FBI investigating NBA ref

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by johnny1784

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

Good luck with that.

[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.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

I was not trying to give you an NBA answer because I do not know the details because i do not work in the NBA. However, one big difference in the rules sets that I have noticed is the before the shooting motion starts for the pros. Also, that was not my only reason. I had several reasons but I leaned towards making a statement, don't want this kind of crap happening in my games. I have seen HS plays where the defense just runs right underneath the offensive player and it be an offensive foul simply because the defense got there first. That's got to be one of the dumbest rules in the Fed. code. The pro's take into consideration the offensive player and where's he's at within his movement towards the bucket. If his final movement or motion has started, defense is too late. I agree with this code. Why, because they don't consider that playing good defense, whereas in HS it is taugh. The end result of the play is always a nasty collision and the offensive player gets the brunt of it. If you have ever had someone run underneath your feet while you are airborne or about to go airbonre is one of the scariest feeling you will ever have on the court. The code in HS doesn't take into consideration the safty of the offensive player. There is nothing the offensive player can do in this situation. He/she is going down and they are going down hard.

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.

I appreciate this, not very many officials out here have a personality. They are great with the code, but leave little to be desired when it comes to debating the code or engaging someone who disagrees with them. See above for my reasoning and i would probably still have a block on Steve Nash, but now, if Amare did this. This play is going to look completely different.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

I was not trying to give you an NBA answer because I do not know the details because i do not work in the NBA....

The pro's take into consideration the offensive player and where's he's at within his movement towards the bucket. If his final movement or motion has started, defense is too late. I agree with this code.

If you don't know NBA rules and philosophies, how can you comment on them?

Originally Posted by Old School

I appreciate this, not very many officials out here have a personality. They are great with the code, but leave little to be desired when it comes to debating the code or engaging someone who disagrees with them.

Are you saying as long as an official has a personality, they don't need know "the code" as well? In your second statement, you say other officials know the rules, but they aren't good at debating them with you, when you disagree with them? Let me get this straight - they are great with the rules, and you disagree with them; so what does that say about your knowledge of the rules?

You rarely answer my questions when I pose them directly towards you. How come you don't want to debate rules and philosophies with me when I disagree with you?

Originally Posted by Old School

See above for my reasoning and i would probably still have a block on Steve Nash, but now, if Amare did this. This play is going to look completely different.

One player does something, the call goes one way, another player does the same thing, and the call will be different?

...sigh...

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Old School

I have seen HS plays where the defense just runs right underneath the offensive player and it be an offensive foul simply because the defense got there first.

You can't run underneath the offensive player and still have gotten there first.

Originally Posted by Old School

That's got to be one of the dumbest rules in the Fed. code.

That's not the rule.

You need to revisit the definitions section of the NFHS rulebook, particularly the definition of Guarding, particularly "4.23.d. If the opponent is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal position before the opponent left the floor.."

For a small fee, and a few hours perusal, the NFHS can set you free from this ignorance.

Buy a rule book. Read it. Learn it. Live it.