NBA officiating credibility

[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....

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.

I suppose the team that's up could get lazy and play reaching defense instead of feet-moving defense.....
Still, there can never be enough training towards the end of producing un-biased reffing...since it's a constant danger inherent in the line of work....

[looseball]

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....

I would be in favor of this approach also.  Like in the Orlando series when Howard was grabbing KG and KG was knocking his hand away, a warning could have preceded a foul call.

[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.

I suppose the team that's up could get lazy and play reaching defense instead of feet-moving defense.....
Still, there can never be enough training towards the end of producing un-biased reffing...since it's a constant danger inherent in the line of work....

Absolutely, it is certainly a danger.  But to me, I just think they should be concentrating first on learning how to make the right calls in general, regardless of bias, and once they master that, then they can worry about whether there are biases.  I just think the refs are not good.

[looseball]

.....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.

I suppose the team that's up could get lazy and play reaching defense instead of feet-moving defense.....
Still, there can never be enough training towards the end of producing un-biased reffing...since it's a constant danger inherent in the line of work....

Absolutely, it is certainly a danger.  But to me, I just think they should be concentrating first on learning how to make the right calls in general, regardless of bias, and once they master that, then they can worry about whether there are biases.  I just think the refs are not good.

In baseball the vast majority of close calls come on balls and strikes.  But umpires develop a reputation as a low ball or high ball ump, or big strike zone or squeezer, etc.  This way the players can adapt to the ump's style somewhat.  The worst umps are the erratic ones.

In basketball it would be nice to see refs develop a reputation as one who tends to call a lot of charges, or one who tends to call blocking fouls, ones who call it tight, ones who let "em play, etc.  This way you could ajust your game to the style of the ref.
But I think they must get orders to call a game a certain way, which makes all the refs erratic, which is the worst case scenario.

[Cman]

A suggestion to those who think officiating in the NBA is a joke:

Send the NBA a message about it:
http://www.nba.com/email_us/contact_us.html
(I just did  )

The drop down menu for subject line includes "officiating" .

Will this help much?  Probably not.  But I'm sure there is some zen saying out there how drops of water become a flood or something like that...

FYI, here's the stock response you'll get:

Dear NAME,

Thank you for contacting the National Basketball Association with your concerns regarding officiating.  The NBA’s highest priority is to ensure that every game is determined on its merits, thus providing its fans with a truly fair and competitive league.

We take seriously the performance of our officials.  They are subjected to incredible scrutiny by the league, including tracking every call they make and holding them to the most rigorous standard in all of sports.  Not only is their past performance measured, charted, and evaluated, but we employ a system of stringent metrics designed to continually hone their skills and improve their overall ability.  We strive to ensure that NBA games are officiated at the highest possible level with the understanding that perfection is an unattainable goal.

Thank you again for your concern.  We appreciate your feedback regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

NBA Fan Relations

[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.

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.

I would like to see the NBA experiment with extensive use of replay in pre-season games. Just to see what it looks like.

Stern was on WEEI yesterday and mentioned how big a fan he is of tennis, and its system of player challenges (even as he worried about extending average game length into the four hour range). I wonder if something of that nature might be implemented at some point. Three challenges per coach, per half. Or something like that. I'd like to see what that looks like.

[Yakmanev]

FYI, here's the stock response you'll get:

Dear NAME,

Thank you for contacting the National Basketball Association with your concerns regarding officiating.  The NBA’s highest priority is to ensure that every game is determined on its merits, thus providing its fans with a truly fair and competitive league.

We take seriously the performance of our officials.  They are subjected to incredible scrutiny by the league, including tracking every call they make and holding them to the most rigorous standard in all of sports.  Not only is their past performance measured, charted, and evaluated, but we employ a system of stringent metrics designed to continually hone their skills and improve their overall ability.  We strive to ensure that NBA games are officiated at the highest possible level with the understanding that perfection is an unattainable goal.

Thank you again for your concern.  We appreciate your feedback regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

NBA Fan Relations

[/quote]

Problem is whose merits and standards and scrutiny are they talking about. Who Stern wants to win and what lines his pockets with the most money.

Deception is what it is because it knows how to look truthful.

[FallGuy]

FYI, here's the stock response you'll get:

Dear NAME,

Thank you for contacting the National Basketball Association with your concerns regarding officiating.  The NBA’s highest priority is to ensure that every game is determined on its merits, thus providing its fans with a truly fair and competitive league.

We take seriously the performance of our officials.  They are subjected to incredible scrutiny by the league, including tracking every call they make and holding them to the most rigorous standard in all of sports.  Not only is their past performance measured, charted, and evaluated, but we employ a system of stringent metrics designed to continually hone their skills and improve their overall ability.  We strive to ensure that NBA games are officiated at the highest possible level with the understanding that perfection is an unattainable goal.

Thank you again for your concern.  We appreciate your feedback regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

NBA Fan Relations

Problem is whose merits and standards and scrutiny are they talking about. Who Stern wants to win and what lines his pockets with the most money.

Deception is what it is because it knows how to look truthful.
[/quote]

People already think I'm hopelessly naive on this topic, but I think Stern absolutely 100% is trying for the best officiating possible. Maybe his measures haven't been effective but I don't doubt his sincerity.

He came of age in the 70s/80s. He loves basketball. Don't think for a second the ugly first three games of this series, and the associated focus on officiating, is in any way his desire.

[ForexPirate]

The only calls they got right are the ones they reviewed on tv.  They are horrible.

[Finkelskyhook]

The title of this thread is in itself an oxymoron

[Forklift]

what i think the NBA should do is something like Football where the coach in every quarter gets to challenge the ref on a call 1 time and when they challenge a ref they lose a timeout.  It would help greatly on crucial plays where a ref calls a bad call and doesn't want to review the replay or if it isn't past the 2 min mark, but at the same time the coach would be hesitant to use it because of him losing a timeout.

[tgreanier]

I think what the NBA should do is stop using officials that are clearly ruining the sport. Fire the lot of them and hire some new guys. The officials, sanctioned or not by Stern, have ruined this league.

[looseball]

FYI, here's the stock response you'll get:

Dear NAME,

Thank you for contacting the National Basketball Association with your concerns regarding officiating.  The NBA’s highest priority is to ensure that every game is determined on its merits, thus providing its fans with a truly fair and competitive league.

We take seriously the performance of our officials.  They are subjected to incredible scrutiny by the league, including tracking every call they make and holding them to the most rigorous standard in all of sports.  Not only is their past performance measured, charted, and evaluated, but we employ a system of stringent metrics designed to continually hone their skills and improve their overall ability.  We strive to ensure that NBA games are officiated at the highest possible level with the understanding that perfection is an unattainable goal.

Thank you again for your concern.  We appreciate your feedback regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

NBA Fan Relations

Problem is whose merits and standards and scrutiny are they talking about. Who Stern wants to win and what lines his pockets with the most money.

Deception is what it is because it knows how to look truthful.
[/quote]

Who "lines his pockets with the most money" are the media and the sponsors.  So, supposing he promises them the finals will be between two big market teams, it will go at least six games, and each game will last at least three hours.  He can make this promise because he controls the refs who, in turn, "control" the game.
It's a conspiracy theory, I know, but...

[bobdelt]

It is what it is, we have to deal with it. The refs are horrible for both teams, every game.

I certainly couldnt do better, and I doubt anyone else really could be expected to. These guys are calling it in real time. It's not easy making calls that quick, I use to referee jr high girls, and it's not easy, there's a hundred people yelling at you and a thousands things to look for and think about.

You can take any game you thought was well officated, put it in slow motion on an HDTV, and find 10+ bad calls.

[Finkelskyhook]

FallGuy said:
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.

OH MY!!!!!

What pre-90s games were you watching to come up with that theory??   It must've been an old all-star game on NBATV.

Todays athletes are faster and stronger.  But the intensity and physicality of todays games are so monitored with idiotic dual technicals, star protecting, and touch fouls.  The game has become so feminized I can't see where you come up with that.  Players are getting suspended for flagrant fouls now that wouldn't have merited anything but a hard foul back then.