United States Army General hired by the NBA for referee operations
 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3469129

A United States Army general has been hired by the NBA to the newly created position of senior vice president for referee operations, the league announced Tuesday.

Ronald L. Johnson, a two-star general who recently retired from active duty as deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will be responsible for all aspects of the NBA's officiating program, including recruiting, training and development, scheduling, data management and analysis, and work rules enforcement.

Johnson will report to Joel Litvin, the NBA's president for league and basketball operations.
"As I leave the military and return to civilian life, I can't imagine a more interesting and challenging position," Johnson said in a statement. "Although I don't have a basketball background, other than as a lifelong fan, I am confident that my experience as an Army commander and engineer has equipped me to bring leadership and innovation to the NBA's exceptional officiating program."

The announcement of the new role comes as disgraced referee Tim Donaghy's July 14 sentencing looms for his role in a gambling scheme. The 41-year-old Donaghy pleaded guilty last year to felony charges of taking cash payoffs from gamblers in the 2006-07 season. He faces up to 33 months in prison.

Johnson's hiring formalizes the separation of the league's referee and basketball operations functions, as previously announced by the league. Stu Jackson will continue as executive vice president of basketball operations and remain responsible for all other domestic and international basketball matters.

"Ron's wealth of leadership and management experience, together with his engineering expertise in areas such as systems analysis, processes, and operations, make him an ideal candidate to lead our officiating program," commissioner David Stern said in a statement. "Our referees are the best in the world but they never stop striving to improve and Ron has made a career out of getting the very best out of people."

I'm just curious how this guy's name surfaced on the NBA radar in the first place. Did they solicit resumes, was he in the right place at the right time, or does he have a some sort of connection with a NBA big wig?

It's gotta be some kind of connection like that. Who in their right mind would hire somebody with no officiating background for this job? What are they really expecting him to do? Are they just looking for a "tough guy" to run the "rouge" referee organization? Perhaps somebody owes this guy money? :D

Why would you put someone with no prior basketball experience or officiating knowledge in charge of your referees?

I would do that if I didn't want to be challenged by my new hire. I wouldn't want to hire a qualified applicant because then they might take my job from me if they get too good at it. :rolleyes:

-Josh

Then you need to be replaced, by your new hire or just somebody more competent. Good managers hire the most talented people they can get and then let them do what they were hired to do. Besides, how can you move up if you can't be replaced in the job you're currently doing? ;)

The NBE....duh.

Somebody with an officiating background might try to enact something that the League wants nothing to do with...like having the officials actually follow the rules. Can't have that.

Does the WWE actually need to have an actual pro wrestling referee in charge of their officials?

Same story.

I was absolutely being sarcastic, fyi. I would, of course, want to hire the most qualified because it makes me look better. :p

-Josh

In the NBE, traveling, palming....hell, fouls....aren't called by the rulebook. It's sports entertainment.

Anybody that thinks differently just isn't paying attention imo.

I just read MG Johnson's official U.S. Army biography. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and appears to have been an engineering officier his entire Army career which not unusual for a person with his engineering background; I would venture to say that his engineering dicipline is civil engineering based on the positions he has held in the Army. A civilian equivilent position to his current Army position would be most likely be as a vice-president of engineering for a large manufacturing corporation. Which means that what he does for a living has absolutely no correlation to being in charge of sports officials. I have no doubt that he is very good at what he does in the military, but he has no qualifications for the job that the NBA has hired him to do.

MTD, Sr.

LOL!!!

Peace

As a servicemember who has served under Gen Johnson. I too wondered where the qualifications came from. However, you do not have to know the job to managed it and the personnel within the system. Gen Johnson is smart articulate, and pays attention to detail. So, it is my belief that Gen Johnson will do a bang up job!! (good job):D .

This is like saying you shouldn't make it to Division I because you have only been officiating for 5 years. Growth potential. JMO

Essayons!!!

"Let us Try"

Say what?

Don't think so.....and your analogy is not even close.

Try...."This Is like saying that you can make it to Division 1 without ever having officiated a game in your life or knowing a damn thing about the game or it's rules."

Or maybe even closer...."This is like saying that you're qualified to replace Hank Nichols because you have been a good policeman."

