Celtics draw dream ref assignments for Game 1

[Donoghus]

How in the world can the league justify assigning Ed F. Rush to 5 of the Celtics 21 playoff games?

He is essentially your own personal fixer ref on call to fix games for your team.  Bottom line is you are 4-1 with him there and 9-7 with anyone else in the playoffs.

And the Lakers are now 0-3 with him and 12-1 with anyone else.

But that is just "coincidence" and it was "random assignments" that had him in Boston for the critical Game 1 right?

The league had to get you that game to keep up viewing interest.  The crowd was so quiet at the end of the first half it seemed like mass suicide was on their minds as the Lakers played a subpar first half and still led by 5.  It was like "Oh no, we are way overmatched"

Stern must have put in a call because your squad got EVERY touch foul in the 2nd half.  And your personal lackey ref blew his whistle TWICE in the game for the Lakers, only on calls so obvious that he was essentially forced to.

Can you honestly refute any of my points? Why does Ed F. Rush get assigned to so many Boston playoff games and why can't you win consistently when he doesn't?

Why can't your Lakers win when he does ref?  C'mon, enough with the conspiracy theories already.  If you're looking for any type of sympathy or anyone to buy into your claims, you're on the wrong board. 

How come you won't address the Lakers poor rebounding, inconsistent free throw shooting, Kobe's shooting woes, or the Lakers inability to stay with Boston in the 4th quarter?

Address some of that, please.  Can't chalk that up to Ed Rush.

[libermaniac]

I thought it was pretty well officiated.  Boston was getting some touch calls, but the Lakers had a few.  Also, I was kind of keeping tabs on bad calls that went against the C's, just to have a sense as to whether the officiating was fair or not (since I figured the referee bias is usually towards the home team).   

Bad calls against C's:

1) That "blocking" foul on PJ against Odom with < 2 minutes to go and C's up 8 that led to 3 point play, was a clear charge.

2) There was an out of bounds call in the 4th qtr, that clearly went off Gasol's hands, but the refs thought KG had touched it.

3) KG was actually fouled by Gasol on that Posterizing dunk ... but no sense rubbing salt in the wound.

The bad calls I remember going against the Lakers:

1) Back court on Gasol pass to Kobe (I thought it was correct until they explained the rules)

2) Gasol had a clean block of KG that was called a foul

3) Vujacic on Ray Allen ... I couldn't see any contact on Ray's pull-up in the lane in 4th (but Vujacic didn't complain much and replay angle wasn't good, so may have truly been a foul).

Overall, as I said, it seemed pretty fair to me.  Clearly if there was the natural home-court bias towards Boston it was not enough to make up for the 10 point margin of victory.

[libermaniac]

Oh ya, and that 4 point play for Pierce was clearly an offensive foul!  Ask Bennett Salvatore 

[Brickowski]

Therre was certainly nothing as bad as the non-call when Brent Barry was fouled in the Lakers-Spurs series. That non-call was potentially game-changing.  None of the questionable calls and non-calls last night rose to that level, and they were relatively few of them--- plus they were evenly distributed between the two teams.

Mayre LakerLanny can dredge up the officials from that Lakers-Kings WC final in 2002 and convince David Stern to let them officiate the rest of this series.

[Chris]

He is essentially your own personal fixer ref on call to fix games for your team.  Bottom line is you are 4-1 with him there and 9-7 with anyone else in the playoffs.

These are interesting stats...but it is nowhere near a large enough sample size for it to have any sort of significance. 

Where did you get this information (or if it is easier, could you just list the games that he worked)? 

MAYBE if the games he worked happened to all be games when the C's got calls, then you might have something, but based on that alone, means absolutely nothing, because there are WAY too many other confounding variables (like the other refs involved, whether the C's actually played well...in case you missed it, they were INCREDIBLY inconsistent throughout the playoffs...whether they were home or away games, etc.)

Why does Ed F. Rush get assigned to so many Boston playoff games and why can't you win consistently when he doesn't?

Is 5 out of 21 playoff games that many more than other refs?  How about some stats on that? 

