Van Gundy fined for comments about playoff officiating

[drothamel]

I'm not sure why eveyrone lements over the NBA game so much. I used to be one of those that thought the same way, but if you really watch the game, I don't think that it is worse than college, just different. The athletic ability of the players that are in the NBA is far beyond that of the college players. The game has to be played differently. The game has to be officiated differently. On average, the players are simply bigger, faster and stronger. It makes a big difference. Of course, there is the almighty dollar factor as well, but you can say that about the college game to some extent as well.

One thing I know for sure is that the play in the NBA is not because of the ability of the officials. Those are the best basketball officials in the world. They are selected out of a group of thousands to do that job. They go through unbelievable amounts of training and evaluation on a daily basis. Look, all of us who post on this board love officiating, but we all have other jobs, other things that we do. Officiating is our avocation. For those guys, it is there profession. It is what they do to earn a living. I know that they take pride in it; you simply don't make it to that level without having pride in what you do. Do they make mistakes, hell yes. They aren't THAT good. But they are the best, just like the players they officiate. My hat's off to those guys.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Goose
Ahh, the NBA. The worst officiated pro league in the US of A.

John, Have you ever watched a USBL game? CBA? Whatever that women's league was that competed with the WNBA? All worse than the NBA. Even assuming that you meant the worst officiated pro basketball league in the US, your statement is still pretty clearly false.

3. This marketing has evolved into the fuzzy area that was once the sole property of the WWF, a.k.a., World Wide Wrestling Federation, who when pressed for explanations, billed themselves as "Sports Entertainment". Sadly, these are the depths to which the NBA has fallen.

Do you have even one shred of evidence to support that? B/c I happen to know a few of these "inept" officials from camp and I know a little bit of the scrutiny they undergo before, during and after every single game. I'm not saying that they're perfect -- b/c they're obviously not. What I am saying is that they are not out there to turn their heads away when somebody is about to get hit on the head with a folding chair. And that's what you're saying they do. Trust me, they don't.

5. The entertainment factor has created several large scale problems though. One such problem is that no one really wants to plunk down 50 dollars to see Shaq, Lebron, or you put in the stars name, sit on the bench in the first quarter with 3 fouls, nor do they pay to see them foul out either.

You and I both know that we hear this same thing in our HS games. So do we give HS players preferential treatment? I don't. Do you? I doubt it seriously. So why do you suppose that the NBA refs do it? Did you get a CC on the David Stern memo about keeping Tim Duncan in the game during OT of the playoffs? Oops, I guess the officials didn't get that memo either, b/c Duncan fouled out of that game in Denver.

The bench in college ball plays a far larger role in the game than we see in the NBA.

Not sure I agree with this. Most of the good NCAA programs go about 9 guys deep on a regular basis, and have 3 or 4 "practice squad" guys who only see mop-up time. NBA teams go 8 or maybe 9. Neither level uses all 12 guys (or even 10) on a regular basis, I don't think.

PTI or Sports Center will be all over it and questioning the ref's left and right.

They question the refs anyway. They don't need to see somebody foul out.

The NBA has merely drifted into the same arena as Wrestle Mania. Is it real or is it fake? I'll leave it up to you.

I can tell you that it's very real to the men and women in the gray shirts. I don't think you have any real evidence that the officials are simply there to stay out of the way, like in the WWE.

It sounds to me as though you just don't like the style of play in the NBA, and assume that it's b/c the refs "let them play" that way. But the NBA's rules are very different in some ways from NCAA/FED and allow players to play that way. The refs just call their ruleset (along with the guideline plays that they are given).

You can say they stink if you want, and we can debate the accuracy of their calls. But when you say that the NBA officials are the equivalent of WWE refs who intentionally fail to enforce the rules or intentionally miss plays, then you've gone over the line. JMHO.

[rwest]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Perimeter players like Michael Jordan or Allen Iverson are not going to foul out. They do not block shots and they are not the last line of defense in or around the basket. If you look at who fouls out the most, these are Centers and Power Forwards that consistently lead the league.

