What would you change about NBA officiating?

[fairweatherfan]

BTW, for folks that haven't read it, TrueHoop did a very thorough interview with Bennett Salvatore a couple years back. Could be relevant to the topic. Here's the main page (you can link to some subtopics within the article)

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-28-286/The-Salvatore-Side-of-the-Story--Referee-Bennett-Salvatore-Speaks.html

[QuinielaBox]

The only consistency about officiating is that it is inconsistent. I like that Block Charge Circle they have set up though. It seems to have helped there. They miss a lot of traveling (especially Lebron who apparently does not have to dribble once he gets inside the 3 point line) and palming (even Rondo gets away with that).

Walker (Antione) and Pierce whined to the Refs a lot back in the Pitino era and that did bite them. I remember an article in the Herald on it when an unnamed referee said certain players attitudes were the cause of "tough officiating" on judgement calls.

[indeedproceed]

I'd make referee regulation completely transparent. Post stats right at the bottom of the box score for # fouls called, the context (score, time), and # fouls called per team, per player. See how many stat geeks find a trend.

Also, make the NBA review every personal foul committed, then post #'s for how many fouls were called when there was no foul. Each referee should have a +/- number, minuses being bad calls, +'s being good ones. We should be able to see those too.

TP4U, IP.

Excellent idea.

Thanks Nick. I think the biggest risk to the NBA (besides the seemingly imminent strike unless the CBA issues are resolved) is that bloggers like us start to really, really look at referees, and start doing this stuff ourselves. You know Stern and Co already know what is going on with each referee, and you know they know which ones are the problem. However, if we figure it out, and it comes from us with hard empirical evidence, its a PR nightmare for the NBA. Its much better for the wizard to pull the curtain away himself, then to have dorthy figure out and discover him pullin some shady stuff.

[nickagneta]

You are absolutely correct there. Teams across the league are complaining about the refs. More and more you hear in interviews the sayings that "we were playing 5 on 8" or "I just told the guys to forget about the calls and play the game" coming out of players and coaches after and during games. This is not just a Boston thing. It is happening leaguewide.

Sooner or later a very intelligent and basketball savy individual will set up a business dedicated to the statistical analysis of officiating in the NBA, break down and interpret the numbers and then sell the data to teams for tons and tons of cash. Stern will have a heart attack but when individual teams start seeing statistical trends of certain refs and starting making the info public, Stern is going to have a public relations nightmare on his hands.

[QuinielaBox]

You are absolutely correct there. Teams across the league are complaining about the refs. More and more you hear in interviews the sayings that "we were playing 5 on 8" or "I just told the guys to forget about the calls and play the game" coming out of players and coaches after and during games. This is not just a Boston thing. It is happening leaguewide.

Sooner or later a very intelligent and basketball savy individual will set up a business dedicated to the statistical analysis of officiating in the NBA, break down and interpret the numbers and then sell the data to teams for tons and tons of cash. Stern will have a heart attack but when individual teams start seeing statistical trends of certain refs and starting making the info public, Stern is going to have a public relations nightmare on his hands.

Somebody should suggest this to 82games.com to track the referees.

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

BTW, for folks that haven't read it, TrueHoop did a very thorough interview with Bennett Salvatore a couple years back. Could be relevant to the topic. Here's the main page (you can link to some subtopics within the article)

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-28-286/The-Salvatore-Side-of-the-Story--Referee-Bennett-Salvatore-Speaks.html

Tp for the link... interesting stuff i hadnt seen this before

[Brickowski]

I wonder how much referee-scouting different teams do?  Seems like organizations are moving inexorably in the Bill James-mode, collecting more and more stats on different things...  wouldn't you like information about how the different officials tend to call games to be quantified?  You might gameplan differently if you know the officials are prone to calling a lot of hand-checking fouls, for example. 

There's no reason other than cost that this information couldn't be collected by individual teams, and I bet you could have a nice little niche consulting business selling this information to teams that were able to use it. 

Of course teams do.  So do gamblers, and if you gamble, here ya go:

http://www.covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/nba/referees/referees.html&t=0

[guava_wrench]

BTW, for folks that haven't read it, TrueHoop did a very thorough interview with Bennett Salvatore a couple years back. Could be relevant to the topic. Here's the main page (you can link to some subtopics within the article)

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-28-286/The-Salvatore-Side-of-the-Story--Referee-Bennett-Salvatore-Speaks.html

Great article. Obvious answers, but fans will still want to villianize whoever they can.

There will never be perfect refereeing in any sport. Umpires are horrible with ball and strikes, but it is accepted to the point that you aren't even allowed to argue balls and strikes. Why not? Because it is unproductive. No matter how much you complain, there are still humans making the calls.

The main problem is the silly interpretations people come up with that Stern wants a particular team to succeed or that a ref is giving preferential treatment. Then we get to see serious confirmation bias as the crackpot fan cherry-picks plays that they believe support their fantasy while ignoring plays that dispute their fantasy.

Part of being human, I guess.

[gkiteisscal]

It has probably been said and if it has I appologize. The one thing I wish we would see more of is consistancy.  If you let them play (like last night) great, if you call every handcheck and touch foul (lakers game) that is fine, just be consistant about it.  I feel like alot of the time I get frustrated is when a call down one end is a non-call but on the other it is a foul.  I know this tends to even out in the end but it zaps momentum.  I feel like the crew leader should really get his guys on the same page. 

[cordobes]

I don't like certain officiating orientations in the NBA (for example, the way the contact inside the non-charge restricted area is called, always favouring the offensive player, making it more a "automatic shooting foul area", etc.). I don't have much of a problem with the refs that enforce them. Some are better, some make idiotic mistake, but that's life. Players also miss open dunks and commit stupid turnovers all the time.

