Ralph Nader and game 6

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Why would the number of times a certain call is made against one team compared to the number of times on the other team indicate referee bias??

In my never ending struggle to achieve fairness (yeah, right), I think it should be pointed out that I really think he was saying that if the missed calls against one team was way out of proportion to the missed calls against the other team, then that would indicate a bias.

Also, to be fair, who, other than another referee, can objectively judge whether a call was "missed" or not? Certainly not a fan who subjectively is pulling for one of the teams.

Besides, refs never miss calls. They call what they see. Occasionally, they don't see something, but they never "miss" calls.

[LarryS]

At the risk of getting beat up like the fan, we have had the discussion of a "star system" in the NBA before. I think that is what many people get frustrated over, and it is compounded in the NBA when a newcomer team (like the Mavericks and Kings the last two years) make a run at an team with established stars. Anyone who honestly looks at professional sports (including the NBA) will see that cetain players are treated differently by officials. Sure the stars are better, stronger and faster so some of it is perception. However, when a fan sees (1) a player like Kobe get brushed on the arm, the fist go up and the shot go in, then (2) Joe Smuck rookie get "hammered" on a shot and nothing called...they will get angry and think conspiracy. As long as they pay the bill, it's their right. We may think they are wrong most of the time (they usually are), but they have a right to complain when they are laying down their cash.

I have heard MBL players, and umpires, say that if a catcher sets up near the strike zone and doen't have to move his glove...strike. Strike zones are different from umpire to umpire. We have all seen the "neighborhood" play at second base during a double play. In the NFL, some receivers push off all the time and are rarely called for interference (see Michael Irvin). Surely we don't all think there is no equivilent in the NBA.

The problem for the official (in all sports) is that the fan pays to see the stars perform, wants them involved at crunch time and wants the games called the same for everyone. Sometimes those are mutually exclusive.

[Brian Watson]

Everyone is missing the point on Nader's rant, and it is worse than you guys think.

He did not send a letter to Stern becasue he was sitting on his Barca lounger with a six pack of Hamm's and while watching the game said, jeez, these refs suck. He saw the "stat" that LA shot 25 (or 27, anyhow 20 something) free throws in the 4th quarter, and inferred that something was amiss.

Just goes to show, again, how stats can be minipulated to anyones viewpoint.

[Sleeper]

I get tired of listening to talking heads and uneducated fans (not all fans, just the ones that don't understand the game) talk about the conspiracy that exists within the NBA. First and foremost, as a new official, it opened my eyes when I put on a whistle. This is with my dad having called for as long as I can remember. The rules are specific, and would be wonderful if administered in a vacuum. However, the nuances of the game, even at the level that I called this summer, provide very little opportunity for black and white enforcement. If you couple this with the speed of the game, you begin to empathize with what the NBA officials are going through. The angles are different that what is seen on TV and the decision has to be made in a split second, without the benefit of instant, slow motion replay or Bill Russell's expert advice. There are bad officals and there are "homers", but I am much less anxious to cast aspersions after having been on the floor. There are issues with the NBA and its officiating, but IMHO they have more to do with the front office than they do with the officials. We can add this to JFK, the Hollow Earth, Shadow People, The Pentaverit and all of the other conspiracy theories that allow people to occupy their time with non-productive activities.

[Brian Watson]

Originally posted by Sleeper
... slow motion replay or Bill Russell's expert advice.

You mean Walton right?

I heard a great thing on the local sports radio station last night. The host was beating up in the guy who does the "sportcenter" every 10 minutes becasue he said he was not going to watch game 1. the host asked, give me one reason you are not going to watch. He simply replied, "Walton".

Best part was the host said "Well you've got me there".

About drove off the road laughing.

[djh3]

1. I read the rule (before writing the statement).
Here is the rule, and I do not see the part where it says an advantage has to be gained by the offensive player? Hum, must be one of those un-official rules mandated by Stern. Then you wonder why fans think there is a conspiracy, when you don't play by the rules as written. Hum.

Section VII-Three-Second Rule

a. A player shall not remain for more than 3 seconds in that part of his free throw lane between the endline and extended 4' (imaginary) off the court and the farther edge of the free throw line while the ball is in control of his team.

b. Allowance may be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than 3 seconds, is in the act of shooting at the end of the third second. Under these conditions, the 3-second count is discontinued while his continuous motion is toward the basket. If that continuous motion ceases, the previous 3-second count is continued.

c. The 3-second count shall not begin until the ball is in control in the offensive team's frontcourt.

