Ralph Nader and game 6

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
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.

ROFL!!

[djh3]

I have never said I understand the rules as well as those calling or playing the game.

However a fans perception of whether it is a fair game is based upon the rules. There also were some national sportwriters (who follow the NBA) who seemed to think game six was called poorly. I am not sure if your disdain for them is equal to your disdain for this moronic fan.

I do not doubt that if you say the rule is applied in a different manner than a literal reading would suggest, you as officials are likely right.

My point is that fans (remember the people who pay for the players to play and officals to officiate?), if they do not see the rules applied as written, can believe that things are unfair when maybe they are not.

In terms of using statistics, it is just one suggestion to try and evaluate if there is bias. Is it the only way? I don't know. Maybe it should be used not to prove bias, but to see if there is possible bias, or to identify that fans may believe there is bias. Similar to the way it is used to see if there is discrimnation in hiring. Right now there is nothing.

Right now the fans do believe that if you are the superstar, you get the call. You get an extra step. You dont get called your sixth foul unless you eliminate the guy.

But I won't bother you anymore. I am just a moronic fan (as this seems to be a favorite way to refer to fans, and why I think SOME officals on this board have a big ego, NOT because they disagree with me).

As I have been to sporting events from elementary school to professional sports, and I have seen the abuse directed at officials from fans, I do not doubt that it is easy to characterize all fans as morons.

My father was a police officer, and I remember him telling me how some people who become cops become very arrogant, because all they deal with are either victims or perps, and typically poor and uneducated people who are drunk or on drugs. I imagine it would be similar for officals. It must be a constant battle not to think of all fans as being the ones who are yelling abuse at you. But those are not all the fans.

[Sleeper]

I don't believe that all fans are morons, and I don't think that anyone has cast that blanket statement. Fan perception is an issue with the NBA and that issue resides in the League office, not with the officials. Fan perception, while important, is placed more on emotion and loyalty rather than facts and reality. I know, because I am guilty of the same thing with the teams that I follow. It is something that I am aware of and avoid now as much as possible.

The difficulty you experienced on this board in one of a group of people, with varying degrees of experience who all take a great deal of time and effort to be as professional and unbiased as possible (except with AAU games). While disagreements are rampant and heated on most of the rules discussions, I believe that all officials are interested in controlling the game, being unbiased and being professional. When you make broad accuasations without evidence of wrong doing or proof of occurance, you shouldn't be suprised that these same people (myself included) would take offense and defend their positions with facts and personal experience. Too many fans are quick to blame officials when the players who make money and fail to produce are the problem. That is why you got the reaction you did.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by djh3
I have never said I understand the rules as well as those calling or playing the game.

However a fans perception of whether it is a fair game is based upon the rules. There also were some national sportwriters (who follow the NBA) who seemed to think game six was called poorly. I am not sure if your disdain for them is equal to your disdain for this moronic fan.

I do not doubt that if you say the rule is applied in a different manner than a literal reading would suggest, you as officials are likely right.

My point is that fans (remember the people who pay for the players to play and officals to officiate?), if they do not see the rules applied as written, can believe that things are unfair when maybe they are not.

OK, you've gone from asserting the refs were incompetent
and biased as a *statement of truth* to saying it's
just your perception, a perception based on ignorance &
misunderstanding. BTW, I would not be so certain using
media people as "experts testimony", they are often as
confused as the average fan.

Bottom line, I respect your right to have an opinion, and
it's good that you understand that your opinion is a
mostly uninformed one. And that holds whether you own
courtside NBA season tickets or never paid to see a game
ever.

[Mark Padgett]

I think the problem here is the use of the word "bias". Of course we, as officials, sometimes think a game may have had some bad calls in it. But we also know that the officials on the floor had different angles than we had watching either from the stands or on TV. But...when you use the word "bias", to us - that implies favoritism or, worse, cheating. And that's something we resent without reservation.

I look at it this way - if there really was manipulation of games by officials, and therefore the league - Vegas wouldn't take bets on games. If you want a definitive standard as to whether a sporting event is on the up-and-up, then that's it. 'Nuff said.

[Kelvin green]

My two cents

Even if you thought it was a poorly called game, so what?

There are poorly called games at every level. So we are going to have a congressional investigation into every poorly called game, and who the heck is going to determine it? Congress? they cant figure out their own jobs let alone a referees! Even if we concede it was a poorly called game does that mean there is a conspiracy to keep the Kings out of the championship? don't think so! The Jazz went to the finals two years in a row... There's a big market Heck the viewership of Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming dont rival the LA area and the Jazz beat LA. If you believe in ratings you would always have a NY/LA series ( whoops we have one so it must be true)

The refs made a few poor calls so what? I know there were turnovers, steals, missed FT's, missed shots, etc.
Refs do not detemine the outcome of the game. BTW look at the foul stats if the offciating was biased the count for the series would not have been 179-173 ( BTW it was 179 called on the Lakers)

Look at the Free throws made versus attempts for the 16 games the Kings played they shot 479 FT's ad made a whopping 355 . The Lakers shot 438 and made 314 ( BTW the Lakers opponents shot 445 FT's during the same 16 games... the Kings opponents shot only 414) The Kings shot 65 more FT's during their run than their opponents.

Go figure... The Lakers shot .730 in FT percentage and Kings shot .657. yep it was the refs fault that the Kings could not shoot 85% from the FT line, if they had who would be whining? Lakers fans. The Kings shot 42% from the field during the series while LA shot 45%

Ooh lets talk about bias. Dont hear anybosy whining that in game 2 the KINGs outshot the Lakers 38-25 from the line, game 3 it was 35 to 15, and in game 5 it was 33-23. Game six was when it was biased was 40-25.

Go figure the KINGS shot 204 FT's in the series and the Lakers shot 185, but the lakers outscored the Kings from the line 135-134. You think with an extra 19 FT's the Kings couldda scored more.. Did not happen

In the series the Lakers had 4 more turn overs...
The Kings had 52 steals to 46
The Lakers made 40 three pointers while the Kings made 32
During the series the Kings took 35 less shots that the Lakers and actually made 6 more, but obviously not when they needed to.

Game Six
The Lakers were 34-74 from the field yet the Kings were 38-92, whoops... Lakers must have taken higher percentage shots and that was all the refs fault. While I'm sure the refs made the Kings shoot their shots from 2o ft away.

I guess it was was Bavetta, Bernhardt, and Delaney's fault that the Kings shot 2-20 from three point range while the Lakers made 5 more and outscored them by 15 points from behind the arc. (I guess the Lakers dont always take it to the hole with Shaq) If the Kings played better perimeter defense and stopped just 2 three pointers, they would have won!

72 percent from the line is great now isnt it (18/25) If they had shot 88% it would have been a tie, but I'm sure the three refs caused them to miss the 4 FT's.

Wanna know the clincher the Kings out rebounded LA on the offensive board and only lost by one on the defensive side
The Kings had less turnovers, only 3 less blocked shots, and had 7 more fouls. ( Whoops the Lakers had 7 more fouls called on them in game 5 and in game 3)

Refs miss calls! people claim LA goes to the line too much. We heard that all the time about let's see how many other teams... The Jazz? Go figure when you are a power forward taking the ball to the hoop I guess teams back off and let you have the layup uncontested? The Bulls... Jordan never ever got fouled now did he? Who holds the record for the most FT's attempted? bet it was a center!

I am tired of hearing how the NBA conspiracy caused this. Give me a break. The one guy wanted us to do some funky things with stats to see if the refs were biased... Use the stats that are there. The Kings blew it, and the fans and Ralph Nader need to get over it, The Kings had the series and could not finish it. They had the best record during the season and choked in the finals ( Ask the Jazz fans about that with the 2 Chicago series)

Are fans morons not all of them but what I would like to see is before they whine about bias or using stats, that they look at the games and really see what happened!!!

[Rick Vietti]

Kelvin - Excellent stats on the Lakers/Kings series. You are so correct with how people whine about the refs and they want to blame it on officiating versus their own teams mistakes. Mistakes are made by all refs and that is what all sports live with, the human factor.

But we all know that there is "No Conspiracy" or grand plan to cheat a team by the refs.

I suggest that you send your post to several of the national publications that have published the Ralph Nader story as an opinion letter. It might help shut up the complainers.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by djh3

However a fans perception of whether it is a fair game is based upon the rules. There also were some national sportwriters (who follow the NBA) who seemed to think game six was called poorly. I am not sure if your disdain for them is equal to your disdain for this moronic fan.

I'll concede that you seem to be someone who actually reads the rules, but most fans go by what they hear "expert" announcers say (we hold most sportscasters/writers in the highest moronic disdain!).

The biggest problem with commentators is probably the offensive/player control (NBA/NCAA-NF) foul. The biggest misconception (as perpetuated by Marv Albert et al.) is that the defender must have his feet glued to the floor for a charge to be correctly called. This, of course, trickles down so that I, in an intramural game, can show people the freakin' rulebook/casebook statement which says this does not have to occur and they don't believe me.

And you wonder why we laugh at most fans who come in here running their mouths . . .

[theboys]

I think what makes basketball generally more difficult to ref than other sports (and more difficult for the fan to understand) is the "advantage/disadvantage" concept. Using the example posed by another poster, the referee in the Raiders/Patriots game was roundly chastised but, hey, he went strictly by the rules in making his decision. That's his job, and he did the right thing.

In basketball, the use of "advantage/disadvantage" is much more prevalent, and makes the game much more judgmental. For example, I've seen a guard come up the court, uncontested, cross-over his dribble, and in doing so, palm the ball. I've seen refereees call it, and I've seen referees let it go. Why? The player receives no advantage. But, the rules says "palming" is a violation. So, its confusing to fans. I'm not saying either referee is right or wrong in such a situation, but it does create confusion.

I'm not a referee. I'm a scum-eating howler monkey. But, I have to tell you - I actually feel for basketball referees. The advantage/disadvantage concept may make the game flow faster, but it makes a referee's job much more difficult. I can think of few instances in football or baseball where it comes into play.

[Danvrapp]

Originally posted by theboys
I'm not a referee. I'm a scum-eating howler monkey.

Wow! A self-proclaimed howler monkey! You should get extra bananas for that one!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by theboys

...
I'm not a referee. I'm a scum-eating howler monkey. But, I have to tell you - I actually feel for basketball referees....

Reminds me of something that happened this past season. Team A was getting a royal butt-wuppin', it was near the
end of the game and I find myself standing next to Coach A.
At the end of another bad sequence for A the coach says
"Dan, why do I put myself through this cr@p?" I turned to
him, showed him my whistle and said "I'm having fun, why
don't you join us!" He looked at me like I told him to
eat a handfull of bugs and said "Me??!! Not in a million
years!"

[Mark Padgett]

I was in a meeting this morning with a friend who is also a girls varsity HS coach at a small private school. I told him about Juulie having to work two JV boys games alone. He was very empathetic and said that he has been called into action a few times to help out reffing when someone didn't show up.

He's a pretty even tempered guy but he said that within the first two minutes of some of those games, he wanted to just stuff his fist in the mouth of some clowns in the stands.

He told me that he thinks officiating is the toughest job in sports - next to hitting a thrown ball with a bat and stopping a 100 mph slap shot.

[not-an-expert]

Here are the Game 6 stats I'm frustrated with... Lakers 27 free throws in the 4th, 18 of last 20 points from the line. I understand that in the waning seconds Sac was playing foul catch-up but the numbers are still huge.

As the moniker suggests, I'm no expert, but here's my take. The Lakers style of play is purposely based on manipulation of the referees.

Examples...

1) Overall defense. Watch Kobe, Fisher and Fox. They play NY Knicks defense. They foul so often as part of their regular defense that officials can't possibly call every one.

2) Shaq's offense. His offensive fouls are so numerous that officials can't possible call every one without removing Shaq from the game. In fact, he often gets the call on his own steamroll (see Mutumbo). This forces players to foul him hard. Then we hear... poor Shaq, everyone's beating on him. What other choice?

3) Most important... end of game offense. Why were 18 of the Lakers last 20 points scored from the line? Because the offense is specifically tailored (a la MJ) to draw calls at the end of the game. Need evidence? Watch Kobe's post moves... or lack thereof. He always pulls them out at the end of the game and they're solely intended to get him to the line.

I'm not saying officiating is bad or biased. Nor am I saying that officials should try to artificially balance calls over the game. I'm saying that NBA officials are making the best of an impossible situation by using a set of unspoken/unwritten gameplay guidelines. The problem... Phil Jackson KNOWS what those guidelines are and he's manipulating the referees with those guidelines in mind. And, worst of all, it's bad for basketball... anyone who watched the Dallas/Sac series knows how much fun NBA hoops can still be.

The NBA changed the rules to limit the pick/grab & roll and to limit the iso offense. Now they should change the rules to limit manipulation of officials.

I don't know how, I'm no expert.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by not-an-expert
Here are the Game 6 stats I'm frustrated with... Lakers 27 free throws in the 4th, 18 of last 20 points from the line. I understand that in the waning seconds Sac was playing foul catch-up but the numbers are still huge.

As the moniker suggests, I'm no expert, but here's my take. The Lakers style of play is purposely based on manipulation of the referees.

Examples...

1) Overall defense. Watch Kobe, Fisher and Fox. They play NY Knicks defense. They foul so often as part of their regular defense that officials can't possibly call every one.

2) Shaq's offense. His offensive fouls are so numerous that officials can't possible call every one without removing Shaq from the game. In fact, he often gets the call on his own steamroll (see Mutumbo). This forces players to foul him hard. Then we hear... poor Shaq, everyone's beating on him. What other choice?

3) Most important... end of game offense. Why were 18 of the Lakers last 20 points scored from the line? Because the offense is specifically tailored (a la MJ) to draw calls at the end of the game. Need evidence? Watch Kobe's post moves... or lack thereof. He always pulls them out at the end of the game and they're solely intended to get him to the line.

I'm not saying officiating is bad or biased. Nor am I saying that officials should try to artificially balance calls over the game. I'm saying that NBA officials are making the best of an impossible situation by using a set of unspoken/unwritten gameplay guidelines. The problem... Phil Jackson KNOWS what those guidelines are and he's manipulating the referees with those guidelines in mind. And, worst of all, it's bad for basketball... anyone who watched the Dallas/Sac series knows how much fun NBA hoops can still be.

The NBA changed the rules to limit the pick/grab & roll and to limit the iso offense. Now they should change the rules to limit manipulation of officials.

I don't know how, I'm no expert.

but what rules are you comparing this to? If they are minipulating the officials, how?

What kills me about all these claims of what the officials do or not do, they are never based on rules or any mechanics that officials operate under.

I think the officials have been doing this long enough to understand what they are suppose to do and not suppose to do. Most coaches do not know the rules enough to even know how to manipulate the rules as you state.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by not-an-expert

...
2) Shaq's offense. His offensive fouls are so numerous that officials can't possible call every one without removing Shaq from the game. In fact, he often gets the call on his own steamroll (see Mutumbo). This forces players to foul him hard. Then we hear... poor Shaq, everyone's beating on him. What other choice?

Sorry friend, the hack-a-shaq started a while ago when
smart coaches noticed shaq was lucky to do 50% at the line.
The guy's big, he's strong, he's athletic. You simply
can't penalize him for this.

3) Most important... end of game offense. Why were 18 of the Lakers last 20 points scored from the line? Because the offense is specifically tailored (a la MJ) to draw calls at the end of the game. Need evidence? Watch Kobe's post moves... or lack thereof. He always pulls them out at the end of the game and they're solely intended to get him to the line.

Sigh. "Drawing fouls" is part of the game. Do you suggest
we have a new rule limiting the number of fouls that can be
called in the 4 qtr?