597 for 597 by JR's count if I am correct.

Just finished an interesting book by Jeffrey Gitomer "The Little Red Book of Selling". A great quote of his in the book is this: "When you say it about yourself, it's bragging. When someone else says it about you, it's proof."

Here's an article with a different take on the suspension.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6700790?MSNHPHMA


PS I'll respond to the age stuff later tonight when I get home.

Read that earlier. Interesting take. Not great, but interesting.

What they did was resign en masse. That was stupid. That meant the league could cherry pick who they wanted to come back and who they didn't. I realized they followed the advice of their idiot attorney, but they should have been smart enough to think things through.

I'm not saying they should walk, but if they do, they will carry more weight than the baseball umpires would. For one, MLB can get minor league guy and college guys who can do a sufficient job. The rule differences are minor and a lot of those amatuer guys work OBR ball at some level. In they'd have to get 1) the CBA officials; 2) the WNBA officials; 3) the NBADL officials first, then perhaps try to get some college guys who are not used to working NBA rules or their system -- which they value more highly than their rules.

It would be a disaster for the league if the NBA officials did this. I doubt the NBA is going to fire all of them.

I don't agree Tex. While i agree the officiating will suffer somewhat I think most of the people waiting for their big shot at the pros would do fine, mostly. Could easily fill playoff assignments with wnba and d-league people. I'm pretty sure the big time college guys wouldn't touch it though. They have too much to lose, as opposed to the up & comers who have too much to gain.

Of course when this is all resolved the scabs will have been used & thrown back.

There are enough guys already in the league to cover the playoffs.

I really don't understand why this story is getting so much traction. Why does it have to be an indictment on an official's entire career, the integrity of the league, or on the player?

Here's the reality: The official in question said the word "fight" in a league where fighting and fisticuffs have been a problem. Apparently, he didn't deny he said it, just that he meant it in a different context from how the player claims he understood it. Given the image problems of the league and violence, it turns out that was a mistake that led to a sanction.

Big freaking deal. It's a highly unique situation in a league that has a few unique customs and practices that, from where I sit, make it very different from working in any other place or situation. It was a unique momentary event in a unique context that doesn't mean anything more than what it is.

I agree on the interesting take. I do agree with Hench that Javie is one of the best, if not the best out there. IMO

Totally disagree. I agree with the baseball assessment, but don't think that there is not a group just like in baseball that can step in and work these games. In fact, some of the current NBA officials got in when there was a strike or work shortage by the NBA officials.

The 2nd part of this is I don't think all the officials are backing Joey here. I know if I was on staff, I've have a hard time getting behind that meltdown. Dealing with the players is apart of the turf. If Tim is just over there laughing, then Joey got to eat that. If Tim, in the game, grabs him, curses him out, call him all kinds of MF's, threaten him, spits in his face, that's a different story. Those guys are paid quite well to take a little bit of ripping from the players.

The reason we are talking about this to the extent that we are is because this is a milestone in officiating history. One of our big guys got taken down. I personally think that Joey had a chemical imbalance that day.

On a more serious note. The one thing I do disagree with here is the public announcement of his suspension. Why not just suspend him behind the scenes and no comment to the media afterwards. The bottom line is he's not working anymore games this year and it matters not that it is publicly stated. I guess that's the difference when you are an employee versus a independent contractor like in the NCAA. By the Commish talking about it to anyone that put a mic in his face. I now want to hear Joey side of the story. In fact, the story's not complete until we do hear Joey side and you can believe the media is not going to quit prying until they get it. I tactical mistake by the Commish. He should have low-keyed the whole thing.

Not an official, just a fan and this is only an opinion. I think the suspension is a little harsh. Suspend him for 2 or 3 games, don't let him referee Spurs playoff games, or some such. I have to wonder, if Crawford asked if Duncan wanted to fight, it was taken out of context. Where's the NBRA on this, shouldn't we hear something from Lamell McMorris?
Phil Taylor's SI article takes an interesting perspective:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...tion=si_latest

There has to be more to this story, although I'm not sure that we will ever hear it. I don't believe that Crawford tossed Duncan just for laughing -- even though that is all that we see on camera. There had to be more that was said.

I'm pretty sure that Duncan was fined for his actions after he got tossed. It has been reported that he called Crawford a "Piece of s**t" among some other choice words. If Duncan was fined for actions before the second technical, it would be a tough sell that Crawford shouldn't have ejected him.

