NBA officiating

[Trayhezy]

Hello all,

As a newcomer to this forum and one with no officiating background at all, I wanted to get a different perspective on the officials of the NBA. I had a discussion over the holiday on this issue with a few visiting family members who are refs at different levels and I got a little intresting feedback on several issues that make the game more or less enjoyable for me as a fan. Are the conspiracy theories valid. Should they go to instant replay? Should they put another official on the floor? Are they too biased to superstars to the point where no one else has a chance? There are a million questions that can be asked as to why casual fans, players and coaches are more dissatisfied with the officiating in this league and on a wider basis than any other of the major sports. I know that these guys get bashed on a regular basis and that is not what I am looking to do, I just want some honest analysis of the job they do why it is or isn't good and what can be done to make it better. This issue has been one that has been ongoing for a long time now and has only gone more to the forefront as the years go by and I am about to stop watching a sport that I love because I am not 100% sure that I am getting a good, fair, and professional product or if I am getting a more expensive version of wrestling. With that having been said I want to get the opinions of you all who have been in that position and who know how to the do this job and how difficult it is, in order to get a true perspective on what I am watching.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Trayhezy

Are the conspiracy theories valid.
No.

Should they go to instant replay?
No.

Should they put another official on the floor?
No.

Are they too biased to superstars to the point where no one else has a chance?
No.


There are a million questions that can be asked as to why casual fans, players and coaches are more dissatisfied with the officiating in this league and on a wider basis than any other of the major sports.

Yeah - and one good answer.

[ChuckElias]

I think Mark just about covered it

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett


There are a million questions that can be asked as to why casual fans, players and coaches are more dissatisfied with the officiating in this league and on a wider basis than any other of the major sports.

Yeah - and one good answer.

Let's see...it begins with "M", ends in "A", has an "E,D,I in the middle and rhymes with....uhhhhhhh....rhymes with....hmmmmm....encyclopedia!

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

I love watching the NBA, and I really enjoying attending a couple of games a year. But I can't shake the feeling that there is something behind the way things turn out sometimes. Take any one event individually (David Robinson's sixth "foul" yesterday, for example) and you can certainly explain it away. But the more NBA I watch, the more questions I have. I especially notice in the games I don't have any interest in who wins. Did you see how the FTA differential has turned in the two games in LA vs the two games in SA in this series?

But I was convinced that the NBA would find a way to get the Wizards into that final playoff spot this year, and they didn't, so maybe I'm crazy.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach


But I was convinced that the NBA would find a way to get the Wizards into that final playoff spot this year, and they didn't, so maybe I'm crazy.

Yeah but look what's happened to MJ since...it's all part of a grand conspiracy...

[JoeT]

I know I've suggested this in about half my posts, but here goes again....

I don't have a single answer to your questions, but they lead me to believe that you would enjoy a book by the late Earl Strom entitled "Calling the Shots: My Five Decades in the NBA." It is out-of-print, but it can be found through http://www.alibris.com.

Earl Strom was an NBA official for years and makes a surprising (for me) case in favor of adjusting the calls to suit star players.

Whether you agree with him or not, he offers great anecdotes and a clear love for the game and for officiating.

Originally posted by Trayhezy
There are a million questions that can be asked as to why casual fans, players and coaches are more dissatisfied with the officiating in this league and on a wider basis than any other of the major sports.

Upon what do you base this - just out of curiosity? (By the way, ever go to a youth hockey game in recent years? You want to see dissatisfaction?)

You might also enjoy the following articles that have been oft cited around here:

http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/story?id=1511196
http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/bucher_ric/1513723.html
http://espn.go.com/ncb/columns/bilas_jay/1510733.html

And stick around here for a while.... You'll find men and women of great integrity who will impress you with their dedication to fairness. This is the mentality of the vast majority of officials in my experience (as a long-time coach and official). I've seen a lot of very good and fairly poor officials, but I've honestly met very few who do not fit this mold of wanting to call games as honestly as possible.

Last thought: Watch 10 NBA games (or college, or high school, or eighth-grade girls). Write down the calls you think are wrong for one reason or another. Now, count for yourself which calls favor "your" team and which go against. We get emotional about our sports - that's why it's fun. But as an official, I've never had a coach or parent shout at me for a call that went in his or her team's favor - NEVER. Bias plays a role in our emotional response, but a lot of people seem never to separate that from their intellectual assessment. If officials are weaker in basketball than in other sports as you suggest may be the case, provide objective data that support the claim.

Hope this helps.

