What would you change about NBA officiating?

[MBz]

I think the entire NCAA season is better officiated, not just the tournament.  They control the game better then NBA officials.  I hate when people say they can't call every call.  Well, the first 6 minutes, officials need to to get control of the game.  Once they have control, the players adjust to how the officials are calling it.

[bdm860]

On that.  I think the league should add  a fourth Ref.  I think there should be a ref on each baseline that does not run the floor.  That way on fast breaks and other plays that switch sides quickly there is already a ref in position to make the call instead of a guy (of any age) trying to make the call out of position while running down court.  The baseline refs would only be able to make calls on his side of half court.  That way you'd still have the same 3 ref system.  

I actually think this is the most realistic fix anyone has offered here.  Not that I wouldn't love to see some of the other ideas implamented, I just don't see it happening.  This I think could actually happen though, because it would also be the easiest to implement, and it's not a complete admission of guilt by the NBA on the way things are currently done nor is it a slap in the face to the current officials (not that they couldn't use a slap).

I hate the star calls too (treat everyone the same) and I hate letting them play for the last 2 minutes (let them play the whole 48).  A couple of things about that though is that the NBA is a business and that the refs do have to answer to someone.  There have been rumors that LeBron or Kobe will go play in Europe, if they stop getting star treatment in the NBA do you think they would be more or less likely to give Europe a try (that is if you thought there was any chance they'd leave in the first place).  Also I'm so much more of a fan of the 80's and before rough-and-tumble style of basketball where much more physical contact was allowed, but the NBA has to protect it's star players because LeBron, Kobe, Wade, etc. are the NBA cash cows.  You need them around as long as possible, flourishing as long as possible, and eliminating a lot of the contact they endure by calling a bunch of weak fouls theoretically helps them with that (they take less of a beating, they're encouraged to drive and make highlight plays, etc.)

I also believe the refs do answer to someone (but the NBA wants the star calls, etc for reasons I mentioned above).  There's been a couple of different jobs I've had where I had to do things I totally didn't agree with.  Policies, procedures, rules, that if I didn't enforce I got yeld at even though I thought it was riduculous to enforce in the first place.  Think of some of the ourageous things you've been hit with, any kind of fees or charges.  Do you think the cashier at the store wants to charge you $2 for activating your gift card, or that the waiter/waitress wants to charge you $1 for the extra side of dressing you asked for? They don't want to do that, but they get yelled at if they don't.  "I see you gave table #2 an extra side of ranch, but you didn't charge them for it, that will be deducted from your check." I don't blame the refs as much as I blame the real ones calling the shots (Stern, whoever the head of the refs is, etc).  I believe they do review the refs calls and performance, but the refs are actually calling the game like they want (for the most part).

[fairweatherfan]

Bennett gets special recognition for making the single most absurd call I've ever witnessed, waving off a would-be four-point play for Pierce and calling an offensive foul in Game 6 of last year's ECF.

-sw

It's still my pet theory that he did that in response to all the flak Joey Crawford got for the Fisher/Barry no-call in the WCF the night before.  Remember that was the very rare case where the NBA publicly refuted a ref's decision (the game was a few nights earlier, but the public statement came the day before our Game 6).

I think Bennett got PO'ed and thought, "that no-call could just as easily be an offensive foul if Barry leaned into the contact - Stern's a jerk for calling Joey out for something that could have just as easily been offensive."  Next night, Pierce clearly leans into a jumping defender right in front of him - Bang, worst call ever.

But that ties into one of my other points - the rules on contact are so ambiguous that the refs have too much leeway to enforce them arbitrarily, and too little accountability. 

[nickagneta]

What would I change about NBA officials.......hmmmm.

How about the refs themselves and any and all influence the league has over them.

I would add replay review in some manner but I just don't know how it would be implemented. Perhaps the coach of each team has 3 per game and can call for one at anytime? 2 of the calls would be for inbounds, three point calls, traveling calls. Anything that didn't involve a foul call. 1 per game would be given to review a foul called. It makes the reviews important and less likely to be used.

I might add a fourth ref. With 2 baseline and two at halfcourt with each ref being restricted to making calls in certain areas. The amount of more accurate calls has to increase. No more Dick Bavetta making a call from half court that the man was in the box at the time of the collision when the ref right underneath saw it differently.

And as I said earlier some refs just have to go. I agree with a lot of the names bandied about and would add Leon Wood to the list.

[the_Bird]

Help me understand something.

In some sports leagues, aren't the referees technically employed by an entity that's distinct from the league itself?  There's some kind of contractual relationship?

Wouldn't it make sense that the refs be employed through an independent entity, and that this contract would have to be approved by both the League and the Player's Association?  I have to believe that the players as a group want the officiating to be fair and consistent more than anything else. 

It also seems like there should be some way of the referees being reviewed independently - an arbitration panel of some kind.  How that would work, I don't know...

[TrueGreen]

I would fire all but maybe 5 of the best officials and bring in new people from college games. I would also go back to 2 officials. Having 3 dilutes the pool of good officials. The third official has done nothing to improve referee performance. These guys are terribe. Anthony Carter almost seriously injured Ray last nite and Ray gets a tech. That's just stupid and illustrates how bad things are.

