Did I hear that Ralph Nader wants NBA game 6 investigated?

I only heard reference to this on the Dan Patrick show on espn radio. He interviewed Nader today and you might be able to go espn radio and get some archived audio of it.

These people need to give it a rest or put on a whistle and see what is really happening out there.

Yes you did.

YEP, the "tree hugger" wants the NBA to investigate the "gross negligence" of the officials calling game 6. GEEZ, GIVE ME A BREAK. He did say that the officials are, as a whole, very good and that the game is extremely difficult to call.

There was some calls I, as a new official, would like to have explained. In fact, I would love to have a tape of a game like this one and sit down with one of the officials and have him discuss most of the calls with me. When you look at the replays in slo-mo, they make very few mistakes. It would be a priceless educational experience.

As far as Nader is concerned, if he wants to champion a cause for the fans...he should solve the MLB problems. After all, baseball could use another idiot :D

Fan
 

I have read a couple of the replys, and comments at this site. I was hoping to find some honest, object review of the officiating in the kings-lakers series, and game 6 in particular.

Unfortunately it seems "officials" are much like what police used to be, in that they seem to be protecting their own. A common theme seems to be when a fan questions something, the response is "you should put a whistle on, you should deal with the pressure, etc....."

Well, I guess that means that none of you ever complain about a rude doctor, a poorly served meal, being ripped off at the car dealer, etc.... unless of course you have all done those jobs before. Must be nice going through life knowing that everyone is doing their job right, unless of course you previously did the job, then you have the right to complain or question. Paying $50 for a ticket, and financially supporting the sport that pays the salaries of the officials does not give us that right. I understand.

A fan can appreciate that calling a game of this magnitude can be difficult, however game 6 was not just poorly called, it was called poorly in a biased fashion. The number of mistakes favored one side significantly more than the other.

I am not a tree hugger, but I am glad to see that Nader is keeping the focus on this issue.

Re: Fan
 

You still don't get it. We're not defending officials that make "bad" calls by taking the position that the calls were not bad after all and only another official is qualified to comment on the quality of calls, we're taking the position that anyone who thinks that NBA officials intentionally make calls that favor certain teams over others because of some conspiricy by the league to have certain teams win to boost television ratings (or some other such nonsense)is a moron.

Not only that, but your analogies are not congruent. I wouldn't think that only a doctor would be able to judge another doctor because he was rude (certainly a patient can be justified in doing that), but I would think that only a doctor could have a meaningful opinion of whether another doctor was negligent or not. And - it seems like our courts agree with me.

I hope Ralph was only kidding. I don't dismiss his opinions offhand, after all - if it wasn't for Ralph, people would still be driving in, and dying in, Corvairs. But for him to represent that there was something amiss on purpose in the officiating of a basketball game - well, that's just plain silly.

Okay, here is a better analogy. You take the car to have the oil changed. After the oil is changed, as you are driving away, you notice a trail of oil leaking out of your car. Do you have to be a mechanic to know there is something wrong? Heck, even without being a mechanic you might be able to look inside and tell the oil filter is not seated correctly, or that the drain plug is not installed. I don't need a mechanic to figure that part out.

If you are so sure there is no bias in the league, then do this exercise. Watch the tapes for this series, calculate how many times the three second rule could have been called in the game against each team. Compare the number for the lakers and the number for the kings, and then compare it to the number of times it was actually called. The ratio should be similar. If there is a significant difference, then there is a bias.

That would be an objective way of measuring whether or not there is bias towards a team, or a player. The rule is the rule, regardless of the player or the team, right? All you need is a stopwatch and a tape of the game.

Again you miss the point...in the NBA, a rule is not necessarily a rule as you would like it to be...does the NBA rulebook have a rule about 3 seconds? Yep...does anyone in the NBA - players, coaches, league management, etc - want 3 seconds called? Nope...so the officials are doing and calling exactly what the league told them to...you are not privy to that info as a fan- some on this board are as officials and as people who attend camps where the NBA officials explain these things...if you hang around here long enough, you will come to understand that many of us don't always agree with the way NBA games are called - but we do understand that they are all called in a manner consistent with the way the league says to call them - regardless of the team or the game...as Padgett said, to suggest otherwise is just plain silly...a better analogy for you to use would be me (or you) taking my truck - which runs perfectly - in to the mechanic and telling them that the O2 sensors are not calibrated correctly and thus the engine is running poorly...I would have no idea what I was talking about - much the same as you now...

Bad comparison.
 

Knowing that something is wrong and know WHY something is wrong is two different things. Ralph Nader and Mark Cuban want to be experts about officiating and have probably never actually sat down and talk to an actual official. Ralph Nader flat out called the officials bais and for the Lakers without any concrete evidence or any thing other than the "oil is leaking" so it must be something wrong with the mechanic. Now the "oil leaking" might just be because the person that owns the car was not doing their job, despite the advice of the "professionals" that actually fix cars.

Funny, I have never heard Ralph Nader or Mark Cuban or any major critic of the officials use the rulebook. They only say what should or should not be, but cannot back it up with rules or mechanics to justify their position. I guess the next time Ralph Nader goes into court as a lawyer he will just tell a judge that this is wrong and not give evidence of why other than his opinion. I wonder what a judge would think about that?

Peace

Funny, you talk about the league not wanting the game called by the rulebook, but then fans are morons when they say the league wants a game called a particular way.

You argue that Cuban, and moronic fans, don't know what they are talking about and don't use the rules, but then when you suggest that you measure the calls by an easy to follow rule, then there is this unwritten rule by the league to not use that rule.

My suggestion of measuring the number of times the three second rule was violated would demonstrate if there was a bias. If the officials call it according to the way the league wants them to, as long as they do it the same way for both teams then there would be no difference.

If there is a significant difference, then it is due to bias towards or against a team, or biased in favor or against a particular player.

Can you quote the rule?
 

I bet you cannot even discribe to me what "3 seconds" is? You probably think 3 seconds is just simply standing in the lane for 3 seconds? Well sorry to disappoint you, but it is not. You probably do not know what the actual lane is in the NBA?

So if you want to talk about rules, then talk about rules. Do not come here with myths and assumptions of the rules and then tell the officiating world or the NBA what they did wrong.

I am not a mechanic, it is kind of hard for me to be critical of a mechanic if I do not understand basics about cars. It might be the car that needs fixing, not the mechanic.

Peace

Re: Fan
 

Can you show this is true? Please provide concrete analysis
with rules references to prove this.

Well, the Celtics lost, so he has to find some way to stay in basketball.

(Sorry for the bad Green Party joke.)

Your 3 second example doesn't hold water. As has been said, my guess is that you have never read the 3 second rule. I would also bet that you have never read or even seen an NBA rulebook. Yet, you and Ralph Nader feel qualified to judge whether the officials are biased or not.

But back to 3 seconds. At no level, NF, NCAA or NBA, is the 3 second rule called the way it is written. Officials are trained to call 3 seconds when the offensive player GAINS AN ADVANTAGE. That's the way it's officiated, that's the way it's played, and that's the way it's coached. Fans are the only ones who complain, when it's not called against the team their favorite is playing. A couple of 3 second calls are not going to make a difference in the a game. Hundreds and hundreds of things go into deciding who's going to win, not one or two calls.

As has already been said, we aren't defending the calls. Officiating is judgment based on rules knowledge and philosophy. It is gray, not black and white. Yes, most officials will commnet that you need to pick up a whistle to understand what's going on. That's because it's true. until you've studying the rules AND philosophies, works hundreds and hundreds of games, you can't possibly understand what these officials are doing.

Watching basketball does not make you an expert on officiating.

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??Perhaps one of the teams has a center like Todd MacCulloch (excuse the spelling) who does not move very well and tends to stand in one spot for long periods of time...the other team has Tony Battie who - as a smaller player - is very mobile and moves all the time...now the officials call 3 seconds on Todd who is camping in the lane, but not on Tony who is constantly moving and THAT means they are biased?? Or we have Mike Bibby playing point guard against Derek Fisher - Mike is obviously quicker and stronger, so Fisher has to use his hands more on defense...does calling that foul more on Fisher than on Bibby equal a referee bias?? I am really confused with where you are coming from on this? Are you a frustrated Sacramento fan? a Laker-hater (as I am)? What's the deal? Any way you slice it, your arguments don't hold water...check the stats from the series - I believe you can find them on the ESPN website...

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. :p

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.

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.

Armchair officials
 

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.

Re: Armchair officials
 

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.

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.

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

Knowing a rule and <b><i>applying</i></b> 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 <b>applying</b> 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.<br><br>Am I knocking you? No, just trying to give some perspective.... :cool:

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.

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?

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!



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.

Game 6
 

***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

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.

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??

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.

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.

ROFL!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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 . . .

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.