Joe

[Joe]

http://www.nba.com/games/20030511/SASLAL/boxscore.html

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach
I love watching the NBA, and I really enjoying attending a couple of games a year. But I can't shake the feeling that there is something behind the way things turn out sometimes. Take any one event individually (David Robinson's sixth "foul" yesterday, for example) and you can certainly explain it away. But the more NBA I watch, the more questions I have. I especially notice in the games I don't have any interest in who wins. Did you see how the FTA differential has turned in the two games in LA vs the two games in SA in this series?

I'm not a ref, but I've played D1 and NBA competition,
and I wonder too. Likewise, I had no favorite yesterday,
but SA IS attacking the hoop (SA:Points in the Paint 36 LA:Points in the Paint 30) and yet LA went to the line
TWICE as often.... If it worked out like that once in a while, I would write it off, but it happens a lot and it
usually favors the big media market teams....there were
some "interesting" calls in the Minn-LA series too. And
last years LA-Sac. I could go on....


http://www.nba.com/games/20030511/SASLAL/boxscore.html



But I was convinced that the NBA would find a way to get the Wizards into that final playoff spot this year, and they didn't, so maybe I'm crazy.

[Joe]

>Bias plays a role in our emotional response...

Again, with 10s of millions on the line, do
you think the NBA as a business may have
an "emotional bias"?

Originally posted by JoeT
I know I've suggested this in about half my posts, but here goes again....

I don't have a single answer to your questions, but they lead me to believe that you would enjoy a book by the late Earl Strom entitled "Calling the Shots: My Five Decades in the NBA." It is out-of-print, but it can be found through http://www.alibris.com.

Earl Strom was an NBA official for years and makes a surprising (for me) case in favor of adjusting the calls to suit star players.

Whether you agree with him or not, he offers great anecdotes and a clear love for the game and for officiating.

Upon what do you base this - just out of curiosity? (By the way, ever go to a youth hockey game in recent years? You want to see dissatisfaction?)

You might also enjoy the following articles that have been oft cited around here:

http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/story?id=1511196
http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/bucher_ric/1513723.html
http://espn.go.com/ncb/columns/bilas_jay/1510733.html

And stick around here for a while.... You'll find men and women of great integrity who will impress you with their dedication to fairness. This is the mentality of the vast majority of officials in my experience (as a long-time coach and official). I've seen a lot of very good and fairly poor officials, but I've honestly met very few who do not fit this mold of wanting to call games as honestly as possible.

Last thought: Watch 10 NBA games (or college, or high school, or eighth-grade girls). Write down the calls you think are wrong for one reason or another. Now, count for yourself which calls favor "your" team and which go against. We get emotional about our sports - that's why it's fun. But as an official, I've never had a coach or parent shout at me for a call that went in his or her team's favor - NEVER. Bias plays a role in our emotional response, but a lot of people seem never to separate that from their intellectual assessment. If officials are weaker in basketball than in other sports as you suggest may be the case, provide objective data that support the claim.

Hope this helps.

Joe

[Trayhezy]

Thank you, JoeT for the links and everyone for their input. And I will be getting that book as well.

Upon what do you base this - just out of curiosity? (By the way, ever go to a youth hockey game in recent years? You want to see dissatisfaction?)

I made that statement based on a sports magazine poll from 2002 (I'll provide that link once I find it again) involving the decline in ratings of the major sports in America, and according to their poll the NBA was the only one where fans said the way the games were skewed toward the star players made a difference in the way they viewed the games. If I am not mistaken it said 12 percent of those polled offered this response in regards to the NBA. Add to that the statements made by coaches and players the last few years and it starts to add up. I am not looking to offend anyone, I just wanted a little feedback from the guys who have to bear the brunt of all this and get an understanding of your side of this issue.

[JoeT]

Originally posted by Joe
Again, with 10s of millions on the line, do
you think the NBA as a business may have
an "emotional bias"?

No idea. My point was in regard to fans' and coaches' reactions (my own included) to perceived inequities in calls.

Our perspective is naturally skewed if we have an interest in the game. Due to the nature of sport, very few people watching a game have no interest in its outcome. I can't tell you how many games end with fans and coaches on both sides absolutely conviced that the officials were biased against them.

My only point is that many questionable calls are quick judgment calls. In these cases, people tend to see the call in light of how it helped or hurt their own team.

If a person claims that the quality of officiating is poor or the officials are biased (or worse, conspiring to aid or hurt a particular team), I just ask whether that's based on an impartial assesment of facts. I ask this with the understanding that very few spectators or participants are observing the game without interest in its outcome.