I have to ask - Nevadaref - how old are you? My guess is under 25. When you are young 50 seems like a LONG way away, but as you get closer (I'm 34) it doesn't seem that far off!!

Most of the NCAA officials that are in their prime are in their 40s and 50s - that is when they peak! Don Rutledge is a great example of an official who didn't even start until he was 32!

There certainly shouldn't be an arbitrary age at which you can no longer officiate, especially in the NBA. How would they get officials to sign up to leave their current careers and officiate for 15 years, only to be thrown out because they have reached the age ceiling? I'm not quite sure what sort of job you can get at 50 years old with only NBA Basketball Referee on your resume.

On balance, I have to say that it looks like Crawford's suspension is way out of line when compared to the suspensions that have been handed out to players in the past. Although, this is a good wake up call to us -- as it demonstrates once again that we are by far at the bottom of this business. The only reason that we have jobs is because they haven't figured out how to call the games themselves.

Ronnie Nunn reviewed this technical foul on this week's "Making the Call". He said that the second technical foul assessed to Duncan did not meet the any of the criteria for assessing a technical foul. He also mentioned in passing that an official with Crawford's experience should have known not to issue that technical foul. In hindsight, I'd guess this referred to the previous Spurs-Mavericks games officiated by Crawford, but that's only a guess.

I think the punishment is extreme, but it appears that Crawford had been put on a short leash by Stern and Nunn. If so, this is a difficult working condition to endure and the union should complain. "Double Secret Probation" is hard to pass through unscathed. Ask Robert Knight and Mr. Blutarsky.

And anybody that believes that all of that didn't come directly from Stern must also believe in the Tooth Fairy and The Easter Bunny.

Dance, Ronnie, dance.......

First in response to Brad, you are one year older than I am, not that that matters. To RookieDude, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that you are 50! :eek: I would have guessed closer to 40.

Anyway my opinion about an age cap is not something that just came up, I have been considering it for a few years. My background as a soccer referee played a large part in forming it.

There are always a few people who can maintain their physical fitness, eyesight, and otherwise good health as they age. However, from my personal observations of officials in various sports on both coasts of this country, it appears that these individuals are the exceptions, not the norm. RookieDude, congrats, you seem to be one of those folks. We also have a tremendous official here who is now 60.

As I have already stated FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, has an age limit of 45 for working international contests. In the past couple of years this has forced the retirement of the man who was widely considered to be the best referee in the world--Pierluigi Collina from Italy. There was a brief discussion of rescinding the age limit or granting him an exemption. However, he stated publically that to protect the good of the game that should not be done. Of course, soccer is clearly more demanding physically of an official than basketball, but the concept carries over.

My main point of contention with the older officials is that too many of them get a free pass from a fitness standpoint and they serve to clog up the system while their presence on certain games prevent the next group of officials from gaining valuable experience.

Consider the choice for a second round playoff game between two officials of roughly equal ability. We'll call them A and B. A is 55 years old and has worked twelve years of postseason. B is 35 and has worked three years of postseason. Some would argue that going with the more experience official is appropriate. On the other hand there are others who state that it is unfair, and a catch-22 situation, to the younger official to use this criterion as how does he get more playoff experience if the older guys keep getting the nod over him based on that? If the older official is chosen, then what happens the next year when the situation with these same two officials would be 56 and 36 and the playoff experience would be 13 to 3? What carries more weight--that extra year of seniority or that extra playoff experience? At what point does an assignor make the other choice?
It is my opinion that unless the younger officials are given the opportunities to be in the pressure situations and gain that experience, then they will not improve as much or as quickly as they could and there will be a lack of people ready to step in when the older group calls it quits. In short, the older officials are actually slowing their progress.

Lastly, while an age cap would certainly eliminate a few qualified individuals from consideration, it more than makes up for it in the opportunities that it creates for up-and-coming refs and by providing a safeguard against abuse of political power and cronyism. I have personally witnessed officials put on state tournament games who are long past their prime only because of their connections with those who make the selections. This is not right. Their fitness is never subjected to tests. It is unfair to the participants and not good for the game to have these appointments made, and when they do not perform, it hurts the overall image of officiating.

Others are sure to disagree, but my opinion is in line with Collina's that it is proper to sacrifice a few for the good of the many. There is always a balance that must be found between experience and the declining effect of age on an official. I feel that age limits help find that point.

My recommendations for basketball officiating age limits would be:
NBA = 50
NCAA = 55
NFHS = 60

Ok, old guys, fire away! :)