Ladies and Gentlemen, for your reading entertainment--


Rockets' coach fined $100K for comments

JAIME ARON / Associated Press
Posted: 26 minutes ago



DALLAS (AP) - The NBA fined Houston Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy $100,000 - the largest amount ever for a coach - on Monday, a day after accusing officials of targeting center Yao Ming this postseason and saying Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is to blame.

Speaking to three reporters at the team hotel in Dallas on Sunday night, Van Gundy said a referee not working the playoffs called him and warned that officials "were looking at Yao harder because of Mark's complaints" to the league office. He said that Cuban "has been hard on them," and "he's gotten the benefit."

"I didn't think that really worked in the NBA, but in this case it has," Van Gundy said, declining to identify the official he spoke to.

At a shootaround Monday before Game 5 of the series, Van Gundy said: "I stand by what I said. I believe it. I know what was told to me, and I've seen how it played out."

That was hours before the fine was announced. At the time, Van Gundy said he'd only been told not to say anything more about it.

"I didn't expect them to come out and say it was true, though," Van Gundy said.

The series was tied at two games each going into Monday's fifth game, which was to be attended by NBA commissioner David Stern.

Van Gundy said he got a call from his friend who is an official after Houston took a 2-0 lead. The coach said he was told the targeting of Yao was mentioned in an online evaluation from supervisor of officials Ronnie Nunn.

"No such directive was given to the officials regarding Yao Ming or any other player or team in the playoffs," NBA vice president Stu Jackson said in a statement released late Sunday to reporters from KRIV-TV, The New York Times and the Houston Chronicle, the three media outlets present when Van Gundy made his comments.

Cuban, who has been fined more than $1 million since buying the team five years ago, said in an e-mail that the accusations were "crazy" and "an insult to officials." He also noted that Dallas center Erick Dampier has picked up quick fouls in every game in this series.

"They don't officiate individual players differently," Cuban wrote.

Cuban said the team sent the league a list of plays it thought should've been called moving screens on Yao and backup Dikembe Mutombo. He said the league responded that "nine were actually moving screens and should have been called but were not."

"So if anything, he has it completely backward," Cuban said.

Yao fouled out of Game 1 in 20 minutes. He had four fouls in Game 2, when he made 13 of 14 shots and scored 33 points, then had five fouls in each of the last two games.

Dampier fouled out of Game 4 in 18 minutes. He had five fouls in 19 minutes of Game 3.

Both coaches in this series have been fined. Dallas' Avery Johnson was penalized $10,000 for his postgame confrontation with official Joey Crawford following Game 1.



[Edited by drothamel on May 2nd, 2005 at 07:17 PM]

They're saying on the radio today that "an official who is not working the series warned Van Gundy that the officials would target Ming now since the Dallas ownership and coaches had made their statements about the calls". I find it hard to believe that an official would put his peers out on an Island like that but I guess anything is possible.

Anyone else notice how the NBA gets more and more like professional wrestling every year? I'm waiting for the "guest officials" that are actually players from other teams who will jump into plays and score for the team they want to win. Then in the interview afterwards, they'll tell how David "The Commissioner" Stern wanted them to fix the game so the Lakers were in the playoffs. Seriously though, its exchanges between coaches, players, officials, owners, and league adminstrators that make me not watch the NBA at all. The only good thing to come out of the NBA this season is Paul Shirley's NBA Blog on nba.com. Funny stuff!

Do the refs get the fine money?

Doesn't sound like Stern is through on this matter. 1 of 2 things are going to happen:

1 - Van Gundy either shields his "official friend" or says he made it up and gets a suspension or

2 - He rats out the official and next year we see a new rookie on the NBA officials roster.

Sounds like Stern is ready to kick VG out of the league over this too. Let's not forget it's possible there was no phone call, he's just making it all up, but if he's not I would be very surprised if VG protects his friend. It's gonna be interesting to watch how this plays out over the next few weeks, I'm betting there's going to be an opening for 1 coach & 1 referee by July.

Well, between this, the ACC asst. commissioner, and my graduating in a few weeks, I better head to Kinko's and print off some resumes.

This kind of thing has been happening for years, Phil Jackson was the king of media working the officials, and like it or not Commissioner Stern, it works.

Games are called differently after these little sound bites happen.

From foxsports.com
 

Stern defends Van Gundy fine
/ The Sporting News
Posted: 4 hours ago

NBA Commissioner David Stern talked with Sporting News Radio host Jeff Rickard today. Stern discussed the fine handed down to Houston Rockets head coach Jeff Van Gundy for criticizing referees. Below is an excerpt from the interview.

Rickard: A lot of accusations without a lot to back them up. Is that the reason for the stiff fine? Why so much?
Stern: He didn't imply, he said. He not only impugned the integrity of our officials in the league, but he purported to have specific information on that point. When asked, he declined to cooperate.

Rickard: Behind the scenes, had he cooperated would there have been a full-scale investigation from your office?

Stern: Oh, of course. We do that all the time for all of our teams when they raise issues with us. We're continually both evaluating our referees and dealing with questions that teams raise about particular calls, general calls, and the like. The integrity of our staff is an important issue for us and an important issue for the staff, so it's something we take very seriously.

Rickard: He's certainly not the first coach to ever complain publicly about the officiating. Why twice the amount the previous record was set at?

Stern: He didn't cooperate with the investigation. He said he had specific facts. You can't accuse somebody based upon, "I know that this thing occurred because I was told by a certain person." Okay, fine. "Tell us what you know. No." Okay. That's a kind of, ‘I have in my hands the names of three people who" … That's below the belt. You can't do that to our officials.

Rickard: You also left open the possibility that there could be even more punishment coming his way.

Stern: We're not finished with the investigation.

Rickard: What could that mean?

Stern: I can't even imagine, but that's just the way we want to leave it.

Rickard: What are your thoughts on how the legal system dealt with what happened in Auburn Hills that night?

Stern: I'm disappointed, with respect to the chair-throwing, if that's all that happened.

Rickard: Two years probation (for the fan who threw the chair in Detroit during the Pistons-Pacers skirmish earlier this season). What would you have liked to see happen?

Stern: I think that somebody who puts our players in danger like that should serve some time.

Rickard: Any thoughts of ever reinstating (Pacers forward Ron Artest) for the postseason at all this year?

Stern: I always have thoughts.

Rickard: Any serious thoughts?

Stern: He isn't being reinstated, so I'd leave it at that.

The Jeff Rickard Show airs 12p-3p ET nationwide on Sporting News Radio.

Also from foxsports.com
 

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3588876?print=true

Van Gundy isn't problem ... refs are
Kevin Hench / FOXSports.com
Posted: 1 hour ago

OK, David Stern, you made your point.

You don't want NBA coaches talking publicly about the terrible officiating in the NBA. You don't want NBA coaches protecting their sources on inside information about the terrible officiating in the NBA. You don't want hardworking, passionate, decent men coaching in the NBA if they are going to be so impolitic as to point out the terrible officiating in the NBA.
Now, do you have any plans to actually do anything about the terrible officiating in the NBA?

If Jeff Van Gundy can be fined $100,000 for suggesting that he was tipped off by an NBA ref that the league was going to be "looking harder at Yao" in the playoffs — which may very well be true — then what does Mr. Stern propose to do about the unconscionable sixth foul called on Tim Duncan in last night's overtime against Denver? With two minutes gone in OT, Carmelo Anthony slipped and fell — in the same spot that Andre Miller slipped earlier, by the way — and so the whistle blew. Why? Because the whistle always blows. (Unless it absolutely should, in which case it is often swallowed.) And when the whistle blows, everything stops. And everyone looks at the official who only then realizes the gravity of the situation. He has to call SOMETHING.

In this case, the official, having assumed a foul must have been committed, then had to look for a perpetrator and found only Duncan in the vicinity. Sorry. You're gone. Replays showed what viewers and broadcasters suspected: Anthony slipped. So this ref not only blew a call at a critical moment of a critical game, but he tagged a superstar with his sixth foul.

So what will his fine be? How about five hundred bucks? Perhaps a one-game suspension? Don't hold your breath. Lucky for Stern and his beleaguered officials, the Spurs won going away in overtime in what TNT's Charles Barkley called "one of the worst-officiated games I've seen in my 20 years associated with the NBA."

But Van Gundy's Rockets weren't lucky enough to survive the worst call of the night. Or rather, the worst non-call, which — horror of horrors — happened with Commissioner Stern in attendance.

With Houston making a run to close within three in the final minute, Rockets guard Jon Barry secured a defensive rebound under the basket. Since Barry himself was practically on the baseline, it's safe to assume that any defender that swooped in under his left elbow would be out of bounds. So when Michael Finley reached in from the baseline side of Barry and poked the ball free, Bennett Salvatore, Joe DeRosa or Tony Brothers would have to blow his whistle, right?

Right?

Nope. Like the rest of us, Salvatore and company just looked on doing nothing as the ball bounced to Jerry Stackhouse, who was tripped by Barry and awarded two crucial free throws.

According to Van Gundy, Salvatore claimed Finley had indeed been inbounds when he reached in and touched the ball. Wow.

Won't Mr. Salvatore be surprised when he sees the replay. Was Finley's right foot inbounds and his left foot on the line? No. Was Finley's left foot out of bounds and his right foot on the line? No. Were both of Finley's feet completely freakin' out of bounds? YESSSSSSS!!!

So what will the sanctions be against Salvatore's crew for contributing mightily to the Rockets' 103-100 loss? The usual. Nothing.


If Jeff Van Gundy can be fined $100K for criticizing the refs, can the refs be fined for blowing key calls during the playoffs? (LM Otero / FOXSports.com)

Antoine Walker can get suspended for making contact with an official — in what had been the worst-officiated game of the playoffs prior to Spurs-Nuggets last night — and Van Gundy can be fined 100 large for divulging certain details of a private conversation and then not giving up his friend, but when will NBA officials be publicly held to account for doing a poor job?

Stern's answer seems to be to come down hard on the complainers and hope it will distract the fans from the larger problem. But he's missing the solution.

Replay. Replay, replay, replay, a thousand times replay!

If it's good enough to see if a shot was released in time or if a toe was on the line, why not to see if a player was inbounds when he made contact with the ball?

Both of Monday night's horrible calls could have been overturned by replay. Give coaches two challenges per game or per half, or one per game, but give them something. Anything to avoid officials deciding games. If throwing the red flag has already been taken, maybe they could roll a red-white-and-blue ball onto the court to signify a challenge.

Do you think Bennett Salvatore wants to feel like a jackass when he watches that replay and realizes not only did his crew blow the call but that he erroneously defended the non-call to the losing coach? Of course not.

On a play like Finley reaching in from out of bounds, a ref would happily overturn his own ruling and award the ball to the aggrieved team.

Same with those pesky block/charge calls when the refs are always guessing as to whether the defender's heels have cleared the circle under the basket. How many hundreds of times during the regular season does the replay reveal an official's error on this call? Sometimes the defender gets called for a block when his heels are hovering just above the circle, and sometimes the penetrator gets called for a charge when the defender's heels are on the line. It's an impossible call to make with any certainty when massive bodies are flying at high speeds.

So in the pressure cooker of the playoffs, let's just acknowledge that refs make mistakes that television cameras can rectify and use the technology to take some of the heat off the officials.

There's a reason so many calls are missed in the NBA — it's an almost impossible game to officiate. If you've ever been courtside when the combustible mixture of freakish giants and blazing sprinters (and freakish giant, blazing sprinters) all collide in pursuit of a rebound, you know it's simply impossible to have a perfect night as an NBA ref.

So why not help the refs, the coaches and the fans? NBA games don't run that long. There's time for a handful of challenges. Just to get the calls right.

Or you can threaten to run Jeff Van Gundy, one of the genuine good guys in the league, out of the game. It's your choice, David Stern.


Kevin Hench is supervising producer of The Sports List on Fox Sports Net.

This will never happen. No NBA coach will ever be fired for complaining about officiating. Let's get serious. This is the National Basketball Association, not the National Referees Association.

Van Gundy has to do something illegal to get banned.

Or maybe hang onto Stern's ankles as he walks out of the arena.

Questioning the integrity of the league is quite illegal. Why do you think he got fined?

He could be suspended for some time next year if he does not keep his pie hole shut. And he might have to reveal his source for the origins of his comments. If he does not do that he could find himself not coaching for some time. Part of the reason he got fined the amount he did in the first place was because he did not corporate with the investigation of the NBA.

Peace

Being from Houston, I do admit a certain bias, but if complaining about the refereeing gets you thrown out of the league, Van Gundy deserves to be thrown out, right after Phil Jackson and Mark Cuban.

Kicking Van Gundy out would mean that the NBA cares somewhat about the integrity of the game. This won't happen becasuse all the NBA cares about is putting rear-ends in the seats and shoes on kids' feet. Wow, that even rhymes...sort of. Don't worry, I won't quit my day job to become a poet or rapper.

My name is Junker,
I drive a clunker,
I ref now but I coulda been a dunker
.........
and so it goes.

That's good Chris! Can I use if if I ever cut my rap album? On a related topic (way off topic for basketball, but entertaining) as a teacher, some years I let the students come up with every amusing variation of my last name and write them on the board. It's fun and we have a lot of laughs, and then I tell them that none will be appropriate for the rest of the year except Mr. Junker. It's kind of a fun way of getting rid of the nicknames and such.

No offense, but you guys are all missing the point of the fine and the threat of banishment. They are not for complaining about the refs. They are b/c van Gundy refused to cooperate with the league's investigation of who might have leaked information about the officiating to him.

There is a league by-law (Article 24, I believe) that requires cooperation with any league investigation. Since van Gundy would not reveal who told him that Ming was a "target", he got slapped down hard.

This is not about complaining. This is about defiance of the league office.

Not all of us miss the point Chuck.

Interesting article:

=============================
Commissioner could have more stern words for Jeff Van Gundy

BY FRANK ISOLA

New York Daily News


NEW YORK - (KRT) - Jeff Van Gundy's dispute with NBA commissioner David Stern is not his first, but it could be his last.

Stern is expected to meet with Van Gundy after the Houston Rockets' season concludes to determine whether Van Gundy should receive an additional penalty - incredibly, Stern isn't ruling out a lifetime ban - for claiming that an unnamed NBA referee informed him that the league would be "looking harder at Yao (Ming)" because of complaints to the league office from Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

On Monday, Stern fined Van Gundy $100,000 - a record for a coach - after the coach refused to reveal the identity of the official. Van Gundy was unavailable for comment Tuesday, but people close to the Rockets coach said Van Gundy will continue to stand by his story even if it costs him his job.

"It's funny, reporters who use sources for their stories are saying that Jeff should either give up his source or they are writing that he made the whole thing up," said a person close to Van Gundy. "I know two things: He didn't make it up and he's not going to turn in anyone."

The same source believes Stern's feud with Van Gundy is "personal" and that it dates back to 1997 when Van Gundy coached the Knicks. Eight years ago, Stern summoned Van Gundy to his office and reprimanded him for comments he made after the Knicks' infamous brawl with the Miami Heat during their second-round playoff series.

The Knicks had criticized the league for suspending Patrick Ewing for leaving the bench area even though Ewing was standing 30 feet from the melee. The Knicks, who had a 3-1 series lead, lost to Miami in seven games. Several years later, David Robinson committed a similar sin during a playoff game but was not suspended.