[IrvKostal]

I suspect that all the worrying about conspiracies and favoritism for the stars is much ado about very little, but a more serious matter, IMHO, is the disconnect between the fans, the refs and the league as to just what constitues a foul. The charging/blocking foul is a major example of this disconnect. This one everyone sees the way they WANT to see it, and there's almost no such thing as a charging/blocking foul call that doesn't draw a complaint from someone.It would help greatly if the NBA would come up with some definitions here that most of us could understand.

There are other issues. I think a rules change is called for in the definition of, and penalty for, an intentional foul. When I see a defender wrap his arms around a player, pinning his arms to his sides, I see that as an intentional foul. The defender is NOT making a "basketball play." He's not trying to block a shot or intercept a pass, or get a rebound, etc. When Don Nelson trots out his Hack-a-whoever "defense" it's impossible to argue that this makes the game more enjoyable to watch. I believe fouls committed "on purpose", i.e., when not trying to accomplish some reasonable defensive purpose, should result in a foul shot AND possesion of the ball, just like the flagrant foul does.

Yet another issue that disturbs me is the remark I hear, so often, that the players need to adjust to how the game is being called by the referees. This is absurd! A foul is (or should be) a foul, and the referees should call fouls the same way, game after game. Otherwise, we have the refs sometimes determining who will be the winner of game. If a physical team is being "allowed" to be physical, they're going to have an enormous advantage. If a finesse team is getting every little ticky-tack foul called, they will have the edge. Why is it that the refs have this much discretion? I want the players to determine the pace and flow of the game, not to mention the end result.

So I'm wondering how others feel about these issues. I think, as things stand, these problems are hurting the game.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by IrvKostal


I suspect that all the worrying about conspiracies and favoritism for the stars is much ado about very little, but a more serious matter, IMHO, is the disconnect between the fans, the refs and the league as to just what constitues a foul. The charging/blocking foul is a major example of this disconnect. This one everyone sees the way they WANT to see it, and there's almost no such thing as a charging/blocking foul call that doesn't draw a complaint from someone.It would help greatly if the NBA would come up with some definitions here that most of us could understand.

There already is a definition of all this, it is in the rulebook. And what I understand about the NBA Rulebook, that is not a problem for most officials. But fans (which I am thinking you are) never read basic rules and you only listen to commentators that would not know a rulebook definition if it slapped them in the face. It is already clearly defined. And basically it is the same from the High School Level to the NBA level. The main difference is that the NBA has a circle under the basket. And there are specific rules that cover how that is to be handled. Do not know whatelse can be done on this one.

Originally posted by IrvKostal


There are other issues. I think a rules change is called for in the definition of, and penalty for, an intentional foul. When I see a defender wrap his arms around a player, pinning his arms to his sides, I see that as an intentional foul. The defender is NOT making a "basketball play." He's not trying to block a shot or intercept a pass, or get a rebound, etc. When Don Nelson trots out his Hack-a-whoever "defense" it's impossible to argue that this makes the game more enjoyable to watch. I believe fouls committed "on purpose", i.e., when not trying to accomplish some reasonable defensive purpose, should result in a foul shot AND possesion of the ball, just like the flagrant foul does.

There is already rules that cover this. The problem is (fans) have no clue they are being called. The NBA has a Flagrant Foul call that is like an Intentional Foul at the lower levels. But then again I am not at all an NBA expert on the specific rules differences here. So there are already rules that cover what you suggest. No need for a change.

Originally posted by IrvKostal

Yet another issue that disturbs me is the remark I hear, so often, that the players need to adjust to how the game is being called by the referees. This is absurd! A foul is (or should be) a foul, and the referees should call fouls the same way, game after game.

This comment suggest more and more to me that you are just a fan. You obviously have not real understanding of what judgment is and how it is applied. For one, it is difficult to have 3 set of officials call a game the exact same, then the next night have another set of official call the game the exact same, then then next night do the same as the first group. Sorry, it does not work that way. And teams do not play the same against one team as they do against another team. For example, you are not going to play the Lakers the same as you do the Mavericks. So just when it comes to matchups, each game is going to be completely different. Kind of hard to call fouls the same when one team is shooting 3s and outside shots all night, then the next night they are going to the cup. For one, you might have each team take a different approach to how they are going to defend a certain team. So the type of contact is not going to be the same. Hell the talent is not going to be the same. So it would be impossible to call the game the exact same, as it is for an umpire to call the same strike zone with different pitchers. Better yet all officials do not have the same strengths and weaknesses as officials, so to do what you suggest is to hope that officials can be cloned into the same thinking official. Sorry, that is not going to happen.

