Ralph Nader and game 6

[Stan]

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

[Rick Vietti]

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.

[stripes]

Yes you did.

[LarryS]

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

[djh3]

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by djh3
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.

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.

[djh3]

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.

[rockyroad]

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...

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by djh3
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.

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

[djh3]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by djh3

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.

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by djh3


... 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.

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

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Stan
Did I hear that Ralph Nader wants NBA game 6 investigated?

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

(Sorry for the bad Green Party joke.)

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by djh3
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.

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.

[rockyroad]

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