Coincidentally, Van Gundy and Stern have been on the same side when it comes to accusations about league-wide conspiracies. After the Knicks eliminated the Pacers in the 1999 Eastern Conference finals, Reggie Miller said the league and its then television partner, NBC, wanted the Knicks in the NBA Finals.

In 2000, several Miami Heat players made similar comments after the Knicks won a grueling seven-game, second-round series. Former Heat point guard Tim Hardaway even went so far as to say, "no wonder they call Dick Bavetta, Knick Bavetta."

Van Gundy responded to Hardaway's criticism in 2000 by saying, "I think they are attacking the credibility of the league. In 1999 (the criticism of the officials) went without any repercussions. I don't know what the repercussions are going to be this year. I was just disappointed."

Van Gundy anticipated being fined for his most recent comments but was surprised by the severity of the fine, especially after Mavs coach Avery Johnson was fined just $10,000 for berating referee Joey Crawford after Dallas lost Game 1.

It is not uncommon for teams to lobby complaints to the league office about the way certain players are being officiated. Shaquille O'Neal is usually at the top of that list. Van Gundy was merely stating that the league, acting on Cuban's complaints, would be looking to Yao more closely when he sets screens. It was Van Gundy's contention that Cuban's constant bickering was being rewarded. He never said there was a conspiracy against Yao or the Rockets.

In fact, on the same day Van Gundy made his comments, Seattle coach Nate McMillan issued a similar warning after Kings coach Rick Adelman complained about the Sonics' physical play.

Stu Jackson, the NBA's VP of basketball operations, was not available to comment Tuesday regarding Van Gundy's case. Jackson is Van Gundy's neighbor in Westchester, N.Y., and was responsible for giving Van Gundy his first college coaching job at Providence and later hired Van Gundy as one of his assistants with the Knicks.

---

© 2005, New York Daily News.

I think that this is more than just complaining about the officiating. Many of coaches (and a certain owner) have done that and been fined. However, he was implying that the NBA was rigging the playoffs and his team was the victim of a plan to help Dallas get to the second round. That is what is different about this situation.

I have no problem with the league telling the officials to watch a certain player if he is regularly breaking the rules. I know that I have told partners "watch #52 she is doing this or #10 is always camping out in the lane" I don't see how this is much different. The league noticed that a player was getting away with something illegal and asked the officials to enforce the rules.

Maybe, just maybe the league never made that kind of point at all. The NBA reviews tape on a nightly basis. All NBA officials during the regular season (I am sure it continues in the playoffs to some extent) have a meeting nightly with video and conference about good plays and bad plays. It is possible that many plays come up featuring Yao Ming. Maybe he was getting away with things the league felt were illegal.

I always find it funny when people say the league officials turn a blind eye to what the stars do and try not to call fouls in their favor. Yao Ming is supposed to be a star right? I though Duncan was a star as well? Was that foul in the SA-Denver game the other night a good call that fouled out Duncan? The NBA conspiracy theorist cannot have it both ways. Either the league protects the stars or the target the stars. I guess the NBA wants LA or New York to win the championship. I almost forgot neither team made the playoffs. But the Detroit Pistons is a team that has no real superstar and a player that got T'd up more than he won playoff games and this is the current NBA Champion.

:rolleyes:

Peace

Poor choice of words, sorry. I meant the people in this thread who commented on the big fine for complaining. All the people who focused on the complaining were missing the point. Not the smart guys like us, Dan. :D

Many say that to be an NBA official is the pinnacle of officiating, they are the best in the game. Then how does Salvatore miss that call??? Barry gets rebound, Salvatore is lead, becomes new trail, nobody hounding Barry after the rebound, yet doesn't see Finley out of bounds????

I cannot watch the NBA, it is not basketball. It is entertainment. When the best officials in the world continually allow 3-5 steps just to allow a spectacular dunk, that alone tells me that the rules of basketball (according to Dr. Naismith) are second in priority, at best.

The 2004 Olympic games proved to me that the best basketball is played outside of the US and that the best officials are not in the NBA.

Show me a game that does not have officials miss calls, I will show you fantasy land. Officials miss calls. If all officials were perfect, every official would work the playoffs. Also I did not see an angle that showed Finley was definitely on the line. Now maybe there was one, but the angle that I saw the most of was the normal TV view. I could not at all tell if he was on the line and that is not the angle the official was looking from.

If we went by the rules that Naismith created, there would be no dribbling and many of the current rules at all levels would not be present. The game that was originally created has not been seen in well over 70 years.

I have seen many Olympic Games, you really cannot tell me these guys are the best or the system they use is the best. That has to be the funniest thing you have said in this post. FIBA officials, the best officials in the world? :rolleyes:

Peace

Good grief. Whatever you think of the NBA, you cannot possibly think that the officiating in Athens was good. It was not. If you want concrete examples, look back through the old threads in this forum from last summer. It was ugly.

Best played? Maybe, who knows.

Best officiated?

Not by what they demonstrated during the Olympics. Not by a longshot.

If I remember correctly most of the officials in Athens were not even the top European officials. The European pro league was fighting with FIBA about something and their officials didn't come. The officials from Europe were from a 2nd tier league. At least I remember something like that. Whatever happened the officiating was pretty bad especially because they were working 2-person.

I described the play. Salvatore is probably one of the highest paid officials in the world. My point is that being one of the best officials, he shouldn't have missed THIS call. I don't expect these guys to get ever call right, never said that. I would expect an elite official to get this call right though.

I see you didn't refute my comment on NBA officials allowing 3-5 steps just to allow spectacular dunks. That was really my point. Obviously, the rules have evolved, hence the yearly NFHS changes!! NBA officials basically ignore their rules to allow certain events to happen. That's fine with me, the NBA is just entertainment.

Never said that FIBA officials were the best. I saw two-man crews do a heck of a job, consistently, officiating games with the best players from around the world. Heck, I even think that some of the best officials working are in the NCAA.

Constancy is not a word that comes to mind when I think of the Olympics (unless it is consistently bad). The officials seemed to be in survival mode. Just trying to get thought the games. The Olympics officials also let the benches get out of control which had nothing to do with working two-person. They did a very bad job of game management in my opinion.

NBA officials are the most highly trained, consistent & disciplined officials on the planet. If they let players take 3 or 4 steps as you say they do it's because the league wants them to do it that way. (Reread my first sentence if this is a new concept for you.) If you have a problem with how the game is called b1tch about David Stern & Stu Jackson, not the officials.

I agree with Dan on this one. The officials call the game based on league directives. These are the best baskeball officials on the planet because they come out of the best officiating pool on the planet. I used to have trouble watching the NBA, because the game is so different from college. The more of it I watch now, however, the more you realize that it is because of the talent of the players. These guys make very difficult things look very routine.

As for the perceived blown call, even the best are going to make a mistake. If he did blow that call, I will guarantee you that he knows about it, and I am sure that it bothered him, just like it would any of us. I mean, the best athletes in the world make mistakes in the biggest games of their lives, why wouldn't equally good officials be just as vulnerable?

Heck, even the very best players in the world will still miss a shot or 2 every game....shrug?

You've never missed a call?

And if you're going to tell me that FEEBLE officials are the best in the world, I know you're full of $hit!

That's because you were exxagerating so much, we could address it all. I've never seen an NBA player take 5 steps and dunk the ball. Yes, they allow an extra step but so does the NCAA.

NBA officials DO NOT ignore the rules. The officiate the game by NBA rules and the follow the philosophy of the NBA. If you were in the NBA, not that you ever will be, you would call the game the exact same way that they do.

You obviously never saw James Worthy play, then. ;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B]That's because you were exxagerating so much, we could address it all. I've never seen an NBA player take 5 steps and dunk the ball. Yes, they allow an extra step but so does the NCAA.