Wow! A <i>self</i>-proclaimed howler monkey! You should get extra bananas for that one! :D

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!" :)

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.

NBA Frustration
 

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.

Easy to say.....................
 

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

Re: NBA Frustration
 

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.

Quote:

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?

The fans are uninformed, because they don't read the rules. If they read they rules, they don't understand because there are written rules, and then there are the unwritten rules that are enforced. And nobody but an offical can tell whether or not the game is called fairly. And no official would ever be biased, so all games are called fairly. (How about being biased about no officials being biased?) Yet, because the rules are not being enforced as written officials use judgement, which results in the fans perception of unfairness. The NBA today.

Well, I don't see any officals on this board saying anything should change, yet you have a large number of fans who think something needs to change. This bothers me. Obviously an official could come up with better ideas than a fan.

Why not try and keep the written rules updated to reflect what is really happening? And to use the nifty NBA.com web page to help educate the fans, rather than just saying they are uniformed and uneducated. There are some fans who will try to keep informed.

In regards to bias. I am sorry but there are judges who have been on the take, DA's, police officers, politicians, etc.... I am not saying there is a conspiracy in this particular situation, however, I will not agree to a blanket statement that no official EVER is biased or influenced. No way. Not if they are human. Saying because you can bet on it at vegas, it must be not ever happen, does not convince me that it has NEVER happened or could NEVER happen. Do I think NBA officials are on the take? No. Do I think they could be influenced and might try to do what is best for the league, not what is actually happening on the court? I don't know. But I also don't understand if there is nothing wrong going on, why get so defensive about having somebody look at it?

I do think that there should be a way for the fans to forward to the league particular plays that they questions on and for the league to use some impartial (but educated) judges to see if there have been mistakes. These could be used to help educate the fans when there were no mistakes, and they could be used to help educate the officals on those rare times when they have made a mistake.

What you still fail to realize is that NBA officials are
subjected to intense, daily scrutiny. Literally every play
is looked at and commented on by NBA evalutors (the REAL
experts). The game is called the way it is expected to be
called. Take your complaints to NBA.com. I wonder if they
would pay as much attention to you as we are?

You know, we should also post Steven Spielberg's phone number and address here on this website...that way when we - as fans - don't like one of his movies, we can all e-mail him and call him and let him know what to do different next time around...or better yet - we could just stop buying tickets to his movies if we don't like them. What a great idea...maybe we could even use the same idea with NBA fans - if you don't like the product on the court, stop watching it for crying out loud. Stop spending your money on tickets and cable packages...but to come to an officials website and make statements about NBA officials and expect to not get blasted - that's pretty silly. And to expect David Stern and the other league administrators and owners to listen to you and your ideas - well, you might as well start calling Spielberg now...

I've looked back over this thread and I don't see anything written that says there has never been a biased official. Sure there are biased officials. But there weren't any in Game 6 of the Lakers-Kings series. You have no idea the scrutiny these officials are put under by the NBA. Those who think they were biased are simply grasping for straws, trying to rationalize something they don't fully understand.

Name one.

Thanks guys...
 

This thread was fun to read and informative!

I can't help wishing the NBA were different...

but it's definitely NOT the officials' fault!

There you go.
 

I am with Mark here. You have accused me of making many ridiculous statements and told me so. This is a very ridiculous one you just made.

Name one. Show evidence that there is one. Do not just shoot off at the mouth about something you cannot back up. But then again Tony, you are you. ;)

Peace

Looks like I overstayed my welcome...based on the "blah, blah," quote from Dan_ref.

Thanks for the educational experience. In regards to rockyroad's comments about calling spielberg, it is kind of funny since Lucas did change his approach on episode II based on fans input from the previous star wars. Companies modify their products all the time based on customers input. The NBA is a product. The providers are the officials, the league, the players, etc... they all have a financial reason to want the best product. The fans the customers.

So, yes I have contacted the NBA. Could I just stop watching? Sure, and I am sure there are people who have done just that.

Thanks again, the part about the rules was very informative..although I still think they should reflect what is being called. And I realize the officals are reviewed, but the fans never see or hear about it.

Good for you.
 

You do not even understand what the rules are, how the heck are you going to say what affect they have on what is being called? But then again, go tell a pilot how to fly a 747 in heavy turbulance. When you do that, come back here and tell us or any official how to officiate a game. Better yet, bring you behind to a local Junior High game and we will see how well you know the rules.


Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Jun 7th, 2002 at 07:26 PM]

Tommy Smart.

Mark, I'm not saying that I know of professional officials who are biased. I don't personally know but 3 or 4 who work on a D1 or pro level and they're all men of integrity. But I have worked with officials who were biased against a player or team. You want an example, I'll give you one. Tommy Smart.

Last season, I was officiating an adult rec league, 3 mna. With under 20 seconds to go in a 2 point game, the team that was behind was trying to foul. But one of my partners, whom we'll call Mr. Social because he's always firting with the scorer, would not call the foul. The contact was very physical. One of the players who was fouling got pissed and started yelling at my partner. This continued for several minutes after the game was over. Mr. Social did nothing. I tried to calm the kid down but it was no use. However, if Mr. Social didn't have the balls to pop him, I certainly wasn't. Three days later, I have the same team and Mr. Social. This particular player arrives for the game just prior to halftime. He enters the game and we immediately have a play involving him. I'm C, opposite table, and the play is directly in front of me. My partner is T. As the play evolves, I whistle a foul on this player. A millisecond after my whistle, Mr. Social blows too. I take the call, report and head back, opposite table. The next time down the floor, we have a similiar play. Once again, Mr. Social whistles the foul, except there is no foul. He amkes the call and the half ends about a minute later. At the half, I tell him, "You're making us both look bad when you make a call like that. We need to stay in our areas." He replies, "Hell no! I'm gonna foul that SOB out for what he did the other night!" And he did.

Now, granted, all this guy officiates is rec ball. But he's still an official, who made calls against a player based on his feelings towards that player. So, don't tell me I had the misfortune of calling with the only biased pofficial on the planet. These types of guys are out there. Fortunately, most don't advance very far, but they do exist.

They aren't supposed to hear about it. An NBA official is an employee, just like you and I are for the company that employs us. You're no more entitled to see their reviews than they are to see your review.

I just recieved the book "Calling the Shots" by Earl Strom, as recomenended by rainmaker et al. I haven't finished it yet however, the first few chapters would prove very enlightening to ANYONE interested in understanding basketball officiating. I would highly recomend this book to the folks that are posting on this board that are critical of the practice of officiating based on advantage/disadvantage etc.

I would say any official that changes his calls during a
blowout is, by definition, biased.

Hey, you didn't overstay your welcome, you are just beating
this thing to death. And the quote wasn't "blah, blah",
it was "blah, blah, blah"! ;)

"blah,blah,blah!":D

Fans opinions
 

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?

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.

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

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.

Sure they are.
 

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

Flush.

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 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...

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!

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.

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. :(

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

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. :eek:

And he was right there, correctly ruling Van Horn's shot from the corner a two-pointer. Had that been a three, Kidd's late shot would've tied it. I wasn't saying I thought there was anything to it, just interesting reading. I think Sports Guy is always interesting to read.

Perhaps but there's no credibility.

More fouls get called on one team than the other all the time. So what?

Calls sometime appear to favor the home team.
Big deal!

The crowd chants "Bull$hit!" 4 times during a game!
Imagine that!

Heat players complain about the officials!
What's new?

The Knicks manage to win 1 game against the Spurs.
Some conspiracy!

Sorry but sounds like a guy with nothing else to write about to me.

Because Bill Simmons, aka The Sports Guy, is the best sports columnist on the internet, by far, without question. In Bill's words, I will not argue about this. Also b/c he reflects a fan's perspective perfectly. Of course, he has no credibility in discussing officiating, but his observations are entertaining and thought-provoking. I can't tell you how often I sit at my computer at lunch and laugh right out loud while reading his columns. His colums from New Orleans during Super Bowl week were unbelievably funny. I'm so glad to know that there are others out there who appreciate him as much as I do. Plus, he's from Boston!!

Chuck

Enough said. :)

You are too smart for me. Since you don't seem to get it I will connect the dots. A large segment of the population (present company excluded) think game six was called poorly and most of the calls favored the lakers. If the league released the information of what fines, if any, were assessed against the officials, then if there were none, it would indeed show the NBA condoned it. If there were fines it would help dispel the conspiracy theory. Last time I checked the officials had a contract with the NBA and the NBA could make this part of the contract if they wanted to.

I have some ocean front real estate right outside of Tulsa I will let go cheap...
 

A large percentage of the population believes in UFO's without any proof of existance. A large percentage of the population also believes that we never landed on the moon. If I had a dollar for every unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that exists, I would be a wealthy man.