And that makes perfect sense because the officiating in the NBE no longer has much to do with...well....officiating. They're getting closer to being traffic cops....keep the show moving and ignore the minor stuff.

As always, jmo.

While I admit it is a strange hire I think most here are being a little...make that a great deal...arrogant. Anyone hired to run a segment of any business at that level within the organization does not necessarily have to know everything there is to know about the "on the floor" details. Executives at that level need to be very good at (1) managing the people that report to them (2) evaluating and hiring their immediate subordinates (3) setting the agenda for the "division" (4) setting the management tone (5) receiving recommendations from thier subordinates and making decisions.

Why is it necessary for someone that he be an official to manage the people reporting directly to him? People are people...assigning them task, setting deadlines and holding them accountable are not skills held exclusively by officials.

What makes anyone think he needs to be one of the top officials in the NBA to select someone to manage particular areas under his jurisdiction? He has an entire officiating staff and others who have called in the league to use as a resource in getting the right person to develop training programs, evaluation systems, etc. He can hire a subordinate to oversee that task.

Why is it necessary that he previously called NBA games to know that official ethics might be an area that needs review and modification. Even if the officials are "the best in the world", does that mean they cannot get better and that there is no need to review, refine and expand the training program? Do the need to implement/refine their efforts to recruit and groom the next generation of top officials? When your 20 best decide to retire, the next 20 on your rating list better be ready to step up. Again, something he can hire someone to handle.

It is not necessary for someone to be an official to set policy related to discipline, promotion, etc. Knowing you have someone who will can your arse if your performance on the floor declines substantially or you do too many stupid things off the floor is not a bad thing. I don't know every single detail about every aspect to the jobs performed be people in my department. However, if my manager comes to me and says they have warned an employee twice, counseled them on improving their performance and given them additional training but things aren't improving I can still make to decision to send them down the road. If someone commits a blatant violation of policy I am still able to hand down the appropriate punishment.

Please...maybe someone should find out exactly what the NBA Commissioner and owners want that position to accomplish before we decide if his qualifications are a match. Just because some things in the job description are obvious does not mean the obvious things are an all inclusive list. There may be other things on the list that are deemed more important in the short to middle term.

[quote=Jurassic Referee]
They're getting closer to being traffic cops....keep the show moving and ignore the minor stuff.

If this is the case, the policman can replace Hank Nichols according to you.;)

[QUOTE=truerookie]Nope, you're still failing to understand the basic premise of your own analogy.

According to me, a policeman could replace the current NBE director of officiating, whoverthehell that is. Or maybe some general who knows dickall about officiating......

1) Please point me to where I can find some actual proof that this statement is even close to being accurate. I await your response.

2)Bull Pucky! I know the basic NBE traveling rules. They ain't much different from the NCAA/FED rules. I also have eyes. I saw a player take <b>FIVE(5)</b> freaking steps on a dunk in a recent playoff game with no whistle. It just happens too damn often in the NBE to be a blown call either.

3) Exactly. Who cares if they take 5 steps? Nobody got an advantage. And it's entertainment anyway. And btw, thanks for making my point.

4) Fouls? I'm coming up to 50 years in basketball officiating. I don't have a clue what a foul is in the NBE. The only thing that I know is that they are consistently inconsistent when it comes to calling them.

You have your opinion. I have mine. And mine is that the NBE officials today could be the same ones that do the Globetrotter games. Who cares about little things like rules when the main focus isn't competition anymore but entertainment? And that isn't the officials' fault either. It's the fault of the people giving direction to those officials. And it's now coming back to bite those people in the azz....and they deserve it.

I guess the NBA Referees will have to go to IRAQ now!!!!! LOL!!!!

I learned a long time ago that in business if you have a general manager job open, and a choice between a very good leader and a very good technician (meaning, someone with a solid background in the technique of whatever the company's product or service is), you hire the leader. The leader knows how to motivate people and get results and he can always hire a staff level tactician.

However, in my above example, I'm assuming the leader knows what a car is, or knows what a computer is, or knows a little about the product or service in the first place. He may be hired for a software company and not be able to write a line of code, but he can use the software after some training. In this case, this person hired may be a good leader, but he doesn't know what a computer is and he's being asked to run a computer company (e.g.).

Chief Officer ...
 

