NBA Officials
 

There have been countless articles both in the print and broadcast mediums concerning the betting/game fixing/point shaving scandal in the NBA. I desparetly hope that none if it is true. I have had the good fortune to officiate for far more years (36 years through 2006-07 and still counting) than I ever expected, and to have achieved a level of success that well over 95% of all officials never get to acheive, it is very saddening to read that this kind of thing could actually happen in our profession.

I personally know one NBA official and two WNBA officials and everybody on this forum knows that scrutiny that today's NBA officials undergo (having each and every play they make a yes or no decision analyzed). My own personal belief is that it is extremely difficult for a three-man officiating crew could alter the outcome of a game at any level let alone one official in a crew. I hope that the accusations are false and whether they are true or not, I hope that our profession will whether the storm and being even stronger for it.

I think that we should let the investigation take its course and reserve judgement until then.

MTD, Sr.

I dunno, Mark....

I sympathize, but there's one helluva lot of smoke coming out for there to be no fire....we shall see....

An accusation does not make it true. Until we find out the details we are just guessing.

Peace

Clearly, the camp staff was well-informed. ;)

Very true, but Stern's comments certainly make sound like he's convinced. "We would like to assure our fans that no amount of effort, time or personnel is being spared to assist in this investigation, to bring to justice an individual who has betrayed the most sacred trust in professional sports, and to take the necessary steps to protect against this ever happening again," Stern said.

We may be guessing, but I'm sure Stern isn't. He's already seen what the FBI has. I think ESPN is carrying Stern's news conference at 11 am Eastern today.

While I can understand the sentiment, I think we should all remember that the allegation (unless I have missed something) is not that he necessarily changed the outcome of the game (winner) but that he made calls to influence the spread and over/under totals.

I think everyone will agree that calls/no-calls at every level are subjective. It is very difficult to review a game film and say with 100% certainty that a call should have gone the other way. An official, if he wanted to, could also impact the game, spread and total points early in the game. Suppose Wade gets popped for a couple of fouls (legitimate) by your partners...then all I need to do is make one bogus call on him and go against him in a bang-bang play and he has to sit because of foul trouble.

I am of the opinion that while the officials in the NBA are, for the most part, the best there is that a big part of getting to that level (maybe even as important as you officiating ability) is who you know, being in the right place at the right time and you personality. You can be the best official alive, but if you are a butt head and act aloof you are probably not going to advance. I also firmly believe that any collection of people (regardless of the profession) is going to have roughly the same proportion of "characters" and flaws as the general population.

I think we are also finding out that the glorious "evaluation" process in which they participate has some flaws...possibly serious flaws.

As canuckrefguy said...there is a lot of smoke. While he is innocent until proven guilty in the legal system...in the court of public opinion he is already toast. That may be sad and wrong, but it is reality and the consequences of the decisions he apparently made.

Scrappy, wouldn't you agree that Stern is getting a bit ahead of himself in terms of a presumption of innocence?

David Stern is the Commissioner of the NBA. He has a different responsibility to his league than other individuals. Similar to Arthur Blank and the Michael Vick situation, we have no idea what is going to ultimately happen. The official might have done things that were unethical that he would have lost his job anyway. But to say he fixed games is might be a stretch. Remember there have been no charges filed. There is no information on specific games (at least made public). I am just saying until we know for sure or some information is made public, be careful how much you think you might know. Usually what is presumed at the beginning of a situation usually does not end up the really took place. Remember "Weapons of Mass Destruction?" Just because we believe the sky is falling does not mean that is ultimately true.

Peace

Not necessarily. He's probably seen/heard the evidence that the FBI has collected; at the very least, he's been briefed on it by the FBI. If he didn't have the evidence in front of him, I can't believe that he would come out so strongly on the issue. The guy is a league employee, after all. If there was still some doubt in his mind, he would likely say the usual "wait to hear all the evidence" things.

I'm not ready to convict the guy, because I don't have any evidence at all. But I'm sure that Stern does. We'll probably find out in about 20 minutes.

Can we listen in online somewhere?

I'm not a lawyer of course but I believe the FBI can't disclose evidence that's going to a grand jury. Regardless of what Stern's role is here the government is bound by law. In any event if I was a lawyer and I got hired to represent the official in question I would certainly make a big deal out of Stern having tainted any potential jury pool with his remarks. There's a reason why in the real world we often hear people say things like "I can't talk about it because it's under investigation...or going to trial...or in trial". Apparently these considerations don't apply in Stern's world.