I am not going to completely dismiss your claims, because I certainly think the NBA has the ability to manipulate games by putting referees who either have certain habits (I don't think they are biased towards any particular team, I just think some refs call games closer than others, and some are more affected by home crowds), however, in order to have an intelligent conversation about this, I need more than just your claims, and would like to look at some of this raw data myself.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Maybe Rush doesn't give Kobe the ton of BS calls he usually gets and that's why the Lakers struggle.

I thought he did a great job last night, in fact wasn't JVG praising him during the game saying he was spot on?

JVG who has been complaining about the refs all throughout the playoffs.

[paintitgreen]

How in the world can the league justify assigning Ed F. Rush to 5 of the Celtics 21 playoff games?

He is essentially your own personal fixer ref on call to fix games for your team.  Bottom line is you are 4-1 with him there and 9-7 with anyone else in the playoffs.

And the Lakers are now 0-3 with him and 12-1 with anyone else.

But that is just "coincidence" and it was "random assignments" that had him in Boston for the critical Game 1 right?

The league had to get you that game to keep up viewing interest.  The crowd was so quiet at the end of the first half it seemed like mass suicide was on their minds as the Lakers played a subpar first half and still led by 5.  It was like "Oh no, we are way overmatched"

Stern must have put in a call because your squad got EVERY touch foul in the 2nd half.  And your personal lackey ref blew his whistle TWICE in the game for the Lakers, only on calls so obvious that he was essentially forced to.

Can you honestly refute any of my points? Why does Ed F. Rush get assigned to so many Boston playoff games and why can't you win consistently when he doesn't?

1. Before we continue, if you're all about officiating conspiracies, will you admit the Lakers were given Game 7 against Portland in 2000 and Game 6 against Sacramento in 2002 by the officials? Because any impartial fan (I, for example, had absolutely no interest in who won that game, I liked Shaq more than anybody in any of those series, with the possible exception of Sheed, but I disliked Pippen at least as much as I dislike Kobe) could see those games were absolute hatchet jobs, just like I'm sure we can all agree the Miami Heat were handed a title.

2. I don't know anything about assignments of officials. I actually asked you yesterday about whether there was a site to conveniently get all this information. I also specifically asked you if any referee had officiated 3-4 of the Lakers' playoff games, which Boston games Rush officiated. You're not responding to anybody else's questions, why should we respond to yours?

3. Your media point is not worth responding to. Kobe has won 1 MVP trophy and been the best player on 2 teams that made the Finals and the 2nd best player on 3 teams that won the title (2 of which were given by officials). Michael Jordan won 5 MVPs (and obviously should have won more) and was the best player on 6 championship teams, including the greatest single-season team of all time. Yet, the story all week has been "is Kobe as good as Jordan?" and last night, Mark Jackson actually said they are on the exact same level - "two Muhammad Alis" is actually the exact quote. That is some absurd bias. Let's not even delve into the fact that essentially every national media member has picked the Lakers to win the title in 5-6 games. That might still happen, but come on, media bias against the Lakers?

4. Maybe we can't win consistently in other games because every other referee is biased against us. Seems that would be your answer if the Lakers were in that situation.

[paintitgreen]

Maybe Rush doesn't give Kobe the ton of BS calls he usually gets and that's why the Lakers struggle.

I thought he did a great job last night, in fact wasn't JVG praising him during the game saying he was spot on?

JVG who has been complaining about the refs all throughout the playoffs.

Yeah, but that's because of the East coast media bias, obviously.

[jay_jay54]

In case anyone interested in catching game 1 again(rerun),it will be aired on NBA.TV at midnight tonight,according to the TV listing. 

[RebusRankin]

Fellas, can't you see that it was the refs that caused the Lakers to get outrebounded by 13? That the refs caused them to shoot 25% in the fourth quarter? It was the refs that wouldn't let them foul in the last minute too. The refs couldn't guard KG and Pierce last night too.

[nickagneta]

I don't know LakerLanny. For I guy that makes the following claim you appear to be rather clueless as to what unbiased officiating is:

Remember, I am LakerLanny, the legendary internet poster about rigged NBA officiating.  Trust me when I say no one here has even an iota of the depth of knowledge I do on this unfortunate subject.

[TerreHaute]

I am obviously biased, but I thought Mr. Salvatore was subbing in during the 3rd quarter of last night's game. There were a number of phantom fouls on Perkins and other calls right in a row that gave the Lakers every opportunity to build a lead of up to double digits. I mean terrible calls. They did not capitalize. Who's fault is that?

[BrickJames]

I don't know LakerLanny. For I guy that makes the following claim you appear to be rather clueless as to what unbiased officiating is:

Remember, I am LakerLanny, the legendary internet poster about rigged NBA officiating.  Trust me when I say no one here has even an iota of the depth of knowledge I do on this unfortunate subject.

Don't even give this guy the attention he craves - his "legend" is merely comprised of being inflammatory on boards of whoever the Fakers are playing and getting banned.

This guy claimed that Dick Bavetta was not part of the "in-crowd" of referees.  Give me a break.

[bandonox]

I think it's too easy to bring up tommy....
he's CLEARLY BIASED  (and that's one of the reasons we love him)..
but the officiating is at best horrible in the nba.... i think bringing up tommy lends to the idea that the bad reffing debate has no merit,. even though he's correct 90% of the time.. outside of celtic nation he's a caracature.
it's difficult for non celtic fans to take him seriously because the only time they have ever seen tommy is when he was on sportscenter going mental on refs... they think he's a joke. they have almost no clue that this man that has 8 rings as a player and 2 more as a coach is one of the sharpest basketball minds on the planet.....

If this was directed toward me, let me make clear I was not knocking Tommy. It was somebody else who brought up Tommy, I was just responding. My only point was somebody with such an obvious and open bias toward the Celtics would be in a poor position to demonstrate a vast conspiracy against the Celtics. Kind of like how hippies can't be trusted when they claim government conspiracies, except Tommy is more credible than hippies.  

The 90% comment you make I'm not sure about. It depends on what Tommy is discussing. If it's his complaints about calls, I think that 90% estimate is a bit high. True, many of the calls he complains about are bad, but often times, he sees an opponent's foul that did not occur or refuses to see a Celtics foul that did. I would say he is right on more like 70% of his complaints about bad calls against the Celtics. (There are a lot of bad calls, and he doesn't miss any of the bad ones against the Celtics.)

However, if you factor in the amount of times he fails to complain about a bad call benefitting the Celtics, though, the number drops to about 50%. The Celtics get bad calls in their favor, too (that's what happens when officiating generally is not good), and if you're going to complain about bad calls against one team, then as an announcer, you should arguably complain about bad calls against both teams (Tommy does do that on some occasions). Officiating as a whole is somewhere between bad and mediocre but it seems to me it goes both ways.

Now, when Tommy breaks down a game after the fact, I think 90% is even a little low as an estimate of how often he is correct. I agree with you 100%, he is a tremendous student of the game and one of the most knowledgeable basketball announcers I have seen. Granted, I have only really seen Mike & Tommy, the national announcers, the Lakers crew (as I said, I live in SoCal now) and a few other hometown crews on NBA TV, but his knowledge of the game is as good as or better than anybody else's. His obvious bias drives some out of towners away, but the guy's basketball IQ should not be questioned, and if I did not make that clear, let me do so now. Tommy's knowledge of the game has increased my own and made basketball more enjoyable to me than it already is. He is one of the greatest assets the Celtics have.

Now, if the comments by you and/or Bahku with regard to defending officials were directed toward me, again, I want to make my feelings clear. NBA officiating is not good, and at times borders on insulting to the players, coaches, executives and fans who devote so much time and energy to this game. The officiating of the game should be of a caliber equivalent to the game's players and it is just nowhere close. I would be perfectly happy with a 10-year cap on officiating in the NBA and wholesale replacement of current officials.

That said, I am not entirely convinced that games are generally determined by an officiating crew's bias toward or against certain teams. I think if and when games are affected - i.e., Miami in 06 and the Lakers in 00 (Game 7 v. Portland - 37 FTs to 16) and 02 (Game 6 v. Sacramento) - it comes more from the league, which hase a vested interest in results (LA market in finals rather than Portland or Sacramento, hatred of Mark Cuban, promotion of Kobe and later Wade as the potential "next Jordan"), than the referees, who really don't have that interest. Even Donaghy wasn't attempting to affect outcomes for a specific team. He was affecting over/unders by calling more fouls generally (obviously such conduct will affect results, but the intent was to increase total points scored, not points by a particular team).