I'm a retired teacher. Here in Connecticut, all public school systems, individual towns, or regional school districts, have as their "chief officer" a Superintendent of Schools, who, in Connecticut, must have at least a master's degree in education, and started out as a classroom teacher, before moving up the ladder to school department chair, assistant principal, principal, assistant superintendent, etc.

The Superintendent, in many towns, and regions, controls a budget of millions of dollars, controls an inventory of school buildings, furniture, books, etc, worth millions of dollars, and supervises hundreds of teachers. It is my understanding that a few Midwestern states, Minnesota, or Michigan, pop into my mind, are experimenting with Superintendents that may lack a college degree in education, may not have taught, but may hold a college degree in business, and may have experience as a chief officer of a business, or a corporation. I have heard that these experiments have been successful, and other states are considering trying this model. If I were still teaching, I wouldn't mind having non-educator working several levels above me, as long as he, or she, surrounded himself, or herself, with assistants who were educators.

Just my opinion. Don't know if it helps this discussion, or not.

1) Good for Joe DeRosa. My personal <b>guess</b> is that it's 1.23%. Now, you tell me. Which one of our <b>guesses</b> is right...and prove it.

2) Are you serious? I sureashell do and I try to teach it too. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the philosophy. You do <b>NOT</b> use advantage/disadvantage on freaking <b>violations</b>.....unless you really are officiating in the NBE. That's absolutely ridiculous. You apply advantage/disadvantage to contact to decide whether that contact is legal or not. Are you really saying that we should ignore traveling in the backcourt if there's no pressure? Or maybe a dribbler stepping on a sideline with nobody around? I don't know where you learned your philosophies from...it sounds like it came from the NBE .....but <b>real</b> basketball doesn't use those philosophies

3) You know how I can tell people who don't really have a good argument? They use phrases like "don't be over-officious" instead of using actual rules, mechanics and accepted officiating philosophies. Sorry, but that one just doesn't work with anybody that's officiated more than a season or two. It's meaningless.

4) Yup, they blow a lot of fouls in the NBE. Not much traveling or palming or little things like that, but a lot of fouls. Too bad they don't call those fouls the same against the home team or the stars though.

5) You missed my point completely. I'm not knocking the officials. I'm knocking the clowns who are <b>making</b> the officials call the pro game under entertainment philosophies rather than by their own rules. I'm blaming the jerks who tell the officials not to call traveling if someone is about to make one of those ESPN highlight reel dunks.

Something tells me that we just ain't gonna agree in this one.:)

He's probably looking to take it in an "urban camouflage" face-paint direction.:D

Just want to be sure.......

Are you saying that you agree with that philosophy for the NBE <b>only</b>? Or are you saying that you agree with that philosophy for all levels?

Here We Go Again ...
 

Jurassic Referee: I hesitate to open up an old wound, but I have to respond to your statement above, for some rookie officials who may be reading this thread.

"You do not use advantage/disadvantage on violations."
We are 99% in agreement. I just think that your statement is too general, and, in my opinion, is not supported, in this general form, by written rule, although, I will admit, is does seem to be supported by written case book interpretations.

From the Rule Book, please note that there is no differentiation between fouls and violations, but rather to rules in general:
The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules
The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and the tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasis cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player of a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

From the Case Book, certainly supports your view:
9.2.5 Situation: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team. Ruling: A violation in both (a) and (b). Comment: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

"You apply advantage/disadvantage to contact to decide whether that contact is legal or not".
Agree. 100%. Fully supported by the rules.
Rule 4-27 Art. 1: The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.
Art. 2: Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.
Art. 3: Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

"Are you really saying that we should ignore traveling in the backcourt if there's no pressure?"
I agree with you 100% on this. I would never ignore this. Why? This is what I've been taught, and in 27 years I've never seen a high quality varsity official ignore this.

"Or maybe a dribbler stepping on a sideline with nobody around?"
I agree with you 100% on this. I would never ignore this. Why? This is what I've been taught, in 27 years I've never seen a high quality varsity official ignore this, and the Case Book play noted above fully supports this.

"Basketball doesn't use those philosophies."
OK. Here we go. Using the Spirit and Purpose of the Rules, and what I've been taught about the Tower Philosophy, I'm ignoring the violation if a free throw shooter uses twelve seconds to release his, or her shot. I'm also going to ignore the violation by a player who gets "lost" in the lane for four seconds, not posting up anybody, not preparing to set a screen for a teammate, just standing with one foot outside the lane, and the other foot on elbow, although I may warn such a player to "Get out of the lane".

I know what I'm stating seems to make enforcing the Spirit and Purpose portion of the Rule Book like ordering off an a-la-carte menu, order this, don't order that; enforce this, don't enforce that, but this is what I've been taught, and this is what I have observed high quality officials doing for many, many years, which is why I've been interpreting advantage/disadvantage to applying to some violations.

OK Jurassic Referee. Let me brace myself. I'm ready. Let me have it. Give me your best shot.

I really do not know why you think we get traveling calls correct at the lower levels any better at the NBA level. I see travels all the time not called properly. The NBA is not special in this part of the game.

Peace

Then please do all of us a favor and find some other sport to officiate. Your philosophy has NO place in high school or college basketball.

Freaking ridiculous.....:rolleyes:

The two violations that you listed above are the only two violations that possibly could be said to be officiated through advantage/disadvantage. However, note that if you <b>DO</b> warn, you should only be warning that player <b>ONCE</b>. You don't give them <i>carte blanche</i> to take as long as they want on <b>all</b> free throws or roost in the lane <b>every</b> time down the court.

That I agree with. However, a <b>general</b> statement that advantage/disadvantage only applies to contact is completely correct imo.
Otherwise, you get officials who try to apply that philosophy to <b>ALL</b> violations at <b>ALL</b> levels. Case in point....this thread. That does nothing but hurt all of us imo.

Please let us know where the "cut off point" is between 1/10 of a second and two extra steps so we then know when to call the travel and when not to call it. Is it at 1/2 second or perhaps 3/4 step? Inquiring minds want to know.

Making a call like this has nothing to do with "advantage/disadvantage". Either the player traveled or he didn't. If he did and you saw it, call it. If he didn't or if he did and you didn't see it, don't call it. It's a simple game.

On what other rules do you flip a coin to decide if you will enforce them or not?

Wrong, nothing what you do in your area hurts me in any way. First of all people in my area think basketball is better in my area than most places in the state. Then when teams go across the country they think officiating is better (not my words). They only care about goes on in their area, just like most political issue in this country. Only when people are forced to do they pay attention to the Presidential Election. And if I have a different philosophy than I do or anyone here, it really does not change what we do.

I also think it is not called for to tell someone not to officiate only because you disagree with a particular philosophy they share. What you think about this is not the end all be all of what should be called or not. I can tell you from where I have been this summer for camps that clearly is not the case. Are you going to tell others that are working and assigning Division 1 basketball they should stop officiating because they teach things you do not agree with? You might, but they likely are going to tell you where to go. ;)

Peace

That pretty much sums it up right there.

Anybody that wants to make up and apply their very own personal set of rules doesn't help the rest of us. Whether we like or agree with certain rules isn't a factor either.

If someone wants to officiate a high school game using NBE philosophies, that's their prerogative. Good luck to them. the good part is that I don't have to work with them. And believe me, I won't.

Jmo...and i sureashell ain't gonna change it.

If you're telling me that people assigning D1 ball are teaching their people to officiate using advantage/disadvantage philosophies on violations, then you're not very believable imo. That's a complete pile of doodoo. The officiating bulletins issued by the NCAA say something completely different.

You're right. I shouldn't have got personal. I was wrong to do that and I apoligize.

Having said that, I really don't see a need to discuss it any further. I quite simply do not agree with you and I never will. Anything further is just repeating myself.

To quote the soon-to-be-replaced New Jersey license plates, "WTF."

This is comlete crap, IMO. If the travel is what allowed him to dunk, or do something "special," then it was illegal. Why allow the offense to benefit from breaking the rules?
If you're talking about something borderline where you're not sure, let it go. But if it's a blatant travel, you know he traveled, you do not just let it go because no defense was around. He was obviously trying to do something he's not capable of doing within the rules.
Calling the travel is not rewarding the defense, it's penalizing the offense for breaking the rules.

