FBI investigating NBA ref

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Play 4: The blocking call is wrong, imo. This is an offensive foul. Nash had great position. Tim "the whiner" Duncan gets a superstar call.

Superstar call? I thought Nash won the last two MVP awards before this season?

Nash flopped if anything. If he wanted to get not called for a foul, why not just be a man and take the contact. Why do you have to embellish the contact? I do not even believe that Nash even was contacted in the chest.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Play 6: If I see this in a Fed game, I pray that I have the gonads to call INT. A knee to the groin of a stationary player. Nice.

Why just intentional? Why not flagrant? To be fair this is not a play you see every day. And if Nash did not react the way he did, we likely would have never been able to discuss this play. The bottom line is a foul was called. We can always debate what we ultimately call on a play like this. If the game was fixed why was there a call at all?

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Play 8: Nash was contacted by two Spurs players, not just one. Both prior to the ball coming loose. Bad no-call.

I agree with that there was contact, but Nash tried to squeeze between two players. Why Nash gets credit for being an MVP just baffles me. That is a play I do not expect a HS varsity player to make. He had no where to go similar to the previous play that was no called. Also let us not forget, we did not see all calls during the game. How do we know this similar call was not called at other times during the game? That is the problem with videos on “YouTube” and people post things with an agenda.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Superstar call? I thought Nash won the last two MVP awards before this season?

Nash did win the MVP. Tim is also a superstar in the league. Nothing I said was untrue. As for the MVP thing, Nash should have won again.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Nash flopped if anything. If he wanted to get not called for a foul, why not just be a man and take the contact. Why do you have to embellish the contact? I do not even believe that Nash even was contacted in the chest.

Nash had proper position and was contacted. Those are true facts. He may have started to absorbe the contact by moving backwards and he may not have: I came to two conflicting opinions on two different camera angles.

If Nash did flop, why didn't the official make the correct call of either only a T for flopping, or an offensive foul for the illegal contact on a player with even-in-the-NBA-LGP, and a T for flopping? But to bail on that possibility and call a blocking foul, I mean, c'mon.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why just intentional? Why not flagrant? To be fair this is not a play you see every day. And if Nash did not react the way he did, we likely would have never been able to discuss this play. The bottom line is a foul was called. We can always debate what we ultimately call on a play like this. If the game was fixed why was there a call at all?

I dunno the definition of Flagrant in the NBA, but I don't think the player intended to injure Nash, but I do think that the contact was excessive. What does Nash's reaction have to do with anything: he reacted the way any living male would. If there's ever one call that sets in motion an official's exit from a league, I hope that a no-call on a knee to someone's groin would be it. Fix or no fix, at least a foul was called.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree with that there was contact, but Nash tried to squeeze between two players.

To me, Nash had a great line to make a Nash-typical MVP play. Then he was fouled.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why Nash gets credit for being an MVP just baffles me.

Because he elevates the success of his team. He puts up amazing numbers, makes everyone around him a better player, and leads the team to a fantastic year.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is a play I do not expect a HS varsity player to make.

There are likely only a few HS players that could make this move.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He had no where to go similar to the previous play that was no called. Also let us not forget, we did not see all calls during the game. How do we know this similar call was not called at other times during the game? That is the problem with videos on “YouTube” and people post things with an agenda.

Agreed. Are you saying that this crew was consistent? Consistently bad, I guess.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Nash did win the MVP. Tim is also a superstar in the league. Nothing I said was untrue. As for the MVP thing, Nash should have won again.

Nash had proper position and was contacted. Those are true facts. He may have started to absorb the contact by moving backwards and he may not have: I came to two conflicting opinions on two different camera angles. If Nash did flop, why didn't the official make the correct call of either only a T for flopping, or an offensive foul for the illegal contact on a player with even-in-the-NBA-LGP, and a T for flopping? But to bail on that possibility and call a blocking foul, I mean, c'mon.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If Nash did flop, why didn't the official make the correct call of either only a T for flopping, or an offensive foul for the illegal contact on a player with even-in-the-NBA-LGP, and a T for flopping? But to bail on that possibility and call a blocking foul, I mean, c'mon.