Does it ever occur to people that stars do not foul or get fouled because they make better decisions? MJ used to constantly attack the basket. Scottie Pippen used to attack the basket. Who else on those Bulls teams constantly attacked the basket?

Peace [/B]

I agree that the Centers and Power Forwards are in a position to foul out more often than other players. Also, star playes do make better decisions, generally speaking. But thats not why Shaquille doesn't foul out more often than he does. Its the all mighty dollar. The fans want to see Shaquille play. If Shaq played HS ball the way he plays in the NBA he'd foul out in the first period. He constantly drops his shoulder to knock the defender off the block.

You mentioned Michael Jordan. Do you remember game 6 against the Utah Jazz in the championship several years ago? Utah is up by 1, if I remember correctly. Michael is being guarded by Bryant Russell. He clearly pushes off and drains the game winning jumper. In NCAA and HS that would have been a foul. No basket, going the other way. But not in the NBA because it is Michael Jordan. Don't get me wrong. I believe he was the best to play the game in his era. And as a person I think Michael is a stand-up guy. I just know that the stars get preferential treatment because they put fans in the seats and money in peoples pockets.

I also agree with you that the officials call it the way they do because they are told to. They are doing there job. They don't make up their own calls. If they did, they wouldn't be in the NBA for very long. Nor would I, if I every made it, which I won't, because I would call that foul on Shaq or Michael. I only wish the NBA would go back to calling the game the way the current rule book indicates. I'm sure the rules don't allow for Shaq's lowering his shoulder to make room on the baseline.




[Edited by rwest on May 5th, 2005 at 01:48 PM]

[rwest]

Originally posted by drothamel
The athletic ability of the players that are in the NBA is far beyond that of the college players. The game has to be played differently. The game has to be officiated differently. On average, the players are simply bigger, faster and stronger. It makes a big difference.

Why does the game have to be played differently? Just because they can shoot better, dribble faster, and move quicker does not mean it has be played differently from a rules perspective. Now there will be different plays, because as you say the players are better. They will wow us in ways the majority of the NCAA players wont. However they can do that within the rules because they are better. Just because they are highly skilled does that mean we have to allow them to travel? Does that mean we have to allow them to displace a player along the baseline (Shaq)? No, not in my opinion.

Originally posted by drothamel

One thing I know for sure is that the play in the NBA is not because of the ability of the officials. Those are the best basketball officials in the world.

I agree, however, one of the reasons we are awed by the players in the NBA is because the officials allow them to get away with stuff. Jordan dunking from the free throw line. Many times he traveled. Now, don't get me wrong. I also believe the level of play in the NBA has improved because of the players. But some of it is no-calls as well. Part of the reason the NBA has changed is because the officiating has changed to allow these infractions to occur. I'm not blaming the refs. They are doing their job and they are doing it well. They are better officials than I am and probably ever will be. They are doing what they are told to do. I just know that I prefer HS and NCAA ball better because they call the game more consitently relative to the rule book. I'm not saying the NCAA or HS refs are better. I'm saying I like the officiating philosophy better.

[drothamel]

It is worth noting that Shaq had ZERO points in the first half of their game the other night becuase he was in, you guessed it, FOUL TROUBLE. I don't see the officials really protecting anyone, star or not. Just because there are a few situations that are no-called doesn't amount to preferential treatment. That is the nature of officiating, every play is different.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rwest


I agree that the Centers and Power Forwards are in a position to foul out more often than other players. Also, star playes do make better decisions, generally speaking. But thats not why Shaquille doesn't foul out more often than he does. Its the all mighty dollar. The fans want to see Shaquille play. If Shaq played HS ball the way he plays in the NBA he'd foul out in the first period. He constantly drops his shoulder to knock the defender off the block.

Like Chuck said, do you have any proof of that? I do not see Shaq drop his shoulder, no more than I see people hanging all over him. I see Allen Iverson go to the basket, take a lot of contact and no foul is called. Iverson gets beat up often and no fouls are called many times he goes to the hoop.

