NBA officiating credibility

[LB3533]

Replay is confirming how bad the officiating always has been.

3 Over turned calls after replaying each.

How many calls throughout the course of an entire game should have been "over turned"?

[nyceltsfan]

Replay is confirming how bad the officiating always has been.

3 Over turned calls after replaying each.

How many calls throughout the course of an entire game should have been "over turned"?

How about the foul on Big Baby in the first half when Kobe drove to the rim and clearly took at least 3 steps?

[wiley]

The officiating is the same it's always been.

The difference is HDTV. You couldn't see these close plays before. It was too fuzzy. Now, every little detail can be examined, in slow motion, in high resolution.

the better replay technology is the big difference. Does anybody actually think that refs were better in the past? I can't imagine anyone actually believes that. We just now see through replays how hard it is to officiate basketball.

Baseball umpires are now coming under fire because of that one blown call in the perfect game. Human error is unavoidable. If people refuse to accept that an move on, there are continual pointless discussions where people try to blame refs for their team losing, though they almost never blame refs for their team winning (like when the refs call 2 phantom fouls on Kobe Bryant).

I think you're ignoring the overall problem....a lot of us are saying the reffing stinks without talking about them wanting one team or another to win the series.....althouth statistics back up that they support the team who's down in the series....which is already a joke....

I don't know the numbers for game 3 but more than a foul per minute in each of the first two games.....3 hour games as someone pointed out.....zero flow....

As I stated after the first game:  If I"m not a fan of L.A. or Boston, I can't watch this.....not only because it's not entertaining, but because it reeks of impurity (of whatever sort) and control freakism....

[Chris]

.....althouth statistics back up that they support the team who's down in the series....which is already a joke....

I don't know what the numbers are, but just logically speaking, wouldn't it make sense that the team that is down in the series would be more aggressive trying to claw their way back in, and would therefore get more fouls called their way?

[Mr October]

I would like the NBA to drop all the ticky tacky calls that happen while players are jockying for post position.

That area is so inconsistent from game to game, and until the ball is passed to the post player, I really think the jostling should be let go. That would remove a ton of unneeded fouls.

[FallGuy]

Part of what's happening is the game has become very, very difficult to officiate.

Up until the 90s, defense simply wasn't as physical or intense as it is now. Combine that with faster, stronger athletes and the refs, for all their incompetence at times, are almost in a no-win situation.

I don't even really fault them for missing bang-bang calls as much as I do the league for not giving them more tools to get the job done right. That doesn't excuse the odd bad apple, like Donaghy or periodic Joey Crawford egomania, but there is some context here, in terms of the changing game.

[guava_wrench]

The officiating is the same it's always been.

The difference is HDTV. You couldn't see these close plays before. It was too fuzzy. Now, every little detail can be examined, in slow motion, in high resolution.

the better replay technology is the big difference. Does anybody actually think that refs were better in the past? I can't imagine anyone actually believes that. We just now see through replays how hard it is to officiate basketball.

Baseball umpires are now coming under fire because of that one blown call in the perfect game. Human error is unavoidable. If people refuse to accept that an move on, there are continual pointless discussions where people try to blame refs for their team losing, though they almost never blame refs for their team winning (like when the refs call 2 phantom fouls on Kobe Bryant).

I think you're ignoring the overall problem....a lot of us are saying the reffing stinks without talking about them wanting one team or another to win the series.....althouth statistics back up that they support the team who's down in the series....which is already a joke....

I don't know the numbers for game 3 but more than a foul per minute in each of the first two games.....3 hour games as someone pointed out.....zero flow....

As I stated after the first game:  If I"m not a fan of L.A. or Boston, I can't watch this.....not only because it's not entertaining, but because it reeks of impurity (of whatever sort) and control freakism....

I don't understand what you are saying is the real problem.  Are you saying they are calling too many fouls?

What is funny about people making that complaint is how many plays lead to fans complaining about non-calls.

The number 1 problem is the style of play in the finals. The person we can blame for the way they call the game is Pat Riley (from his Knicks days). If refs swallow their whistles, we get really ugly basketball with people just mauling one another.

