FBI investigating NBA ref

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yabut......foul calls are subjective as hell in the NBA, given the amount of constant contact. Anyone evaluating those calls, or non-calls, has to be completely subjective also when deciding whether a good call was made or not. Geeze, I can't figure out what criteria is currently being used to call fouls consistently anyway in the NBA. I can see how an official could sneak in enough calls or non-calls to keep a game either inside or outside the line. Iow, they don't have to make a game-deciding call which would probably be scrutinized heavier, just enough calls to keep the game where they want it in relation to the line.

I agree that something doesn't sound right, but that something might just be the NBA evaluation system.

Thoughts?

I completely agree that calls are subjective. But in order to shave points, I would think you would be calling things that did not happen. Also the NBA after every game scrutinizes calls. They even know at halftime what they did wrong. If you work D-1 they might not hear anything about a missed call for days. The NBA they get all over the officials for what they call NCI (Non Call Incorrect). If he was screwing up that much, I would think there would be some real evidence. I guess time will tell and it does not help if you have contact with mob members. I am just saying I do not see how this can be done for a 2 year period. Now if you told me he did this just during one season and did not work the playoffs, I think that would be easier to swallow.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny1784

Interesting but read this...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...whistle-3.html

I don't mind saying "I told you so" here.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I completely agree that calls are subjective. But in order to shave points, I would think you would be calling things that did not happen. Also the NBA after every game scrutinizes calls. They even know at halftime what they did wrong. If you work D-1 they might not hear anything about a missed call for days. The NBA they get all over the officials for what they call NCI (Non Call Incorrect). If he was screwing up that much, I would think there would be some real evidence. I guess time will tell and it does not help if you have contact with mob members. I am just saying I do not see how this can be done for a 2 year period. Now if you told me he did this just during one season and did not work the playoffs, I think that would be easier to swallow.

Peace

Mr.JRut, the scrutiny or evaluation of a game is not as clear cut or black/white as you are making it out to be. I think we may all be in for an awakening here, depending on how it plays out. We are often evaluated and scrutinized on calls that where wrong or obvious plays that where missed. However, that leaves a lot of plays in between. The subjectivity of what we do, can not, repeat, can not come into question.

Case in point, at a recent camp, I called a hand check in the frontcourt, trail. Evaluator told me, that since the player didn't lose control of the ball, why make that call. I said to myself, because it was a foul, that's why. Evaluators point is, don't interrupt the game like that. We don't want that call. Now, late in the game, if i passed on that call earlier, and the game is close, do I make that same hand check call now or not? If i don't, it looks like I'm not doing my job. If I do, since it wasn't called in the 1st half, why call it in the 2nd. I think we all struggle with this which is why our subjectivity can not come into question. There's no way we can be that perfect.

The pro-game has gotten so complacent, that I think this could very well be going on. But not just with an official. I mean if an official is doing it, you know good and damn well there are some players doing it. I think we're going to learn a lot here, but like Snaqs, I really wonder what's driving it, what has happen behind the scences that has caused this to come to the limelight? Could it be from the Commissioner publicly degrading (and basically firing) an official late in the season. I wonder.....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I completely agree that calls are subjective. But in order to shave points, I would think you would be calling things that did not happen. Also the NBA after every game scrutinizes calls. They even know at halftime what they did wrong.

How about the calls underneath on a player going up with the ball? There usually is a lot of contact involved. I know that from just watching the little bit of NBA that I do that the criteria on what is a foul or not seems to be all over the map. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. In one article that I read in a NY paper, an NBA head coach (nameless) was asked how an official could change a game in a call or two without being detected. He said "Simple. Call something on a team's star. You don't have to foul him out, but you can put him on the bench for extended periods with an iffy foul. That's always worth points." The coach more or less confirmed that it was also kinda expected for stars to get away with some contact that lesser mortals get called for.

This is just a personal opinion of mine, but I honestly think that today's players have outgrown the court. They are so much bigger, faster, stronger, etc. that they are almost forced into contact in a half-court game, especially in the paint. To get back to basketball as we know it, they at least need to widen the court a little and maybe even lengthen it also.

[JRutledge]

JR,

I do not have a good answer. I am just saying this based on what I originally thought and what was also said by a very well known official that once worked in the NBA. I have do idea the truth of this. I just find it hard to believe that the NBA was not aware of this or if they felt he was doing such a horrible job, they would not have given him any playoff games.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just find it hard to believe that the NBA was not aware of this or if they felt he was doing such a horrible job, they would not have given him any playoff games.

That sentiment seems to be shared by a lot of people. Gonna be interesting when more details start to come out.

Mark Cuban is sitting in the corner saying "Told ya so, told you so".

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by johnny1784

Interesting but read this...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...whistle-3.html

Wow, refs in our association who act like that get kicked out. Makes you wonder how he got that far. It's really sad. He's a guy with a serious problem, but he kept working hard and trying, and he was really doing well, but never could get his problem under control.

I'm guessing the NBA has suspected something for quite a while and just let it go until there was enough evidence to make sure they could make something stick. If they'd have started showing too much interest too soon, it would have been harder to bring it out into the open and get the slate wiped clean. I think.