So the NCAA allows a step too, huh? I'd be interested in seeing what the average travel calls per game is between the NCAA and the NBA. I rarely see an NCAA official pass on a travel call just to allow a dunk.



BktBallRef, if you would have read my second post, you never would have made this comment. No offense taken. I sure did get a chuckle though when those FEEBLE officials called travelling on LeBron after he took 4 steps in preparing for a monster dunk. Tweeeet, no basket!!! LeBron didn't know what hit him.

I understand the NBA guys are highly trained and do what they are told to do. That's why the NBA is in a decline. People are finally seeing it as entertainment and not really basketball. That's a show I would never want to be an actor in. Now NCAA........that's a different story!!

Got news for ya, bub, the NBA is not declining.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
[B]While I don't ofter agree with Jeff, he couldn't be more right here.

The guys in the olympics looked like the keystone cops out there. The average NCAA playoff crew would have been more capable. THe calls were horribly inconsistent. I could never figure out if they would have a block or charge. It was different every time down the floor.

As far as the best basketball....HAHAHA. Yes, the US got beat a few times. With ~2 weeks of playing together, would you really expect a group of individuals to play really well against teams that play together nearly year round....usually with 1-2 NBA starters (that gained their skill here) that have returned home to help them out for 2 weeks.

You also have to remember that several of the best player from the US (like Shaq) didn't come to the Olympics at all.

:) :) :) :) :) :)
to BktBallRef and other GENTLEMEN:

I have some questions about NBA philosophy:

1. What are the reasons (or excuses) that NBA does not use more replays to help the officials, like NFL does?(currently they only use it to correct clock, I think)

2. Why does NBA not make the rule interpretations widely available to the public, like NCAA does?

3. What responsibilities (integrity, sportsmanship wise) they genunely believe they have to the public?

Of course, I know all the cynical "answers". so spare me those. Please help me with some objective insights.

Thanks.

ysong

The NBA is not the NFL, or the MLB. MLB doesn't review anything with replay. Why should they? What issues would you like to see reviewable?

The NBA rules are online on their website. They have a TV network that often has the supervisor of officials on to explain calls, rules, interpretations and philosophies. They routinely discuss specific situations through press releases. The publicly reprimanded an official last year for a judgment that he made. I think they're very public about the things that need to be before the public.

Do they have a responsibility to inform the public regarding internal processes, discussions, and philosophies? No, they do not. Further, there's no reason to comment of the "percieved" injustices of biased individuals, connly known as fan(atic)s.

BTW, I hate it when someone tells me how to answer a question. I reserve the right to answer with "cynical answers" if I so choose to. When you ask a question, you get what you get. You don't get to determine how the respondent answers the question.

NBA?
 

Just my 2 cents plus my old Chuck Taylor's thrown in for good measure.

Ahh, the NBA. The worst officiated pro league in the US of A.

Before bashing the ref's to death for their ineptness, let's look at the bigger picture.

1. The NBA exists not to exhibit basketball at a high level but to make money. The means to make this money is a game called basketball. Those who fail to recognize this little matter, should just stop now.

2. With point one being said, the sole purpose of the league is to generate money for the owners, period. And with that being said, the owners have collectively choosen to market their product in a certain manner.

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.

4. In order to appeal to a mass audience apart from New York City, Chicago, and L.A., the NBA has adopted for quite some time, the mentality of putting entertainment above the actual game itself.

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. So, the stars have long received special treatment. Afterall, the ref's are hardly willing to bit the hand that is feeding them. This is also why crappy behavior is tolerated.

6. Again, in the NBA's quest for appeal, they have tweaked the game, underminded some rules all in the name of money. Yea, the ref's can be blamed for the way the game is called to a degree, but again, they surely don't want to crush the golden egg, nor the goose that is laying them. Everyone wants to see the monster dunk, but who really cares if he took a couple of extra steps? It was fun wasn't it?

Conversely, the College game has been somewhat different, although as of late, they are swinging to the trend of bringing in more money, hence more crappy officiating and more gimmicks to raise interest.

The college game used to be, and for my money still is the defacto standard. The game is called correctly and fairly with little reguard to star power. Some will argue that point, but it is more often than not, that a teams key player is in foul trouble, which causes the coach to actually coach... What a novel thought! The bench in college ball plays a far larger role in the game than we see in the NBA. This is a direct result of the game being called correctly. Guys are gonna foul and foul out and this is seen repeatedly in the college game. The NBA rarely has Shaq or Iverson foul out, and when it does happen, PTI or Sports Center will be all over it and questioning the ref's left and right.

The NBA is little more than the old Globetrotters, only these guys don't throw water on the fans. Well, at least they don't do it as a joke.

In my book, the NBA has sacrificed a great game all for the entertainment dollar which has only dumbed down the game and turned off many avid basketball fans. Then they wonder why their ratings are so poor. Hey stupids, play the game right and let the game speak for itself.

I could go on and on, but it is pointless. 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. But for my entertainment dollar, I'd much rather go and see the And-One mix tape tour than the crappy NBA. At least with the bozo's from the And-One tour, you know what you are getting, and they are quite "entertaining" afterall.

goose

p.s. the professor rules!

Well, the main thing is that reviewable plays in football almost always involve location - of the ball or of players. If the NBA went to replay, soon people are going to want every foul, every travel - called or percieved but not called - to be reviewed.

In addition, football lends itself to reviews, where basketball does not. You always have time between downs in football, while you might go three minutes without a whistle in basketball. With a travel - when do you review a travel that wasn't called?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

BTW, I hate it when someone tells me how to answer a question. I reserve the right to answer with "cynical answers" if I so choose to. When you ask a question, you get what you get. You don't get to determine how the respondent answers the question.

Somebody needs a nap, real bad.

I wonder if Bushref has re-incarnated again.

Re: NBA?
 

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. Tim Duncan fouled out the other night on a foul that was suspect at best. These two players are the last line of defense and block a lot of shots. 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

Re: NBA?
 

Were you thinking of the web when you wrote this sentence? ;)

Ya gotta admit that there is some very intelligent marketing going on. The WWF became the WWE and their slogan was, 'Get the F out'. Same with the NBA. Very good marketing.

Go Nash! Go Suns!

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.

Re: NBA?
 

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.

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.


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.


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.


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

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.

Re: Re: NBA?
 

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]

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.



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.

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.

Re: Re: Re: NBA?
 

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.

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?

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

JRutledge, why is it
 

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.

Who the hell are you?
 

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 year’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 T’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 Official’s Convention talk in detail about the NBA’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

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.

I agree to a point
 

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]

Re: I agree to a point
 

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]

Where have you gone Lou Albano, to the NBA?
 

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. I’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! Don’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 didn’t play? The ratings dictate a lot and what makes anyone think that it doesn’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 don’t, but that does not mean others don’t. Personally, this winter, I heard it mentioned that number x had 4 fouls on him, so let’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 haven’t either. So, I don’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 can’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! It’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. QB’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 ref’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 ref’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 real…


bruno samartino a.k.a the living legend

Re: I agree to a point
 

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.

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.

Re: Re: I agree to a point
 

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.

Re: Where have you gone Lou Albano, to the NBA?
 

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'.

Re: Where have you gone Lou Albano, to the NBA?
 

Look them up. I am sure this is on the internet somewhere. Maybe that information is on NBA.com.

You do not recall Kareem fouling out? Dude, you really do not know your basketball. I cannot speak for Wilt. I was not alive during most of his career. I do remember Kareem and if you think he never fouled out, you did not watch much basketball.

Baseball is a different game. The game of baseball does not change in style because someone is playing. The style of basketball is constantly changing. The NFL changes as players change and coaching philosophies change. The NFL today is nothing like it was in the 70s or 60s. And one of the things that make the NFL and MLB different is the history. The Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers have been around since early part of the 20th century. Even NFL teams that have moved still maintain their names for the most part. The Rams, Cardinals and Colts are all examples of teams that have kept their names after a move from one city to another. That is all apples and oranges.

You think better defensive players commit more fouls? :rolleyes: You just lost all credibility right there.

So are you telling me it was a conspiracy that Jordan was healthy all the time in his career? If a player fouls out it is usually at the end of the game. Players do not foul out in the first 5 minutes of the game. During the Bulls first championship, it was the bench that had an amazing run, not the starters which included Jordan.

It is obvious to me you just do not like the NBA game. It is obvious to me you do not watch or follow much basketball. Stars foul out all the time. I see stars get frustrated and get thrown out for their behavior.

Man Rut, your selective reading makes for unreadable replies you make. Goose said he didn't recall Kareem fouling out A LOT (I don't either!). He didn't say Kareem NEVER fouled out, as you suggest.

Pretty tacky to change someone's statement, just so that you can make an argumentative point.

Funny too, that someone makes a statement and you ask them for statistics and proof. Yet, you make a statement and don't think it's necessary to provide the same proof that you demand.

Shaq and Duncan foul out a lot??? I guess it depends on what your definition of 'a lot' it. Fouling out once every 3-4 games is a lot, IMHO. I guarantee these guys don't foul out that often.

Can someone make a good argument as to why, if NBA players are so much more highly skilled, etc., they are given leeway in regards to 'extra' steps to make their offensive moves (dunks, etc.)

Having met several NBA officials, I can truly say that they're at the top of the class. Their ability to make split second decisions correctly speaks to the difficulty it takes to make it to that level.

Perhaps comparing the NCAA game and the NBA is apples and oranges, but Hank Nichols (NCAA coordinator of men's officiating) recently came out with a memo saying that the NCAA game has become more physical than the pro game. I fully agree with his memo -- the tournament looked more like hand-to-hand combat than basketball. If the supervisor of the NCAA wants to clean up the college game to the NBA level, then doesn't that mean the pros are doing something right?

No one is going to deny that the NBA is about entertainment. And yes, the stars do get a little more protection because imagine the melee that would ensue if a player tried to take your star's head off? Just like in hockey, you'd have teammates readily coming to defend the star.

As for van Gundy, I can see there being truth behind his comments. Haven't we all had a pre-game where we tell each other to watch out for Player X's tendencies, etc.? My concern is the possibility that an NBA official would pass that comment along. Doesn't sound very professional to me, and considering the person isn't working the playoffs suggests that it's a younger official with very little judgment. If true, then this person will definitely be looking for a new job next year.

Re: Where have you gone Lou Albano, to the NBA?
 

The NBA uses the NBDL, the WNBA, pro camps and summer leagues to develop their young officials. Prior to the development of these leagues, they used the CBA. So yes, the NBA does have their own minor leagues, where they develop their own officials.

Evenso, they are plenty of NBA officials who were D-1 officials. Joe Forte was at the absolute top of D-1 officiating when he went to the NBA Joe DeRosa was a D-1 offiical as Violet Palmer who was one of the top women's officials. Zach Zarba is a recent addition to the NBA from D-1. I'd have to look at the roster to give you a list but there are plenty.

As for fighting to get in, some are, some aren't. Many of the D-1 guys make as much or more money that NBA officials, plus the season is shorter. There are more games available and college basketball is a popular game. I'm sure there are many college officials who are content, working the college game.

So yes, it is happening and I guess you haven't seen it. Seems you're not as informed as you thought.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ysong

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef Quote: BTW, I hate it when someone tells me how to answer a question. I reserve the right to answer with "cynical answers" if I so choose to. When you ask a question, you get what you get. You don't get to determine how the respondent answers the question. Somebody needs a nap, real bad. I wonder if Bushref has re-incarnated again.

No, I was here long before Bushref OR YOU, ever showed up.

I don't need a nap. I just don't anybody placing conditions of how I reply to a question.

You are the last person to try to tell me what I have to prove when you stated FIBA officials in the Olympics were better than NBA officials. Of course that is an opinion. When it was very clear that the best in many parts of the world were not even allowed to officiate the 2004 Olympic Games, you really have much nerve.

I did not bring up Kareem. But I used to watch a lot of NBA games and Kareem was in foul trouble a lot. Especially when they played the Celtics and he had to go up against Hakeem and other up and coming Centers in the league at that time.

Well we are not using your definition. I bet you that Shaq fouled out at least 10 times this year. Shaq only played in 73 games. He led the Heat this year in fouls with 3.60 per game. Dwayne Wade the other superstar averaged 3.00 fouls per game. Udonis Haslem was the second highest on the Heat team with 3.30 fouls per game. Eddie Jones was next with 3.10 on the Heat team.

When I looked at the Spurs, Tim Duncan had 2.20 Fouls per game in 66 games. There were two players that averaged more. The top fouler was Rasho Nesterovic with 3.00 a Center on the Spurs.

What does this mean, well that depends? It clearly shows on these two teams who the superstars are the front line players they fouled more. If you look at the other players, you will see that in general the guards for the most part did not foul that much unless they put up a lot minutes.

Unfortunately I could not find a stat that ranked the players league wide, but this is more research than you have done. Remember, you said that the NBA officials do not call fouls on these players and they are near the top on their team. If they are not fouling, who is?

We do not have to explain that, you need to explain what that means to us. Extra steps have nothing to do with traveling. Moving a pivot foot does. I think Tony said it best, I can look at any gym at any level and I can call out many travels that were not made. The NBA is not the only place where traveling is not call consistently. Part of the problem is that it is hard to call. A D1 NCAA Conference Assignor said at a banquet a few years back, "Traveling is the most inconsistent call in college basketball." I watched part of the Pacers-Celtics game and Antoine Walker (Chi-town) get called for a travel trying to make a move to the basket.

Where is your proof?

Peace

From the AP:

Former referee Hue Hollins said yesterday that he brought this up "years ago," when Ed Rush was the NBA's director of officiating.

"These were my exact words: I said, 'Ed, we do not do a good job of refereeing our big people,' " Hollins said in a telephone interview. "And that has been the way since I've been in the league. You can go back to the Patrick Ewings, Yao Mings, Shaquille O'Neals. I said, 'Just because a little guy who weighs 180 pounds runs into the chest of Shaquille O'Neal and O'Neal doesn't fall down, that doesn't mean [the little guy] didn't commit an offensive foul.' "

Hollins said it was difficult to believe that a referee would single out a player.

"I can understand David's point," Hollins said. "You don't want to ever have that kind of impropriety even thought about. I've watched that series... and the times that he has set an illegal pick, I saw the guys call it. I don't think he's getting away with anything that anyone else gets away with."

But Hollins also said that officials don't emerge from their hotel rooms totally unaware of what's going on outside.

"The one thing you don't want as an official is to be surprised," he said. "If you're a crew chief, you'd have a rather thorough pregame meeting. Guys read the papers. Are you going to be more cognizant of a guy doing something? Of course you would. That's human nature... Don't discount this [either]. We have superstar people in this league. Do we want that big man sitting on the bench? I don't think so. Let's be real about this."

The problem for Van Gundy is that if he names the referee, he risks incurring the (sotto voce) wrath of officials. But if he pleads the Fifth - or says he made the whole thing up to make a point, a theory the league is peddling to some - he will have Stern to deal with down the road.

Talk about a Hobson's choice.

"If he was lying, I would think they would have him on a very, very short leash," Hollins said of his referee brethren. "No one wants you to discredit their profession. Knowing Jeff, it would be very hard for me to believe he was lying. I have a lot of respect for him."

Is that an Illinois law? In NY, we have freedom of speech.

"Against league policy" is not the same as "illegal".

In fact, you usually have to break a few laws to get banned from the NBA. At least if you're on the Portland Jailblazers.

Actually, you don't.

Having freedom of speech means that the GOVERNMENT can't prevent you from saying what you think. When you work for an organization, take the NBA for example, they can certainly take away what you refer to as freedom of speech. The NBA is NOT the government.

Question the integrity of the league. Whether you call it illegal or against policy makes no difference. They're not going to put up with it.

Then go whine to the NYCLU - even they'll tell you that you have no case.

There is no "freedom of speech" in the United States. The concept of the 1st Amendment is simple - the Federal Government (and, later, state governments) cannot enact any laws banning certain forms of speech, unless such laws meet the Potter test.

What a private organization (in this case the NBA) chooses to do in no way shape or form comes under 1st Amendment protections.

Please re-read my post. I originally said you have to do something illegal to get banned from the NBA. JRut said it is illegal to criticize the NBA. I asked what law makes it illegal to criticize the NBA.

I don't consider this whining.

Ah Jim.....
 

The word "illegal" means against the rules. It also can mean against the law. It is illegal in the game of basketball to double dribble. It is illegal in the NBA to publicly criticize the NBA and the officials through the media.

BTW, I was using the words of a previous poster to make an opposite point. If you are going to drop in the middle of a post and start saying something, at the very least read the entire post. Or use a dictionary. ;)

Peace

Re: Re: Where have you gone Lou Albano, to the NBA?
 

Shaq fouled out 4 times this year, in 73 games. Tim Duncan did not foul out at all, in 66 games. In contrast, Jason Collins led the league with 14 DQs in 80 games.

Re: Ah Jim.....
 

To be more precise - Van Gundy will not be banned from the NBA for this outburst.

You read it here.

If he does, I like my crow fricassed.

Re: Re: Ah Jim.....
 

You are right for once. He will not be banned for his outburst. He might get banned for not revealing the officials he referenced or cooperating with the investigation. He got fined mostly for not cooperating with the investigation.

Peace

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by ysong Quote: Originally posted by BktBallRef Quote: BTW, I hate it when someone tells me how to answer a question. I reserve the right to answer with "cynical answers" if I so choose to. When you ask a question, you get what you get. You don't get to determine how the respondent answers the question. Somebody needs a nap, real bad. I wonder if Bushref has re-incarnated again. No, I was here long before Bushref OR YOU, ever showed up. I don't need a nap. I just don't anybody placing conditions of how I reply to a question.

I am obligated to info you that my respect for you is wearing thin.

Here was what I said in my post: "Of course, I know all the cynical "answers". so spare me those. Please help me with some objective insights."

Tell me why the request of objective opinions is so hateful?

but if you decide to answer this question, please be polite, in a self-respecting manner. If you do not like this condition, your are not obligated at all to help me with this.

Thanks.

ysong

TO Dan_ref

>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.

I do tend to agree with this with the following assumptions on my part.

Most D1 people I know are self employed. The ones that aren't in many cases get leaves of absences from their jobs. Years ago, a top D1 official was put under the microscope up in Syracuse because he would leave his "day" job for 6 months, which became problematic because it was affecting other departments. So, to be a top flight D1 official, I would guess that they have to give up their regular jobs just to make their schedules since many work 4-5 times per week. Most regular joes like myself are not self employed, nor own the company, and therefore cannot meet the demands of being on site 4-6 hours before game time.

And the ones I have happened to speak with over the years haven't had a single good word to say about the NBA. They, to a T have told me the "game" stinks. Not the officials, but the game itself.

Another issue why they don't/won't jump I think, is the fact that they are at the top in the NCAA and why jump to be put back at the bottom? Then again, if the NBA was serious about the integrity of the game, they should want the best, and start courting some of these individuals. Now, I don't know that they don't, but you never hear of a top D1 official moving to the NBA. At least I'm not aware of it. The NFL does a fine job of mentoring and so does baseball where there is no doubt as to whom the best are, the guys working the the majors, or in the NFL.

>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'.

The main problem I have with the NBA is that they are desparate for fan appeal, and in that zeal to gain acceptance which football and baseball have, they take the easy road and simply use entertainment as the main focal point. Kind of like the Globetrotters. But are the Globetrotters playing good basketball? They once did, but those days are long gone and now they are just entertainers with a basketball court as a stage.

It's just me, and my opinion, but I believe the game should be the selling point. I personally don't watch the game to see player x or y, although I admit it makes it interesting, but I watch because I like the GAME. I used to love Olympic basketball because we could take a bunch of no-named college kids and kick butt because we played the GAME better. One can argue till the cows come home why with the talent we have why we should ever lose in International competition, but it all comes down to playing the game as it was meant, and not playing like a bunch of individuals. This is why I am all for returning to letting our college kids play and leave the Pro's to entertainment.

The movie Hoosiers is not entertaining because it had great basketball players, instead, what made it interesting and entertaining was watching a bunch of underachievers accomplish something extra ordinary all within the confines of the game of basketball. That is what excites me, and I guess that is why I have appreciated John Wooden's approach to the game ever since I tuned in years ago, late one night to watch a game in the Astrodome. Players come and go, but it is the game that remains, and the NBA should put the integrity of the game before any individual IMO.

goose

I am leaving this thread open because I believe that there is very interesting dialouge taking place here.

Ysong,

BktballRef has made it clear that he is going to reply how he sees fit and the forum is inclined to let him do so as long as it is "above board". If he wants to be cynical, silly, serious, insightful that is his business as long as he does not make the post a personal attack on any of the members including yourself and keeps the posts "in the realm of what is considered common human decency" (Sorry Chuck, but I find the squirrel picture pretty humourous and will be allowed going forward!!!).

If you do not like his posts or do not find value in them please ignore them. Your last post here gives the appearance that you are trying to "stoke a flame war". Please post your questions and filter out what you want.

Thanks.

Re: Re: Where have you gone Lou Albano, to the NBA?
 

Add to the list of former NCAA officials now working the NBA:

Benny Adams
Courtney Kirkland
Anthony Jordan
Tony Brown
Nolan Fein (sp?)
Olandis Poole (I think).

I believe there is more but this, along with what has already been listed is just off of the top of my head. I would therefore say that your theory is starting to lose traction relative to this point.

Orlandis Poole was a rookie in the NBA this past season. Add to the list:

Joe Forte
Tommy Nunez Jr.
Mark Ayote (sp?)
Zach Zarba
Violet Palmer

I think all of these were very good officials in their respective conferences.

Orlandis Poole is probably one of the only NBA officials to have the distinction of doing a final four. And it was the year previous to him making the jump.

I always wonder when I see posts bashing the NBA game. It is very interesting to me when you have an organization like this and they are on the same page to the extent they are. I think they have personalities and in the NCAA there are more egos. Meaning Joe Crawford will side step down the court but his calls will be in line with all the other officials for the most part. It is also good to see how they talk to players and most of them do so without any emotion. The game is what it is. Most people don't realize that it would be very difficult to call their game straight up and down because of the talent involved. It is almost impossible for any one player to defend another player one on one. Teams do well on defense by embracing the team philosophy and even then it is tough. It might not meet the approval of most purists but it is still a great game.

[Edited by tomegun on May 6th, 2005 at 12:10 PM]

Maybe it's just the A-10, but I've never seen a college official show up 4-6 hours before game time.

Also, as odd as their schedules may be, a lot of D-I officials enjoy their 'day jobs.' Obviously, it can be difficult to manage, but the 'big guys' generally hold a job and ref. I've worked (both in basketball and in the office setting) with a D-I ref from DC who does mainly Big Ten games - he has worked it out with his employer, and has a job that allows him to come in at any time, just as long as the work gets done.

While I certainly don't anticipate myself ever getting a major D-I schedule, I've certainly kept basketball officiating in the back of my head when planning out a career. It's certainly a doable thing.

Quote from 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.

Actual statistics brought to light...........Shaq fouled out 4 times this year, in 73 games. Tim Duncan did not foul out at all, in 66 games.

