Game 4 Referee's Bulls Fans

[Chris]

The officiating was fine in that game.

I don't think it was fine...but I think it was equally bad for both teams.

[jdpapa3]

Two Chicago natives and the guy who has bad blood with Doc doing a must win game for Chicago?  Wow. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore. I have little to no doubt about the conspiracy possibilities at this point. These embarrassing assignments make me think that it is Stern behind the whole thing.

[QuinielaBox]

The officiating was fine in that game.

Agreed. We just blew it.
Come on, people, live with it.
This team is not as dangerous
without Kevin Garnett.
I'm already looking forward to
next season. This wasn't meant
to be. Sad, but true.

I'M NOT GIVING UP ON THIS 2009 PLAYOFF CAMPAIGN!!!!! YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER.

[EJPLAYA]

Has Stern not heard of the great advice "avoid the appearance of evil"?! There was absolutely no reason to put these referees in this game whether they called it correctly or not. Bad move by Stern that just fuels these conspiracy theories.

[fairweatherfan]

Has Stern not heard of the great advice "avoid the appearance of evil"?! There was absolutely no reason to put these referees in this game whether they called it correctly or not. Bad move by Stern that just fuels these conspiracy theories.

Agreed - and in this case it's more than just the appearance of impropriety.  This is the kind of stuff that gets studied extensively in my field, and research suggests that no matter how impartial the refs may have tried to be consciously, knowing that family members are in the building rooting for the home team is likely to have some kind of unconscious influence on how the game is called.  Excluding refs who are from the area and have family who root for one team is Impartiality 101, and the league should've known better.

That said, the refs weren't fine, they clearly sucked - but you can make a good case that they sucked evenhandedly.  We got away with a few plays ourselves (like hacking Hinrich at the end of regulation) and calls were inconsistent all night.  We lost this game, not the refs - but it's still frustrating to see yet another incompetently officiated game.

[jdpapa3]

Great post, fairweather fan.

Excluding refs who are from the area and have family who root for one team is Impartiality 101, and the league should've known better.

Great point. The fact that this happened in the playoffs is just mind boggling to me. If I were commish, I wouldn't even put hometown guys on regular season games.

I have also seen a couple of places where people said that game 4 was equally bad for both teams. Well, I don't know about this. To foul out a few bigs for a big depleted team tips the scales. I don't remember Chitown losing possession on questionable calls in the late game situations.

[Roy Hobbs]

In terms of conflicts of interest, the league should be looking out not only for actual conflicts (i.e., partiality) but also the appearance of impropriety.  Things like this just shouldn't happen, regardless of whether the refs themselves lack bias.

I don't think the refereeing was nearly as bad as people are suggesting, but things like this story just give the conspiracy theorists something to hang their hat on.  If a ref knows, subconsciously, that his son really wants to see the Bulls win, does that potentially impact his call?  I would say that, again subconsciously, there's the chance that it does.

[ACF]

The officiating was fine in that game.

Agreed. We just blew it.
Come on, people, live with it.
This team is not as dangerous
without Kevin Garnett.
I'm already looking forward to
next season. This wasn't meant
to be. Sad, but true.

I'M NOT GIVING UP ON THIS 2009 PLAYOFF CAMPAIGN!!!!! YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER.

I'm sorry, man. I just don't feel
that we have a shot. Maybe it'll
be better tomorrow. TP for believing.

[Chris]

In terms of conflicts of interest, the league should be looking out not only for actual conflicts (i.e., partiality) but also the appearance of impropriety.  Things like this just shouldn't happen, regardless of whether the refs themselves lack bias.

I don't think the refereeing was nearly as bad as people are suggesting, but things like this story just give the conspiracy theorists something to hang their hat on.  If a ref knows, subconsciously, that his son really wants to see the Bulls win, does that potentially impact his call?  I would say that, again subconsciously, there's the chance that it does.

While I agree, doing this would go against the NBA's stance on the refs.  Their point of view is the refs are all completely fair and unbiased, which can be proved by the data they meticulously collect on them (but refuse to make public), and they refuse to even acknowledge any statement to the contrary. 

So since they are in fact clean, it would be imprudent for them to manipulate the referees based on anything but the meticulously collected data on who are the best refs to be working in the playoffs.

By making sure something like this doesn't happen, they would be acknowledging that a bias exists, that they vehemently claim does not.

[Roy Hobbs]

In terms of conflicts of interest, the league should be looking out not only for actual conflicts (i.e., partiality) but also the appearance of impropriety.  Things like this just shouldn't happen, regardless of whether the refs themselves lack bias.

I don't think the refereeing was nearly as bad as people are suggesting, but things like this story just give the conspiracy theorists something to hang their hat on.  If a ref knows, subconsciously, that his son really wants to see the Bulls win, does that potentially impact his call?  I would say that, again subconsciously, there's the chance that it does.

While I agree, doing this would go against the NBA's stance on the refs.  Their point of view is the refs are all completely fair and unbiased, which can be proved by the data they meticulously collect on them (but refuse to make public), and they refuse to even acknowledge any statement to the contrary. 

So since they are in fact clean, it would be imprudent for them to manipulate the referees based on anything but the meticulously collected data on who are the best refs to be working in the playoffs.

By making sure something like this doesn't happen, they would be acknowledging that a bias exists, that they vehemently claim does not.

Yeah, I hear you.  That's why it's importance to go by the appearance of impropriety standard, though.  The league could claim that there's absolutely no evidence of a conflict, while still doing the right thing.  I think that's probably the conflict of interest standard in most professions; I know it is for attorneys and judges.

But yes, you're right: the league refuses to admit that there's a problem, or that there even could be a problem, so they'll take no steps to correct what should be a minor and fixable issue.

[Chris]

But yes, you're right: the league refuses to admit that there's a problem, or that there even could be a problem, so they'll take no steps to correct what should be a minor and fixable issue.

One might even argue that they purposely make assignments like this, just to try to prove that there is nothing wrong.

[crownsy]

Has Stern not heard of the great advice "avoid the appearance of evil"?! There was absolutely no reason to put these referees in this game whether they called it correctly or not. Bad move by Stern that just fuels these conspiracy theories.

This is the same man who put Joey Crawford in a pivotal game that involved a player he challenged to a fight and then acted shocked when people questioned why joey didn't make the correct and easy call 10 feet in front of him for said players team. He's either clueless or incompetent when it comes to officiating issues.

Stern is an idiot when it comes to the integrity of the game. All he cares about is marketing, and in his estimation, it seems like the better marketing plan to ignore problems like this than actually fixing them, as that would draw attention to the issue.

[fairweatherfan]

In terms of conflicts of interest, the league should be looking out not only for actual conflicts (i.e., partiality) but also the appearance of impropriety.  Things like this just shouldn't happen, regardless of whether the refs themselves lack bias.

See, this is what baffles me - Stern's an attorney (I'm pretty sure you are too Roy), as are many of the top league officials.  They have to know that the appearance of a conflict of interest is often more [dang]ing than an actual conflict.  And they would have to know that when a lot of fans (of every team) tend to raise a ruckus over perceived bias, that something like this would get out.  At the very least you'd think there'd be a "don't be seen affiliating with anyone (non-player) with one team's gear on" rule.

[QuinielaBox]

Two Chicago natives and the guy who has bad blood with Doc doing a must win game for Chicago?  Wow. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore. I have little to no doubt about the conspiracy possibilities at this point. These embarrassing assignments make me think that it is Stern behind the whole thing.

We all know that Stern is crooked. Just witness the 1985 envelope drawing for the Patrick Ewing lotto. The Knicks envelope was clearly bent. Also bear witness to the 1997 and 2007 lotto drawings. He is being paid by the Mafia.

[crownsy]

Two Chicago natives and the guy who has bad blood with Doc doing a must win game for Chicago?  Wow. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore. I have little to no doubt about the conspiracy possibilities at this point. These embarrassing assignments make me think that it is Stern behind the whole thing.

We all know that Stern is crooked. Just witness the 1985 envelope drawing for the Patrick Ewing lotto. The Knicks envelope was clearly bent. Also bear witness to the 1997 and 2007 lotto drawings. He is being paid by the Mafia.

you know, we can laugh all we want, and i agree most conspiracy theories are out of left field, but considering all the sketchy things stern has done, up to and including sweeping a official who was fixing games under the rug by forgiving 15 refs for "unfortunate misunderstandings in vegas" and totally neglecting his promise to make officiating transparent in an effort to prove it was one rogue guy fixing games despite alot of circumstantial evidence to the contrary, i fail to see why people act like anyone who questions the NBA's integrity is a nutcase.

I find it just as hilarious as crazy theories when people try to act like nothing crooked or below board could be happening in a league where as recently as 2 years ago we had an official fixing playoff games. what has the NBA done to earn this aura of infallibility that some like to give it when people question its impartiality?