PDA

View Full Version : SAVE THE NBA! SPREAD THIS POST!



SamBear
06-14-2008, 04:14 AM
Given the fact that a vast majority of fans now believe that the NBA officials can not be trusted, we have decided to make it as easy as possible for you to contact your local congressman in order to urge them to call for congressional hearings into the matter.

If you truly care about the game and want to feel secure in knowing that situations like the Donaghy case and his accusations are no longer part of professional basketball, we the fans need to take matters into our own hands and contact our congressional representatives for hearings into the matter.

Remember. No matter how forthright the NBA claims it is being with us, it was the FBI who discovered the improprieties involving the refs- not the NBA! We can not trust that the league will objectively investigate and fix the problems we have all perceived all these years. And if congress can spend time and energy cleaning up baseball and steroids, then it should certainly look into the possibility of tampering by NBA officials.

Below is a sample text that you can submit to your rep by clicking on the link below. Feel free to add your own thoughts.

I am writing today first as a consumer and second as a fan of the NBA. I care about the sport, but am very concerned that league officials have lost their sense of impartiality and professionalism. It is important that you help us regain our trust in the commercial sports performances that have been severely broken recently. Frankly, the officiating has been broken a long time. In which other sport do fans worry that involvement by the referees will end up determining the outcome of key games more then they do in the NBA?
It's time to launch an official investigation now, during a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives. You must help us find a maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports. I and other NBA fans urge you to order a review of the game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound. I look forward to your response and action on my behalf.

Take a couple of minutes and submit your letter to your local representative here:

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

And don't forget to spread this message everywhere! Be it via e-mail, by posting it on other forums or voting for it on the social networks where it appears. The time is now to fix this league!

Kstat
06-14-2008, 04:32 AM
I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of NBA fans just aren't very bright....

Peck
06-14-2008, 06:07 AM
I understand that you are frustrated by all of this, but was this really called for?

Sam has been a well respected fan of another team, just like you are, and I'm not sure that this is what she deserved just for expressing her opinion.

count55
06-14-2008, 07:03 AM
Yes, this is exactly where I want the US Congress focusing their energy.

RamBo_Lamar
06-14-2008, 08:22 AM
I personally beleive our Government has no business wasting time or energy
or resources poking its nose into affairs such as these.

These are issues dealing with entertainment whose visitation is optional,
not life and death.

Do not waste our Congressman's time with such nonsense.

JohnnyBGoode
06-14-2008, 09:14 AM
I personally beleive our Government has no business wasting time or energy
or resources poking its nose into affairs such as these.

These are issues dealing with entertainment whose visitation is optional,
not life and death.

Do not waste our Congressman's time with such nonsense.


Yeah, like our Congressman are reallly tending to the country's business. Here is a novel idea, how about they spend less time on the golf course and more time actually working. Congress is nonsense at it's glory.

Kegboy
06-14-2008, 09:46 AM
If you really think Congress spends it's time debating matters of life and death, I suggest you watch C-SPAN sometime.

The NBA, and all professional sports in general, may be "entertainment", but they are also multi-billion dollar businesses, who benefit greatly, enormously, tremendously, from antitrust exemptions.

Think of it this way. Imagine if a high-level employee of an oil company got arrested for fixing gas prices, and made specific allegations against both his company and others for price gouging and collusion. You think TPTB calling him a lone renegade, saying, "Why, we wouldn't be doing such a thing, that'd be a felony", would stop Congress from investigating? Would you say, "Congress should be worried about the war, leave the oil companies to the SEC."

idioteque
06-14-2008, 09:47 AM
Yeah, like our Congressman are reallly tending to the country's business. Here is a novel idea, how about they spend less time on the golf course and more time actually working. Congress is nonsense at it's glory.

Here is the political-related part of PD. Hicks doesn't really want it here anymore. Register, we need good members.

http://pignash.proboards67.com/index.cgi?

Kstat
06-14-2008, 10:07 AM
I understand that you are frustrated by all of this, but was this really called for?