I would not say those are facts. I would say that is a judgment on your part and my part. I think call was very close and that Nash flopped which may have clouded the way the call was made. Also I do not know the NBA rule, but when is the last time you have seen anyone call a T on a flop at any level? I can speak for myself; I have never in all my years of watching the game or officiating have NEVER seen anyone call a T for this. Even in the year this was a POE or an editorial clarification on the issue, I still never saw a single T for this. And it was not like the contact was fabricated, there was contact. I can just tell you that the philosophy on a play in the NBA when there is a "flop" type of play; this is usually called as a block.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I dunno the definition of Flagrant in the NBA, but I don't think the player intended to injure Nash, but I do think that the contact was excessive. What does Nash's reaction have to do with anything: he reacted the way any living male would. If there's ever one call that sets in motion an official's exit from a league, I hope that a no-call on a knee to someone's groin would be it. Fix or no fix, at least a foul was called.

My comment was not about the NBA rule. My comments were about your assertion of what you might call (or feeling that you would hop you had the gonads ) during an NF game.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

To me, Nash had a great line to make a Nash-typical MVP play. Then he was fouled.

My comment was not about the NBA rule. My comments were about your assertion of what you might call (or feeling that you would hop you had the gonads ) during an NF game.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Because he elevates the success of his team. He puts up amazing numbers, makes everyone around him a better player, and leads the team to a fantastic year.

Usually MVPs help their team win a championship. He has not even won the Western Conference Finals yet. He did not get past the second round this year and last year he got to the Western Conference Finals for the first time. That is not and MVP to me. Granted he is a great player, but he was not an MVP. If anyone was an MVP this year, it was LeBron.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

There are likely only a few HS players that could make this move.

Not trying to brag, but I have seen HS players in person handle the ball just as well if not better. They just have not achieved the NBA yet.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Agreed. Are you saying that this crew was consistent? Consistently bad, I guess.

I did not see the entire game. Consistency is based more on 10 calls. And I do not see how any calls helped fix the game. From my understanding, the Spurs fouled more than the Suns did. The Spurs actually play defense. Maybe this is why they win NBA Championships and the Suns are just watching the NBA Finals every year.

Peace

[gsf23]

As far as fixing a game for winner or loser, I think that that would be very hard for an official to pull off as there are so many other variables that would play a role in that (injuries, off-nights, players just not hitting shots), it would just be too big of a risk to try that.

However, if you don't think that an official could help dictate an over/under bet or cut a few points to cover a spread your an idiot. An official could very easily do that with only one or two calls at key times.

Like the above article stated, it will be very easy to tell. Just get the tapes of the games Donaghy worked, get the lines and the over/unders for those games and really all you would have to watch is the fourth quarter to tell what games he might have been playing a part in.

Personally I don't think he was trying to decide a winner or a loser, but just affecting if the spread was covered or not and how many points were being scored.

[johnny1784]

Originally Posted by gsf23

As far as fixing a game for winner or loser, I think that that would be very hard for an official to pull off as there are so many other variables that would play a role in that (injuries, off-nights, players just not hitting shots), it would just be too big of a risk to try that.

However, if you don't think that an official could help dictate an over/under bet or cut a few points to cover a spread your an idiot. An official could very easily do that with only one or two calls at key times.

Like the above article stated, it will be very easy to tell. Just get the tapes of the games Donaghy worked, get the lines and the over/unders for those games and really all you would have to watch is the fourth quarter to tell what games he might have been playing a part in.

Personally I don't think he was trying to decide a winner or a loser, but just affecting if the spread was covered or not and how many points were being scored.

And you might be correct because I thought Donaghy made bets mostly through mob connection. I do not think the underworld uses proposition bets nor would they wager their bets at the legal casinos.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If Nash did flop, why didn't the official make the correct call of either only a T for flopping, or an offensive foul for the illegal contact on a player with even-in-the-NBA-LGP, and a T for flopping? But to bail on that possibility and call a blocking foul, I mean, c'mon.

I dunno the definition of Flagrant in the NBA, but I don't think the player intended to injure Nash, but I do think that the contact was excessive. What does Nash's reaction have to do with anything: he reacted the way any living male would. If there's ever one call that sets in motion an official's exit from a league, I hope that a no-call on a knee to someone's groin would be it. Fix or no fix, at least a foul was called.

There are no T's for flopping in the NBA. I believe greg did make the right call, but I will save my explanations when I write out what I thought on each play.

If you think the contact was excessive then you would have been tossing him with a flagrant penalty 2. If you thought it was unnecessary contact you would have given him a flagrant penalty 1. Which do you think it was?

As far as the plays on youtube this is what I have:

Play 1: Horrible call by Tim. He had no angle. Trusting your partners is a two way street. You have to trust them to make calls in your primary when you don't have a look, but you also have to know when your partner has a great look in his primary and is able to distinguish the legality or illegality of the contact.