Of course neither of us know what we're talking about so I'll go ahead and give you *my* take. Stern is facing a huge sh1tstorm with this story and he's more than willing to identify and publicly hang any scapegoats that will help his case. Regardless of what evidence he may or may not have seen.

Stern is giving a press conference right now.

Got it on www.sportsline.com

I know it's not the same thing, but didn't we just see some athletes get convicted before trial and turn out to be completely innocent. And, the guilty party there was someone who had more reason to know better than David Stern.

True,but supposedly he's going to plead guilty, and sing like a canary. Pretty safe to assume he's guilty if he plans on pleading guilty.

True. But until he pleads quilty he's assumed to be what...?

Maybe, but it's "supposed" at this point. My only point is that just because someone who's supposed to have seen and evaluated the evidence is going on television and proclaiming the accused to be guilty doesn't mean he is in fact guilty; even if the person on TV has credibility.
Granted, Stern isn't Nifong, and doesn't face disbarment if this all goes south for the feds; but it doesn't make Stern's statement any more credible. Like I said, if this all goes south for the feds, Stern is going to owe an apology to this official.

Edited to mark #4000. Me and Pete Rose, baby. Now, what are the odds that this thread gets to 50 posts?

I think we can all agree that Stern's #1 priority right now is to protect the League - and if he can do that by throwing this official under the bus, then he will do it in a heartbeat and worry about any apologies he has to make later when and if that time comes...

On a side note, I have led discussions at camps and training sessions for both officials and teachers (my real job) in which I have pointed out that as a ref (or teacher) we are held to a higher standard than the general public (coaches, players, parents, whatever)...but that does NOT mean that everyone who becomes an official (or teacher) is above reproach, and it is our job to make sure that we "police" ourselves so to speak...if this guy was doing these things, someone should have known and figured it out and blown the whistle on him...I find it very hard to believe that no one had a clue and everyone was taken by surprise as Stern keeps saying. They had to know there was something strange going on...

I wonder if the NBA wasn't approached in the midst of the investigation to attempt to gather evidence using the NBA's evaluation system. That might explain Stern's confidence in Tim's guilt.

DJ, I've been in this whistle-blowing game for close to 50 years now. I can watch an NBA game now and not have a clue as to what a foul is. Or when traveling should be called. Or when 3-seconds should be called. Or.....

I couldn't say that 20-25 years ago.

That's one of the reasons that I don't watch the NBA anymore.

Apparently Donaghy's evaluations were good and his ratings were high. That has to reflect more on the NBA's current system imo. Garbage in...garbage out.

I agree...it's very hard to watch. But the people in the league who do know and understand - most importantly other officials - should have been able to figure out that something weird was going on...they do understand the way the league wants things called, etc...it just strikes me as very odd that everyone involved with the league is acting so surprised and shocked. How could no one have known anything???

One thing I've noticed in the some of the stories after Stern's news conference is that they are referring to the official being guilty of betting on games, including ones he has officiated, and providing information on games to others. There is, so far, no substantiation of actually fixing games. Perhaps that is why Stern is sure he's guilty - guilty of betting on games, not necessarily fixing games. Maybe that's why other officials seemed surprised, because there might not be any impropriety during actual games.

Protect the league from what? If he's convinced the allegations are true, then jettisoning Donaghy is a good move. But if he's not, wouldn't it be better for the league to stand by your man and assert that there has been no impropriety?

Two points....

Sterns words verbatim were "Donaghy is the only referee <b>alleged</b> to have bet on NBA games and disclosed confidential information to others."

Donaghy <b>resigned</b> his position. He wasn't suspended or fired. He's history...by his own hand.

Sterns also said...

"Suffice to say, we would have liked to have terminated him earlier, but our understanding was the investigation would best be aided if we did not terminate Mr. Donaghy,"

I can possibly understand the logic of letting him continue to work. It would be easy to convince yourself that the damage was already done and cooperating with the FBI would not make it worse. By why give him a second round playoff assignment? Why not find a reason to keep him out?

From an article on the press conference...

Stern also outlined the NBA's process of evaluating the officiating of every game, but conceded it had been focused more on the quality of referees' performances than searching for possible wrongdoing. That will probably change, he said. <<<bold added by me>>>

Ya think?

Right.

And, again my point - no where is there any mention of "fixing" games, whether it is changing the point spread, or actually determining who wins or loses.

he wasn't making a ton of bad calls Jurassic. heck, he didn't even have to make the wrong call sometimes. Sometimes a foul could have came at the perfect time for him. Maybe sometimes in the 4th qtr., while the PG was dribbling, a defender put a hand on the PG on the perimeter and he calls a quick foul, which by the NBA guidelines is a foul. Well a couple of those along with a couple of fouls from your partners and you have the team shooting the penalty early in the 4th. All the time Donaghy gets his fouls charted as correct calls. Easy enough, all the while uping his play calling percentage.

all in all if he was a great play recognition guy and got damn near all his plays right until one or two plays in the 4th, I can see easily how he gets to the playoffs. Plus he didn't have to fix every game. I'm sure there isn't as much betting going on when the Atlanta Hawks play the Charlotte Bobcats vs. the Spurs and the Heat.

Let us also remember, betting on the sport is a big time no-no. Stern said in the press conference is we do not care if you bet on games you were involved in or games you were not involved in. He was going to lose his job over that in the first place if that fact was remotely true (which it appears to be at this time). Fixing actual games is another issue all together.

Peace

Get your dates straight.

He didn't continue to work. The league found out on June 20, 2007. That's more than a month after his last game.

Donaghy resigned circa two weeks ago. They would like to have fired him when they found out but did not.

JRut... did I hear him correctly when he said NO GAMBLING at all is allowed in the NBA (except horse racing) ?

Huh? :confused:

That's exactly what's being reported, that he fixed games. If you make calls to affect the number of points scored in a game, then from a gambling aspect, you have FIXED the game.

How can you say there's no mention?

People who bet all the time would bet on just about every game they can get their hands on. Usually many betters are chasing money. So they might have a sure thing in one game, but they want to make sure they can cover on other games. This is why I do not like betting at all.

Peace

According to the reports on Stern's news conference, "Stern said the NBA is aware Donaghy is being accused of betting on games and providing information to others for the purpose of profiting off bets. Stern also said that he was unaware of any discussions of Donaghy potentially fixing games."

I was also under the impression it was for fixing games, point spreads, whatever. That was what most of the stories focused on initially. But that isn't what is being reported now. Maybe the gambling is all Stern knows for sure now, and that is all he needs to get Donaghy to resign. Maybe there is more behind the scenes, but it is only speculation.

Yes I did. The horse racing part was also negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement. It was also made clear by Stern that the NBA had the strictest policy on gambling as it relates to other sports for their officials.

Peace

No. It would be better to get rid of him - whether he "resigns" or is fired - immediately...you can always reinstate him and offer an "apology" later if it all turns out to be bogus after all...then Stern can point to his actions and simply say he was trying to protect the integrity of the league...get as much distance from the accused as you can, the whole concept of "plausible deniability", etc...

While Stern may have been careful is selecting his words, I think we've all read what's been written and he's the only one saying that. If you're the type of person who is betting on games that you're officiating, then you're going to make calls that affect the point spread. That's were the integrity issue comes in.

Take a look at the article where sports gambler R.J. Bell put together some numbers on his games and the outcomes. In the two years prior to the alleged activity, TD's games beat the over 44% of the time. In the two years during the activity, his games surpassed the over 57%. The odds of that happening are 1000 to 1. There were 12 straight TD games where their was so much big money bet just before the game that the points pushed 1.5 points prior to the tip. In 10 of those 12 games, if you had bet with the money, you would had won. That's an 80% winning percentage, which is next to impossible.

Sorry but I don't buy that the fix wasn't in.

Q: To the best of your understanding, do you really feel that it's possible to determine if a referee is actually cheating, making calls that aren't real?
Stern: That's a really good question. It's very hard, but we're going to give it our best shot. There are things that you have been speculating about in the media in the last few days about the number of calls, the disparity of calls and the like. But it's hard, but we're going to do it and we'll be able to make the judgment at that time.

It would not surprise me if it proves to be difficult, but I just want to say one thing here. If you bet on a game, you lose the benefit of the doubt. So I'm not going to stand here and say to you, it didn't happen, because that would impair the credibility that I think the NBA deserves for its efforts, and that's why we don't allow betting on games because as our brochure that we give to the referees says, that if you bet, then people will assume that the game is being subjected to the possibility that it would be decided by other than on its merits, and I think that's a fair point. And I will make no defense, neat criminal distinction between betting on games here and something worse. You lose the benefit of the doubt when you do it.

Isn't that what they were supposed to be doing already with their vaunted evaluation program? If the calls are that subjective(which a lot of them are imo), and it's so hard to decide whether the right call was made or not, don't you think that something new in the way of evaluation has to come about?

I'm not sure if the original comment was made in regards to future attempts to detect cheating as part of the eval or not, I suspect it was. There has been a lot of criticism leveled because the NBA's current evaluation system didn't detect this. I just don't see how it could have.

Evaluating an official's performance for a single game is a very different activity than mining evaluation and other related data for evidence of fraud or cheating. If you're not focused on the latter, I don't see where there is any reasonable expectation that you would discover it, not if it's subtle.

To do so would indeed require something new. Probably an army of statistics nerds locked in a storage closet somewhere doing round-the-clock analyses on mountains of data about call selection, long term trends, what the odds were, what the outcome was, etc. In theory it should be possible to determine some kind of baseline profile for each official then spot deviations from it. Who knows, they may even be able to create the statistical equivalent of QuesTec.

And I'm sure Stern would love nothing more than to have irrefutable statistical evidence that the conspiracy theorists are all wrong. Well, except maybe to have it all printed in a hefty spread sheet he can roll up and beat the hell out of Mark Cuban with the next time he goes off :D

He better be careful about beating up Cuban with anything right now. Sterns needs to be concerned with the league's perception with the fans...you know, those insignificant minions that BUY TICKETS...my bet is 95% of them are thinking Cuban was right and Sterns' glorious system is a big stinking pile of bull dung.

Honestly, if I were in Sterns position...as soon as the whirlwind settles a bit and more details come out, I would establish a committee made up of owners and former officials to review and overhaul the officials evaluation program, to include something to detect suspect activity/trends, and make Cuban the chairman.

Are you serious? Owners?

Whatinthehell do <b>owners</b> know about officiating?

And make Cuban the chairman? Helluva idea. I'm sure that his Mavs would just love the officiating after he got done with it. The other teams in the league? Not so much methinks. All Cuban cares about is whether his team is gonna get their fair share of the calls that he thinks that they deserve, which is about 85% of 'em.

Give me a break Jurassic...what do the owners in the NFL know about rules? Yet they have a competition committee that handles, amoung other things, rules.

First, like it or not, the OWNERS are, or should be, the ones that dictate how things are handled in a professional league. If by no other way, than by employing a commissioner. Sterns may be powerful, but you can bet your last dollar that if he started doing things the owners didn't like they would get things changed.

Second, do you really think any official in the NBA is going to do anything that may even be remotely perceived as bias? My bet is next year you will see a marked difference in how things are called. They are not going to want to be viewed as "on the take". I am not saying any others are, but it is human nature to act differently when a peer is caught up in something like this...and even though a lot here don't think they are, NBA officials are human.

Lastly, If ANY owner of any team in any league is only concerned with his team then that owner is a short sighted business idiot. A team benefits when the league as a whole does well. Cuban may be a lot of things...but short sighted business idiot is not one of them.

That's because 25 years ago they didn't have 30 cameras to zoom in on an official's mistake, and they didn't play in on Sportscenter 35 times each hour.

NBA officials make 7-10 mistakes a game. They don't alert the fans to these mistakes, but teams are told that a mistake was made. If you watch a game and observe a no-call that you think should have been called, don't assume that's the way the NBA wants it called. It's possible that the ref didn't see it, or saw it and had a brain fart. These guys are the best, but they are not perfect.

Screw the NBA. My faith in the integrity of the gambling industry has been shaken to the core. I don't even know if I can bet on boxing now.

Too funny. There's always UFC. Boxing is on the way out.

You completely missed my point. I said that I don't know what a foul is in the NBA because there doesn't seem to be any consistency. I've seen players knocked into the third row without a call, and I've seen similar plays with a call--including a flagrant foul called. I've seen contact outside on the dribbler called a foul, and I've seen the exact same contact outside on a dribbler let go.

That's what I meant when I said that I don't know what a foul in the NBA is anymore. For the record, I also can't tell you how they call traveling either. One time it is, and then the exact same play a few minutes later isn't. And....that's <b>one</b> of the reasons why I personally find the current version of the NBA unwatchable.

1) How many <b>owners</b> are actually on the 8 men composing the NFL voting competition committee? I looked it up. There's ONE owner on the committee. The other members are 2 coaches, 2 GM's and 3 team presidents. The GM's and team presidents have football experience in either playing, coaching or administrating. Having 8 owners on the committee would be an outright disaster. Most of 'em know dick-all about football, let alone football officiating.

2) Interesting thought, Care to explain exactly what you mean by it? <b>How</b> are things going to be changed? <b>What</b> things are going to be changed? Just <b>what</b> is going to be different in the way that the game is going to be called next year?

Is it too late for me to change career plans? I'll go get my slide rule and abacus!

they need to get professor Charlie Epps.