Sam has been a well respected fan of another team, just like you are, and I'm not sure that this is what she deserved just for expressing her opinion.

I didn't reference her specifically.

All I said was, if the vast majority of NBA fans really dance to everything Tim Donaghy says, then I've lost respect for the vast majority. Logic is being gleefully tossed aside here in favor of fantasy land.

Sollozzo
06-14-2008, 10:36 AM
I think a Spurs fan is the last person who should suspect wrong doing by the NBA. Does anyone really think the league was happy that team won 4 titles with their lousy ratings?

Probably not, but they kept winning and winning...when you know their were other teams the league would have probably rather seen up there.

Bball
06-14-2008, 11:03 AM
I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of NBA fans just aren't very bright....


Was that really called for?

Most of the people believe there's enough smoke to see if there is fire. They don't believe letting the fox (Stern) guard the henhouse is going to actually put any of this to rest.

I have no idea how a simple fan with no connections what-so-ever to the NBA could consider himself the definitive source on this issue... but that is how you are coming across (whether intentional or not). The vast majority of people aren't claiming anything definitively, but are simply saying the question marks need answered and potentially a new type of oversight needs brought to the game. I see that as open-minded and forward thinking.

-Bball

Hicks
06-14-2008, 11:07 AM
Here is the political-related part of PD. Hicks doesn't really want it here anymore. Register, we need good members.

http://pignash.proboards67.com/index.cgi?


True enough.

Hicks
06-14-2008, 11:09 AM
I think a Spurs fan is the last person who should suspect wrong doing by the NBA. Does anyone really think the league was happy that team won 4 titles with their lousy ratings?

Probably not, but they kept winning and winning...when you know their were other teams the league would have probably rather seen up there.

Remember that many who question the integrity of the NBA's officials are not also saying they fix the outcomes.

Putnam
06-14-2008, 11:48 AM
....if the vast majority of NBA fans really dance to everything Tim Donaghy says ...

What about the people who don't believe anything Donaghy says, but who believe his conviction?

The mere fact that the NBA hired and employed this scumbag, and kept him on the NBA payroll for several years while he was committing crimes against the league, is embarrassing.

JohnnyBGoode
06-14-2008, 12:29 PM
Here is the political-related part of PD. Hicks doesn't really want it here anymore. Register, we need good members.

http://pignash.proboards67.com/index.cgi?

I just might take you up on that offer dc . I usually sleep during the day due to the line of work that I have chosen to pursue, so my posting would be limited to the afternoon. I don't know if I qualify as a good future member, but I will give it a whirl.

Shade
06-14-2008, 12:53 PM
What about the people who don't believe anything Donaghy says, but who believe his conviction?

The mere fact that the NBA hired and employed this scumbag, and kept him on the NBA payroll for several years while he was committing crimes against the league, is embarrassing.

Not to mention that they suspected him, did an internal investigation, and turned up nothing.

The NBA is either corrupt or incompetent (or both).

ABADays
06-14-2008, 03:32 PM
If I can't trust the NBA then it's a sure bet I can't trust the government.

grace
06-14-2008, 07:17 PM
SamBear,

I don't know about your local representative, but I wouldn't trust mine to walk a dog let alone investigate anything.

YoSoyIndy
06-14-2008, 11:01 PM
What about the people who don't believe anything Donaghy says, but who believe his conviction?

The mere fact that the NBA hired and employed this scumbag, and kept him on the NBA payroll for several years while he was committing crimes against the league, is embarrassing.

Come on - if the guy is smooth enough to get away with cheating the game for years, then he's smooth enough to not come across as a scum bag during the hiring and reviewing process.

Anthem
06-14-2008, 11:15 PM
I really can't see the man on the street saying "Yeah, now that there's a congressional hearing going on, my concerns with the NBA are over."

Big Smooth
06-14-2008, 11:27 PM
I'd rather just stop watching the NBA then have Congress get involved....if it came to that point. Which for me, it has not.

Unclebuck
06-14-2008, 11:33 PM
The thing I just don't understand is this. Just because I in no way qustion the integrity of the officials or Stern, that doesn't mean they don't make some horible calls from time to time. And the NBA has admitted game 6 Kings lakers was a poorly officiated game. But why so many make the leap that the NBA intentionally influenced the outcome, I just don't understand it.

It is like someone questioning whether Garnett really wants to win, every time he misses a shot

grace
06-14-2008, 11:40 PM
It is like someone questioning whether Garnett really wants to win, every time he misses a shot


Does he hang out with Donaghy or Peter Rose? If he does I've got questions.

rock747
06-15-2008, 12:18 AM
The thing I just don't understand is this. Just because I in no way qustion the integrity of the officials or Stern, that doesn't mean they don't make some horible calls from time to time. And the NBA has admitted game 6 Kings lakers was a poorly officiated game. But why so many make the leap that the NBA intentionally influenced the outcome, I just don't understand it.


Because this stuff has been floating around for years!! It is just now being publicized because someone has actually accused the NBA publicly. I just don't understand why you vehemently say that there's no possible way this could be true. Watch an NBA game man, the NBA officiating is whacky.

Doddage
06-15-2008, 01:01 AM
Sometimes I do think the NBA is fixed. Not speaking in terms of games only, but with some of the trades that happen. For example, Gasol and Sheed. I just don't see how any sensible GM would agree to get shafted like that. Also with the draft and the lottery, who knows the business that takes place in that respect.

Wage
06-15-2008, 02:11 AM
The thing I just don't understand is this. Just because I in no way qustion the integrity of the officials or Stern, that doesn't mean they don't make some horible calls from time to time. And the NBA has admitted game 6 Kings lakers was a poorly officiated game. But why so many make the leap that the NBA intentionally influenced the outcome, I just don't understand it.

It is like someone questioning whether Garnett really wants to win, every time he misses a shot

I think a lot of fans feel the officiating is terrible for the most part, not just one or two specific games. I have no idea if anything is being fixed, or nudged along, or anything else, but Stern has brought this on himself.

All he has to do is admit when officiating is bad, appologize for it, then hand out punishments/fix the problem. This should all take place with transparency, so we can see issues being adressed. Instead he continues with his patronizing smile, pretending "All is well with the NBA."

As a fan you are left either questioning the man's integrity, or his sanity.

Hicks
06-15-2008, 11:38 AM
I think the truth is this: Either the NBA, on some level, by an unknown amount of people, actively pursues the manipulation of the game, or..... they're painfully human beings. Biased, flawed, imperfect.

The horrible calls? Have you ever done a bad job? Or even a "horrible" job at something you can at other times do pretty well? I have and I care to guess everyone else has. More than a few times over a long period of time. The best make mistakes, too.

Superstar calls? Human expectations. Side A of this is that they go in knowing certain players are excellent at certain things, and sometimes they think they see something they didn't, based on expectations. I think this is another basic human characteristic. Seeing what we want or expect to see, vs. what actually happened.

Side B is this: They know who the stars are. Some of them seem to honestly feel that it's better to go easy on the stars in regards to fouls because they think that's the "right" thing to do because they're the show's main event. A purist would hate this, and I'm not a fan of it either, but we are all capable of understanding this.

Rookie calls? The unknown, other than they're supposed to be raw: Less skilled, less coordinated, less efficient than they're going to be, so if it looks like they screwed up, they probably did (even if they really didn't. See expectations above).

Additionally, the expectations can extend in other directions as well, and that means the door is open for more mistakes. Teams have reputations, non-star/rookie players have certain reputations.

Finally, there's sociality. Certain players, coaches will make them laugh, some will make them smile, some will make them scowl, and some will make them angry. Over the years those feelings will grow deeper. Some will be more professional about it than others, but every single one of them has their feelings, and every single one of them is swayed by them to one degree or another.

I think when you put all of this together, this is the most likely scenario: They're painfully human. This includes Stern. Apparently, his ego won't let him be more transparent with his officials, or the NBA's mistakes in general. He'll do it, but not as much as he could, or these days probably should. But that's another thread.

