FBI investigating NBA ref

[Adam]

I know I, for one, am never going to be able to watch and NBA game again. Now, I need to figure out what to do with the extra hour next year. Maybe I'll shine my boots or something productive.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I know I, for one, am never going to be able to watch and NBA game again. Now, I need to figure out what to do with the extra hour next year. Maybe I'll shine my boots or something productive.

I know what you mean. I've got an extra 45 minutes of leisure time now too.

[rainmaker]

Just to set the record straight:

"Donaghy could have influenced the overs simply by calling more fouls. There have been reports that he topped the league in technical fouls called, but the NBA said Monday he ranked in the lower half of technicals called in each of the last two seasons."

I copied this out of an article on MSN.

[gsf23]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...rtstatsdonaghy

An article that shows some of the trends in Donaghy's games. A few key quotes here:

In 2006-07, Donaghy refereed 73 games. In those contests, the two teams combined to score 201.37 points and the average over/under was 187.9 points, a difference of more than 13 points per game.

"Vegas is too good for that to happen," Bell said. "The standard range should be somewhere around five or six, maybe. Not 10 or 13."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the start of the 2007 calendar year, Bell said, there were 10 straight games in which Donaghy was part of the officiating crew and the point spread moved a point and a half or more before tip-off, indicating big money had been wagered on the game. In those 10 contests, according to Bell, the big money won all 10 times. Pretty damaging evidence there
------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the two years in question, teams in Donaghy's games hit the over 57% of the time, in the two years before the years in question, teams in Donaghy's games hit the over only 44% of the time. (my summary, not quote from article)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as interesting are the numbers from April 15 to the postseason. During that stretch, there were eight games in which Donaghy was part of the officiating crew and the line moved more than a point and a half before the tip, Bell said. And in those games, including over/under bets and win/loss wagers, the big money was just 2-7.

From the last quote it at least seems like he didn't try to influence any pivitol games towards the end of the season and into the playoffs.

[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...

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

...sigh...

Of course...remember you have to protect the smaller player, right old school..

[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.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

Comments are not a factual statement, they are just that, comments.

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?

Perfect case of over analyzing what is stated. Must be something in the water, or the kool-aid.

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?

I will debate rules knowledge with you, what is your question. BTW, I have learned a lot engaging you in discussion. Hopefully you have learned something as well.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

I will debate rules knowledge with you, what is your question. BTW, I have learned a lot engaging you in discussion. Hopefully you have learned something as well.

ROTFLMAO!!

I must admit, OS, in the past I've felt you should be banned from the board, but now I'm not sure. If you were gone, where would I get my laughs for the day??

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

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

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.

Okay, you asked for it. This comment... Okay, here's the deal. Back when this rule was written, basketball was mainly played by slower Caucasian athletes. Now that the athletism and speed of the athlete has increased twofold, that's double the speed of when this rule was written. In order to tell if the defense got there first, we need instant replay. I'm looking for when his foot left the floor as opposed to when the defender got set. Almost impossible to do in this day and age. At best, you are guessing in HS if it is close. Go back and review that video that we discussed at great length.

http://www.sportstricities.com/sport...-8578135c.html

The NBA acknowledge the shortcomings here, where there is many. The ability for the referee to get this call right, the safety of the players involved, and the notion that running underneath a player about to score with the ball is considered good defensive strategy. NOT! Add everything up, we only need the offensive player to have started his final motion or movement to the basket. This will aid the referee to successfully make the right judgment call. Looking for when the offensive players feet left the floor as oppsed to the defenders feet getting set is ridiculous. Things are happening way too fast for me to adequately see all that. The defense can either go for the shot block or the ball, or get the hell out the way. Going for the block and causing a collision, is whacked!!!!

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

Okay, you asked for it. This comment... Okay, here's the deal. Back when this rule was written, basketball was mainly played by slower Caucasian athletes. Now that the athletism and speed of the athlete has increased twofold, that's double the speed of when this rule was written. In order to tell if the defense got there first, we need instant replay. I'm looking for when his foot left the floor as opposed to when the defender got set. Almost impossible to do in this day and age. At best, you are guessing in HS if it is close. Go back and review that video that we discussed at great length.
The NBA acknowledge the shortcomings here, where there is many. The ability for the referee to get this call right, the safety of the players involved, and the notion that running underneath a player about to score with the ball is considered good defensive strategy. NOT! Add everything up, we only need the offensive player to have started his final motion or movement to the basket. This will aid the referee to successfully make the right judgment call. Looking for when the offensive players feet left the floor as oppsed to the defenders feet getting set is ridiculous. Things are happening way too fast for me to adequately see all that. The defense can either go for the shot block or the ball, or get the hell out the way. Going for the block and causing a collision, is whacked!!!!

could someone please post that link to the OS-English translation tool? I can't seem to find it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

Okay, you asked for it. This comment... Okay, here's the deal. Back when this rule was written, basketball was mainly played by slower Caucasian athletes. Now that the athletism and speed of the athlete has increased twofold, that's double the speed of when this rule was written.

I get it. We need separate rule books for the white players and the black players.

That might just be the absolute stoopidest thing ever posted on this forum. And considering the number of stoopid posts that you've made, that's sureashell saying something.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Old School

Okay, here's the deal. Back when this rule was written, basketball was mainly played by slower Caucasian athletes. Now that the athletism and speed of the athlete has increased twofold, that's double the speed of when this rule was written.

Now we know. Old School is Jimmy the Greek.

[JugglingReferee]

babelfish.altavista.com

For OS-related verbiage, I think you also need an officiating philosophy translator as well.