're told virtually everything that happens with players and coaches—we hear about suspensions (the reason and the length), we hear about fines (the reason and the amount), we hear about scandals—why not tell us more about the refs?

Yeah, it's a good point, and while it's clear that, from the league's perspective, the problem with sharing that information outweighs the benefits, it is worth keeping in mind that we can probably tease out more than we might think working backwards with the access to the information that we do have.

Consider how much heavy lifting 'virtually' is doing in your post. We hear some things about suspensions: for example, that players are suspended for violating the NBA's drug policy, but, at least in most cases, we don't know the specific substance. While this is a big hole if our goal is 'full transparency from the league', it largely doesn't matter because most of the time the specific substance is incidental to the on-the-court product.)

I bring that up regarding referees because while we may not have a public-facing CBA to govern the exact scenario when a referee is put on a PIP, in some ways that isn't very important, because of what we can observe and subsequently infer about how things work based on what we do know, which is quite a bit. To wit

• We know that the NBA evaluates referee performance after each game with a game observation report, and we know that these observations are fed back to the referees regularly
• We know that the NBA's officiating staff holds monthly meetings with members of each team's coaching staff around the league to discuss refereeing particulars - safe to assume that this feedback is inevitably also being fed back to the referees
  
• We know that referees are constantly monitored for call accuracy, and we also know that they receive an even more comprehensive end-of-season review, which takes into account coaching staff input, soft skills, and the aforementioned call accuracy - this is how referees get 'put on notice' (see quote below)
• We know the Players Association can can submit monthly reports on the conduct of the referees to the league, and can name names in those reports
• We also know (same link) that the Players Association and the league meet quarterly to discuss the relationship between the players and the referees
  
• We also know that, of the pool of referees, the NBA picks 36 to call the playoffs and 12 to call the Finals - choices that are directly tied to the in-season feedback, call accuracy, & soft skills being measured across the season
• We also know being selected for the post-season has a significant impact on how much money referees wind up making at the end of the season, since they are paid per-game
• We also know that Tony Brothers's favourite band is Earth Wind and Fire (page 27) and that Scott Foster's most memorable assignment is Game 7 of the 2010 NBA finals (not joking, page 43)

So, because we have an idea of the information floor that the NBA has regarding each referee, the ways that referees are given feedback throughout the season, and the incentives for them to get things right, the points of emphasis we can also approximate which NBA referees are 'doing the best', according to the NBA's metrics, because:

We can see how many games each referee works season on season, which pulls from https://official.nba.com/referee-assignments/

We can also evaluate how accurate each NBA referee is during their last two minutes, based on public information, here's a pair of good examples that I've found with a quick search: https://www.jordanvani.com/post/nba-referee-performance
https://medium.com/sports-x-analytics/using-data-science-to-breakdown-the-nba-l2-minute-report-8e9c4579243b

And so on.


Re: put on notice.

. Officials who aren’t meeting the league’s accuracy and consistency standards will be put on notice and given one year to improve in their areas of weakness, per Monty McCutchen, senior vice president of referee development and training. Many are able to; those who are not are dismissed, an event McCutchen reports doesn’t happen every season necessarily, but is still a periodical occurrence.

Sorry for the novella, I did try to keep this as short as reasonably possible. It's all to say that there is a lot we can find and infer about the process, even if it isn't 100% accessible or cleanly laid out in front of us.

TP for all the info. You make some fair points. It's good that refs have added incentives to do their jobs well and that they can be dismissed. I still think there's less transparency re: officials than there is with other segments of the NBA landscape. And even though there are all of these review steps that you outlined, I'm still curious to know the exact standards. For example, how many "horrible" calls can an official make before he's penalized? And what percentage of a ref's calls must be correct in order for him/her to get a passing grade—is it pretty high, like 90%? Or is it only 75%.

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud as I ponder how an obvious foul can go uncalled.

[celticsclay]

Refs probably have to be paid more if we want to avoid another gambling scandal. They don’t get paid enough to avoid one

[Kernewek]

TP for all the info. You make some fair points. It's good that refs have added incentives to do their jobs well and that they can be dismissed. I still think there's less transparency re: officials than there is with other segments of the NBA landscape. And even though there are all of these review steps that you outlined, I'm still curious to know the exact standards. For example, how many "horrible" calls can an official make before he's penalized? And what percentage of a ref's calls must be correct in order for him/her to get a passing grade—is it pretty high, like 90%? Or is it only 75%.

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud as I ponder how an obvious foul can go uncalled.

Back at you for the good discussion. And yeah, in a perfect world where the information wouldn't be misused by teams and players within the league to shift narratives, I agree, I'd like more transparency, too.

[liam]

This has been a problem all year... The refs really liking the Cavs this year!


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/timberwolves-rudy-gobert-makes-money-045144639.html

[Yuckabuck33]

It's pretty obvious that Scott Foster, the players voted as worst ref for like the last 5 years, only has his job because he knows where the bodies are buried.

[Phantom255x]

I know a lot of people dislike CP3, but it's absolutely insane and inexcusable to me that a referee can have a personal vendetta against a single player and consistently screw the player and team he's on over. The Foster-CP3 beef has existed for a long time and the NBA does nothing about it despite both guys literally acknowledging it too. Shows how crooked things really are. Foster should have been ousted years ago. Brothers and Zarba in particular are also terrible, even more than Marc Davis which is astonishing