Ralph Nader and game 6

[Todd Springer]

I started not to respond, and then I decided, What the heck.
As a basketball official, I am always amazed at how biased the fans are. I have 4 children. All are envolved in team sports. When I go to their games, Guess what. I am biased also. The problem that I see with all this "Let's blame the refs", is that it puts the blame for losing on someone other than the loser. How many times have we heard," Well, the referees cheated us!" The reason a team loses a game is the same in all sports. They get out-scored! Losing a game, whether it be in little league, or the NBA series, does not make a bad team. But, putting the blame on someone for your mistakes does. This is not an NBA problem. This is a social problem. In our lawsuit happy society, no one has ever done anything wrong. It is always somebody else that caused it. The Kings had opportunities to win the series, and they did not execute. By the way, players miss more shots, than officials miss calls. While some want to blame officials for doing something wrong, why do we need to blame anyone? I am sure all the players were doing their best. As do most officials. What more can we ask for?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Name one.

Tommy Smart.

You want an example, I'll give you one. Tommy Smart.

But one of my partners, whom we'll call Mr. Social because he's always firting with the scorer,

I'm confused (so, what's new?) I asked you to name one. Is Tommy Smart the same guy as Mr. Social?

Just wanted to straighten that out. BTW - I hope you have a good lawyer.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

I'm confused (so, what's new?) I asked you to name one. Is Tommy Smart the same guy as Mr. Social?

Just wanted to straighten that out. BTW - I hope you have a good lawyer.

Yes, Tommy Smart is Mr. Social.

You don't need a lawer when you're telling the truth.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

"blah,blah,blah!"

Blah, blah, blah. Good game today, Giants got lucky...

[djh3]

Sorry to misquote you. One other thing I don't understand... if officials (except that one) always are professional, unbiased, etc... I was wondering about the NBA officials (20?) who were filing false federal tax returns... does this mean an official might not always tell the truth? Don't get me wrong, I have an extreme amount of respect for officials, especially at the high school and club team level, because I have seen the BS they have to put up with. But as I have said before, they are human, and so yes, I think there could be some who might not do what is right.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by djh3
Sorry to misquote you. One other thing I don't understand... if officials (except that one) always are professional, unbiased, etc... I was wondering about the NBA officials (20?) who were filing false federal tax returns... does this mean an official might not always tell the truth? Don't get me wrong, I have an extreme amount of respect for officials, especially at the high school and club team level, because I have seen the BS they have to put up with. But as I have said before, they are human, and so yes, I think there could be some who might not do what is right.

Baised on what?

Are they getting paid off by someone? Are they fans of one team or another?

Do not come here and make claims because you are a fan of one team or another.

Let just say they are bias. Did Sacramento not make FT in game 7? Did every team that won a game in that series not have less fouls? So if games boil down to fouls and violations, why take shots? Why do take care of the ball? I guess all anyone should be worried about is what the officials did?

When officials make turnovers and miss open 3s, I will care about what the officials do. Until then, take some credit of what your players do. Sacramento could be in the Finals if Christie or Webber or anyone other than Bibby just showed up. But then again, of course the officials told them to miss those OPEN looks. What in the world was I thinking?

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by djh3

...blah...blah...blah...

Flush.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Name one.

Just a theory I read that I'm putting forth, with no endorsement one way or the other. Also, for the record, I think NBA games and how they are officiated has very little to do with basketball officiating. I'll bet that maybe 1 in 100 fans knows that the NBA travel rule is very, very different (not how it's called, how it's actually written) than the NCAA or NFHS rules.

Anyway, this comes from Bill Simmons' column at http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020606.html

Question: What was the most disturbing subplot of the playoffs?
Answer: The officiating, also the most disturbing subplot of the past four playoffs. If you examine the last four NBA playoff campaigns, during every situation where the league definitively "needed" one of the two teams involved to win -- either to A) change the momentum of a series so it didn't end prematurely, B) keep an attractive, big-market team alive in a series, or C) advance an attractive, big-market team to another round -- the officiating appeared to be slanted towards the team that needed that game. I use the phrase "appeared to be," because reviewing an official's performance is purely subjective. Maybe I'm dead-wrong.

