[rainmaker]

Originally posted by LoudBottom


Let me address some stuff thrown at me.

Jurassic Referee: "News Flash:...officials are human...They will make mistakes" then you say "NBA officials however will NEVER make a bad call on purpose due to a bias against a particular team or player."

Okay, which is it? Humans are not perfect, yes? I totally agree... they make mistakes, totally honest mistakes. But to say that these people are above emotion, stress, and personal feelings? Every single one???? They never ever breakdown and slip up? After going through these boards and seeing the individuals who are totally emotional with respects to T's and coach-player-fan interactions... that's a real tough reality to try and swallow.

Read the quote again. It says, "NBA officials however will NEVER make a bad call on purpose due to a bias against a particular team or player ." Italics mine. The part that says they never make a bad call is only the beginning of the sentence. What it DOES NOT say is that they never make a mistake, period. Of course they make mistakes. Of course they are human. But, they DON"T choose which team is going to win and which will lose.

Originally posted by LoudBottom
"Pistons fans think the officials are horrible and biased when their team loses"
Please try and generalize a little more. There are many of us who have lived the better parts of our lives on as court as well... If your saying that everyone who isn't a ref really has no clue what's going on... that's not true at all. There are many of us who love the game so much and to insinuate that all of us out here have no insight or objectivity is really disrepectful. For every Bill Walton, Doug Collins, or Steven A Smith out there spewing crap there are a thousand of us who know better.

You asked us what we thought, we told you. Saying that "fans thing officials are terrible" isn't stereotyping or generalizing. It's making a statement about the fan culture. The word fan is a nickname shortened from the word fanatic. Fanatics aren't known for their objectivity. Anyone who is objective probably isn't a fan.

Originally posted by LoudBottom


Dewey1: "Psychology 101 - Correlation DOES NOT equal causation."

Understood and agreed. Also though "If it looks like a rat, and it sounds like a rat, it's either Krzyzewski or a rat"

Actually, the quote is, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, MAYBE it's a duck." This is different from what you said. Just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, doesn't automatically make it a duck. It might still also be a goose, a cormorant, or a number of other water birds. It's just that the walking, flying, and quacking narrow down the categories, and show a direction for further investigation. If you investigate further into Danny Crawford and the Pistons, you get a cormorant, not a duck. That's all we're saying.

Originally posted by LoudBottom

DBLREF: "You seem surprised. Exactly what reaction did you expect from an official's forum?"

Well, like I said earlier. I was hoping that officials were people too. People that once they take off the uniform were nice engaging sorts that might actually be able to discuss public fallacies with a non-ref. I should have read through a load of threads first... I'm sure I would have picked up on the vibe earlier and not wasted everyone's time.

In another post, you used the word arrogance. Arrogance is the attitude of taking unmerited authority or power onto oneself. This is NOT what's happening here. Our "insider's knowledge" gives us the conficence and authority to state positively that there is no bias in NBA reffing, except for the "bias" against breaking the rules. There is no way to have a playoff bracket without everyone losing except the ultimate champion. That's a form of "bias", too, I guess. There is a "bias" against the visiting team. That doesn't mean the refs have joined together to choose who wins and who loses. When you assert that we are being arrogant, you're wrong. We aren't being arrogant, we are stating something positively that we know for certain.

When Larry Brown quotes a certain statistic that is meaningless, it means he's fuzzy headed, not that there's anything behind the statistic. Just because he's a coach, doesn't make him an "insider" in the ref world. Last night during the game, the announcers said that Larry Brown is the most superstitious guy they know. So when he sees Crawford walk onto the court, do you think that he thinks to himself, "Oh, well, new game, new day." Superstition is a self-fulfilling prophecy. He sees Crawford, and thinks, "Oh, no, we're doomed." and sure enough, they do.

When a team plays 80-100 games over 6 months, and loses 4 of them when one particular ref happens to be working, is that a significant statistic? Hardly. It means that there is such a thing as randomness, and this year Crawford was randomly assigned to the games the Pistons lost.