PENALTY:Loss of ball. The ball is awarded to the opponent at the sideline at the free throw line extended.


2. You do not measure only the number of violations, but the number of times the team is called. You convert to a percentage and compare. Example.

Team A had 20 instances of when they could have been called for a 3 second violation, but they were only called twice.
They were called 10% of the time.

Team B had 30 instances of when they could have been called for a 3 second violation, but they were only called once.
3.3%.

I would bet that most statistics experts would say the sample is too small, however if you did it for a whole series and it came out to 10% vs. 3.3%, then there is a bias. Against or for a particular player or team.

It is apparent that you do not value looking at things from a fans perspective and that evidently you think everyone except officials are morons.

The truth is the officiating was poor and biased for game 6. Was that a result of pressure (direct or indirect) of the league &/or NBC? I don't know. Neither do you, unless you are one of the three who worked the game. Do the officials have a financial interest in making sure the league makes money? If there are more playoff games, does that mean the officials can make more money? Hum. I am sure you all know all the answers.

You know, I have worked for 20 years with commerical aircraft pilots, and I thought there was a large percentage of them who had huge egos. Then for the last 10 years I have worked with attorneys, and you know the reputation they have. Well, these two groups don't have anything on some of the officals who write in these forums.

[Sleeper]

Ment Walton. Brain isn't fully functional this morning.

[Danvrapp]

Knowing a rule and applying a rule are two different things. Anyone could copy a rule right out of a book, but that doesn't mean you get the true interpretation of it. The sticky point is applying the rule, and knowing when/how to apply it. You could sit and read the rule book for a month, then step on the floor for the first time and I guarantee you you'd be a terrible official your first game. Not because you don't know the rules, but you wouldn't be capable of applying the rules in that situation. Trust me, the grass is a different shade of green on this side.

Am I knocking you? No, just trying to give some perspective....

[Sleeper]

I would bet that most statistics experts would say the sample is too small, however if you did it for a whole series and it came out to 10% vs. 3.3%, then there is a bias. Against or for a particular player or team....

Your grasp of statistics is almost as good as your grasp of rules. A few problems with your arguements:

1. Statistics is not an exact science, but one that shows degree of correlation. The statistical difference between 10% and 3.3% is minimally correlated.

2. You are disregarding that teams have used fouling the Lakers as a strategy, because, statistically, Shaq does not shoot fouls well and it disrupts the tempo of the game. Therefore, statistically, the Lakers should be at the foul line more.

3. Correlation does not equal Cause and Effect relationships. As an example, 100% of people who eat at least one pickle in their lifetime will die. Does that mean that pickles are fatal? No, but the correlation is there.

4. It is impossible for anyone to keep track of which calls they made, in what order, and on whom, throughout the length of a game. That is why you watch game tape (just like players and coaches) to understand where the mistakes were made.

As to your comment on the rules, there are rules and there are accepted interpretations. You did find the 3-second rule, which proves you can read, but you fail to understand that the "advantage" interpretation is applied relatively consistently across the league. It helps with the tempo of the game. It it common not only in basketball, but in other sports as well. I also do football and that is an overriding theme in how the game is called.

No one on this board defends bad officiating, much less "homing" a game. Grow up and understand that some times teams are just good. If the Kings had made their free throws in Game 6 or 7, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If Chris Webber had stepped up in either of the fourth quarters instead of shrinking from the spotlight, we wouldn't be having this conversation. They gave the Lakers a gift and choked, big time. As a Mavricks fan, it makes me sick to see the Lakers in it again, but they won and it is their right to be there.

If you are going to use statistics, then at least do it correctly. If you are going to apply rules, then at least understand what you are saying. With the knowledge level on this board, you could learn a lot about the rules and their application by asking questions.

Remember, it is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove doubt.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by djh3
1. I read the rule (before writing the statement).
Here is the rule, and I do not see the part where it says an advantage has to be gained by the offensive player?

Outstanding! I got you to look at the rule book! I understand that advantage is not written into the rule. However, I told you that this is the way the rule is called at ALL LEVELS! This is not a conspiracy by David Stern and the league anymore than it is by the NCAA and their officials or the NFHS and high school officials. It's the philosophy that's been established. Do you not remember reading that in my reply?

2. You do not measure only the number of violations, but the number of times the team is called. You convert to a percentage and compare. Example.

Team A had 20 instances of when they could have been called for a 3 second violation, but they were only called twice.
They were called 10% of the time.