Originally posted by rwest
You mentioned Michael Jordan. Do you remember game 6 against the Utah Jazz in the championship several years ago? Utah is up by 1, if I remember correctly. Michael is being guarded by Bryant Russell. He clearly pushes off and drains the game winning jumper. In NCAA and HS that would have been a foul. No basket, going the other way. But not in the NBA because it is Michael Jordan. Don't get me wrong. I believe he was the best to play the game in his era. And as a person I think Michael is a stand-up guy. I just know that the stars get preferential treatment because they put fans in the seats and money in peoples pockets.

I had to watch that play several times, from several different angles on super slow motion to even come to that conclusion. Part of the problem is that Bryan Russell bit on a fake and his momentum was going away from MJ. It is not like MJ took him out of the play, he was already there. Did he push him, probably? The officials had one look at it and they did not have the benefit of slow motion. You said the officials consciously decided to make that choice not to call something on MJ. That is total crap. I guess when you decide to not call a foul in any of your games. If you officiate you have the same decision making process in that split second.

Would it have not made since for the Lakers to win the Championship last year? Not only did they get beat, they got beat in 5 games. The one game the Lakers did win, it took a last second shot by Kobe Bryant to win a game at home. The rest of the series Bryant, Phil and Shaq were constantly complaining. While the non-superstar Pistons kicked the crap out of the Lakers in games that were not even close. What happen to that conspiracy?

Originally posted by rwest
I also agree with you that the officials call it the way they do because they are told to. They are doing there job. They don't make up their own calls. If they did, they wouldn't be in the NBA for very long. Nor would I, even I every made it, because I would call that foul on Shaq or Michael. I only wish the NBA would go back to calling the game the way the current rule book indicates. I'm sure the rules don't allow for Shaq's lowering his shoulder to make room on the baseline.

I am sure any official that calls a game has to make decisions in a split second manner. Basketball is a contact sport. Contact is going to take place. Any good official is going to consider advantage/disadvantage. And yes when defenders are hanging off of a ball handler, I might allow a little contact from him as well. I guess you are just perfect.

Peace

[rwest]

that whenever I disagree with you, you have to attack me? Can't we just disagree without the insults? I didn't insult you. I just gave a different view point. I gave my opinion, which is just as valid as anyone elses. You ask me for proof? I don't have any documents or statements to back up what I'm saying. Its just my opinion. Where's your proof? Do you have any? Probably not. But I don't attack you for stating your opinion. Why can't we all just get along? You act as if I attacked you personally.

If I offended you, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.
Also, I never said I was perfect. I even admitted in my post that the NBA officials are better than me.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rwest
that whenever I disagree with you, you have to attack me? Can't we just disagree without the insults? I didn't insult you. I just gave a different view point. I gave my opinion, which is just as valid as anyone elses. You ask me for proof? I don't have any documents or statements to back up what I'm saying. Its just my opinion. Where's your proof? Do you have any? Probably not. But I don't attack you for stating your opinion. Why can't we all just get along? You act as if I attacked you personally.

If I offended you, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.
Also, I never said I was perfect. I even admitted in my post that the NBA officials are better than me.

Let us get serious for a second here. Who the hell are you to me? Am I supposed to just accept you point of view because you said it? I think your opinion is crap. I think that way because you have shown no basis for that opinion other than it is an opinion. I am not at all mad at you. I do not even know who you are. Do you realize how many people I have come in contact with on this site? In most cases I do not even realize that I have ever responded to any of your posts. You have less than 200 posts, you are not a person I can say posts at any site I frequent and you think I have something against you. Man, you give me much more credit than I deserve.

I am saying this to you because I am tired of hearing it without any evidence. Yes, I just showed proof from last yearÂ’s Final. I also talked about Duncan hand his foul out against Denver (I was not the only one that made that reference). LeBron James did not make the playoffs, where were the officials? The Lakers had two Superstars lose to a bunch of unproven playoff players. Even one of the players got TÂ’d up for looking at officials (literally) and he did not get called for fouls unnecessarily. And I also last summer heard Danny Crawford at the IHSA OfficialÂ’s Convention talk in detail about the NBAÂ’s training and evaluation program. He talked about how they were evaluated on every call and non-call in every basketball game they work. Crawford also talked about what their philosophies are from the League office. I could go on and on about my proof.

Guys like you say this crap (and you are an official) and non-officials will read your response and think, "SEE, SEE I was right." Then they take that very same crap to our levels and think that I did not call a foul on an All-American or some top player that is all in the media, because he is a star at the HS level. Rather than the officials just made a split second decision, it had to be some nefarious reason behind a call or non-call. If it bothers you for me or anyone to respond to your opinion, then you need to leave this place right now. Never come back because you will find problems with a lot of people. I have every right to say anything to you I like.

The only thing I said in the previous post about you was, "You must be perfect." You have to be perfect if you have never missed a foul or violation or passed on something because it did not create much of an advantage or put the team at a disadvantage. I can only imagine what you are offended by on the court if that offended you so much? I did not call you a name or demean you. I just simply said you must be much better than everyone else, because I am sure in your games when you make calls and non-calls, you are not doing so because of some other reason. If you do not do that, why do the NBA officials do that?

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rwest
Why does the game have to be played differently? Just because they can shoot better, dribble faster, and move quicker does not mean it has be played differently from a rules perspective. Now there will be different plays, because as you say the players are better. They will wow us in ways the majority of the NCAA players wont. However they can do that within the rules because they are better. Just because they are highly skilled does that mean we have to allow them to travel? Does that mean we have to allow them to displace a player along the baseline (Shaq)? No, not in my opinion.

Please tell me you're kidding.

Please tell me that you're smarter than that.

Pick a sport. Pick any sport and tell me that the rules are the same at the lowest level that they are at the pro level. You can't because there isn't one. All sports have rules that are based on the level of player, talent, and skill of the players who play the game. Are Little League rules the same as OBR? Are NFHS rules the same as OBR? Are NFHS rules the same as NFL rules? No, no, and no.

The rules always change as the level of play, talent, and skill improve.

[rwest]

BktBallRef,

I agree to a point. But lets take an example. Football. In Pop Warner its illegal for an offensive lineman to move once set before the ball is snapped. Its the same for HS, College and the NFL, even though the skill level is different.

So why should a player be allowed to take two steps in the pros but not in NCAA? If they are more skilled, and they are, they should be able to play without the extra steps. The reason for the change when it comes to traveling, has nothing to do with the skill difference. It has everything to do with the entertainment value. People like to see a dunk or a move in the paint that is clearly a walk, at least by HS rules.

Another example, in Baseball. Is it not true that the refs give a little more leeway to the SS or 2nd Baseman when turning a double play? I know I've seen plays where the SS was off of 2nd base but in the vicinity when he got the ball, yet they still turned a double play. Why give them that if they are so much better than college players? Entertainment value.

One more example....

When I call 5/6 year old basketball games, I don't call traveling by the book. If I did, no points would be scored by anyone. These kids are not skilled enough to play the game without traveling. But as the skill level goes up, my expectations do to and I'll call it more strictly. So why give the Pros more leeway than I would a HS kid if its not for the entertianment value?

Do you disagree with my assertion that some rule changes are made to make the game more entertaining?



[Edited by rwest on May 5th, 2005 at 05:16 PM]

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by rwest
Another example, in Baseball. Is it not true that the refs give a little more leeway to the SS or 2nd Baseman when turning a double play? I know I've seen plays where the SS was off of 2nd base but in the vicinity when he got the ball, yet they still turned a double play. Why give them that if they are so much better than college players? Entertainment value.
[/B]

Reaching way the heck back to my days "in blue," I recall that the reason you let the "in the vicinity" play go are the same reasons you let the "swipe tag" play go. It's about the safety of the player. It's dangerous enough in "friendly" amateur play, doubly so in the pros where the guy sliding into second wouldn't think twice about ending the SS's career to break up the double play.

You seem to be reasoning from the premise that high school and NCAA rules reflect "how the game should be played." Think about this for a minute. What would the game look like today if Naismith's original 18 players had the kind of athleticism and talent that MJ, Shaq, Kobe, and LeBron have?

The rules of basketball are completely and totally arbitrary. They don't represent sacred truth or the natural order of things. They exist for no other reason than to create a contest that is competative, balanced and interesting. Basketball owes its very existence to the fact that some malcontent PE class was bored with gymnastics and other contemporary wintertime athletic pursuits. What is competitive, balance and interesting at one level may simplistic, lopsided and dull at another. The rules exist to serve the game, not the other way round.

And yes, sports are inherently entertaining. If they weren't, we as a society wouldn't have embraced them. The entertainment value that you seem to abhor allows us to use sports as a vehicle for pursuing other worthy ends: fitness, education, recreation, and even friendly debate over the virtue of the various rulesets.

Peace

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on May 5th, 2005 at 05:55 PM]

[Goose]

to JRutledge:

>That is just crap. Shaq and Tim Duncan foul out a lot. These are two of the best big men in the >game and they foul out in big games and when the spotlight is the brightest.

Purely an assumption. IÂ’d like to see the stats. As I said, when they do foul out, it makes news all over the papers and this thread proves my point. When was the last time that Steve Nash fouling out made headlines?

As for bigmen or centers in general, how many times did Wilt foul out? None! DonÂ’t recall Kareem fouling out a lot either, and Duncan is not even in the same league as those two. Again, the issue remains that the NBA NEEDS their stars to stay in the game or there will be a collective 'click' heard throughout the land.

Now, does baseball survive without Barry Bonds who is arguably the best player in the game? Could the NBA survive without Shaq? That was the big question after Jordan left as to who would now carry the torch. This only appears in the NBA from what I can tell. Baseball will exist, and exist on a high level without Bonds, Pedro, Manny, Mantle, Ryan, Mays, Rose, etc. The NFL will florish without Peyton, or Brett. In fact, it just keeps getting better while the NBA continues its downward spiral. IMO it has sacrificed the game for the sake of entertaining the fans.

>Perimeter players like Michael Jordan or Allen Iverson are >not going to foul out. They do not block shots and they >are not the last line of defense in or around the basket.

But Jordan was regarded as the best defensive player at the time, or at least was on the all defensive team many years. I would suspect that anyone that was regarded as such a great defender would commit more fouls. As you have stated, it is the defenders that are/do commit more fouls. But I guess he just moved his feet better.

>Does it ever occur to people that stars do not foul or get >fouled because they make better decisions?

And it just could be, could be, that Jordan was pumping in millions of viewers in the same way Tiger Woods does for the PGA. What would the ratings have been if Jordan constantly got in foul trouble, or didnÂ’t play? The ratings dictate a lot and what makes anyone think that it doesnÂ’t play a part in the NBA.

To Chuck:

>John, Have you ever watched a USBL game? CBA? Whatever >that women's league was that competed with the WNBA? All >worse than the NBA. Even assuming that you meant the worst >officiated pro basketball league in the US, your statement >is still pretty clearly false.

Chuck,
I stand corrected. Basically you should have known that I was talking major pro leagues. Does the CBA even exist any more? I believe my point still stands from the 4 majors. The NBA is the worse. As with the other majors, you see the college ranks serving as the minor leagues so to speak for officials, and when they are good enough, they move up to MLB, NFL, or NHL. Don't know the stats, but it is rare from what I have seen where a great college official moves up to the NBA. If the NBA were on the same level as the others, you would see great college guys fighting to get in. Maybe it is happening, but I haven't seen it.

>Do you have even one shred of evidence to support that?

Are you serious? You can’t actually believe that the NBA hasn’t been billing itself as entertainment. Why even in their commercials, they label themselves as “FAN-tastic”.