Play 2: Good block. The L could possibly see this but the C and T are going to have good looks as well. That's just good play in the post area.

Play 3: Good call by Ed Rush. Amare is sprinting the floor but Oberto runs harder and beats Amare to the Spot.

Play 4: This is a very very hard play. IMO this is a block, because I believe he arrives too late. Duncan has started his shooting motion before Nash gets there, plus look where nash goes. He does not go straight back, he strafes off to the side. Like I said though, it is a very tough play. 50/50

Play 5: Good foul on Diaw. Duncan might have stuck his hip out a little but it was not overt enough to warrant an offensive foul, therefore, defensive foul on Diaw for running into the offensive player.

Play 6: Great pick up by Ed Rush. I don't think I would have called a Flagrant 1 or 2 here either. It was great enough that he picked up the offensive foul on the sly little Bowen.

Play 7: Good no call by Greg. I believe Nash was losing the ball anyway and even if he wasn't it didn't look like anything happened anyway. There should have been a Technical foul on Nash for waving off the ref. I saw this play on a web clip and was told such.

Play 8: Possible foul on Bowen, but couldn't really tell whether he slapped his hand or his forearm.


As far as the comment about splitting players. Yes I agree it is a stupid play, but if he gets hit on the arm, then he gets hit on the arm and we need a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

As far as the comment about splitting players. Yes I agree it is a stupid play, but if he gets hit on the arm, then he gets hit on the arm and we need a foul.

If a player gets hit on the arm and the defender did nothing illegal, then it cannot be a foul. This is why I continue to say that contact can be severe and still is not a foul. What if the defender tapped the ball away first? Are we calling a foul just because there was some minor contact on the arm? Also I will not speak for what the NBA does, but I will speak for how I was taught all summer at some very experienced officials. You do not bail out the offense for a bad play. So if you feel that Nash was trying to go somewhere he was not going to go based on where the defense was, the last thing you want to do is call a foul on the defense in this kind of situation. I know based on what I saw if I did not have the best angle, I am passing on this play.

Peace

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If a player gets hit on the arm and the defender did nothing illegal, then it cannot be a foul. This is why I continue to say that contact can be severe and still is not a foul. What if the defender tapped the ball away first? Are we calling a foul just because there was some minor contact on the arm? Also I will not speak for what the NBA does, but I will speak for how I was taught all summer at some very experienced officials. You do not bail out the offense for a bad play. So if you feel that Nash was trying to go somewhere he was not going to go based on where the defense was, the last thing you want to do is call a foul on the defense in this kind of situation. I know based on what I saw if I did not have the best angle, I am passing on this play.

Peace

No, I'm sorry. You were reading my post to pure. I agree with you totally about a defender being legal and the offensive player's arm getting hit. In the play that we are talking about though. Bowen comes from behind and swings at the ball. If nash gets hit on the arm, no matter where he is or is not going, we need to have a foul.

As far as what I have in bold:

The NBA is not taught that. They believe in not bailing out players, but they also believe that if a player gets hit illegally, no matter if it was a stupid play or not, that it is a foul. That is one of the minor details that is different from college to the NBA. College refs can pass on it with no consequence, NBA refs cannot for the fact that it will be chalked up as NO Call INCORRECT on their charting of plays and will reduce their percentage of plays called correctly.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

The NBA is not taught that. They believe in not bailing out players, but they also believe that if a player gets hit illegally, no matter if it was a stupid play or not, that it is a foul. That is one of the minor details that is different from college to the NBA. College refs can pass on it with no consequence, NBA refs cannot for the fact that it will be chalked up as NO Call INCORRECT on their charting of plays and will reduce their percentage of plays called correctly.

I strongly disagree. There will be consequences for missing obvious fouls, escpecially the ones that lead to disadvantage. These are the fouls that we must get, NBA, college or hs. As I stated before, the officials in the NBA don't see guard play that fast that often, at a very high skill level. They missed a lot on the MVP player, SA was allowed to mug him.

If you're arguing about when he tried to dribble between the 2 players, odds of me calling a foul is slim to none. But that play outside where it was just him and Bowen and Bruce hit his arm, that's bs. As a crew, you all get dinged on that one because Bruce is playing cheap. And he continued to play cheap the rest of the game. Purposely hitting the dribblers arm, very slighlty, almost undetectable, is a huge defensive advangate. Now, everytime Steve goes into a crowd, someone is going to hit his arm.