Yep, these guys are fouling out left and right! What an outrage!!!!!!!!!!

I did not say left and right. You said that officials pass on fouls because they are starts. Remember this is your claim, not mine. Shaq and Duncan are either one or two with most fouls on their respective teams. So if they are not fouling out, no one on their team is fouling out. I would also assume that because these players are on some of the best teams, they are not playing at the end of blowouts.

Where is your proof? You cannot have it both ways. Prove that the scrubs are getting more fouls. Remember, this is your claim not mine. You are the one saying that the NBA officials purposely do not call fouls on superstars. Even if I am wrong about how many times they foul out, how many times is that compared to others on their teams and what other players are doing around the league? You cannot just show their numbers and not compare other teams and other players. And even if you compare other players, you better include comparable teams. I bet there are Detroit Pistons that do not foul out very much. The better teams have better players and play smarter. Whether that is shot selection and percentage or how many fouls are committed.

Peace

Joe Forte and Violet Palmer have worked Final Four games in college.

To JRutledge:

>You think better defensive players commit more fouls? You >just lost all credibility right there.

Not necessarily, but if you are playing aggressive defense, it tends to lend itself to commiting more fouls.

Let's see, Team A plays zone while Team B plays man-to-man. Which team usually (not always) has more fouls?

The fact is that Jordan rarely fouled out, yet was considered a great defensive player. In an earlier reply you said that because centers often were the last line of defense, they were apt to create more fouls. So, centers that play agressively on the defensive end are prone to more fouls, but the guards that play more agressively are not.

Like I said, as great as Jordan was, he was no different than the other great stars in the league in that he benifited from star treatment.


>So are you telling me it was a conspiracy that Jordan was >healthy all the time in his career? If a player fouls out >it is usually at the end of the game. Players do not foul >out in the first 5 minutes of the game. During the Bulls >first championship, it was the bench that had an amazing >run, not the starters which included Jordan.

Please, enough on Jordan. He was used as an illustration and I am hardly here to discuss the health of Jordan.

Now, as for not fouling out in the first 5 minutes, most of us that have watched Shaq could say that he could have fouled out in 5 minutes or he could have fouled out whomever was guarding him in 5 minutes. Take your pick.

>It is obvious to me you just do not like the NBA game. It >is obvious to me you do not watch or follow much >basketball. Stars foul out all the time. I see stars get >frustrated and get thrown out for their behavior.

Don't be silly. I'm not going to get into a LDPC over who has watched more basketball, when you have made it clear that you are a bit fuzzy on Wilt, who BTW was the greatest of all time, period. But that is another discussion. The fact still remains, that Wilt NEVER fouled out of a game. Kind of amazing seeing that he was one of those centers whom you claim attract more fouls.

As for liking the NBA, I would be more apt to say I tolerate it. I enjoy the game of basketball, but I do not enjoy watching many NBA games, and from their ratings, it appears that most others don't watch it either.

As for losing credibility, you surely don't want me to pull out the NBA stat book, do you?

The point is, and it has been this way since the first Celtic title, is that the stars in the NBA have received preferred treatment by the referees. I'm not the only one saying it as I said to Chuck, even players past and present say that it is true. Now, is it just perception on their parts and those of the fans, or is it really true?


goose

Nolan Fine officiated the 1987 NCAA championship game, so there is another "Final Four Official". Therefore, there have been several officials make the leap from NCAA to NBA and many of them obviously, based on the fact that they worked the Final Four and/or Championship Game, have been top NCAA officials.

Once again, Jeff is presented with real facts and he changes his story even though he's quoted as saying "they foul out a lot". Last time I checked, 0 doesn't qualify as a lot by anyone's definition, except Jeff's. Even 4 out of 73 is hardly a lot.

IUGrad, you'll come to expect this from him. He talks as he's the absolute authority on all subjects basketball. Then when presented with facts that refute his claims, he'll divert the discussion or try weasel out of it by claiming that basketball and officiating in Illinois are not like it is anywere else.


[Edited by Camron Rust on May 6th, 2005 at 05:18 PM]

Hopefully that means you won't email me with anymore questions.

Re: Ah Jim.....
 

You responded to my post on the first page, then forgot that you did, then responded to a post that was not addressed to you, while ignoring the post that was addressed to you on the same page, then advised me to not drop in on the middle of a thread?

As far as using a dictionary, you are using a secondary definition of illegal when it is quite clear that the primary definition was intended from the context. The sentence makes no sense if the secondary defintion is intended.

While I respect your knowlege of basketball and officiating, there is no need to lecture me to use a dictionary.

Remember ... Endeavor to eschew obfuscation.

Re: Re: Ah Jim.....
 

Are you kidding? Have you ever asked him a most basic question about basketball rule before? I did. When he realized his answer was wrong, he lectured me about what good officiating was all about, adviced me it would only paralized me if I paid too much attention to those little things, intimidated me with his many years experience, it went on and on...

Of course he has the authority for any topics related to basketball, he knows a person or two who really know some top tier officials. Of course he is superior than the rest of the group. Just look at the many big titles that are dragged along in every single post of his.

Talking about "respect", has he really earned any yet?

thanks.

Re: Re: Re: Ah Jim.....
 

I am not looking for your respect. Anyone that has any since is not looking for respect on any internet site. I have enough respect from the officials I work with and the officials I attend meetings with. If I did not have that respect I surely would not have the opportunities that I have or hold the positions I do. Respect from a person like yourself here is very hollow and inconsiquential in my life and the lives of others here. If you do not like what I say or what others say, then maybe you should take your 100 posts and leave. If you can handle the comments, then stay and participate. It really is up to you. You are even setting conditions for how people should respond to a question that has been asked several times on this board. If you cannot take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. This board is not about you and it is not about me. It is a place where people all over the world come and share their opinions whether you or I like them.

Peace

I think that the reason you don't see many of the big-name college guys get hired has less to do with their jobs (although that factor should be considered) than with the fact that many of them don't have what the NBA is looking for.

Think about your twenty-five year veterans who have worked multiple Final Fours. These guys are in their fifties, at least. Even if they were courted by the NBA and wanted to go, think about what that would mean. Can you imagine Jim Burr being a rookie on a crew whose chief was somebody in their forties? That's just an impossible situation for everybody concerned, and the NBA is not going to promote conditions that are going to make partnering harder than it has to be.

Implicit in this reasoning is that the NBA picks 'targets' who are pretty young. That way they can send them to their camps and pro leagues, so they can begin to model the type of work that is expected by the referees at that level. The NBA then gets to bring in people who have the habits they want, rather than having to break people of what they consider to be bad habits. It's no coincidence that the conference that is sending the NBA almost all of its new guys is the conference that most closely models what the NBA is doing.

I think your post is above and below their target. I think the days of the 28 year old getting in is over for now. Look at the guys that were hired last year. No really young guys. Until something changes they are looking for older guys that can handle the $$ and responsibility. Jim Burr (or someone with that many games) would have to take a pay cut to go to the NBA so that isn't realistic either.

I will refute this...
First off I hate the jump stop! That being said the NBA rule is different than the NFHS rule. In NFHS you can step and both feet have to land at the same time and ther can be no future pivot. The NBA allows a two count process so when you have a step, the nxt step hits, and the next foot hits. , looks like three steps, and player jumps... This is a perfectly legal play in the NBA.

Now go back and look and see how many times NFHS officals allow the extra "step" after a jump stop or allow the feet to hit the floor a diffrent times and do not call the travel. It happens all the time, and it happens all the time in the NCAA---

Next the best basketball players in the world are in the NBA bar none. The best team during the olympics was someone else. You can never equate the talents of a team to the talents of the individual players. There is the magical world of synergy, team work, playing together, that builds teams. Duke can recruit all the best players they want bu they get beat.. Now they are consistently good because they have a coach who puts them together.. The Lakers had great talent (Shaq, Kobe, etc) last season and could not put a wins together.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah Jim.....
 

