Ref-bashing's price tag $200K
 

DALLAS - Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has been fined $200,000 for his two recent episodes of referee-bashing.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs....10312/1035/SPT

You're a day late. Old news. :)

Must've taken him a while to get out of his tutu last night, so he didn't catch the story till this morning. :D

Larks in action......
http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Picture/People/ballerina.jpg

Note the AirLarks he's wearing.....

in case anyone wants to read what Cuban said...
 

http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000970073680/

some of his comments are pointless and his idea of having only 12 officials working the 4 second rounds series is utterly ludicrous but he doesn't really say anything inflammatory, IMO.

Has anyone seen any video of Cuban being a jack@$$ after Game 1???

Cuban should have been blaming Jerry Stackhouse for that ill-advised shot instead of the officials. JMO

After reading Mark Cubans' blog comments on the NBA playoff officials, I did not find anything insulting or degrading about them. I can understand the NBA is not happy about any criticism of its' officials, but what Cuban said is factually true. Isn't it the same thing that coaches/fans at every level say? - "we want the absolute best officials working the playoffs!"....

In the NBA, they grade the officials over the course of the season - have the best available officials working the game (not sitting at home). At the college/HS levels, those officials deemed to be worthy get the assignments (grading/evaluation procedures vary). Because it's less defined, those with more experience (college/HS levels) tend to get the games - although younger officials may be better. I realize officials can't work every game or every day - but they certainly should be working the most games possible.

In any case, what is so wrong with expressing the desire to have the absolute best officials working the games in rounds 1, 2, and 3. Once you reach the Finals - the top 7 or 8 guys should work (rotate 'em a little).

Anyway, I just think that what Cuban said wasn't that egregious or deserving of the $100k fine......

Hey - I get some serious VERT in the AirLarks!

Whether you or Cuban consider it true or not, he's not allowed to make such comments. Based on his previous behavior, $200K is appropriate.

Yup, I know.....about 6.5 on the Richter Scale.:D

For those in the know, Cuban just shows his ignorance with the comment, "In fact, if the info I have is correct, there are officials who haven't even been promoted to full-time crew chief who get playoff assignments. How crazy is that?"

How many full-time crew chiefs does Cuban think the league needs??? You only have 60 officials to begin with who are then broken up into four groups of 15. With those numbers, realistically you'll only have a limited number of full-time crew chiefs and you can't limit the playoff games to just them.

He also says he'd rather have them working back-to-back days flying from city to city than having someone with a slightly lower rating officiate on the next day. If that were to happen, then he'd put up a protest the second a call doesn't go his way by saying that the officials are jet-lagged and fresh officials should be working.

Jeff, like it or not, or agree with it or not, there's another factor in play here also. NBA officials are unionized, as are officials in all major sports- ex. baseball, football, hockey. The unions do have input into playoff assignments, staffing, wages, etc. I sureasheck could be wrong, but I doubt very much if the NBA could just unilaterally tell it's officials that 9 people are gonna work and the rest are gonna sit.

Also, from a training aspect, doing it that way doesn't make any sense either imo. When one of your top 9 officials retires, you have to replace him with an official that has <b>no</b> experience on playoff games. The whole idea of breaking people into playoff games is to get them the experience and have them ready to take over when they are needed. I think that the same idea <b>is</b> being used now in high school and college games too. You want your up-and-coming officials to stay up-and-coming. Telling 'em to take a hike at playoff time isn't helping anybody imo.

Besides, what better time is there to get a new official blooded than to get him out there in a playoff game with two experienced officials that are gonna have his back?

This is might not be true. I cannot speak for the NBA and what they have negotiated in their contract in the past. I know the NFL Official's union has discussed playoff assigning process and come to some details as to what the criteria is for playoff officials and this was apart of their last contract negotiation the NFL and the Official’s Union had. I am also pretty sure this was also a factor in the MLB Official’s contract negotiation when all those umpires retired at the behest of Ritchie Phillips. Every union I have ever heard of tries to negotiate every aspect of their job. Now they might not achieve those requests in total, but they do bring up those kinds of issues. I am sure there are some guidelines that the union comes up with things like how many games an official will work and if they work back to back games. So it is likely the NBA Official's Union had some say. It depends

Peace

As a "younger" official who has worked 5yrs of HS and 3yrs of college ball, I don't disagree with you as to the value and necessity of incorporating "newer" officials. That rationale plays a large part in every assignors decision to select game officials (partner less experience w/ more experience). I'm all for opportunities to gain more experience....I also know that coaches want the BEST officials working the game (how many "young" officials have waved off a foul - i.e. Steve Javie - during a playoff game becuase he realized it was a bad call?).