These were just the games that jump out in my mind (again, I could be wrong):


1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 3 ... LJ sinks a game-winning four-pointer (called a continuation foul by referee Jess Kersey even though LJ was fouled a full second before he released the ball).


1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 6 ... Knicks last chance to close out Indy before the series shifts back to Indiana for Game 7 ... they get every call.


1999, Spurs-Knicks, Game 3 ... down 2-0, the Knicks get every call in their first home game and win their only game of the series.


2000, Knicks-Heat, Game 7 ... Knicks advance to the conference finals ... falling out of bounds, Latrell Sprewell awarded a timeout by referee Bennett Salvatore with 2.1 seconds left even though none of the Knicks called for one ... Sprewell admits after the game that he hadn't called a timeout ... the Miami players chase the referees off the court after the game, yelling that they had been robbed ... after the game, Jamal Mashburn tells reporters, "They had three officials in their pocket" and Tim Hardaway refers to referee Dick Bavetta as "Knick Bavetta."


2000, Lakers-Blazers, Game 7 ... LA shoots 21 more free throws and rallies back from a 17-point deficit in the final seven minutes ... Shaq plays an illegal defense down the stretch, undaunted ... Rasheed Wallace absolutely gets manhandled down the stretch, yet doesn't get a single call ... up by four with 25 seconds left, Shaq body-blocks Steve Smith out of bounds and the refs don't make the call (the most egregious non-call in recent memory).


2002, Celtics-Nets, Game 4 ... Celts up 2-1 ... the Nets are inexplicably allowed to push and shove Kenny Anderson and Pierce while they dribble the ball ... a number of head-scratchers go against Boston, including three offensive charges down the stretch ... four different "bull-(bleep)" chants during the game.


2002, Lakers-Kings, Game 6 ... LA needs a win to stay alive ... from an officiating standpoint, the most one-sided game of the past decade ... at least six dubious calls against the Kings in the fourth quarter alone ... LA averaged 22 free throws a game during the first five games of the series, then attempted 27 freebies in the fourth quarter alone of Game 6 ... rumors that David Stern wanted to pull a Vince McMahon and declare himself "The special guest referee" for this game prove unfounded.

(By the way, I would feel remiss if I didn't share this information: Dick Bavetta was assigned to every one of the above games. That's an absolute fact. You can look it up. Doesn't mean anything ... I just felt the need to pass that along. It sure looks bad, doesn't it? Maybe the league could do a favor for Bavetta and not assign him to Game 3 of the Finals, especially if the Lakers jump to a 2-0 lead over New Jersey. You wouldn't want to rile up those conspiracy theorists or anything. Ummmm ...)


Much funnier in this same column is the segment on Doug Christie.

[djh3]

I have not heard one person say the Kings did not blow game 7. The main point of Nader, and several national media members (in addition to thousands of kings fans) was that game 6 stunk. The number of missed calls or bad calls seemed to favor one team. One announcer I heard said that if adelman was smart he would have pulled his players in game 6, because it looked like there was no way they were going to be able to win. I think the Kings blew game 7. I also think they won game six. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a nba player after losing a game like game 6. But you are right, they are paid alot of money to win. Game 7 was the best officiated game of the series.

Nader's point is that officials can affect the outcome of the game. (I'll post the link to a story of an NBA official who did fix several games). The only review is within the NBA and it is not shared outside the NBA office. The NBA made alot of money because there was a game 7. If we can announce the fines against players, and coaches... then why cannot they announce the fines against officials?

Do I think the officials were bribed in game 6. No. Do I think the calls favored LA to an extent that it appeared biased? Yes. Did the kings lose game 7, yes.
------------------------------------------------------
In the 1951 scandals, referee Sol Levy, an accomplice of former LIU player Eddie Gard, was suspended for arranging the outcome on "fixing" six NBA games in 1950. There was no provision in the revised New York State Law of 1945 for referees. This was changed in 1951.

Rest of story:
http://espn.go.com/classic/s/basketb...explosion.html

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by djh3
I have not heard one person say the Kings did not blow game 7. The main point of Nader, and several national media members (in addition to thousands of kings fans) was that game 6 stunk. The number of missed calls or bad calls seemed to favor one team. One announcer I heard said that if adelman was smart he would have pulled his players in game 6, because it looked like there was no way they were going to be able to win. I think the Kings blew game 7. I also think they won game six. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a nba player after losing a game like game 6. But you are right, they are paid alot of money to win. Game 7 was the best officiated game of the series.

Nader's point is that officials can affect the outcome of the game. (I'll post the link to a story of an NBA official who did fix several games). The only review is within the NBA and it is not shared outside the NBA office. The NBA made alot of money because there was a game 7. If we can announce the fines against players, and coaches... then why cannot they announce the fines against officials?

Do I think the officials were bribed in game 6. No. Do I think the calls favored LA to an extent that it appeared biased? Yes. Did the kings lose game 7, yes.
------------------------------------------------------
In the 1951 scandals, referee Sol Levy, an accomplice of former LIU player Eddie Gard, was suspended for arranging the outcome on "fixing" six NBA games in 1950. There was no provision in the revised New York State Law of 1945 for referees. This was changed in 1951.

Rest of story:
http://espn.go.com/classic/s/basketb...explosion.html

...blah...blah...blah...

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by djh3
If we can announce the fines against players, and coaches... then why cannot they announce the fines against officials?

Several reasons, which I will spell out for you since you just don't seem to get it!

#1 - The players and coaches are employees of the teams they play for, not the NBA. When they are fined, it's for breaking rules and policies, not for their performance.

#2 - The union contract allows the players to be fined and for those fines to be made public.

#3 - The clubs are part of the league. Their agreement with the league allows coaches to be fined for breaches of rules and policies and allows those fines to be made public.

#4 - As I explained previously, the officials are employees of the NBA. When they are reviewed or fined, it's based on their performance, not a rule or policy. They have as much right to have their personnel records kept private as you and I do. Further, what purpose would be served by announcing fines against officials?

Now, if as you say, the officials were biased and conspired to force a game 7, why would the NBA fine them? How stupid is that? "We want you to call against the Kings." Then, they fine the officials for being incompetent. That is so stupid. That's why your argument doesn't make sense. On one hand you say they were biased which implies a conspiracy. On the other, you imply that they were just incompetent. Well, which is it? You can't have it both ways. It's either one, the other or neither. But it isn't both.

Just let it go!

[Dan_ref]

Originally scrawled in crayon by djh3

...blah, blah, blah...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...huh? wha? he's done? OK.

Hey dj3PO, you needed to go back 50 years for this? This
is it, your evidence? Please stop trolling here, you are
becoming very, very boring.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach


Just a theory I read that I'm putting forth, with no endorsement one way or the other. Also, for the record, I think NBA games and how they are officiated has very little to do with basketball officiating. I'll bet that maybe 1 in 100 fans knows that the NBA travel rule is very, very different (not how it's called, how it's actually written) than the NCAA or NFHS rules.

Anyway, this comes from Bill Simmons' column at http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020606.html

Why? Why even post this crap? What NBA rule states that a basket can't be counted if it comes a full second after the foul? Every time the crowd yells "Bull$hit!" the officials definitely blew the call? Sad day! Dead wrong? Too bad he's not just dead.

BTW, Dick Bavetta worked the game last night. I guess he forgot the Nets were supposed to win.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

Just a theory I read that I'm putting forth, with no endorsement one way or the other. Also, for the record, I think NBA games and how they are officiated has very little to do with basketball officiating. I'll bet that maybe 1 in 100 fans knows that the NBA travel rule is very, very different (not how it's called, how it's actually written) than the NCAA or NFHS rules.