Team B had 30 instances of when they could have been called for a 3 second violation, but they were only called once.
3.3%.

I would bet that most statistics experts would say the sample is too small, however if you did it for a whole series and it came out to 10% vs. 3.3%, then there is a bias. Against or for a particular player or team.

I could care less what most statistics experts think. It has nothing to do with the game. If you told me that one team had 3 seconds called against them 15 times while the other had none, I would say something is terribly wrong. But a 1 to 2 ratio. Good grief!

It is apparent that you do not value looking at things from a fans perspective and that evidently you think everyone except officials are morons.

No, they just simply see the game from an uneducated point of view with regards to the officiating. Look at the Patriots-Raiders playoff game. Guess what? The play was an incomplete pass, by rule. But every moron in America thought it was a fumble.

There is no conspiracy. Get over it.

[ripian]

***Disclaimer: I am not a Lakers or Kings fan, I'm a fan of basketball and an official for 11 years.***

The no call on Kobe...

I just happened to be at a camp when game 6 was played so there was much discussion on this.

Here's my point of view (and the conclusion we came up with).

Game situation for those who don't remember, under 20 seconds left and Lakers up by 3. Lakers to inbound the ball and Bibby is matched up with Kobe at the foul line. Bibby is "chested" up with Kobe and did anyone else notice that Bibby's right arm was extended out of his vertical cylinder and holding Kobe's left hip?

When Kobe made his move to get open he moved to his left leading with his right arm which just happened to catch Bibby in the face. Now why did it catch Bibby in the face? Because Bibby was too close to Kobe and never established a legal guarding position. Do I feel bad that Bibby got popped in the nose. Of course I do. Do I think that a foul should of been called on Kobe? Nope.

Our conclusion from the camp was this... it was a good no call and if there was a call to be made it should of gone against Bibby for the hold.

Assume for the moment that the call would of been made on Kobe. Now there is an away from the ball foul where the penalty is 1 shot (taken by any shooter) and the ball out of bounds. Assume again that the Kings convert on the the FT and then work the ball for the last shot and hit a miracle 3 to win the game. If that was the case, the call made altered the outcome of the game and instead of discussing the no call on Kobe the discussion would be on how that call should of never been made in the last 20 seconds and how the results of the game were detremined by the blow of a whistle and a controversial yet correct call.

I find it funny how nobody ever looks at the the other side of the coin. Do things get missed? Yes. Do sports officials go out and alter the outcome of the game? No. Do fans have a right to voice their opinion? Sure, but those who do should at least try and educate themselves to as what they want to have an opinion about.

What the bottom line comes to is this... Preception. If a person's (casual observer, fan, player, official etc...) view that the call was bad and should of been the other way around, I won't argue that because it's your point of view. I can explain the facts but unless you want to change your view on the issue, I won't worry about changing your preception. I think sports official's have too much stress in their lives to worry about the fan is the nose-bleeds and their opinion.

And on that note, I'd just like to point out that NBA official's are the best in the world and nobody is more critical of them then themselves. NBA official's are constently reviewing game film and evaulating themselves. They travel with High-8 machines and laptops, they do game reports on every game. How many other professions in the world do we put ourselves under the microscope like that. I can't think of many.

Peace

[Brian Watson]

Originally posted by djh3
1. I read the rule (before writing the statement).
Here is the rule, and I do not see the part where it says an advantage has to be gained by the offensive player?

You do not see the advantange/Disadvantage statement in THIS rule, because it applies to ALL rules. Every rule in the book should have the the ad/disad principle applied to it. Some rules have a more obvious advantage/disadvantage tone to them (like travelling), this is one that is less obvious.

This is the pitfall of being a fan and not an official. You can not pluck one rule out of the book, read it, and instantly assume you know how that rule should be called. Just like I could not pull out a chiltons book, read the section on how to screw on an oil filter and instantly be all knowing of oil changes. No one this board presumes that we are experts in your line of work, give us the same respect and don't assume you know how to ref.

I think it just pisses fans off that refs have no care or desire who wins.

[rockyroad]

Ok, Mr. djh3, let's cut to the chase...the truth is that YOU think that the officiating in game 6 was terrible...the truth is that very few of the regular posters on this board agree with you...the truth is that you post your point of view and try to use some weak analogies and statistics to get us to see your point...the truth is that none of us buy your arguments and give counter-arguments...the truth is that you don't like our points and still disagree with them, and then tell us that - because we don't see thing your way - we are arrogant (or have big egos)...the truth is that you don't see things our way either, so you must be pretty stinking arrogant yourself...maybe you'd make a good official?? Ever given it a try??