There are always many foul calls on clean plays, and there always will be unless we remove fouls from the rulebook. Anyone who has ever played a game with refs has been a victim at one point. One the other hand, I can remember going to the line many times when I'm not sure I was really fouled and I also remember getting hammered and not getting calls.

The NBA has never claimed that the refs don't miss calls, so I don't see a credibility problem. This is because I am aware that it really is impossible to call a game without missing many calls, either by commission or omission. I too feel frustration when my team is harmed by a missed call (and I am happy when we benefit from a missed call), but I cannot relate to those who feel anger because such mistakes are expected in any sport that uses human referees.

[guava_wrench]

I would like the NBA to drop all the ticky tacky calls that happen while players are jockying for post position.

That area is so inconsistent from game to game, and until the ball is passed to the post player, I really think the jostling should be let go. That would remove a ton of unneeded fouls.

There will be gross abuse of such leniency. The line between ticky-tack and more substantial is hard to discern in real time. Look at a player like Artest in the post. He does some extreme things when he thinks he can get away with it.

[guava_wrench]

Part of what's happening is the game has become very, very difficult to officiate.

Up until the 90s, defense simply wasn't as physical or intense as it is now. Combine that with faster, stronger athletes and the refs, for all their incompetence at times, are almost in a no-win situation.

I don't even really fault them for missing bang-bang calls as much as I do the league for not giving them more tools to get the job done right. That doesn't excuse the odd bad apple, like Donaghy or periodic Joey Crawford egomania, but there is some context here, in terms of the changing game.

I was typing something very similar at the same time. The Pat Riley Knicks era showed how bad the NBA can be if we just let the players do what they want. Remember the straight arm hand checks in the playoffs the year before they modified the rule. Brutally ugly basketball.

[looseball]

The officiating is the same it's always been.

The difference is HDTV. You couldn't see these close plays before. It was too fuzzy. Now, every little detail can be examined, in slow motion, in high resolution.

the better replay technology is the big difference. Does anybody actually think that refs were better in the past? I can't imagine anyone actually believes that. We just now see through replays how hard it is to officiate basketball.

Baseball umpires are now coming under fire because of that one blown call in the perfect game. Human error is unavoidable. If people refuse to accept that an move on, there are continual pointless discussions where people try to blame refs for their team losing, though they almost never blame refs for their team winning (like when the refs call 2 phantom fouls on Kobe Bryant).

I think you're ignoring the overall problem....a lot of us are saying the reffing stinks without talking about them wanting one team or another to win the series.....althouth statistics back up that they support the team who's down in the series....which is already a joke....

I don't know the numbers for game 3 but more than a foul per minute in each of the first two games.....3 hour games as someone pointed out.....zero flow....

As I stated after the first game:  If I"m not a fan of L.A. or Boston, I can't watch this.....not only because it's not entertaining, but because it reeks of impurity (of whatever sort) and control freakism....

I agree that "control freakism" is the problem here.

[Mike-Dub]

All I know is complaining and whining about the officiating isn't going to change anything. 

It's not worth it.

[wiley]

.....althouth statistics back up that they support the team who's down in the series....which is already a joke....

I don't know what the numbers are, but just logically speaking, wouldn't it make sense that the team that is down in the series would be more aggressive trying to claw their way back in, and would therefore get more fouls called their way?

I guess that would make sense if by aggressive play you mean driving to the hoop more....but I could see the losing team also playing more aggressive defensively and perhaps getting even more whistles called on them, not less.....Don't remember who posted those stats originally, but it seemed a pretty consisten phenomena, teams down in a series (playoffs) and teams down in a particular game getting more calls....

[wiley]

The officiating is the same it's always been.

The difference is HDTV. You couldn't see these close plays before. It was too fuzzy. Now, every little detail can be examined, in slow motion, in high resolution.

the better replay technology is the big difference. Does anybody actually think that refs were better in the past? I can't imagine anyone actually believes that. We just now see through replays how hard it is to officiate basketball.