>B/c I happen to know a few of these "inept" officials from >camp and I know a little bit of the scrutiny they undergo >before, during and after every single game. I'm not saying >that they're perfect -- b/c they're obviously not. What I >am saying is that they are not out there to turn their >heads away when somebody is about to get hit on the head >with a folding chair. And that's what you're saying they >do. Trust me, they don't.

Look, I never said that they were inept in that they did not know the game. There are other forces at play here and clearly they are in a position to do little about it, seeing that they are literally biting the hand that is feeding them. No one is saying they have to be perfect either and who said they turn a blind eye to flying chairs?

The game is what is at fault here, not the officials. From where I stand, their hands are tied. Given that though, and knowing how politics plays a part in everything we do including officiating, how much political rangling is going on? How much pull do you think a coach has in dictating who works his games? You and I know, that even at the HS level, the coaches call most of the shots, so why would it be any different in the NBA. Along with that, do you think a player such as Jordan would/could have influence on who might work his games? Personally, if he could have called Stern up and said, “Chuck is awesome, I wish he could work more of my games..” Do you think the league would have tried to move Chuck to more Bulls games? Conversely, if Jordan thought Chuck was a bum, and addressed the front office about Chuck, how long would Chuck have lasted?

>You and I both know that we hear this same thing in our HS >games. So do we give HS players preferential treatment? I >don't. Do you? I doubt it seriously. So why do you suppose >that the NBA refs do it?

I know you donÂ’t, but that does not mean others donÂ’t. Personally, this winter, I heard it mentioned that number x had 4 fouls on him, so letÂ’s make sure the 5th is a good one. So, if guys at the HS level try to insure that the last foul is a good one, what makes you think it is any different at the NBA where millions are riding on each game. Face it, I have never been under that type of pressure and from what I know, you havenÂ’t either. So, I donÂ’t know what I would do in a similar situation if working in the NBA. I might pass on a few suspect calls if it meant sending Shaq to the showers in 4th quarter of a playoff game. But that does not make it right, right? If it is a foul in quarter one, then it should be a foul in quarter four.

Then again, remember the plight of one Gregg Kite. Maybe I'm wrong but it appeared when this Celtic stepped on the floor, he was good for 2 or 3 quick ones, whereas Bird, or Mchale would do the same things and got a pass. You also must have missed the recent article that spoke of this very subject where most NBA players past and present said there was a 2 tier system. Surely growing up in NE listening the the Celtics, you had to hear the perferred treatment comments. This notion has been around a long time in the NBA and much more so than in the other major pro leagues.

>Not sure I agree with this. Most of the good NCAA programs >go about 9 guys deep on a regular basis, and have 3 or >4 "practice squad" guys who only see mop-up time. NBA >teams go 8 or maybe 9. Neither level uses all 12 guys (or >even 10) on a regular basis, I don't think.

Again, you canÂ’t really believe that the NBA and College benches are comparable can you? The NBA bench is rarely used for foul troubled players and mostly used to gain a rest. The college bench is used for that too, but in many more cases, a coach has to go to his bench because his star is saddled with foul trouble. Case in point is the NCAA tourney where most games deal with players in foul trouble where the coach is required to coach, unlike the NBA where given 6 fouls, a player is rarely in real foul troble.

>They question the refs anyway. They don't need to see >somebody foul out.

You missed my point. It had nothing to do with a call, but the fact that it was making NEWS that Shaq, Duncan, Lebron, etc. actually fouled out! ItÂ’s like, how could that happen?

>I can tell you that it's very real to the men and women in >the gray shirts. I don't think you have any real evidence >that the officials are simply there to stay out of the >way, like in the WWE.

Again, you are missing my point. The comparison to the WWF/WWE and is it real has to do with the marketing of the NBA. Can the NBA exist without its stars? I think not. Now, can baseball exist without its stars? I think AAA, AA, A, D, etc. level baseball answers that. The NBA has no such mass appeal. Can the NFL exist with out Peyton, Brett, etc.? Yes, and on a weekly basis. QBÂ’s etc. are always hurt and in many cases out for the year. Then in steps a QB like Big Ben in Pittsburgh and the interest never wanes. I just wonder how many would watch the NBA if the stars were absent? In other words, is it the game or the stars that make the game? IMO, the stars are the game in the NBA, not the game. Whereas in College, the game takes center stage over the players and still manages to captivate a nation.