[Texas Aggie]

I just find it hard to believe that the NBA was not aware of this or if they felt he was doing such a horrible job, they would not have given him any playoff games.

I find it impossible to believe, especially after the points you make here.

Guys, the NBA is totally different in the way they evaluate officials then what we are all used to in high school and even college. Unless he was incredibly lucky and able to make so-called bogus calls (late in games, to be sure) without detection, the NBA shares in any sort of blame here.

We know he worked in the first round this year. Last year, he worked at least one second round game -- New Jersey v. Miami series. I'm betting he worked more second round games. As a 12 year (at the time) vet, second round assignments are about average for the NBA.

[Love2ref4Ever]

One thing is for sure, he knew that the feds were coming for him, he resigned from the NBA one week prior to the leak in the news papers. Gambling is classified as a "disease" so he will just cooperate with the feds and then the rest of his days in a federal witness protection program. There is one bright spot to this all though, the NBA has one opening available on there officiating staff this upcoming season! I learned more about gambling from this post then I ever knew, over and under.....spreads....sounds like something you do behind close doors!

[LeeBallanfant]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I find it impossible to believe, especially after the points you make here.

Guys, the NBA is totally different in the way they evaluate officials then what we are all used to in high school and even college. Unless he was incredibly lucky and able to make so-called bogus calls (late in games, to be sure) without detection, the NBA shares in any sort of blame here.

We know he worked in the first round this year. Last year, he worked at least one second round game -- New Jersey v. Miami series. I'm betting he worked more second round games. As a 12 year (at the time) vet, second round assignments are about average for the NBA.

Donaghy worked the pivotal 2nd Round Series between SA and Phoenix. Very good article on this

 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070722

Also, if a couple of aricles I read are correct, Donaghy only started working the playoffs in 2005-2006. After he started the shenanigans. Says a lot for the NBA evaluation system

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

Donaghy worked the pivotal 2nd Round Series between SA and Phoenix. Very good article on this

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/070722

OMG - that column is incredible.

[SMEngmann]

It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out, particularly if Donaghy names names. I don't see how Ronnie Nunn can keep his job with this scandal happening on his watch. The NBA really needs to be more pro-active from a PR perspective. Even before this, the perception of NBA officials was heavily negative. One thing the NFL has working for it is that the referee can actually communicate directly with the audience and explain calls that were made, and that lends credence to their credibility.

The NBA has solid criteria for grading officials, and they classify calls. There's RSBQ for guard play, etc. One thing I've picked up from reading this forum is that even fellow officials feel that calls are too subjective. The league needs to publish officiating guidelines, such as RSBQ and make them public. Perhaps we could all benefit.

The other note in this is that 2 of the officials in the Cardinal O'Hara 4 are responsible for the 2 latest incidents. Hopefully this isn't a trend, and maybe it's coincidental, but it's hard to tell.

[Jimgolf]

For those of you who are not familiar with gambling, the point spread is no the only statistic wagered. There is a little thing called the "Over/Under" line. A few extra foul calls on each side wouldn't necessarily be obvious, but would add a few extra point to the total score, possibly enough to push the score above the "Over" line.

Tim Donaghy led the league in technical fouls assessed, which might be an indication of this type of "game management skill". Soon enough I'm sure there will be an analysis of all the games he worked and how they rated against the various spreads.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out, particularly if Donaghy names names. I don't see how Ronnie Nunn can keep his job with this scandal happening on his watch.

Why hate on Ronnie Nunn, he's not to blame for this. However, I do blame the overall system for not sticking to it's own rules. Even in DI college, you have the problem of advantage/disadvangate and how it effects the game.

The NBA really needs to be more pro-active from a PR perspective. Even before this, the perception of NBA officials was heavily negative. The NBA has solid criteria for grading officials, and they classify calls. There's RSBQ for guard play, etc.

What is RSBQ?

The league needs to publish officiating guidelines, such as RSBQ and make them public.

What's the point if you don't follow them, and that goes all the way back to HS. Am I effecting the outcome by not calling that foul at the top of the key, even though the player didn't lose the ball. It can't be fixed. There's always going to be a losing coach who's going to complain, either way.

To me, part of the problem is officials who get too big in the system. They have been working a very long time and they feel they are beyond approach. Another problem is the grading system. The grading system creates walk on water attitude officials. For me, as you have witness me engaging this forum. I can't stand people who think they are perfect (JR). He's always willing to tell me and the rest of the world I screwed up when I make a decision. Where does that leave me? It leaves me with a permanent bad attitude, might as well get what I can from it. You have to be very careful with the grading system. You want to use it to make others better, not to point out flaws.

I will say this, you can bet from here on out that the betting lines are now going to need to be known by the league and calls towards the end of the games are going to be more scrutinized then ever before. Our job, just got harder.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Tim Donaghy led the league in technical fouls assessed, which might be an indication of this type of "game management skill". Soon enough I'm sure there will be an analysis of all the games he worked and how they rated against the various spreads.

How do you know this? I thought Joey Crawford lead the league in T's. Maybe the teams knew this about Tim which was the source of a lot of his technicals. Can you tell why the technicals where issued? I wonder if the T's where on the teams winning or losing the game. Oh, and another thing about the NBA, their technicals are only one shot.