FBI investigating NBA ref

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Hey, thats a great picture of my cousins from Youngstown, Ohio. They are great guys and lots of fun to be with.

MTD, Sr.

Fun, you calling them a bunch of clowns? You saying they are all haha, they amuse you?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Fun, you calling them a bunch of clowns? You saying they are all haha, they amuse you?

That is not a very good attitude to have. If you don't watch it, they might make you an offer you can't refuse.

MTD, Sr.

[Texas Aggie]

Here's what I don't get: being under the influence of the mob (for gambling debts, etc.) and betting on games are 2 different things. If the former, why bet on games, and how could he if he's in debt? If only the latter, what does the mob have to do with it and why would he do something that could be found out so easily?

My guess is that he was betting, but instead of being in debt, he was being blackmailed by hte mob.

Either way, he's been doing this for over 2 years and the NBA just found out about it? He worked a few first round playoff games for heaven's sakes!! What the hell are they paying their security people to do?

[canuckrefguy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/sp...=5070&emc=eta1

[johnny1784]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/sp...=5070&emc=eta1

Interesting but read this...

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

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

Most likely, he made some bets and his bookie allowed him to leverage some of his gambling activity. Knowing he is an official, they probably let him rack up a pretty substantial debt level. Now, they have him over a barrel. His best shot now is state evidence.

Sing like a canary, Tim; sing like a canary.

The evidence had better be pretty clear, or Stern has an apology to make at some point in the future.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Here's what I don't get: being under the influence of the mob (for gambling debts, etc.) and betting on games are 2 different things. If the former, why bet on games, and how could he if he's in debt? If only the latter, what does the mob have to do with it and why would he do something that could be found out so easily?

My guess is that he was betting, but instead of being in debt, he was being blackmailed by hte mob.

Either way, he's been doing this for over 2 years and the NBA just found out about it? He worked a few first round playoff games for heaven's sakes!! What the hell are they paying their security people to do?

You make an interesting point. NBA officials are scrutinized on every single call and every single possible call. If a person screws up constantly, they will get rid of them. They certainly will not work playoff games for making several mistakes. Something about this just does not sound right and this was said by a very well respected official when he commented on the situation today. I guess anything is possible, but 2 years seems like a long time and a lot of calls for the NBA to call bogus.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

NBA officials are scrutinized on every single call and every single possible call. If a person screws up constantly, they will get rid of them. They certainly will not work playoff games for making several mistakes. Something about this just does not sound right and this was said by a very well respected official when he commented on the situation today. I guess anything is possible, but 2 years seems like a long time and a lot of calls for the NBA to call bogus.

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?

[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

[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.