That's right - and it's obvious you're wrong. ;)

But that's not all you've said.
I'll grant that you seem to be willing to call the travel if the kid runs from the half-court line in the process of his special dunk.
What I'm not sure of, however, is if you're willing to call a travel if the kid "obviously" picks up his pivot foot prior to starting the dribble, or if he takes one extra step with his pivot foot after picking up his dribble. IOW, it's obvious to the official even if little brother doesn't understand it in the stands.

Whether it's obvious or not has nothing to do with whether an advantage was gained. Whether it's obvious is subjective, quite frankly. Whether an advantage is gained is also subjective. Whether a player traveled or not is not subjective.

(trying to use words Nevada doesn't have to look up.)

Once again, what people consider a travel is also subjective. I see officials call travels all the time at the high school level that just "look funny." Or call a "carry" because the ball is dribbled high. So how is this any different than the NBA if they do not call travels that closely, and we (as high school officials) call travels that do not exist. Better yet, I see many of the same travels in the NBA missed at the high school level. I should know, I watch them all the time just during the summer and I pick out what I see as a travel, the officials on the court either miss or have a different point of view.

Honestly, this really is a silly debate at the end of the day, because this is more about certain people do not like the NBA more than what is called or not.

Peace

That's how it started, then it became about whether or not traveling should be called based on advantage/disadvantage. Missing calls or seeing it differently is part of the game; we can all live with that. Deciding not to call it because no advantage is perceived or because it was "unforced" is not something most of us can agree with.

This debate has started long before this thread. And it really has little or nothing to do with some advantage/disadvantage debate. This is about that some here think the world revolves around their thinking of the rules and how the game is called and actually it does not have anything to do with such a thing.

Peace

I am not telling you that they teach you to do anything. I am telling you that they allow things to be called that are not as black and white as you make them out to be. And yes, what those bulletins say only go so far, because the people on them still make the tournament (as well as the NCAA Clinic tape).

Peace

I don't think anyone here takes it nearly this seriously. Maybe it's just me.

And no, Jurassic doesn't count. He's just grumpy because he has to change his license plate to something besides WTF CHUK.

Well you need to read all the name calling people get when someone does not agree with them. It must be serious to someone when you have to tell people not to officiate anymore because they disagree with your philosophies on the game. Then tells everyone that this is not how the game at the high school level should be called (without considering that high school is more than your little part of the country). ;)

Peace

I get it. I'm wrong for getting personal...but it's OK for you to do the exact same thing.

As usual, you inject yourself into a debate and immediately start expounding on something that has got nothing to do with that debate nor has it ever been a part of that debate. I actually thought that you were getting a little better in the last few years. I was wrong. Nothing changes with you.

And, no, I am not going to get into one of those stoopid 5-page back- and-forth completely irrelevant discussions that you so dearly love either. Go play with Nevada.

As you love to point out so often yourself, if you don't like what I write, then don't read the damn posts.

Yup.

I have been involved in this debate several times. And you have never answered reasonable questions to why your position is the only way to go on this subject. You just dislike the NBA (which is fine) and trying to make this discussion about what you think (which is usual) and trying to make that a larger point. You did that by attacking a fellow official here personally. I am not trying to go around and around with you and I also do not dislike the conversation. But why is your position on this topic so special and everyone else is so wrong? Where is the evidence that NBA does not call travels the same way as it is called in a high school game? Do you have some stats on how many travel calls are not called in the NBA? Do you have evidence that the NBA does not call fouls to the rules (as you earlier suggested)? At some point you should back up these claims. Is that too much to ask? I watch NBA games and I see a lot of things called several times that you claim are never called. And we have to do better than a YouTube video of one play, because the very same type of plays is shown at other levels with an obviously missed travel.

There is a difference here; I am interested in having the debate. I am not telling you how to post like others. But at some point you have told everyone that disagrees with you how wrong they are, when are you going to back it up? Or will you just admit that you really do not know what the NBA does because you do not watch it and you do not like the game. At the very least be honest about your real point of view. Or have you just bought into the hype of the media and believe what they think about the game?

Peace

msavakinas,

I don't mean to be rude or anything and I hope i'm not but you have to stop saying stuff like this about the pro game. If there is a player on a stone cold breakaway and he legitimately obviously, without a doubt travels then I am calling it.