I think everyone would agree that the NBA's product needs work. I think everyone would agree that the game six officiating could be better. However, to take those two items and imply a conspiracy is without both base and merit.

If the NBA did release it, then the same people would say,"They are just paying them under the table so it wouldn't be public." The funny thing about conspiracy nuts is that you can never prove them wrong. It is the age-old problem of having to prove an absolute negative.

I agree with earlier posts, the big "conspiracy" is that the NBA has gotten major free advertising out of nuts like Nader who have oral diarehea (sp?) and spew on national talk shows.

You are too smart for me. Since you don't seem to get it I will connect the dots. A large segment of the population (present company excluded) think game six was called poorly and most of the calls favored the lakers. If the league released the information of what fines, if any, were assessed against the officials, then if there were none, it would indeed show the NBA condoned it. If there were fines it would help dispel the conspiracy theory. Last time I checked the officials had a contract with the NBA and the NBA could make this part of the contract if they wanted to.

[/B][/QUOTE]OK,we admit it! There is a conspiracy!The whole world is out to get the Sacramento Kings!We did it last year,too!Only YOU can save them from it happening next year,also!
Continue the CRUSADE!!

But why don't you continue it in a fan forum,where it belongs?

You wouldn't happen to be a Bosox fan too,would ya?If not,look into it.That might keep you busy for the next 100 years!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 11th, 2002 at 09:26 AM]

Since you don't seem to get it ...

I think it is plain to see that SOMEONE here just doesn't get it, but I don't think it's Tony...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

You wouldn't happen to be a Bosox fan too,would ya?If not,look into it.That might keep you busy for the next 100 years!

LOL! Happy & giddy from Feb to August, then depressed
and angry from Sept to January!

Originally posted by ChuckElias
"Plus, he's from Boston!!"

In the immortal words of Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray): "I don't have to take this abuse from you. I got hundreds of people waiting to abuse me!"

Good God, there's no way to win with you!

Let's say the NBA truthfully (because we have no reason to believe anything else) disclosed the fines (if any) assessed to the officials.

Scenario 1:
The NBA announces that it has fined each of the referees $1,000 for their performance in Game 6. Fans everywhere scream and kvitch and moan that the game was intentionally thrown and the refs are being punished for it.

Scenario 2:
The NBA announces that no fines were assessed. Nuts like you imply that this means the "throwing" of the game was endorsed all the way up the NBA ladder to David Stern.

The way I understand (perhaps some of our WNBA/semi-pro guys could back me up) any fine assessed would be for improper rule interpretation or incorrect mechanics - not for a poor judgement call or "throwing" the game.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: You wouldn't happen to be a Bosox fan too,would ya?If not,look into it.That might keep you busy for the next 100 years! LOL! Happy & giddy from Feb to August, then depressed and angry from Sept to January!

I think the REAL conspiracy here is that you're all Yankees fans!

That's the most intelligent thing you've wrote since you got here.

Announcing fines would serve absolutely no purpose. Mr. Dexter explains a few of the reasons why, above. BTW, when officials are fined or suspended, it's for misapplying rules, not for making judgment calls that fans don't agree with. And no rules were misapplied in Game 6. If you want to look at a misapplication of rules, there's a post on here about the Orlando-Charlotte series and a rule misapplication.

Have you considered giving up self-abuse too,Chuckie?

A simple "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.:D

I think the REAL conspiracy here is that you're all Yankees fans! [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey! Not being a BoSox fan does not necessarily mean we are Yankees fans! I happen to detest them both... Pedro keeps beating the Mariners, and the Yankees have Clemens - enough said!

Hey! Not being a BoSox fan does not necessarily mean we are Yankees fans! I happen to detest them both... Pedro keeps beating the Mariners, and the Yankees have Clemens - enough said! [/B][/QUOTE]Should be veeery interesting to see Clemens pick up a bat this coming weekend vs. the Mets-if the Yankees actually let him pitch.I'd almost bet that he'll weasel out of it somehow-again!

When it comes to Sox/Yankees - it's like Dubya says - you're either with us, or you're against us! :D

I ain't with ya! Too bad the Yankees could not have played game 7 last year the way they did with the D'backs this past weekend.

Now, if Roger could just learn to spell his last name correctly (his=Clemens, mine=Clemons). But then, he has the major $$$$$.

When it comes to Sox/Yankees - it's like Dubya says - you're either with us, or you're against us! :D [/B][/QUOTE]


So can I be against you both???