Originally posted by IrvKostal

Otherwise, we have the refs sometimes determining who will be the winner of game. If a physical team is being "allowed" to be physical, they're going to have an enormous advantage. If a finesse team is getting every little ticky-tack foul called, they will have the edge.

Well when a player just plays one way I would agree with you. But one thing you obviously do not understand about officiating is the fact that every player does not play the same. When Jordan was at his peak, one night he might go to the hoop or other nights he might settle for jumpshots. And because of that fact, teams would try many differnet things to stop him. Sometimes they might double team him up top, other times they would wait for him to drive. And for an official, the contact might only take place in a certain area with Jordan or Iverson for example. Then the next night the next team (with different talent I might add) might defend an entirely different way to stop those superstars. You are not going to attack the middle with a Shaq as you would with a Dallas defense that hardly puts a body on anyone going to the hole. So who do you suggest that every game is called the same way? If you think it happens by osmosis it does not. And being an official in 3 sports myself, it can be very difficult to just call the game the exact same without consideration of the different talent you see one night and the next night you see a different style of play all together. Not as easy as you suggest.

Originally posted by IrvKostal

Why is it that the refs have this much discretion? I want the players to determine the pace and flow of the game, not to mention the end result.

Why, because that is just the way it is. I would assume anyone that is in a decision making position of any kind, is going to make decisions based on the many different factors that are placed in front of them. Officiating is not an exact science and the rulebook is just a guide to help making any call. But even with that being said, it takes some experience (which all officials do not have the same level of that), judgment, the play at hand and sometimes even the players involved. If it was that easy, then it might be done. But with all the personalities, the styles of play, the types of players and the types of official, what you suggest is impossible. I have never seen a player shot the exact same percentage from one night to the next, kind of hard to expect the same from officials no matter how good they are.

Originally posted by IrvKostal

So I'm wondering how others feel about these issues. I think, as things stand, these problems are hurting the game.

I would guess you have been watching too much SportsCenter and other sports highlight shows that critiques officiating and they do not have a clue what is going on. I admit that as a HS and College official, from time to time and see things that do not make since to me when I watch the NBA. But I do also know that NBA Officials are evaluated by the league every game and every call. The problem is that the average person does not have any real understanding of what is going on, mainly because you have never picked up a rulebook and have never put on the whistle yourself. Officiating is not at all easy. It can be damn right hard. Especially when half the fans like your calls, then the other have cannot stand you call, all based on who they are cheering for. And we get paid regardless of who wins or not.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Trayhezy
Hello all,

Are the conspiracy theories valid.

Well, if you were the King of the NBA and your goal was to maximize revenue via media exposure -the conspiracy- would you want your finals to be played by teams from East Rutherford, NJ and San Antonio, Texas?

...I just want some honest analysis of the job they do why it is or isn't good and what can be done to make it better.

There already is honest, unbiased analysis done on a game-by game, play-by-play basis. It's done by the NBA brass and the officials themselves. The game is generally being called the way the NBA wants it called. Why is this so difficult to understand?

...With that having been said I want to get the opinions of you all who have been in that position and who know how to the do this job and how difficult it is, in order to get a true perspective on what I am watching.

Think about this for a second. If you don't trust what the NBA is telling you why would you trust what a bunch of strangers hanging around an internet forum tells you? Really.

[rainmaker]

Trey --

Here is my perspective. I was a parent first, watching my daughter play for four years. Then I became a ref. As a ref, I've done about 2000 games, and watched another 500 - 1000 from the ref point of view.

Even as a ref, with plenty of experience, watching a ref on the floor who I respect and trust to do a great job, when I am in the stands, I'm questioning (in my mind) about 50% of the calls and no-calls.

So it isn't surprising that fans think the refs are lousy. But take my word for it on this:

If sitting on our butts 50 feet to 80 feet away from the action would give us a better view, do you think we'd be sweating our tushes off, taking the kinds of abuse we take?

And ask yourself this question: If the NBA is going to pay someone $100,000 for six months work (plus expenses), do you think they're going to keep folks that don't do it the way they want!!??!!?? Especially with however many more there are that want those jobs and WILL toe the line?

Now practice these mantras:

He has a better angle than I do.
He's closer than I am.
(when you see a no-call) Wow!! Great defense!!
He's studied the rules more than I have.
He's got more experience than I have.

And this all-purpose reliable --

I'm glad it's not me out there listening to the @#$% people are throwing at the refs!