Since the NBA has a regimented evaluation process, it is possible to evaluate and rank all the officials based on their performance during the regular season. Here's an idea: assign the top officials to the playoffs based on their regular season performance - not based on past experience or prior season performance. If Dick Bavetta rates as one of the top 9 (or whatever number you decide) officials, then use him in the Finals - if not, he sits at home to watch like you and me. Don't just assign him because he's worked the Finals the last 10yrs in a row.

(BTW, I understand the NBA officials receive $50k to work the Finals - regardless of how many games you work in the series - must be nice!)

Because the HS and College levels do not have observers at every game to rate and eventually rank the officials like the NBA, it is hard to quantify who the best officials are.

Simply put, the philosophy: "best available official" should apply in the post-season regardless of level. The regular season is when officials should be getting the experience. As a former D1 asst. coach, I would never want someone "learning on the job" during the playoffs.

Hmmm, isn't that what being an assistant D1 coach is all about? I guess it's time to give them the heave-ho. And what about new D1 head coaches? I guess they're out too. Take a good look around D1, 'cause those are your coaches from here on out.

Oh, and let's not forget the players. I mean, if "learning on the job" is such a bad thing, then from today let's not put anyone in the game who hasn't been in before. And only those who have started may start. It'll save a ton on recruiting budgets. Of course, what are we going to do about graduation?

Officials who aren't learning something from every game are either already perfect, or going nowhere. And what if one of those top-rated officials has never worked the playoffs before? Then what? Scratch 'em because you don't want them "learning on the job?" Good call. It'll become something akin to a matter of national security to keep Dick Baveta working well past 100.

Does anyone know if Sterns fined himself for the public comments he made regarding the performance of the officials?

Cuban did say anything worse than the commissioner...only problem is that Cuban isn't the commissioner and has a history. Fortuantely for Cuban a $200,000 fine is tip money.

that's a lot of money for many people! I guesss not for Mr. Cuban

Just a general thought.........I think that I might take Marky Mav a little more seriously if I ever see him get all upset at the officials when they make a bad call that goes in <b><i>favor</i></b> of his team. :)

IMO, even evaluators can biases. Exactly how do we determine who is a better official and who’s not? If we rank officials, how is this "ranking" system going to work? Since we know not all officials are guaranteed receive the same amount of games, those who get assigned more games MIGHT tend to do better than those who get less games. And even if they are given the same amt of games, not all game level are the same. Then what????? Given that this “ranking system” is for the NBA refs, game levels can still be very different in terms of posting psychological factors. Games that are televised on National TV might post more psychological stress for refs than games that are not televised publicly across the nation. How are we going to account these variables in the “ranking system?”

Another comment I have is that if they are constantly being evaluated, would officials be more concerned about their personal ratings vs. “teamwork within the crew?” After all, if they truly want to advance, they need to “make a name for themselves!” Given that, would that suggest doing less as a crew but more individually? Officiating a good game requires more than just one person doing his/her job, right? So if my partners failed on me, why should my ranking drop because of his/her mistake. I just don’t see how a ranking system would be fair for officials.

A difficulty with the ranking system, as well, would be if evaluators are giving higher ratings per game to more experienced officials due to a respect factor. If that's the case, then the year-end ranking would be higher because his/her average scores end up being better than a newer official.

I remember the first few years I was reffing and had evaluations at the same time as a 20+ year official. This individual could barely get up-and-down the court, had homemade signals and marginal calls yet was given a near perfect evaluation. Of course, none of the veteran officials in the NBA fall in this category, but I use it as it is illustrative of preferential evaluations for people who have been around for a while.

That being said, the NBA has the fairest and most stringent evaluation process around. The level of accountability is so high that if you're not doing well, then you'd better have another job waiting for you.

And who are you to say that isn't already being done? Have you seen the NBA officials rankings? Do you know for a fact that the highest rated officials aren't being used?

If you have 10 officials ranked 1-10, and numbers 4, 5, 10 are working the game, then - by definition - you DO NOT have the highest rated officials working the game.

Manwr1, every time the whistle blows in an NBA regular season game, the observer records that fact. Who blew the whistle, what type of action occurred, and notes whether a subsequent video review is need to verify the accuracy of the call. Additionally those plays which may be questionable where a whistle did not occur are noted and reviewed. I've been told by "those in the know", that the officials selected to officiate the playoffs are correct approx. 94% of the time. Either you're correct or you're not - not much bias to be concerned about here. While there is a baseline expectation of mechanics, the NBA is much more concerned with getting the call right than with proper mechanics.