What this tells me and it's a little off subject. But what this tells me is that SA knew they couldn't stop this kid. So the next thing, is you start to do things to frustrate him, legal or if necessary, illegal. Once the illegal stuff starts, and you recognize it. You have to step up your officiating. The crew in this game did not step up, imho.

[johnny1784]

Originally Posted by Old School

I strongly disagree. There will be consequences for missing obvious fouls, escpecially the ones that lead to disadvantage. These are the fouls that we must get, NBA, college or hs. As I stated before, the officials in the NBA don't see guard play that fast that often, at a very high skill level. They missed a lot on the MVP player, SA was allowed to mug him.

If you're arguing about when he tried to dribble between the 2 players, odds of me calling a foul is slim to none. But that play outside where it was just him and Bowen and Bruce hit his arm, that's bs. As a crew, you all get dinged on that one because Bruce is playing cheap. And he continued to play cheap the rest of the game. Purposely hitting the dribblers arm, very slighlty, almost undetectable, is a huge defensive advangate. Now, everytime Steve goes into a crowd, someone is going to hit his arm.

What this tells me and it's a little off subject. But what this tells me is that SA knew they couldn't stop this kid. So the next thing, is you start to do things to frustrate him, legal or if necessary, illegal. Once the illegal stuff starts, and you recognize it. You have to step up your officiating. The crew in this game did not step up, imho.

Who are you and please summarize your basketball background? Thanks.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

No, I'm sorry. You were reading my post to pure. I agree with you totally about a defender being legal and the offensive player's arm getting hit. In the play that we are talking about though. Bowen comes from behind and swings at the ball. If nash gets hit on the arm, no matter where he is or is not going, we need to have a foul.

The play could have been a foul. Just from the angle that we were shown, I do not think it is an automatic. All I am really saying, I understand why this was not called. Because of our individual judgment and experience, we can always debate how this was a foul and how it was not a foul.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

As far as what I have in bold:

The NBA is not taught that. They believe in not bailing out players, but they also believe that if a player gets hit illegally, no matter if it was a stupid play or not, that it is a foul. That is one of the minor details that is different from college to the NBA. College refs can pass on it with no consequence, NBA refs cannot for the fact that it will be chalked up as NO Call INCORRECT on their charting of plays and will reduce their percentage of plays called correctly.

I have talked about this NCI (No call incorrect) before on this site. And I said that at the college level, they seemed to want a call more often than just passing on this play. Of course there are some philosopy differences, but Hank Nichols is putting on the tape every year several examples where he feels that officials are not making a call when they clearly should. I was at a camp where several D1 officials were clinicians and one of the officials was hanging around from the NBA and this aspect was talked about extensively.

I am not saying you are wrong, I think we are looking at this differently.

Peace

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The play could have been a foul. Just from the angle that we were shown, I do not think it is an automatic. All I am really saying, I understand why this was not called. Because of our individual judgment and experience, we can always debate how this was a foul and how it was not a foul.



I have talked about this NCI (No call incorrect) before on this site. And I said that at the college level, they seemed to want a call more often than just passing on this play. Of course there are some philosopy differences, but Hank Nichols is putting on the tape every year several examples where he feels that officials are not making a call when they clearly should. I was at a camp where several D1 officials were clinicians and one of the officials was hanging around from the NBA and this aspect was talked about extensively.

I am not saying you are wrong, I think we are looking at this differently.

Peace

I'm not arguing whether the play is right or wrong. I want everyone to discuss their way of processing this play and other plays. I feel that the way we process plays sometimes need to be revised. Saying, "I'm not calling such and such because A1 did this or did that and that is a stupid play" is not a justifiable answer in why we call or no call plays. I'm not saying I haven't done it because I have but I am working on getting that out of my processing.



Old School,

I believe it is great that you came to the same conclusion as most people with the Duncan,Nash block/charge play, but as I have written above the way you process the play, in accordance with the NBA, is wrong. They don't process plays like that. They determine (on this particular play) if the play originates in the LDB (which it did), once they determine that, they decide whether the defensive player is in position and perpendicular to the player's path before the shooting motion of the offensive player starts (it was close). If he was... offensive foul, if he wasn't.... block, if it's a tie.... block. I believe it was a tie, therefore you had the block call.

Everybody has different ways of processing plays, and with your way it makes it sound like this play and any other play similar to this would be a block. What if Nash gets there a half second earlier. Are you still going to call a block because that kind of play might cause injury? I'm not being condescending like some people are with you. I am asking a legitimate question and would like and respect a legitimate answer.