If by respect you mean "not pointing out your misconceptions", I believe you've got a lot of them, even in this forum, from my own observations. BTW, just like you said, I have not been here long at all.


Respect from a person like yourself here is very hollow and inconsiquential in my life and the lives of others here.

I see your thinking now. "who care what those little guys think. the respect from some one bigger guys is much more important." You are not alone in this. but I want to say that, by doing this, you may end up getting none from anybody.

If you do not like what <U>I say </U>or what others say, then maybe you should take your 100 posts and leave.
if you believe I shouldn't be here if I do not like <U>your</U> comments, you may grant yourself too much value than other people give you.



You are even setting conditions for how people should respond to a question that has been asked several times on this board.
My "condition" was "objective opionion". Are you telling me that was wrong?


If you cannot take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. This board is not about you and it is not about me. It is a place where people all over the world come and share their opinions whether you or I like them.
You are absolutely correct! I recommend you to read this to yourself a couple times to really know what does it mean.

But you have to do it quick, because the moderater may delete your post again if he does not think your post is "above board".

Ysong,

Your posts have been deleted throughout this thread as well as those by others because they offered no value to the discussion topic. They were simply posted to instigate flames. You have not been the only one addressed regarding these issues. As others have provided email addy's, they have been addressed offline. You have not provided yours therefore, I have addressed you here.

If civil arguments come up through discussion about officiating topics that is fantastic, we all benefit from these discussions because two viewpoints are discussed.

However, when people start to argue, call names and make posts simply to bash each other then those posts get "dumped" for the betterment of the board.

Your comment above as it is written is dripping with sarcasm as it relates to posts getting dumped for not being "above board", and are not appreciated.

If you would like to discuss this further, email off line and I will address.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah Jim.....
 

Sorry I do not come to the internet trying to gain respect and admiration. Maybe you do. I do not.

The fact that you call yourself a "little guy" tells me everything I need to know about you. I can see your self-esteem is really not that strong.

Wrong again. If you have just started coming to this site, do not tell everyone how someone should behave or comment to your posts. I was here long before you came here and I and anyone else have the right to respond to your post the way we see fit. If you do not like that, either deal with it or find another place to go. I do not care how people respond to me. It is not what someone says, it is how I respond to it. Remember, you came here complaining about a game that you neither have to watch or comment on. If you decide to share with everyone your point of view, accept the fact that others will not accept your point of view and challenge you on that point of view. Every time I make a post I am fully aware of the response that I might get. Either I deal with it or I leave. I just deal with it.

I am not telling you anything. It is obvious that you cannot deal with the fact that people have an opinion outside of your way of thinking. I am not sure what you want by telling someone they have to post an "objective opinion." We are officials, we are not coaches or necessarily fans. We are going to respond based on what we know from an officiating point of view. If that bothers you, go to a fan site and complain with them. I am not going to just accept you point of view when not only is it flawed from in my opinion. You have no facts to back it up.

I am still here. I have been here for along time. So I must be able to take the heat. It sounds like you cannot stand by your opinion and live with it. You want others to go along with you because that is the way you feel. If you do not like what the NBA is all about, watch Major League Soccer. The game is not for you. Maybe the sport of basketball is not for you. When I officiate basketball games, I really do not care what the NBA does or how the officials call the game. If you do care, then that is something you are just going to have to deal with.

Peace

I'm out..
 

Gee, I come back in here and find 7 pages worth of material. Some good and some not so good and that is partly my fault.

This will be my last post, unless someone wants to continue on a more civil note. I'd love to discuss this issue further, but I fear that things have gotten out of hand a little and I am to blame for some of that.

Anyway, with that said, I also should like to modify, retact, some of my statements about the NBA not getting any top college officials. I did not know that that many were now part of the league, although I do feel that the 10 or so is not nearly enough, it is a step in the right direction. I don't know what the percentage is, but anything under 50 percent is far to low for me, especially when the NBA should be the pinnicle of ones officiating career. As kids, we all wanted to end up in the majors etc. so why would it be any different being an official? We all want to work in the best league/level there is and I just don't see the NBA getting that respect.

At this point, there are only really three choices one can make in dealing with this issue. At least, I can only come up with three scenarios regarding the current state of the NBA in regards to the way the game is being officiated, or should I say, the perception of the way the NBA is officiated. This has been an issue since I can remember back in the 60’s, so it is something that has stuck rightly or wrongly over the years.

1.Scenario one states that generally speaking, officiating in the NBA is lacking. The officials let far to much go. As a result of letting them play, this has had the effect of watering down the league and in the eyes of many fans, has devalued the league when compared with officiating in the NFL or MLB. When comparing the officiating with the NFL, MLB and NHL, the NBA is perceived as the worst officiated of the 4 majors.

2.Scenario two states that in general, the league is officiated the way the league wants. In other words, the officials are competent, highly skilled, but are under guidelines dictated by the league office as to what to call and what to possibly pass on. The league wants a certain type of game and the officials are marching to that drumbeat.

3.Scenario three states that there is nothing wrong with the NBA. Bad officiating is only a perception which really has no merit once one understands the ins and outs of the game, specifically rule knowledge. Furthermore, what is perceived as bad officiating is due in part to the skill of the players. They are bigger, faster, etc. than they were 30 years ago and therefore, cannot be officiated in the same manner as say, D-1 college programs or the same way they did 30 years ago.

So, take you pick. My vote, not that anyone cares or that it matters in the least is no. 2. I think the ref's are doing what they are told, under the guidelines of the league office. The league wants a certain type of game and the officials work to that end. FWIW, I think that all the NBA officials are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I believe they are all skill and competent, but are at odds with what the league wants.

goose

I'll go with door #2 and your rationale also, Goose. The NBA is getting the game called the way that it wants it called. Unfortunately, that makes their current game unwatchable imo. Iow, basically anymore the NBA is AND1 with a better tv contract.The NHL made exactly the same mistake by allowing clutching, grabbing, interference disguised as "left wing locks", etc. Note that I said the NHL and not the NHL officials.

Call me when the NBA is good enough to beat Argentina. Until then......

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah Jim.....
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

Originally posted by ysong If by respect you mean "not pointing out your misconceptions", I believe you've got a lot of them, even in this forum, from my own observations. BTW, just like you said, I have not been here long at all.

I've never stated or even implied that you are here for repect. On the contrary, I am telling my fellow posters do not give you any unfounded respect just because of those heavy tittles you care to carry arround.



So, does that mean you will care even less what posters like me think?


If I understand you correctly, you are misleading other posters by saying I am here to complain a game. But for your info, I have NEVER complained about any games. All my previous posts were about the rule interpretations of certain scenarios, some of them are pure theriotical, to which you bashed them as preposterous after you realized you were wrong on a couple of basic principles of basketball rules. (I was surprised to find that out too.)

If you claim I have ever complained about a game, show me the proof. one post of mine which was complaining about a game is enough.


Originally posted by JRutledge
<U>If you do not like what the NBA is all about, watch Major League Soccer. The game is not for you. Maybe the sport of basketball is not for you.</U>

Just a counterproof for your another misleading statement: in one of my post about the end of "team control", I said NBA rules, when applied to "backcourt", encouraged more competation in comparison with NCAA rules or HS rules. That indicates I like NBA in this regard.

Originally posted by JRutledge
</U> When I officiate basketball games, I really do not care what the NBA does or how the officials call the game. If you do care, then that is something you are just going to have to deal with. </U>

you said you watched M. Jordan's last winning shot in a super-slow motion repeatly and came to the same ruling as the game officials. Is this another contradiction to your own claims? It seems to me you care a lot about what NBA does and what their officials do.