[rainmaker]

djh3 --

Just because the refs make bad calls once in a while, doesn't mean they are biased.

Just because one team gets called more for a certain violation, doesn't mean the refs are biased.

Just because one team wins the rings three years in a row, doesn't mean the refs are biased.

Just because Shaq and Kobe have a major attitude, doesn't mean the refs are biased.

Just because it appears as though the "stars" get away with more, doesn't mean they do. But even if there is a systematic favoring of the stars, that doesn't mean the refs are biased.

Here's a challenge for you: If, in reality, it's all scripted, if the whole thing is really entertainment and not sports, if money is really the bottom line, then here's what will happen: The Nets will win the first two, then the Lakers will win two, then the Nets one, then the Lakers one, and the final will be the most watched program in the history of TV. That's the only way NBC is going to make any profit on this venture. If the Lakers win in four, or even five, no one, except Shaq's mama, will be watching.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by djh3
1. I read the rule (before writing the statement).
Here is the rule, and I do not see the part where it says an advantage has to be gained by the offensive player? Hum, must be one of those un-official rules mandated by Stern. Then you wonder why fans think there is a conspiracy, when you don't play by the rules as written. Hum.

Section VII-Three-Second Rule

a. A player shall not remain for more than 3 seconds in that part of his free throw lane between the endline and extended 4' (imaginary) off the court and the farther edge of the free throw line while the ball is in control of his team.

b. Allowance may be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than 3 seconds, is in the act of shooting at the end of the third second. Under these conditions, the 3-second count is discontinued while his continuous motion is toward the basket. If that continuous motion ceases, the previous 3-second count is continued.

c. The 3-second count shall not begin until the ball is in control in the offensive team's frontcourt.

PENALTY:Loss of ball. The ball is awarded to the opponent at the sideline at the free throw line extended.


2. You do not measure only the number of violations, but the number of times the team is called. You convert to a percentage and compare. Example.

Team A had 20 instances of when they could have been called for a 3 second violation, but they were only called twice.
They were called 10% of the time.

Team B had 30 instances of when they could have been called for a 3 second violation, but they were only called once.
3.3%.

I would bet that most statistics experts would say the sample is too small, however if you did it for a whole series and it came out to 10% vs. 3.3%, then there is a bias. Against or for a particular player or team.

It is apparent that you do not value looking at things from a fans perspective and that evidently you think everyone except officials are morons.

The truth is the officiating was poor and biased for game 6. Was that a result of pressure (direct or indirect) of the league &/or NBC? I don't know. Neither do you, unless you are one of the three who worked the game. Do the officials have a financial interest in making sure the league makes money? If there are more playoff games, does that mean the officials can make more money? Hum. I am sure you all know all the answers.

You know, I have worked for 20 years with commerical aircraft pilots, and I thought there was a large percentage of them who had huge egos. Then for the last 10 years I have worked with attorneys, and you know the reputation they have. Well, these two groups don't have anything on some of the officals who write in these forums.

You claim that team A violated the rule 20 times and team B
violated it 30 times. Fair enough, please supply the times
during the game when these violations occured along with
the player who violated. Of course, we have already
stipulated that the 3 second rule is *not* called as
written in any league, from lowest to highest, that use
officials who know the game. It is the most misunderstood
rule for non-expert observers to understand, but there is
agreement among experts (coaches, players, refs, talent scouts, referee supervisors) on how it should be called.
So you've established yourself as a non-expert in the field.
You in fact could test my expert assertion on how the rule
is called by observing enough games yourself and speaking to
coaches and players. Then you conclude by once again
making an unproven claim (maybe even unprovable) that the
refereeing was not only poor but biased based upon your own
nonexpert analysis of how the rules should be called,
construct by implication a shadowy yet huge conspiracy and
finally insult not one, not two but three completely
unrelated groups of people. And we're the ones who are
arrogant? You, my friend, are simply a fan, and a simple
fan at that.

If you're going to talk conspiracy, how about
this one: the NBA gets free advertisement every time a
media person claims the game is biased. You, of course,
buy completely into it because you don't know better but it
somehow makes you feel good. Then even Ralph Nader, bless
his pointy little head, comes down from the mountain top and
decrees that the consumer has been cheated by biased
refereeing! People who wouldn't know the difference between
a basketball and a basket of flowers are now debating the
merits of NBA refereeing! My friend, you just cannot buy
that kind of brand exposure. That is the real conspiracy.