In our game, we have guidelines for what you can and can't do on the perimeter which doesn't involve adv/disadv. The same goes with what you can and can't do in the post that doesn't involve adv./disadv. That is why alot of ppl say they don't know what is and what is not a foul. It's bc unlike other leagues we have black and white guidelines in regards to perimeter defense and post play and so when a fan sees a guideline foul on one end and then a guy drives to the hole and the defender legally jumps straight up to defend a play at the rim and he gets knocked down without a foul on the other end they are wonder why the home team is getting so many calls or wondering how a "ticky tack" can be called on one end and a knock down isn't called on the other.

I like that you are trying to protect the NBA but I believe the comments you are making about them are wrong. IMO

Worth Repeating ...
 

An Official Forum Member's Prayer

God, today I have not been nasty or rude;
I have not given or taken offense;
I have not done wrong;
I have fulfilled your will.
Now, God, please be with me,
because in a minute or so
I'm going to have to get out of bed.

With his CE background, maybe he can get the Gyprock delivered on time.

:D

:D :D :D

I think I got it. The NBE traveling rule bleeds over from another high profile sport.

The Official Rules of Calvinball


1.1. All players must wear a Calvinball mask (See Calvinball Equipment - 2.1). No one questions the masks (Figure 2.1).


*IMPORTANT -- The following rules are subject to be changed, amended, or dismissed by any player(s) involved.


1.2. Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game (Figure 1.2). The player may do this audibly or silently depending on what zone (Refer to Rule 1.5) the player is in.


1.3. A player may use the Calvinball (See Calvinball Equipment - 2.2)in any way the player see fits, from causal injury to self-reward.


1.4. Any penalty legislation may be in the form of pain, embarrassment, or any other abasement the rulee deems fit to impose on his opponent.


1.5. The Calvinball Field (See Calvinball Equipment - 2.3) should consist of areas, or zones, which are governed by a set of rules declared spontaneously and inconsistently by players. Zones may be appear and disappear as often and wherever the player decides. Zones are often named for their effect. For example, a corollary zone would enable a player to make a corollary (sub-rule) to any rule that has benn, will be, or might be declared. A pernicious poem place would require the intruder to do what the name implies. Or an opposite zone would enable a player to declare reverse playibility on the others. (Remember, the player would declare this zone oppositely by not declaring it.) (Figure 1.5a and 1.5b)


1.6. Flags (Calvinball Equipment 2.3) shall be named by players whom shall also assign the power and rules which shall govern that flag for particular moment in that particular game(Figure 1.6).


1.7. Songs are an integral part of Calvinball and verses must be sung spontaneously through the game when randomly assigned events occur. These random events will be named and pointed out after the player causes the event.



1.8. Score may be kept or disregarded. In the event that score is kept, it shall have no bearing on the game nor shall it have any logical consistency to it. (Legal scores include 'Q to 12', 'BW-109 to YU-34, and 'Nosebleed to Trousers'.) (Figure 1.9)


1.9. Any rule above that is carried out during the course of the game may never be used again in the event that it causes the same result as a previous game. Calvinball games may never be played the same way twice (Figure 1.9)

I can just see it now.

Coach, during a throwin: "He traveled, he traveled. He can't jump up and down like that."
Ref: "This isn't Calvinball, coach, you can't just make up your own rules as we go along."
Coach: :confused:

This Is Calvinball ...
 

Would that be the referee, the one in stripes? :)

I don't trust Herr David Stern in anyway... He probably hired this guy without portfolio I may add just to keep guys like U.S. Arlen Spector from making a case and provide a show while investigating NBA Ref's and their inner departmental practices...

WHY? Because they probably DO have a lot of dirty laundry...!

It always happens that when these military guys retire from serving and get out it seems they ALWAYS have a top level job awaiting them even without experience...

Again, David Stern is a master at illusion and teflon strategies.

If only....
:(

I'm a ref, retired military, and work federal civil service. Maybe I should have gotten the job. :cool:

You're hired!!;)

It looks like Arlen Specter's hound-dogging of the NFL benefitted one of his constituents. :cool:

http://www.wpxi.com/news/16820478/detail.html

My, aren't you quite the cynic. :)

If Stern really wanted to make a statement, he should have hired this guy.

http://www.cartwilliams.com/archives/patton.jpg

You know they are both dead!!!
 

Patton or George C. Scott?

Peace

They're not the same person? :confused: