Refs/Bavetta/Injuries result of bad reffing (merged ref threads)

[TatteredOnMySleeve]

So, why are all our games turning into officating butcher jobs, geared against us instead of towards us, and then last night the lakers shoot 38 free throws to the hornets 19 in an overtime game??? for example, in NO, we shot 22 free throws to the hornets 29, and on our very own home court the spurs shoot 21 and we shoot 11...the fact of the matter is, teams are being allowed to get physical with the boston celtics, and the celtics cant go back at them without the whistle being blown

what is going on?

I know this is farfetched also, but Jazz owner Larry Miller died yesterday surrounded by family, anyway the league knew this was coming and wanted to alter some Jazz games to his favor? I mean thats how truly bad the officiating wass

[CeltsGM21]

I think we need to stop with the whole Larry Miller thing.  As much as I hated the officiating, let's not bring something so serious as someone's death into an issue as trivial as NBA officiating.  That's not right.  Larry Miller had nothing to do with it, so whether it is a joke or not, don't bring him into it.  Have some more respect for the man and his family.

[TatteredOnMySleeve]

I think we need to stop with the whole Larry Miller thing.  As much as I hated the officiating, let's not bring something so serious as someone's death into an issue as trivial as NBA officiating.  That's not right.  Larry Miller had nothing to do with it, so whether it is a joke or not, don't bring him into it.  Have some more respect for the man and his family.

Is his family going to read this? what disrespect did I show him? he was on his death bed, meanwhile his jazz were in a game that looked like the refs were doing anything they could to make the jazz win, even Utah fans were saying it,
coincidence? probably, but thats how bad the officating was.

[CeltsGM21]

I think we need to stop with the whole Larry Miller thing.  As much as I hated the officiating, let's not bring something so serious as someone's death into an issue as trivial as NBA officiating.  That's not right.  Larry Miller had nothing to do with it, so whether it is a joke or not, don't bring him into it.  Have some more respect for the man and his family.

Is his family going to read this? what disrespect did I show him? he was on his death bed, meanwhile his jazz were in a game that looked like the refs were doing anything they could to make the jazz win, even Utah fans were saying it

I just don't think you need to bring him into this discussion.  That's what I think is disrespectful.  I'm not trying to start an argument, but I just think you need to be smarter than any conspiracy theory, especially when it involves someone who just died.  I mean, do you really think it is possible for the league to fix a game for a dying owner?  Especially a game that the Celtics easily could have won.  As bad as the officiating was in that game, that is not why the Celtics lost, and in no way does this thing have anything to do with Larry Miller.  That is just crazy talk.

[TatteredOnMySleeve]

I think we need to stop with the whole Larry Miller thing.  As much as I hated the officiating, let's not bring something so serious as someone's death into an issue as trivial as NBA officiating.  That's not right.  Larry Miller had nothing to do with it, so whether it is a joke or not, don't bring him into it.  Have some more respect for the man and his family.

Is his family going to read this? what disrespect did I show him? he was on his death bed, meanwhile his jazz were in a game that looked like the refs were doing anything they could to make the jazz win, even Utah fans were saying it

I just don't think you need to bring him into this discussion.  That's what I think is disrespectful.  I'm not trying to start an argument, but I just think you need to be smarter than any conspiracy theory, especially when it involves someone who just died.  I mean, do you really think it is possible for the league to fix a game for a dying owner?  Especially a game that the Celtics easily could have won.  As bad as the officiating was in that game, that is not why the Celtics lost, and in no way does this thing have anything to do with Larry Miller.  That is just crazy talk.

actually, the officiating was one of the reasons we lost, whether you want to admit or not, we still had a chance to win despite it, but if that game was called consistently, and well, right...we win, when jazz fans are saying the same thing its pretty obvious,they were as shocked at the calls as we were.

"do you really think it is possible for the league to fix a game for a dying owner?"
Honestly, yes... or maybe it was just meant to be that the last Jazz game he watched was a game in which the officials completly butchered in the Jazzs favor, leaving even the die hard jazz fans scratching their head

[CeltsGM21]

I think we need to stop with the whole Larry Miller thing.  As much as I hated the officiating, let's not bring something so serious as someone's death into an issue as trivial as NBA officiating.  That's not right.  Larry Miller had nothing to do with it, so whether it is a joke or not, don't bring him into it.  Have some more respect for the man and his family.

Is his family going to read this? what disrespect did I show him? he was on his death bed, meanwhile his jazz were in a game that looked like the refs were doing anything they could to make the jazz win, even Utah fans were saying it

I just don't think you need to bring him into this discussion.  That's what I think is disrespectful.  I'm not trying to start an argument, but I just think you need to be smarter than any conspiracy theory, especially when it involves someone who just died.  I mean, do you really think it is possible for the league to fix a game for a dying owner?  Especially a game that the Celtics easily could have won.  As bad as the officiating was in that game, that is not why the Celtics lost, and in no way does this thing have anything to do with Larry Miller.  That is just crazy talk.

actually, the officiating was one of the reasons we lost, whether you want to admit or not, we still had a chance to win despite it, but if that game was called consistently, and well, right...we win, when jazz fans are saying the same thing its pretty obvious,they were as shocked at the calls as we were.

"do you really think it is possible for the league to fix a game for a dying owner?"
Honestly, yes... or maybe it was just meant to be that the last Jazz game he watched was a game in which the officials completly butchered in the Jazzs favor, leaving even the die hard jazz fans scratching their head

Okay, we all have our opinions.  That's fine.  And I do believe that the refs really took some things away from the Celtics, but obviously it wasn't the sole reason why they lost.  Also, Jazz fans may be scratching their heads about the officiating (they agree with you that it was bad, and so do I), but I really doubt that Jazz fans would believe that the refs handed them the game because of their dying owner.  I think the Jazz and their fans deserve a little more credit than that.  They closed the game out and we didn't, as much as I want to put all the blame on the refs.  I'm not disagreeing with you that the officiating was bad, I just don't think Larry Miller should be brought into the discussion at all.  That's all I'm saying.

[TatteredOnMySleeve]

I think we need to stop with the whole Larry Miller thing.  As much as I hated the officiating, let's not bring something so serious as someone's death into an issue as trivial as NBA officiating.  That's not right.  Larry Miller had nothing to do with it, so whether it is a joke or not, don't bring him into it.  Have some more respect for the man and his family.

Is his family going to read this? what disrespect did I show him? he was on his death bed, meanwhile his jazz were in a game that looked like the refs were doing anything they could to make the jazz win, even Utah fans were saying it

I just don't think you need to bring him into this discussion.  That's what I think is disrespectful.  I'm not trying to start an argument, but I just think you need to be smarter than any conspiracy theory, especially when it involves someone who just died.  I mean, do you really think it is possible for the league to fix a game for a dying owner?  Especially a game that the Celtics easily could have won.  As bad as the officiating was in that game, that is not why the Celtics lost, and in no way does this thing have anything to do with Larry Miller.  That is just crazy talk.

actually, the officiating was one of the reasons we lost, whether you want to admit or not, we still had a chance to win despite it, but if that game was called consistently, and well, right...we win, when jazz fans are saying the same thing its pretty obvious,they were as shocked at the calls as we were.

"do you really think it is possible for the league to fix a game for a dying owner?"
Honestly, yes... or maybe it was just meant to be that the last Jazz game he watched was a game in which the officials completly butchered in the Jazzs favor, leaving even the die hard jazz fans scratching their head

Okay, we all have our opinions.  That's fine.  And I do believe that the refs really took some things away from the Celtics, but obviously it wasn't the sole reason why they lost.  Also, Jazz fans may be scratching their heads about the officiating (they agree with you that it was bad, and so do I), but I really doubt that Jazz fans would believe that the refs handed them the game because of their dying owner.  I think the Jazz and their fans deserve a little more credit than that.  They closed the game out and we didn't, as much as I want to put all the blame on the refs.  I'm not disagreeing with you that the officiating was bad, I just don't think Larry Miller should be brought into the discussion at all.  That's all I'm saying.

It certainly wasnt the sole reason for us losing, Turnovers, free throws(even some of pierces misses from the line came from bavetta bickering and basically getting into pierces head) and Officiating were, but imo if the officiating was decent, we still win...the jazz played badly for 48 minutes, and the refs kept them in it for most of the game and they closed it out...
And I dont believe  the game was deffinetly rigged for a dying owner, I said it was farfetched, but the officiating was so g[dang] bad that im not putting it out of the realm of possibility

and im not giving the jazz any credit whatsover for that win, especially when Matt harpring unexplainably is allowed to punch, push, scratch pierce and nothing is called and we cant even breathe without the whistle blowing

[Brickowski]

Folks were discussing the NFL.  One reason for its success is better officiating and better rules.

1. When NFL officials make a mistake, the league admits it.
2. Players and coaches aren't automatically fined for criticizing the officials.
3. There is liberal use of instant replay, with the help of a 3rd guy in the booth.
4. Coaches can challenge bad calls.
5. Better thought-out rules (with some glaring exceptions like the tuck rule).

Contrast the NBA:

1. Stern's gestapo fines anyone who criticizes the officials.
2. The league never admits an officiating mistake.
3. Almost no use of instant replay.
4. Coaches cannot challenge.
5. The defensive 3 second rule is dumb. The fans don't understand it, and play is stopped every two minutes or so for the free throw. Let them play full zones, like every other league in the world, including the NCAA and Euroleague.  Full zones haven't detracted from the popularity of those leagues.  And those offensive 3 second calls slow the game down alot more than challenges would slow it down. And the lack of challenges creates technical fouls that slow it down even more.  Let the coaches challenge instead of forcing them to work the officials verbally and throw tantrums on the sidelines.

6. In what other league would officials refuse to disallow a score when a team had too many men on the field?  That result, which was so dumb that even the NBA had to change the rule, is symptiomatic of the league's stupidity when it comes to rulemaking.

7. The 24 second buzzer should not stop play unless the offending team clearly has possession of the ball. How many legitimate baskets get taken away because the refs stop play?

8. The rules are inconsistently applied with a good deal of bias against certain players. Rookies get called for travelling and palming, veterans are rarely called and stars are almost never called.  The flagrant foul rules are inconsistently applied against certain players with "reputations."

9.  The 4-ft. circle is really dumb.  A charge is a charge, a block is a block. If a guy charges after the ball leaves his hand, the basket is good (if it goes in) but he's charged with a foul and if his team is over the limit, shoot at the other end.

10. Hand checking should be allowed.

It's no wonder that crooked refs like Donaghy could go undetected for so long in such a sloppy environment, and it's no wonder that certain officials have become martinets with the power to take over games and ruin the quality of play, as happened in Utah two nights ago.

[RAcker]

Folks were discussing the NFL.  One reason for its success is better officiating and better rules.

1. When NFL officials make a mistake, the league admits it.
2. Players and coaches aren't automatically fined for criticizing the officials.
3. There is liberal use of instant replay, with the help of a 3rd guy in the booth.
4. Coaches can challenge bad calls.
5. Better thought-out rules (with some glaring exceptions like the tuck rule).

Contrast the NBA:

1. Stern's gestapo fines anyone who criticizes the officials.
2. The league never admits an officiating mistake.
3. Almost no use of instant replay.
4. Coaches cannot challenge.
5. The defensive 3 second rule is dumb. The fans don't understand it, and play is stopped every two minutes or so for the free throw. Let them play full zones, like every other league in the world, including the NCAA and Euroleague.  Full zones haven't detracted from the popularity of those leagues.  And those offensive 3 second calls slow the game down alot more than challenges would slow it down. And the lack of challenges creates technical fouls that slow it down even more.  Let the coaches challenge instead of forcing them to work the officials verbally and throw tantrums on the sidelines.

6. In what other league would officials refuse to disallow a score when a team had too many men on the field?  That result, which was so dumb that even the NBA had to change the rule, is symptiomatic of the league's stupidity when it comes to rulemaking.

7. The 24 second buzzer should not stop play unless the offending team clearly has possession of the ball. How many legitimate baskets get taken away because the refs stop play?

8. The rules are inconsistently applied with a good deal of bias against certain players. Rookies get called for travelling and palming, veterans are rarely called and stars are almost never called.  The flagrant foul rules are inconsistently applied against certain players with "reputations."

9.  The 4-ft. circle is really dumb.  A charge is a charge, a block is a block. If a guy charges after the ball leaves his hand, the basket is good (if it goes in) but he's charged with a foul and if his team is over the limit, shoot at the other end.

10. Hand checking should be allowed.

It's no wonder that crooked refs like Donaghy could go undetected for so long in such a sloppy environment, and it's no wonder that certain officials have become martinets with the power to take over games and ruin the quality of play, as happened in Utah two nights ago.

I agree with everything except # 10.  Hand checking is not defense.  It's a foul.  As a guard all of my life, nothing takes less skill and punishes otherwise good ball handlers than guys that use their hands to push and control quicker and more skilled players.  Case and point in the Utah game, Harpring.  Thank you, goodnight.

[Brickowski]

A hand check is different than a push.  Hand checking is allowed in the college game, so long as the contact is incidental, and allowing it takes another weapon away from officials like Bavetta.

[KungPoweChicken]

The officiating has been very questionable all year.

[wdleehi]

Folks were discussing the NFL.  One reason for its success is better officiating and better rules.