[fairweatherfan]

I would fire all but maybe 5 of the best officials and bring in new people from college games. I would also go back to 2 officials. Having 3 dilutes the pool of good officials. The third official has done nothing to improve referee performance. These guys are terribe. Anthony Carter almost seriously injured Ray last nite and Ray gets a tech. That's just stupid and illustrates how bad things are.

I don't think we should go back to 2 refs - guys got away with a lot more dirty stuff when there was only 2.  There's a reason the 3rd ref was originally called "The Mahorn Ref" - a big part of it was because there weren't enough eyes away from the ball.

But I would like to see a decrease in the number of double techs - refs rely on it way too often.  Maybe a double tech call could lead to a review at the next timeout to see if it should be changed to a single tech or if there was a foul before the jawing.

[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.

[TrueGreen]

I would fire all but maybe 5 of the best officials and bring in new people from college games. I would also go back to 2 officials. Having 3 dilutes the pool of good officials. The third official has done nothing to improve referee performance. These guys are terribe. Anthony Carter almost seriously injured Ray last nite and Ray gets a tech. That's just stupid and illustrates how bad things are.

I don't think we should go back to 2 refs - guys got away with a lot more dirty stuff when there was only 2.  There's a reason the 3rd ref was originally called "The Mahorn Ref" - a big part of it was because there weren't enough eyes away from the ball.

But I would like to see a decrease in the number of double techs - refs rely on it way too often.  Maybe a double tech call could lead to a review at the next timeout to see if it should be changed to a single tech or if there was a foul before the jawing.

If that's the reason it sure doesn't seem to be working. The NBA really needs to do something about this and soon.

[the_Bird]

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. 

[nickagneta]

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.

[Schupac]

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. 

Good point.  This is the exact reason the NBA doesn't announce the officials until game day.  They don't want teams to game plan for certain officials.  Isn't this tacitly admitting the officials are inconsistent, and their personalities effect their performance?

Some people said they think referees should have a chance to justify their calls... good idea, but anyone who ever watched Ronnie Nunn's show on NBA TV can tell you how beneficial that was.  It was essentially 30 minute review where the head of the NBA's officials would show a clip of someone travelling and then explain why it wasn't travelling.  You can't explain three steps into two.  The NBA has established they don't think their fans are very smart already.

Help me understand something.

In some sports leagues, aren't the referees technically employed by an entity that's distinct from the league itself?  There's some kind of contractual relationship?

That would make sense.  Does anyone know if that is the case in the NFL?  I think their officiating is the best in the world.  I know alot of their officials are judges and lawyers, which I think are the right types of personalities for this sort of thing.  Obviously the NBA has too many games to employ those people, but if the officials were run by an outside party it would probably help the star treatment.

[housecall]

What would I change about NBA officials.......hmmmm.

How about the refs themselves and any and all influence the league has over them.

I would add replay review in some manner but I just don't know how it would be implemented. Perhaps the coach of each team has 3 per game and can call for one at anytime? 2 of the calls would be for inbounds, three point calls, traveling calls. Anything that didn't involve a foul call. 1 per game would be given to review a foul called. It makes the reviews important and less likely to be used.

I might add a fourth ref. With 2 baseline and two at halfcourt with each ref being restricted to making calls in certain areas. The amount of more accurate calls has to increase. No more Dick Bavetta making a call from half court that the man was in the box at the time of the collision when the ref right underneath saw it differently.

And as I said earlier some refs just have to go. I agree with a lot of the names bandied about and would add Leon Wood to the list.

tp for your good ideas...i have given this problem a lot of thought,and your post is very close to my own ideas of what should take place in the future of officiating in the NBA.The only difference i have would be to use the review calls in the last few minutes of a game,so it doesn't slow the game down.Your overall ideas are all good though(imo).

[guava_wrench]

I would hate to see extended replay in basketball, unless it required a timeout by the challenger. I don't mean a timeout if the call isn't reversed. A timeout regardless. Adding more breaks into games is a bad idea.

No matter what we do, the main problem will remain -- the fans. The bias of fans will always create illusions of problems with referees. The fact that fans of opposing teams both "know" their team should have gotten the call on the same close play shows how silly this gets.

[the_Bird]

Fundamentally, I would like the NBA to announce that the goal of NBA officiating is for plays to be called the same regardless of who the officials are.  I don't think they really do that.  Even if the rules are written in such a way that leaves discretion in what is and is not to be called, the league can impose some standards.  Start by collecting all the data, see what calls the officials do and do not make, and then work on getting the officials as a group to call the same play the same way.  If Benny Salvatore's too stubborn to call the game the way that other officials call it, replace him.

The goal *should be* consistency.  I should never see a particular official out there and know ahead of time that the game's going to be particular physical, or whatever; let's see the league emphasize consistency in the enforcement of the rules.

I'd also like information to be made public about the officials' ratings and/or particular games.  There can be a lag; if they want to release information about a game 30 days after it's played, that's fine, we don't want the officiating to be THE story - but sunshine's the best disinfectant, you know?  Let's see how officials are actually being rated.