I do, however, agree, that if an official did have such a bias, it is far more likely to be an official who has been around for enough years to develop a personal bias for or against a particular team, which is why I support "term limits" and more comprehensive review of officiating.

Naw, man... i didn't think you were knockin' him... i just think that any intelligent discussion with a non celtic fan should exclude any references to tommy for integrity's sake, because a non celtic fan will hear one mention mr. heinsohn, and immediately disregard what is said.... in regards to nba officials.

[paintitgreen]

Okay, did some research of my own. I see why you didn't answer any of my specific questions, since they all rip apart your theory.

How in the world can the league justify assigning Ed F. Rush to 5 of the Celtics 21 playoff games?

Rush was assigned to 4 of our 20 games in the first 3 rounds. However, one ref was assigned to more of our games than even him - Bennett Salvatore (the guy who called Pierce for an offensive foul when Rip Hamilton barreled into him on a 3 pointer he hit) officiated 5 of our 20 games. The guy is the bane of many a Celtics fan's existence, yet was given a quarter of our games in the first 3 rounds.

Also, 8 other referees officiated 3 of our games - the two Crawfords, Mauer, Derosa, Delaney, Bavetta, Javie and Wunderlich. That's what happens when the NBA limits the number of officials assigned to playoff games and a team essentially plays the maximum number of games through 3 rounds.

The Lakers only played 15 games in the first three rounds, which means that if any referee officiated 3 games, then they would have done the same percentage of Laker games as Rush did for Boston. And wouldn't you know it? 4 different referees officiated at least 3 Laker games. Dan Crawford, Joe Mauer and Marty McCutchen each officiated 3 Laker games. Joey Crawford officiated 4 Lakers' playoff games.

By the way, you were 4-0 in those games officiated by Joey, which included Game 1 against Utah (where the Jazz shot 30 free throws, Kobe shot 21, and the rest of the Lakers as a team shot 17 more - those numbers do not include 8 other free throws the Lakers took in the last minute due to intentional fouling by the Jazz), Game 6 against Utah and Game 4 against San Antonio (Brent Barry shot). But don't worry, we're not gonna moan about it if and when Joey gets assigned to a Finals game (even though he did officiate Boston's Game 6 against Atlanta in which the Hawks beat won by 3 while going to the line 18 more times (not including any FTs as a result of intentional fouling).

He is essentially your own personal fixer ref on call to fix games for your team.  Bottom line is you are 4-1 with him there and 9-7 with anyone else in the playoffs.

Personal fixer? Really? Let's look at the games. Let's look at the actual games he officiated and not just W or L:

1. Game 4 in Atlanta, a game in which the Hawks shot 27 FTs (again, not including any FTs resulting from intentional fouls late in the game) and the Celtics shot only 18.

2. Game 1 against Cleveland, a game in which, up until 0:30 left in the game, the Cavs took 26 free throws to Boston's 16.  

3. Game 7 against Cleveland, a game in which, up until 0:30 left in the game, the Cavs took 35 free throws to Boston's 28.  

4. Game 5 against Detroit, a game in which, up until 0:30 left in the game, the Pistons took 34 free throws to Boston's 26.

So in those 4 games that Rush "gave" to us, the Celtics' opponent shot 122 free throws to Boston's 98. That's some "fixer."  

And the Lakers are now 0-3 with him and 12-1 with anyone else.

Lakers games officiated by Rush up to the Finals:

1. Game 4 at Utah - I know your stand on this one, but keep in mind that the Lakers made only 14 of the 25 free throws they were given, your ball movement was not up to the Lakers' usual standard (only 20 assists on 46 FGs), Bryant played relatively poorly (13 for 33 shooting) and the Jazz shot 53% from the field. But, wait, the officiating made the Jazz shoot better. And Kobe can't have a bad game unless the referees make him have a bad game.

2. Game 3 at San Antonio - so do you also blame Rush for the Lakers losing by 19?

But that is just "coincidence" and it was "random assignments" that had him in Boston for the critical Game 1 right?

Yeah. It was. The NBA picks those refs whom it thinks are the most deserving of officiating the Finals. Then they pick them randomly. Obviously, for some reason, they love Eddie Rush, Bennett Salvatore, Joey Crawford, Dick Bavetta, et al. We hate most of them just as much as you do.

The league had to get you that game to keep up viewing interest.  The crowd was so quiet at the end of the first half it seemed like mass suicide was on their minds as the Lakers played a subpar first half and still led by 5.  It was like "Oh no, we are way overmatched"

1. Were you at the game? Because I watched it on TV, and didn't hear much crowd noise at all, yet every time a whistle blew the players didn't respond because, according to the commentators, it was so [dang] loud. So how do you know how quiet or loud it was at the end of the first half?

2. It didn't look that subpar for the Lakers. Kobe, yes, but there was a point when your supporting players were 8-13 on the game, and their ball movement was pretty good. Not to mention, maybe, just maybe, the best defense in the league can make an offense look inefficient.

3. I'll admit, I think a lot of Boston fans were surprised at how talented the Lakers were. But the crowd's feelings about the game have absolutely nothing to do with the players' feelings about the game. Obviously, Pierce, who was 1 for 4 in the first half with 3 points, saw something he could take advantage of. Wait a minute. He missed his shots in the first half and made them in the second. The league must have changed the rims when nobody was looking, making it bigger for Pierce.

Dude, it was just a tight game. Don't forget that the Celtics took the lead back within a minute of the start of the 3rd, and the only time the whistle blew in those 45 seconds (one Paul Pierce layup, one missed Odom 3, one Pierce 3, one Pierce free throw) was when Radman obviously ran into Pierce on a 3 point attempt. I forgot, that should have been an offensive foul. The next couple of calls were phantom (dare I say "touch") fouls on Perk, including the aforementioned dive into his leg by Fisher.

Face it, your team didn't bring it when they had to and lost because of it. It wasn't officiating, it wasn't conspiracy, it was good Celtics defense, the Celtics' advantage on the glass, and the Lakers failing to make shots.

Stern must have put in a call because your squad got EVERY touch foul in the 2nd half.  And your personal lackey ref blew his whistle TWICE in the game for the Lakers, only on calls so obvious that he was essentially forced to.

Interesting that we can point to numerous specific bad calls but you are not pointing out specific calls, just making a blanket statement that "you guys got all the calls" and "Rush must hate the Lakers because we lost three games he officiated." No real mention of which calls were wrong (obviously there were some, libermaniac mentioned a few). Oh, yeah, and "Rush only blew the whistle twice for LA" - okay, when should he have blown the whistle?

Can you honestly refute any of my points? Why does Ed F. Rush get assigned to so many Boston playoff games and why can't you win consistently when he doesn't?

He officiated 4 of our games at home. We were 4-0 in those games. We are also 7-1 at home when he doesn't officiate our games. Maybe it's not about who's officiating, and a little more about how our team plays at home. Meanwhile, RUsh has not officiated any of your games at home, only road games. The 0-3 is not exactly earth-shattering.

1. Before we continue, if you're all about officiating conspiracies, will you admit the Lakers were given Game 7 against Portland in 2000 and Game 6 against Sacramento in 2002 by the officials? Because any impartial fan (I, for example, had absolutely no interest in who won that game, I liked Shaq more than anybody in any of those series, with the possible exception of Sheed, but I disliked Pippen at least as much as I dislike Kobe) could see those games were absolute hatchet jobs, just like I'm sure we can all agree the Miami Heat were handed a title.

I would absolutely love your answer to this. 2 of the biggest 3 hatchet jobs in the past ten years gave titles to the Lakers. Mr. Impartial Officiating Expert, at least admit the Lakers benefited from officiating "conspiracies" those years if you're going to make these absurd statements.

2. I don't know anything about assignments of officials. I actually asked you yesterday about whether there was a site to conveniently get all this information. I also specifically asked you if any referee had officiated 3-4 of the Lakers' playoff games, which Boston games Rush officiated. You're not responding to anybody else's questions, why should we respond to yours?

Given the answers to those questions, I see why you didn't respond.