1. When NFL officials make a mistake, the league admits it.
2. Players and coaches aren't automatically fined for criticizing the officials.
3. There is liberal use of instant replay, with the help of a 3rd guy in the booth.
4. Coaches can challenge bad calls.
5. Better thought-out rules (with some glaring exceptions like the tuck rule).

Contrast the NBA:

1. Stern's gestapo fines anyone who criticizes the officials.
2. The league never admits an officiating mistake.
3. Almost no use of instant replay.
4. Coaches cannot challenge.
5. The defensive 3 second rule is dumb. The fans don't understand it, and play is stopped every two minutes or so for the free throw. Let them play full zones, like every other league in the world, including the NCAA and Euroleague.  Full zones haven't detracted from the popularity of those leagues.  And those offensive 3 second calls slow the game down alot more than challenges would slow it down. And the lack of challenges creates technical fouls that slow it down even more.  Let the coaches challenge instead of forcing them to work the officials verbally and throw tantrums on the sidelines.

6. In what other league would officials refuse to disallow a score when a team had too many men on the field?  That result, which was so dumb that even the NBA had to change the rule, is symptiomatic of the league's stupidity when it comes to rulemaking.

7. The 24 second buzzer should not stop play unless the offending team clearly has possession of the ball. How many legitimate baskets get taken away because the refs stop play?

8. The rules are inconsistently applied with a good deal of bias against certain players. Rookies get called for travelling and palming, veterans are rarely called and stars are almost never called.  The flagrant foul rules are inconsistently applied against certain players with "reputations."

9.  The 4-ft. circle is really dumb.  A charge is a charge, a block is a block. If a guy charges after the ball leaves his hand, the basket is good (if it goes in) but he's charged with a foul and if his team is over the limit, shoot at the other end.

10. Hand checking should be allowed.

It's no wonder that crooked refs like Donaghy could go undetected for so long in such a sloppy environment, and it's no wonder that certain officials have become martinets with the power to take over games and ruin the quality of play, as happened in Utah two nights ago.

NBA can not do an NFL style of replay.   


The only thing I would add to the NBA replay that exist now is a extra set of eyes that can look at a play while the game is still going on and make an adjustment to the score that does not effect play.  (for example seeing if a foot was on the line during a three point shot made, if so, take away one point)

[liam]

So, why are all our games turning into officating butcher jobs, geared against us instead of towards us, and then last night the lakers shoot 38 free throws to the hornets 19 in an overtime game??? for example, in NO, we shot 22 free throws to the hornets 29, and on our very own home court the spurs shoot 21 and we shoot 11...the fact of the matter is, teams are being allowed to get physical with the boston celtics, and the celtics cant go back at them without the whistle being blown

what is going on?

I know this is farfetched also, but Jazz owner Larry Miller died yesterday surrounded by family, anyway the league knew this was coming and wanted to alter some Jazz games to his favor? I mean thats how truly bad the officiating wass

Kobe pushes Chris Paul to the ground, so Paul fouls out and Kobe shoots foul shots. Really hard to win games with those bad calls stacking up against you.

[Brickowski]

NBA can not do an NFL style of replay.   

Why not?  The officials already go back to the TV feed to review shots at the buzzer. Why can't they review other plays?  Give each coach two challenges per half.  If the coach wins the challenge the result of the play is reversed.  If the coach loses the challenge he's docked a timeout.  If he has no more time outs, he's assesssed a technical and the other team gets one shot plus possession.

You would probably need a replay official with access to the TV feed sitting at the scorer's table.  No big deal.

And if they eliminated the silly defensive three second rule and the 4 ft. circle, you could probably do games easuily with two on the floor, one in the booth.  If the NCAA can get through its tournament with two officials, so can the NBA. 

[wdleehi]

NBA can not do an NFL style of replay.   

Why not?  The officials already go back to the TV feed to review shots at the buzzer. Why can't they review other plays?  Give each coach two challenges per half.  If the coach wins the challenge the result of the play is reversed.  If the coach loses the challenge he's docked a timeout.  If he has no more time outs, he's assesssed a technical and the other team gets one shot plus possession.

You would probably need a replay official with access to the TV feed sitting at the scorer's table.  No big deal.

And if they eliminated the silly defensive three second rule and the 4 ft. circle, you could probably do games easuily with two on the floor, one in the booth.  If the NCAA can get through its tournament with two officials, so can the NBA. 

So if a play is revered, do they go back to that point in time and replay the game from there?  What if it causes a change in possession?  Or causes someone to foul out?

And how does that not slow the game down and kill the momentum of the game?