Anyway, this comes from Bill Simmons' column at http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/020606.html

Question: What was the most disturbing subplot of the playoffs?
Answer: The officiating, also the most disturbing subplot of the past four playoffs. If you examine the last four NBA playoff campaigns, during every situation where the league definitively "needed" one of the two teams involved to win -- either to A) change the momentum of a series so it didn't end prematurely, B) keep an attractive, big-market team alive in a series, or C) advance an attractive, big-market team to another round -- the officiating appeared to be slanted towards the team that needed that game. I use the phrase "appeared to be," because reviewing an official's performance is purely subjective. Maybe I'm dead-wrong.

These were just the games that jump out in my mind (again, I could be wrong):


1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 3 ... LJ sinks a game-winning four-pointer (called a continuation foul by referee Jess Kersey even though LJ was fouled a full second before he released the ball).


1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 6 ... Knicks last chance to close out Indy before the series shifts back to Indiana for Game 7 ... they get every call.


1999, Spurs-Knicks, Game 3 ... down 2-0, the Knicks get every call in their first home game and win their only game of the series.


2000, Knicks-Heat, Game 7 ... Knicks advance to the conference finals ... falling out of bounds, Latrell Sprewell awarded a timeout by referee Bennett Salvatore with 2.1 seconds left even though none of the Knicks called for one ... Sprewell admits after the game that he hadn't called a timeout ... the Miami players chase the referees off the court after the game, yelling that they had been robbed ... after the game, Jamal Mashburn tells reporters, "They had three officials in their pocket" and Tim Hardaway refers to referee Dick Bavetta as "Knick Bavetta."


2000, Lakers-Blazers, Game 7 ... LA shoots 21 more free throws and rallies back from a 17-point deficit in the final seven minutes ... Shaq plays an illegal defense down the stretch, undaunted ... Rasheed Wallace absolutely gets manhandled down the stretch, yet doesn't get a single call ... up by four with 25 seconds left, Shaq body-blocks Steve Smith out of bounds and the refs don't make the call (the most egregious non-call in recent memory).


2002, Celtics-Nets, Game 4 ... Celts up 2-1 ... the Nets are inexplicably allowed to push and shove Kenny Anderson and Pierce while they dribble the ball ... a number of head-scratchers go against Boston, including three offensive charges down the stretch ... four different "bull-(bleep)" chants during the game.


2002, Lakers-Kings, Game 6 ... LA needs a win to stay alive ... from an officiating standpoint, the most one-sided game of the past decade ... at least six dubious calls against the Kings in the fourth quarter alone ... LA averaged 22 free throws a game during the first five games of the series, then attempted 27 freebies in the fourth quarter alone of Game 6 ... rumors that David Stern wanted to pull a Vince McMahon and declare himself "The special guest referee" for this game prove unfounded.

(By the way, I would feel remiss if I didn't share this information: Dick Bavetta was assigned to every one of the above games. That's an absolute fact. You can look it up. Doesn't mean anything ... I just felt the need to pass that along. It sure looks bad, doesn't it? Maybe the league could do a favor for Bavetta and not assign him to Game 3 of the Finals, especially if the Lakers jump to a 2-0 lead over New Jersey. You wouldn't want to rile up those conspiracy theorists or anything. Ummmm ...)


Much funnier in this same column is the segment on Doug Christie.

I keep telling you guys, the real conspiracy here is to get
nonfans, like Nader, talking about the NBA as if they were life long fans. Let's face it, the universe of potential
NBA fans is not going to grow unless decisive action is
taken. How do we attract more fans? By turning the nonfans
into fans. Where are the opportunities? Women & non-jock
men. Move the coverage off the sports page onto the news
and current events pages of the paper. What have we seen
over the last few years? WNBA & referee bashing from
conspiracy theorists. This is brilliant marketing, you
just cannot buy this much advertising.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

BTW, Dick Bavetta worked the game last night. I guess he forgot the Nets were supposed to win.

I have a theory on this. Danny Crawford's check didn't
clear before game time and he was able to tilt things the
other way.