>You can say they stink if you want, and we can debate the >accuracy of their calls. But when you say that the NBA >officials are the equivalent of WWE refs who intentionally >fail to enforce the rules or intentionally miss plays, >then you've gone over the line. JMHO.

Never said they stink/stunk. Again, you are missing the point. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, enforce the rules, and on the other, deal with a league that is trying to appeal to a mass audience.

Now, do I think the NBA refÂ’s could be better? Of course, just like I feel I could be better, but I never said that they stunk. And the reference to the WWF is not a comparison to the refÂ’s in the WWF, but the marketing of the WWF and the NBA. It had/has nothing to do with the officials.

And besides, everyone knows that the WWF is realÂ…


bruno samartino a.k.a the living legend

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rwest
I agree to a point. But lets take an example. Football. In Pop Warner its illegal for an offensive lineman to move once set before the ball is snapped. Its the same for HS, College and the NFL, even though the skill level is different.

Not true. It's not illegal for a offensive lineman to move after he is set. All 11 players simply must be set for one second prior to the snap. There is no restriction that requires them to remain motionless until the ball is snapped

In all sports, there are some rules that are alike. That's a given. But that doesn't man that rules can't be changed based on the skill and talent of the players.

Do you disagree with my assertion that some rule changes are made to make the game more entertaining?

I agree that some rules are changed to make the game less restrictive on players with more talent. I have no problem with that.

It just amazes me that you keep harping on the traveling rule. I can go to any pro, college, or high school game and point out to you, just as many travels that aren't called in one game as another. It's not just the NBA my friend. More traveling violations are ignored at the high school and college level than at the NBA level, based on the way the rules are written at each level. Their rules are simply different. We're the ones who are ignoring the rules.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
The rules of basketball are completely and totally arbitrary. They don't represent sacred truth or the natural order of things. They exist for no other reason than to create a contest that is competative, balanced and interesting. Basketball owes its very existence to the fact that some malcontent PE class was bored with gymnastics and other contemporary wintertime athletic pursuits. What is competitive, balance and interesting at one level may simplistic, lopsided and dull at another. The rules exist to serve the game, not the other way round.

And yes, sports are inherently entertaining. If they weren't, we as a society wouldn't have embraced them. The entertainment value that you seem to abhor allows us to use sports as a vehicle for pursuing other worthy ends: fitness, education, recreation, and even friendly debate over the virtue of the various rulesets.

DAMN GOOD STUFF RIGHT THERE!!!

It's similiar to what I wrote above. The rules have been changed to make them less restrictive on players with more talent.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Goose
to JRutledge:


I stand corrected. Basically you should have known that I was talking major pro leagues. Does the CBA even exist any more? I believe my point still stands from the 4 majors. The NBA is the worse. As with the other majors, you see the college ranks serving as the minor leagues so to speak for officials, and when they are good enough, they move up to MLB, NFL, or NHL. Don't know the stats, but it is rare from what I have seen where a great college official moves up to the NBA. If the NBA were on the same level as the others, you would see great college guys fighting to get in. Maybe it is happening, but I haven't seen it.

Assming your premise is true, there's a very good reason why an accomplished D1 basketball official might not jump to the NBA: typically they have day jobs. Jumping to the NBA would mean a loss of income, benefits and job security for these people. Not to mention some of these folks actually like their day job and wouldn't want to ditch it for a shot at the NBA. But I would bet you not one of them would say he wouldn't love to work in the NBA, if officiating was the only consideration.

As for whether the game is 'entertainment' or not: there's a reason why even low ncaa & HS 'fans' follow their teams. Because it entertains them. I'm not sure I understand why you have a problem with this btw. You might as well compare a production of the Bolshoi Ballet at Lincoln Center to your lowly WWE. Afterall, they are both merely 'entertainment'.