Baseball umpires are now coming under fire because of that one blown call in the perfect game. Human error is unavoidable. If people refuse to accept that an move on, there are continual pointless discussions where people try to blame refs for their team losing, though they almost never blame refs for their team winning (like when the refs call 2 phantom fouls on Kobe Bryant).

I think you're ignoring the overall problem....a lot of us are saying the reffing stinks without talking about them wanting one team or another to win the series.....althouth statistics back up that they support the team who's down in the series....which is already a joke....

I don't know the numbers for game 3 but more than a foul per minute in each of the first two games.....3 hour games as someone pointed out.....zero flow....

As I stated after the first game:  If I"m not a fan of L.A. or Boston, I can't watch this.....not only because it's not entertaining, but because it reeks of impurity (of whatever sort) and control freakism....

I don't understand what you are saying is the real problem.  Are you saying they are calling too many fouls?

What is funny about people making that complaint is how many plays lead to fans complaining about non-calls.

The number 1 problem is the style of play in the finals. The person we can blame for the way they call the game is Pat Riley (from his Knicks days). If refs swallow their whistles, we get really ugly basketball with people just mauling one another.

There are always many foul calls on clean plays, and there always will be unless we remove fouls from the rulebook. Anyone who has ever played a game with refs has been a victim at one point. One the other hand, I can remember going to the line many times when I'm not sure I was really fouled and I also remember getting hammered and not getting calls.

The NBA has never claimed that the refs don't miss calls, so I don't see a credibility problem. This is because I am aware that it really is impossible to call a game without missing many calls, either by commission or omission. I too feel frustration when my team is harmed by a missed call (and I am happy when we benefit from a missed call), but I cannot relate to those who feel anger because such mistakes are expected in any sport that uses human referees.

good point about style of play in the post-season....However, yes, what I'm complaining about is the number of fouls called.  Better to have people complaining about non-calls than complaining about bad calls.....That way the game is watchable, has flow, etc...

Of course, it would be almost impossible to switch gears right now.....I doubt we'll get any flow in the 2010 finals.....

So, what I'm saying is that a bit of brutality has to be allowed.....it won't go back to Riley Knick ball proportions because there are new rules since then, but the refs should look for ovbious transgressions against the rules, not ghostly transgressions......

To balance out rougher play, technology could be used to correctly call flagrant fouls, and severe penalties could be handed out......For example, anyone called for a post-season flagrant 2 not only misses the next game, but misses 10 games (unpaid) the following season as well.....something along those lines....

Finally, allowing more fouls will at first create a mess in which players yell and scream that they were fouled, but once they adapt and realize there's a flow to the game, they'll go back to complaining less.  In fact, constant game stoppage (as is happening now) creates an atmosphere where players constantly complain...ruining flow even more...

How else can we remove refs from center stage but with fewer calls?

[Chris]

.....althouth statistics back up that they support the team who's down in the series....which is already a joke....

I don't know what the numbers are, but just logically speaking, wouldn't it make sense that the team that is down in the series would be more aggressive trying to claw their way back in, and would therefore get more fouls called their way?

I guess that would make sense if by aggressive play you mean driving to the hoop more....but I could see the losing team also playing more aggressive defensively and perhaps getting even more whistles called on them, not less.....Don't remember who posted those stats originally, but it seemed a pretty consisten phenomena, teams down in a series (playoffs) and teams down in a particular game getting more calls....

That's fine.  I am sure there is a correlation there.  But I will give you the constant refrain of my intro to stats teacher: Correlation does NOT equal causation.  Just because there are more fouls called on teams that are winning games/series, does not mean that there is a bias.

[wiley]

I would also be in favor of refs learning how to be a bit more like boxing refs, where they are constantly telling a fighter to do this or that or he'll lose a point....

I don't mean doing this to the extreme like in boxing, but there should be a whole category of transgression that elicits a warning before a foul......for example, if Pierce is standing there with the ball, back to the basket with Artest defending him, and Artest puts a hand on Pierce's back but is clearly not pushing or disturbing Pierce's ability to stand there with the ball, then the ref should yell at Artest to get his hand of of Pierce's back rather than call a foul.....this may be a lousy example.....

but the refs need to be very active in general while being less whistle happy....