FBI investigating NBA ref
 

THE FBI is investigating an NBA referee who allegedly was betting on basketball games - including ones he was officiating during the past two seasons - as part of an organized-crime probe in the Big Apple, The Post has learned. The investigation, which began more than a year ago, is zeroing in on blockbuster allegations that the referee was making calls that affected the point spread to guarantee that he - and the hoods who had their hooks in him - cashed in on large bets.

New York Post story

Wow. That is huge.

If this were China, he would be looking at the death penalty.

Great, that's all we need.

I don't know if it's because I don't trust tabloids, but this story smells funny...too vague. Sounds more like a made-for-TV movie script than reality. I hope this is more an over-reaching beat writer than a factual story.

The FBI started to get suspicious when he called traveling.

The obvious question: Who?

The NYP article referred to the official as being male, so we know it's not Violet Palmer. :D :D

Also, he was allegedly betting on games in the 2005-06, so that removes the new guys in 2006-07.

So we're left with pretty much every else. I can't see any of the vets being involved. Guys like Bavetta, Crawford, Crawford, Mauer, Salvatore, etc...

I bet the NBA now will go back and look at each of the calls by this official in both of the mentioned seasons, and determine if any game-changing damage was done. I would think however, that this type of damage is detectable by the league.

As for a call missed/made that might earn a bettor some cashola because the call/non-call affected the point spread, that is harder to detect.

With todays technology and the scrutiny and evalation system that today's referees are under, could this really go undetected for so long (the article said the past 2 seasons). I've talked to NBA and college referees that said every call they make and don't make gets charted. I'm not sure if that's every game, but I just can't see how this could really happen without some supervisor seeing some inconsistencies. JMO

Everyone of the NBA's call/no-calls, etc. gets charted. Certain plays get sent in by coaches in college but their plays are not charted like the NBA's

What I've heard....
 

The official in question is not one of the 'name-brand' officials that we can all name. I also understand that his called would not have determined wins and losses, per se, but more point spreads. Allowing a basket, calling more handchecks and such early in quarters to get Team X to the bonus quicker, stuff like that.

Maybe that's how he got caught.
I'd put the odds at 60-40 that he'll turn states evidence.

Here they are. Anyone for a poll? :)
 

Bennie Adams #47
Mark Ayotte #56
Dick Bavetta #27
Matt Boland #46
Tony Brothers #25
Tony Brown #30
Mike "Duke" Callahan #24
James Capers #19
Jim Clark #6
Derrick Collins #54
Sean Corbin #33
Dan Crawford #43
Joe Crawford #17
Marc Davis #34
Bob Delaney #26
Joe DeRosa #14
Tim Donaghy #21
Kevin Fehr #39
Joe Forte #45
Scott Foster #48
Pat Fraher #52
Bernie Fryer #7
Ron Garretson #10
Luis Grillo #8
David Guthrie #60
Steve Javie #29
David Jones #36
Bill Kennedy #55
Jess Kersey #20
Courtney Kirkland #61
Eric Lewis #42
Ed Malloy #73
Ken Mauer #41
Monty McCutchen #13
Rodney Mott #71
Jack Nies #35
Tommy Nunez Jr. #28
Ron Olesiak #44
Violet Palmer #12
Jason Phillips #23
Olandis Poole #50
Derek Richardson #63
Leroy Richardson #51
Phil Robinson #11
Robbie Robinson #53
Eli Roe #64
Eddie Rush #32
Bennett Salvatore #15
Michael Smith #38
Bill Spooner #22
Derrick Stafford #9
Scott Wall #31
Tom Washington #49
Greg Willard #57
Leon Wood #40
Sean Wright #65
Mark Wunderlich #18
Zach Zarba #58
Gary Zielinski #59

Gamblers are always looking for an edge. One gambling site actually has ranked NBA officials by how teams do against the spread in the games they officiate.

NBA Refs "Homer" Ranking

It's more likely he got "caught" by a wire tap that was in place for completely different reasons.

If he does turn I put the under/over at 3 weeks for his life expectancy ;)

What is the average salary of a NBA referee?

Jugs - I'm gonna guess it's #21, because that's the age you can legally gamble.

Salvatore has a "mob" ring to it...... hum... hope I dont get a fish on the doorstep.

What do I win? :)

His rep is screwed forever!!!

Nice call M&M.

As long as nobody sees the same story was posted on CBS Sportsline about a half hour before I posted my guess... ;)

I had a feeling... :D People are rarely that lucky. ;)

I THOUGHT THE SAME!:D

I figured I better come clean before the investigation. :D

You win a relaxing drive into the country with these guys.

http://images.art.com/images/-/Goodf...C10101962.jpeg

Bring your shovel, you'll need it.

Oh, I always keep one with me. It comes in handy wading through some of the posts around here... :D

Looks like it's Tim Donaghy #21.................too bad

Looks like Rasheed Wallace and Doc Rivers may have had a point. Maybe he was out to get them!

This is a serious black eye for the NBA. They make all the noise about how they're improving their image and their security, and now the integrity of the game is in question.

A sad day for all basketball fans.

Say it ain't so, Tim.

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

MTD, Sr.

From the covers link posted before, his games did hit the "over" on the over-under bets more often than you would expect. Maybe he was betting the over and then calling a tight game to get more shooters on the foul line and the clock stopped...?

Note to that certain someone, this is what happens when officials have a "vested interest" in the outcome of a game; and why I strongly avoid using the term.

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

M&M, I am surpised at you. I am surprised you did not double post your guess.

I forgot to add, that not only are they fun guys to be with, when they are one of the best three man officiating crews in NE Ohio and when they take a contract you know that a coach is going to get whacked. :D

MTD, Sr.

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. :D

MTD, Sr.

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?

Hey, I just had to stand up for my man Steve Javie J-A-V-I-E, not Javey. Oh, and he got a new hairstyle, he only seems to slick it back when it gets a little long. I tried this look once, it took me two weeks to get teh Pennzoil outta my hair. But, it did look pretty sweet!!!:D

CLH

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.

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

Interesting but read this...

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

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

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

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.....

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

FBI Investigating NBA Ref
 

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!

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

OMG - that column is incredible.

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.

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.

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.

What is RSBQ?

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.

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.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=22752

Rhythm is better than rate, though.

You need to work through either (a) your lack of confidence, or (b) how much you care about this forum.

I disagree. This unfortunate incident will have little or no effect on the games I do; though I'm in Canada. It is something else that we have to decide upon if we hear something, such as "Did the mob tell you to call that foul?" I'm sure a joke or two will come out of this situation, and if I hear it as such, I will take it as so. But if they're not joking, it's a T like any other comment designed to challenge our integrity.

I posted this as a link the other day. But here is the information:

For the 2006-07 season:
(How home teams fared when Donaghy was an official):
Against the Spread: 30-41-3
Over/Under: 43-29
Points For: 101.50
Points Against: 99.66
Win Margin: 1.84
Total Points: 201.16

For the 2005-06 season:
Against the Spread: 32-32-2
Over/Under: 36-30
Points For: 99.33
Points Against:97.47
Win Margin: 1.86
Total Points: 196.8

Source: Covers.com

1) That's what they teach at camps. Find someone that's been to one and ask them.

2) It leaves you masquerading as an official in those low level rec league games that you do.

QUESTION: How do you know when Old School screws up a rule?
ANSWER: Every time that he tries to answer a question.

JR,

Why do you keep responding to this fool? If you noticed when he addressed me I have not responded and I did not even need to use an ignore list. It is very clear he does not know anything. Just let it go sometimes. ;)

Peace

Jeff, you're right. I probably should. But this clown is like fingernails on a blackboard to me, and he's been that way since he was JMO over on McGriffs. He's just aggravating as hell.

The biggest problem that I have with him is that new officials and non-officials might actually believe some of the crap that he posts. By posing as an official, he makes all of us look bad to anyone foolish enough to actually believe that he is one.

You are right though. We all might be better off if <b>everyone</b> just ignores him. It's just kinda tough to ignore him when he butchers a basic rule so badly though.

Here's the video montage that Simmons mentions in the article:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fvkKdXLwt0U

While this is interesting in aggregate (notice how scoring went up 5 ppg and the over/under edge for the home team went from 36-30 to 43-29) it is not likely that all the games were in play. If he was truly "throwing games", it was probably not more than one game a week or so. Don't want to go to the well too often.

I guess if I paid more attention in Statistics class I could pick up other trends, from the aggregate numbers, but that's what I get for taking a course graded on a curve, LOL.

Good.

Mistaken identity.

I can not make you are anyone else look bad. You make yourself look bad. Quite blaming the world for your shortcomings. Also, you (or myself for that matter) can no more control the way someone else thinks than you can control the weather. You insult everyone's intelligent by assuming other officials, other potential officials don't have the wherewithal to open up the book that's available to everyone and read the correct answer themselves.

It never ceases to amaze me how one person tries to convince others who they should and should not talk too. That's okay when you are kids but when you reach a certain age, you have to learn to let others make their own choices. By you trying to make the choice for someone else, you make yourself look bad.

Peace

1st play--This was not a very good call. I have seen this call made many times at all levels.

2nd play--Looked like a block to me.

3rd play--Great offensive foul. You cannot just push someone out of the way in the post. This is often not called and they got it right.

4th play--This was a very close call. Also an NBA official told me that when they look at film on block/charge calls, that 80% were considered blocks by the NBA. Also Nash kind of flopped and the NBA wants more calls either way on these types of plays. Even at the camps I went to this summer; it was beat into our head to call something.

5th play--Looked like the defender ran into Duncan. Hard to say how much of the contact caused Duncan to foul, but he did after all fall. Bad angle on the replay, but I see why the foul was called. BTW, you noticed no players complained? ;)

6th play--What is the damn problem? An offensive foul was called (or Player Control Fouls for other levels).

7th play--It is called defense for a reason. They can touch you. And it looked to me as if Nash was losing the ball when there was any kind of contact. Just because Nash reacted does not make it a foul.

8th play--The defender tapped away the ball. It is called DEFENSE!!! (Or DEFENCE for Mr. Nash).

The bottom line the only call that I would say that was totally bogus was the one made by Tim Donaghy which was very early in the game and likely he was dinged for this anyway. Once again the average person does not understand that the NBA evaluated each call. Now we do not know what the NBA thought, but as an official when a ball handler tries to squeeze a ball between two defenders, that is not likely to be called. For one it is a dumb play and secondly there is always going to be some kind of contact. That is just the nature of the game.

Peace

Do we need any more evidence that OS doesn't do upper high school or any college?

You should word this, "Each person makes him or herself look bad or look good". JR doesn't make himself look bad. He knows the rules, reads the book, and applies the rules consistently. He makes himself look good. The only thing he asks of you is that you do the same, and he states quite clearly what happens when you don't. On which point you appear to agree with him by saying, "You make yourself look bad."

If it's so easy to do it, why don't you?

Thanks to The Score, a Canadian channel, for providing this footage.

Play 1: Not a good call at all, with Tim Donaghy at T.

Play 2: I've got a foul on Tim Duncan.

Play 3: This is a foul. 100%.

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.

Play 5: I've got a Team B foul. Duncan still is a whiner.

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.

Play 7: Looks like Nash messed up one of his behind the back passes. I couldn't see the foul from that angle.

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

All in all, at best 50% correct calls by this crew.

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.

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 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

I agree, first play was a very very bad call from Tim. You just got to trust your partners on this play and at this level. Calls like this make you look bad as a crew.

Play #4: I would have called a block on Nash because I don't want little players running underneath bigger players in an attempt to draw a foul. Bigger player falls harder, could cause injury. My block call here is a statement call. I think this was a great call. This is what I call protecting the good players. In HS, this is offense.

Bad call on Diaw, where Duncan stuck his leg out. I don't have a problem with this call, but I think it would have been a better call on Duncan. Here is where you want a patient whistle and penalize the worse infraction which was Duncan throwing his leg out. I mean, I could have had a defensive foul but upgraded it because of Duncan cheap actions in the end. Lead should have been all over this call, offense. Duncan would have said, how is that offense, and i would have said, because you stuck your leg out. You don't do that, I got a defensive foul.

Last, the fouls on Nash. Nash is the 2-time MVP, and knows how to handle the ball and is a great basketball player. He doesn't throw the ball away. SA got away with some cheap defensive tactics here. It's like hitting under the belt. Here is where the officials looked bad to me. They let cheap sh!t get by on one of the leagues best players. I'm talking cheap play. However, I will agree you don't try to dribble between two players. I'm not bailing out any dribbler when they make bad decisions like this.

This was one of the NBA's best games of the year, best series of the year. This would have been a great game to work. This is the type of game I live for. Men's basketball played at a very high level, like this series is the best basketball in the world. This game had excitement, great basketball play, officials made some great calls here. They missed a few but they got more than they missed. I don't think the NBA officials are that accustom to play that is this fast. They missed a lot of cheap stuff going on at the point guard position. Because of this, one team was put at a disadvangate. In the end, I say average job, it definitely was not a bad job like I heard others say. I also don't think Tim had enough time to do anything but call what was in front of him.

Read the last response. This is the perfect example to just ignore him. :D

Peace

Interesting stuff on ESPN.com....

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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

You know, you really need to grow up. If you believe that to be true of your man, then so be it. There is no hope for you. There is a term for people like you. Enablers. Have you ever heard that term before? Do you know what it really means? I will not challenge your opinion of your man. I just share a different one.

The question you asked about reading the book. I've been doing this so long, I don't have to. Then again, I'm not trying to be perfect. I'm just trying to get the right call at the right time which I tend to do quite well. My expereince tells me that I don't have to be perfect to be a good official. I also don't have to call you an idiot because you don't know as much as i do.

OS telling rainmaker to grow up? This has to be the stoopidest post in the forum's history.

This pretty much sums up what most of us have known for a while - you aren't a real official. Any real official reads the rule and case books every year, because the rules change every year. Some of us read it many more times than once a year. Every good official strives to be perfect. Realistically, none of us ever reach perfection, but we continue to try.

A wise man once said, when an official stops trying to be perfect, then it's time to hang up the whistle and retire from officiating. You should listen to that wise man.

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.

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.

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 :D) during an NF game.

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 :D) during an NF game.

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.

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. ;)

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

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.

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.

I see what you mean. Call a foul on the smaller player in a block/charge situation because you have to protect the larger player. :rolleyes: That certainly is a different philosophy.....different than any other official in the world, for sure.

And his statement about doing this so long that he doesn't have to read the rule books is self-explanatory, but still doesn't surprise anyone.

JMO.....silly monkey......

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.

My man!?!? My MAN!?!? ROTFLMAO!!

I heard he's built like a cement post.

At least that's what he tells me.

Who JR? I wouldn't know.

But if you mean MY man, well, I'm not publicizing.... (though, I gotta wonder where you would have heard about it...)

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.

I wasn't sure who it was in the picture you sent me...

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.

I see. My man didn't grow up in Keizer, he's from further down the valley. Think Sequoias. Old Growth. None of that dinky cement post stuff.

<font size = font size>:D</font size>

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

Good luck with that.

In case you didn't notice, the NBA official called a block. Maybe it wasn't for the same reason, but we arrived at the same conclusion. Just like little cars don't run up under diesal trucks, little guys don't run up under big guys. Reason, diesal truck won't see you until it's too late, much the same for a bigger player, except the damage is greater towards the bigger player. Yes, that's called protecting the players.

I know you know nothing about protecting players because it doesn't say so in the book. In my games, I'm not having it. Notice how Steve didn't try to do that move anymore. Message sent. The NBA which I have studied, doesn't approach the game the way NFHS does. One reason is they can't. Their players are so much bigger.

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

Well, that certainly hurts my feelings.....:(

To parahrase SNL......

"Needs more rebar".......:mad: