The Larry Brown quote

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

News Headline: In 100% of Olympic basketball series studied, officials were biased against Americans.

Similarly.......

News Headline: In 100% of NBA playoff series studied, officials were biased against the visiting team.

Or you can also insert "biased against small-market teams".

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 17th, 2005 at 10:03 AM]

[SeanFitzRef]

LB,

I hope you understand that you struck a nerve here, and it was responded to with very raw attitude.

A lot of us here also played the game, coached the game, or both (in my case). Once I became an official, I realized that I knew so little about this game. For you to come here and say that we act as if referees are beyond reproach is totally crazy. You might as well become a fireman and run through a building in gasoline underwear!

We are the only ones on the court are openly criticized, ridiculed, and lambasted at every whistle. If your team is winning, do you give the referees credit for helping out? NO!!! If the other team totally outplays your team, do you give them credit? NO!!! It was all the refs fault. We put our selves in the position to be blasted as soon as we walk on the court, because 'fans' think they know everything about the game; 'coaches' feel that if they taught their player how to do something, it must be right; and 'announcers' feel that because they watch a lot of basketball, they know all aspects of the game.

Not at all the case. What would happen if a referee ran over to a coach during a timeout and blasted him for a dumb coaching move?? Or if a ref jumped all over a player for missing a wide open layup, or blowing a defensive assignment?? The world would cease to spin, because that isn't what we do. Yet we are arrogant for defending ourselves in our domain?

Get real, learn the rules of the game, then get back to me LB.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by LoudBottom


Let me address some stuff thrown at me.

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by LoudBottom


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

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

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

Originally posted by LoudBottom

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

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

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

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

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Similarly.......

News Headline: In 100% of NBA playoff series studied, officials were biased against the visiting team.

Or you can also insert "biased against small-market teams".

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 17th, 2005 at 10:03 AM]

Look, you guys can joke about this all you want but it remains a fact that recent studies have found that in virtually every single basketball game ever played using officials one of the two teams lost.

If this aint proof of a vast conspiracy I don't know what is.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Look, you guys can joke about this all you want but it remains a fact that recent studies have found that in virtually every single basketball game ever played using officials one of the two teams lost.

If this aint proof of a vast conspiracy I don't know what is.

Sparky,
Your point is well taken.

With officials, one team will lose.
Without officials, both teams lose.

mick

[26 Year Gap]

In 1972, Prague Spring was on the referee's mind. In 2004, the team flat out stunk.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by 26 Year Gap
In 2004, the team flat out stunk.

True, but truth be told, so did much of the officiating.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

True, but truth be told, so did much of the officiating.

Did the officiating cost them the games they lost?

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Did the officiating cost them the games they lost?

obviously

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Did the officiating cost them the games they lost?

I don't think I said that. Did I?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I don't think I said that. Did I?

W-h-a-t p-o-i-n-t a-r-e y-o-u t-r-y-i-n-g t-o m-a-k-e?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

In 2004, the team flat out stunk.

True, but truth be told, so did much of the officiating. [/QUOTE]W-h-a-t p-o-i-n-t a-r-e y-o-u t-r-y-i-n-g t-o m-a-k-e? [/QUOTE]
Only what I said. The officiating was less than stellar at the Olympics last year. Was that confusing to anyone? Sorry. :shrug:

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

W-h-a-t p-o-i-n-t a-r-e y-o-u t-r-y-i-n-g t-o m-a-k-e?

I think he was trying to say that the officiating was subpar. But that's just my take.

[bobjulio]

In Hockey "good defence" invariably means a lot of uncalled hooking and interference.
The Pistons, in order to play "good defence", require more leeway from the officials to succeed. Their defence involves much physical play. Certain officials may allow more than others.
This quote looks like good old-fashioned politicking from Coach Brown. Negotiating with refs through the press is not exactly a new concept.

[Jimgolf]

If you call it a foul when Ben Wallace bumps into Tim Duncan to steal the ball, then the Pisrons will get in foul trouble. If you don't, the Spurs will have a lot of turnovers.

Does this mean you are prejudiced against a team or against their style of play? The end result is the same for the team, but the fans and players will say the refs are prejudiced against their team.