Ange gets into it with NBA VP of Referee Ops after the game....

[j804]

per Gary Washburn's twitter feed

#celtics VP of basketball ops Danny Ainge and Asst GM Michael Zarren had an animated convo with NBA VP of Referee Ops Joe Borgia after game

Good, but it's too late can't take anything back!  

[rondohondo]

GOOD THIS NEEDS ALL THE MEDIA ATTENTION IT CAN GET

STERN YOU CORRUPT Edited for profanity.  Please do not do it again.

[Atzar]

Good to see Doc and Danny going to bat for their players tonight. 

[jpd985]

Where is someone with a cell phone camera when you need one. Having video/audio recording of that conversation would be huge. As a side note when I first read the title I thought Ainge got into a physical confrontation with the rep.

[bcgenuis]

About time. So what will happen the C's get the calls in Game 3, everyone is happy.  Then in Games 4 and 5 same ol' same ol'

Heat in 5.

[esel1000]

GOOD THIS NEEDS ALL THE MEDIA ATTENTION IT CAN GET

STERN YOU CORRUPT ****

agreed, if the lockout season taught me anything its how much I hate this god awful man

[get_banners]

Hopefully Ainge talks about this a lot in the next 2 days. It's pretty obvious everyone in the organization, from Danny to Doc to the players are completely disgusted with the refs in this series. They cost us Game 2, and took tons of momentum away from us in Game 1 (which I'll just say we probably wouldn't have won).

[lightspeed5]

Ainge didnt like the clear path call.

“Danny Ainge stood in the hallway recreating a clear-path foul call for the NBA's vice president of referee operations, Joe Borgia. Ainge slid his feet, and tried to show how the Celtics defender had reached around to the Miami Heat star, how they were far too close to the rim for that call.
"How?" Ainge asked him. They did some kind of a dance here late Wednesday night, Borgia and Ainge, the NBA official delivering his explanation, and Ainge, the ultimate contrarian, challenging the premises. And hey, how could Paul Pierce foul out again? How could the Heat get to the free-throw line 47 times?”

[j804]

Ainge didnt like the clear path call.

“Danny Ainge stood in the hallway recreating a clear-path foul call for the NBA's vice president of referee operations, Joe Borgia. Ainge slid his feet, and tried to show how the Celtics defender had reached around to the Miami Heat star, how they were far too close to the rim for that call.
"How?" Ainge asked him. They did some kind of a dance here late Wednesday night, Borgia and Ainge, the NBA official delivering his explanation, and Ainge, the ultimate contrarian, challenging the premises. And hey, how could Paul Pierce foul out again? How could the Heat get to the free-throw line 47 times?”

hmm I thought it would have been about the Rondo no call at the end and what the hell was Ainge doing at a dance event with the head VP of NBA refs? I dont know why but that just sounds hilarious was Bavetta there as well some type of Seniors night out? rofl

[LarBrd33]

I know the clear path foul everyone is talking about.  Pietrus was ahead of LeBron... then slowed up so he could tie up LeBron.  It was a bad call.  I agree on that one.  Bad call.  The alternative was colliding with him at full speed at the basket... where any inevitable contact would have probably resulted in a "flagrant foul" for Pietrus.   

That said, I don't really care about the refs.  You get some calls and you lose some calls.  Boston has had their fair share of gifts... and they probably will get some in the next couple games.  Whether or not it will be enough to defeat the Heat is another question.

[CoachBo]

In general, I agree with you. In the case of Game 2, I don't.

Here's why: On the bench, I never became too animated about the ebb and flow of calls during the game itself. With that said, you can be certain there would have been a running commentary on the foul disparity coming out of my mouth, and it would have offended the moderators here.

Both of my career ejections, and 90 percent of the 65 Ts I accumulated came when I felt an official was picking winners and losers, either covertly or overtly, and that's precisely what happened in overtime last night.

The motive I will leave to others. The facts are clear, however: In crunch time, that crew was not going to make a call against Wade. Period. Intentionally or not, that crew decided the game in overtime last night.

[wiley]

In general, I agree with you. In the case of Game 2, I don't.

Here's why: On the bench, I never became too animated about the ebb and flow of calls during the game itself. With that said, you can be certain there would have been a running commentary on the foul disparity coming out of my mouth, and it would have offended the moderators here.

Both of my career ejections, and 90 percent of the 65 Ts I accumulated came when I felt an official was picking winners and losers, either covertly or overtly, and that's precisely what happened in overtime last night.

The motive I will leave to others. The facts are clear, however: In crunch time, that crew was not going to make a call against Wade. Period. Intentionally or not, that crew decided the game in overtime last night.

Bump:

people don't realize how completely easy it is for the refs to affect a game's outcome.  It is VERY easy to influence results without drawing a lot of attention, without actually doing much outside the ordinary.  What that means, however, is that the refs have a great deal of power, more than most people realize.  Last night was horrible, but it was just one in hundreds of horribly reffed playoff games over the past 10 years (taking it back to Sacramento L.A).  The outrage being expressed now is very cumulative in nature.  

Fans and a slim few in the media have had enough of a mess that has been created over an extended period of time.  Why was it tolerated for so long?  Because it's very easy to influence a game without drawing too much attention.  This subtle manipultation is simply achieved by various means such as:  not overdoing it, balancing out calls in non-crucial situations, not doing it every game, pulling back when there's a little heat, etc... They may have revealed a bit too much recently (gotten a little drunk on the power), but mainly it's more that time has revealed a subtle, well instituted pattern of undo influence.

I am NOT talking about a major conspiracy with secret meetings, though it wouldn't shock me.  Messages from the top can be delivered slowly and subtley over time, much in the way that unspoken rules get established...  Once a ref realizes that there are benefits to certain teams winning, he doesn't have to talk to anyone about it.  He can, if he wants, do it on his own.  The current situation requires no mastermind.

[Ocie1]

thumbs up