Tweet
Could you please put a link in that first one? I'm not trying to be a cop, I just want to go to the related topic (incidents from last two years). Thanks!
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill
“If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird -
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
I don't know that the refs should be scared but I will say this, NBA players/coaches complain WAY to much.
Instead of trying to figure out why you were called for a foul, shut your mouth and go and try and make a good play on the other end of the court. If your a coach, shrug it off, even if it is a bad call, and focus on the next possession. The quality of the game would improve if everyone focused on the next poession instead of the previous one. (Of course this is easier said then done.)
On the flip side, the NBA should hold the refs more publicaly accountable for their mistakes. I think that players, coaches, fans, etc need to see that refs are being held accountable for their actions. I'm not saying that you need to punish refs for every mistake they made, because they have one of the toughest jobs, maybe the toughest job, in all of sports. Yet, they have to be held a little more accountable for their mistakes or atleast the NBA needs to make it more public as to what they do to the refs who constantly screw up. -
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
Rock.Originally posted by vapacersfan“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill
“If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine AirdComment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
Interesting to see how often the Pacers show up on this list:
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...use_x.htm#list
Blurring separation of powers?
The 27 incidents that the National Basketball Referees Association feels are an indication that the line is blurring between players, coaches and referees, a line the association says needs strengthening (all fines and suspensions levied by the NBA):
2005-06 SEASON
Nov, 9, 2005 New Jersey coach Lawrence Frank fined $25,000 for failing to leave the court in a timely manner and verbally abusing the refs after Nets-Miami Heat game.
Nov. 11, 2005 Golden State coach Mike Montgomery fined $25,000 and Warriors guard Jason Richardson fined $20,000 for failing to leave the court in a timely manner and verbally abusing the refs after Warriors-Bulls game.
Nov. 30, 2005 Denver coach George Karl suspended for two games for criticizing the refs after Nuggets-New Jersey Nets game.
Dec. 4, 2005 Boston coach Doc Rivers fined $10,000 for failing to leave the court in a timely manner after his ejection from a Celtics-Chicago Bulls game.
Dec. 10, 2005 Seattle's Danny Fortson suspended for one game for verbally abusing refs and failing to leave court in a timely manner after ejection from Sonics-Utah Jazz game.
Dec. 26, 2005 Indiana's Stephen Jackson fined $20,000 for making an obscene gesture after he was ejected during a Pacers-Cleveland Cavaliers game. Jackson denied making the gesture and his appeal is pending.
Dec. 26, 2005 Portland coach Nate McMillan fined $15,000 for verbally abusing the refs and failing to leave the court in a timely manner after Trail Blazers-Timberwolves game.
Dec. 29, 2005 Seattle forward Danny Fortson suspended two games without pay for berating a ref and failing to leave the court in a timely manner after ejection from SuperSonics-Minnesota Timberwolves game.
Jan. 11, 2006 Then-Detroit guard Carlos Arroyo suspended one game without pay for bumping a ref during Pistons-Hornets game.
Jan. 19, 2006 John Paxson, Chicago vice president of basketball operations, fined $15,000 for verbally abusing refs after Bulls-Denver Nuggets game.
Feb. 2, 2006 New York coach Larry Brown fined $20,000 for failing to leave the court in a timely manner after his ejection from Knicks-Los Angeles Lakers game.
2004-05 SEASON
Dec. 13, 2004 Then-Portland coach Maurice Cheeks fined $7,500 for failing to leave the court in a timely manner after a Blazers-Jazz game.
Dec. 23, 2004 Then-Detroit coach Larry Brown fined $15,000 for verbally abusing a ref after Pistons-Bulls game.
Jan. 16, 2005 Then-Toronto guard Rafer Alston fined $7,500 for verbally abusing a ref during a Raptors-76ers game.
Jan. 29, 2005 Then-Detroit coach Larry Brown fined $35,000 for criticizing refs after Pistons-Timberwolves game.
Feb. 3, 2005 Indiana's Stephen Jackson suspended for one game for verbally abusing the refs at the end of a Pacers-Toronto Raptors game.
Feb. 10, 2005 Sacramento's Brad Miller suspended one game for berating refs and throwing his headband and wristbands into the stands after a Kings-Phoenix Suns game. Kings guard Mike Bibby fined $15,000 for berating the refs and failing to leave the court in a timely manner after the game.
Also: Then-Sacramento guard Cuttino Mobley fined $15,000 for comments he made about the refs after the game. Then-Kings forward Chris Webber fined $10,000 for kicking the ball into the stands after the game ended.
Feb. 11, 2005 Seattle forward Danny Fortson suspended two games for yelling at a ref, throwing a chair, and failing to leave court in a timely manner after ejection from Sonics-Kings game.
Feb. 15, 2005 Then-Sacramento guard Cuttino Mobley fined $10,000 for abuse of the refs and failing to leave the court in a timely manner after Kings-Mavs game.
March 1, 2005 Washington guard Gilbert Arenas fined $7,500 for criticizing the refs after Wizards-Sacramento Kings game.
March 2, 2005 Chicago post player Tyson Chandler fined $10,000 for directing an obscene gesture toward a ref during a Bulls-Rockets game.
March 22, 2005 Philadelphia guard Allen Iverson fined $10,000 for verbal abuse of a referee after 76ers-Bulls game.
April 12, 2005 Denver forward Kenyon Martin fined $7,500 for verbally abusing refs and failing to leave court in a timely manner after his ejection from Nuggets-Warriors game.
April 25, 2005 Dallas coach Avery Johnson fined $10,000 for failing to leave the court in a timely manner after Mavericks-Rockets playoff game.
April 29, 2005 Then-Boston forward Antoine Walker suspended for one game for contact with a ref following his scuffle with Indiana forward Jermaine O'Neal during a Celtics-Pacers playoff game. O'Neal was fined $10,000 for his role in the scuffle.
May 2, 2005 Houston coach Jeff Van Gundy fined $100,000 for comments made to the media that he believed the officiating was targeting Rockets center Yao Ming during playoffs. It is a record fine handed to an NBA coach, doubling the old record.
June 3, 2005 Detroit's Rasheed Wallace fined $20,000 for public criticism of the refs after a Pistons-Heat playoff game and using inappropriate language when speaking to the media.“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill
“If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine AirdComment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
I agree that there will be an assualt on a referee sometime in the near future if the league does not get a handle on out of control players.
If I remember correctly wasn't it Rasheed who went after an official AFTER a game when he was in Portland. And yet he does not see the problem from his own glass house.
Comment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
"It's like they want the attention to be fixed on them."
Thank you SHEED, F THE REFS. Idiots are always trying to take over the game, people dont come out to see you 60 year old fools run around and ruin the game.Comment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
Now that's funny...Nov, 9, 2005 New Jersey coach Lawrence Frank fined $25,000 for failing to leave the court in a timely manner and verbally abusing the refs after Nets-Miami Heat game.Comment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
The referees need to look in the mirror and stop trying to be part of the show.
...Still "flying casual"
@roaminggnome74Comment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
If every official did his job like Joe Crawford, it would be the players that felt unsafe, and not the other way around!Comment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
I just don't see that things are any different now than they were 5 years ago, or 10 years ago. In fact do you remember the one season when several players bumped a ref. Nick Van Exel, Magic Johnson, and a few others bumped refsComment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
Cap the salaries to the players and have refs call techs more liberally. The players make way too much. Then increase the fines for the Ts. That'd slow 'em down real fast instead of the gaudy contracts they have now and fines that are like a drop in the bucket in comparison. I mean if people were really serious about changing behavior, that would be a good step.I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
However, I also agree w/ this statement. I think with coaches complaining or working the refs it's been going on for quite some time.Originally posted by UnclebuckI'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
Originally posted by D-BONE
Here we go again...when there is a problem, blame it on how much money the players make. Nevermind, the owners are the "billionaires" that pay these so called "gaudy" saleries.
Isn't the split between the owners and players assn. pretty close? What does lowering saleries to the players get anybody besides putting more money in the owners pockets? I am willing to bet if the players take of the BRI (Basketball Related Income) was closer to 35%, the owners wouldn't lower prices because they know what we fans will pay to see the game. Supply and Demand, capitalism at work. Why are the players not entitled to "gaudy" saleries if the owners are pulling them down on the backs of the players? If it were not for the players...there wouldn't be an NBA. Period.
I do agree with you that fines for techs and the amount of techs they call could help get the situation in line....Still "flying casual"
@roaminggnome74Comment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
OK. I'll "buy" that. So then cap the money the owners can make, too. Nobody should make that much money either. Way more than the GDP of many countries.Originally posted by Roaming Gnome
Here we go again...when there is a problem, blame it on how much money the players make. Nevermind, the owners are the "billionaires" that pay these so called "gaudy" saleries.
Isn't the split between the owners and players assn. pretty close? What does lowering saleries to the players get anybody besides putting more money in the owners pockets? I am willing to bet if the players take of the BRI (Basketball Related Income) was closer to 35%, the owners wouldn't lower prices because they know what we fans will pay to see the game. Supply and Demand, capitalism at work. Why are the players not entitled to "gaudy" saleries if the owners are pulling them down on the backs of the players? If it were not for the players...there wouldn't be an NBA. Period.
I do agree with you that fines for techs and the amount of techs they call could help get the situation in line.I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Re: NBA ref's are now scared of todays players
I bet the refs collective bargaining agreement is about to expire and this is all about getting a better dealComment
Comment