Too much attention is given to the refs and fans exarcebate their impact on games.

[Schupac]

BTW, for folks that haven't read it, TrueHoop did a very thorough interview with Bennett Salvatore a couple years back. Could be relevant to the topic. Here's the main page (you can link to some subtopics within the article)

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-28-286/The-Salvatore-Side-of-the-Story--Referee-Bennett-Salvatore-Speaks.html

Great article. Obvious answers, but fans will still want to villianize whoever they can.

There will never be perfect refereeing in any sport. Umpires are horrible with ball and strikes, but it is accepted to the point that you aren't even allowed to argue balls and strikes. Why not? Because it is unproductive. No matter how much you complain, there are still humans making the calls.

The main problem is the silly interpretations people come up with that Stern wants a particular team to succeed or that a ref is giving preferential treatment. Then we get to see serious confirmation bias as the crackpot fan cherry-picks plays that they believe support their fantasy while ignoring plays that dispute their fantasy.

Part of being human, I guess.

I'd have to disagree.  I don't think it is a coincidence that the NBA's biggest cash-cow players are the ones who get the most calls.  I don't think Stern, for example, says "I liked visitting LA I'm going to rig the finals for them!".  I do think he has handed down a directive to treat star players differently, or if he hasn't handed out a directive, his not doing anything about it is the same thing.  So while he might not say "Make LA win!", he might for example in 2001 say that Kobe and Shaq are both huge stars who should get some calls... and Chris Webber and Hedo Turkoglu aren't.  You know... for example.

[fairweatherfan]

BTW, for folks that haven't read it, TrueHoop did a very thorough interview with Bennett Salvatore a couple years back. Could be relevant to the topic. Here's the main page (you can link to some subtopics within the article)

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-28-286/The-Salvatore-Side-of-the-Story--Referee-Bennett-Salvatore-Speaks.html

Great article. Obvious answers, but fans will still want to villianize whoever they can.

There will never be perfect refereeing in any sport. Umpires are horrible with ball and strikes, but it is accepted to the point that you aren't even allowed to argue balls and strikes. Why not? Because it is unproductive. No matter how much you complain, there are still humans making the calls.

The main problem is the silly interpretations people come up with that Stern wants a particular team to succeed or that a ref is giving preferential treatment. Then we get to see serious confirmation bias as the crackpot fan cherry-picks plays that they believe support their fantasy while ignoring plays that dispute their fantasy.

Part of being human, I guess.

Yup, I hate the conspiracy theorists, but it's human nature.  It reminds me of the 9/11 truthers on a lesser scale: no matter how much you point out how ridiculously elaborate and contrived such a conspiracy would be, and how many people would have to be complicit in it without anyone ever having an attack of conscience, or telling the wrong person, or leaving something incriminating laying around...they still won't change their minds.

But, there clearly are systematic reffing problems.  Salvatore addresses most of the main points - stars vs rookie treatment, makeup calls, etc.  And he may even believe what he's saying.  But again, human nature comes into play - refs are more inclined to smack down a player who irritates them, or protect a star, or become biased in one direction after a string of calls in the other.  The problem is there seems to be something about the NBA that makes that human nature a constant and systemic influence on how games are called.  Maybe we need to figure out whatever that is ultimately - but more accountability is a good first step.

[greg683x]

Make-up calls irritate me more than anything.  Thinking you missed a call on one end of the court because a player/coach/fans are whining at you, and then compounding the mistake by calling a completely absurd foul the next time down the court.  The players know this happens, the coaches know it happens, the fans do, heck they even talk about it on tv like its part of the game.  Its stupid and Ive always hated it. 

I like a lot of the ideas thats Ive read.  Ive got different one to throw into the hat.  These refs are humans, and I think theyre influenced way too much by the personalities, arguements, and debates they have with players and coaches while on the court.  Players being able to debate calls with referees is part of the problem.  If we have a full NBA season where an enourmous NBA record of technicals is set just to send the message, then so be it.  These techicnals will be called consistently also.  I think its absoloutly CRAZY that a player like Ray Allen will get a tech called on him for something that a ref would tolerate from Rasheed Wallace because if Rasheed got a tech as often as he should, he would be suspended every other game. 

While I do understand that players often times have a right to flip out at some of the horrible calls that are made, I think if some of the changes that were suggested on this board were made (the 4th ref, ref +/-, refs upstairs rescinding calls made on the court, cleaning house with bad/over the hill refs) there should be no reason for anymore tantruming on the court.

BTW (sorry for the book Im writing here) I think the official in the booth is an excellent idea, and I dont think it would create too much of a stoppage in play like everyone thinks.  I think you could work it similar to how the NBA handles situations where they find a players toe was on the line on a 3 point shot.  Theres no stoppage time for review, its done upstairs, and a point is just taken away, and both teams are made aware of it.  The same could be done for personal fouls in my opinion.  I dont think you could eliminate the free throw points or a change of possesion because it would start to cause too much confusion, but you could take a personal foul away from a player.  Imagine in the game we had against the Lakers if a official in a rpelay booth found that Garnett didnt commit his 6th personal foul and rescinded the foul and Garnett got to come back in the game.  We wouldnt get the free throw points or the ball back, but Im sure all of us would have been happy having KG in overtime in that game.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Brickowski]

What's even worse than the makeup call is the "How dare you question my calls" call.

So Gabe Pruitt drives to the basket, get hammered and there is no call. He complains.  On the way up the floor he brushes against an opposing player and gets called for a foul, even though the contact was incidental.  Stars can complain, young players can't.

[Toine43]

TP for anyone who can find out when the NBA instituted the original illeagal defense rule. That would allow me to try and make the point I want to make.