So in the end, no, I don't think that there's a sinister underbelly to the problems with the NBA's officials. I think there are enough problems to suggest something baleful, but in the end it's merely a dark mirage that may never fully dissipate.

SamBear
06-15-2008, 01:30 PM
Calling for a congressional sub-committee to investigate this issue will not take away from all the other important issues people have mentioned here. That's why they have sub-committees!

Putnam
06-15-2008, 06:52 PM
This wanders off-topic, but eventually gets to a basketball point.

Most of our science, and much of our law, accepts that a statistically significant pattern (or variation from random) can be accepted as proof of something. A new kind of medicine won't cure every patient, but if patients taking the new medicine recover much more often than patients who don't take it, then that is accepted by medical experts, the FDA and the broader public as reason enough to say, "This medicine works."

In my field of work (the labor market), the law says that if minorities are substantially underrepresented in an industry or within a certain company, the disparity is sufficient evidence of discrimination. It is nearly impossible to prove that any single hiring decision is discriminatory, because the employer might have had a valid reason to prefer the person he hired. Nevertheless, if hire after hire is consistent with a pattern of discrimination, the law (specifically the Equal Opportunity Act) says discrimination exists. You don't have to prove even one single instance of discrimination in order to say under the law that, "This company discriminates."

Now, as we look at how the NBA officiates games, we find it very difficult to point to a single game where everyone agrees the refs were crooked. Kobe Bryant muscled Mike Bibby to the floor with his entire weight, leaving Bibby bloody, yet some people still look up into the rafters and whistle.

Hicks goes to great length in his post to list the ways and reasons whereby a ref can make bad calls, perhaps lots of bad calls. He/she doesn't have to be as rotten as Tim Donaghy -- he/she just needs to be human. And Hicks makes no bones about the fact that these "innocent" bad calls might very possibly go against certain players, or certain teams, at certain critical times in the season.

Everything Hicks says is fair and reasonable today, because the level of proof that pertains to science and law haven't yet been applied to basketball. If NBA officiating ever gets opened up to an investigation, the number of questionable calls and the frequency with which the most egregious calls favor certain teams, it may well be sufficient proof of discriminatory practices. That could happen even if a smoking gun from David Stern to Dick Bavetta or any other ref is never discovered. It will be enough to show that, over time, a preponderance of obvious bad calls tended strongly to favor the big market teams and the star players.

If such an investigation ever happens, the excuse that refs are human won't suffice. All 30 teams deserve fair treatment all the time, and the law (if it is brought to bear) might very well require the league and the refs to provide that fair treatment.

Anthem
06-15-2008, 09:01 PM
Watch an NBA game man

Heh. That's awesome. A guy with 37 posts telling Buck that he should try watching an NBA game.

rock, I don't always agree with UncleBuck, but I bet he's watched more NBA games in the last 3 years than you've watched in your entire life.

Anthem
06-15-2008, 09:04 PM
Calling for a congressional sub-committee to investigate this issue will not take away from all the other important issues people have mentioned here. That's why they have sub-committees!
It also won't make people trust the NBA more.

YoSoyIndy
06-15-2008, 09:22 PM
Because this stuff has been floating around for years!! It is just now being publicized because someone has actually accused the NBA publicly. I just don't understand why you vehemently say that there's no possible way this could be true. Watch an NBA game man, the NBA officiating is whacky.

The 'someone' you mentioned is a well-known liar who is looking to lessen his consequences by taking others down with him regardless of whether those others did anything wrong.

Officiating in sports is wacky. The NBA is no more or less than other sports -- NFL, MLB, even racing. NBA travels a lot. NFL has offensive holding. MLB has ever-changing strike zones. Racing (all levels) has accepted forms of cheating (as Kyle Petty once said -- "everyone cheats").

What exactly about the NBA is so terribly wacky? I'd suggest stating claims instead of asking avid NBA fans to "watch a game".

JohnnyBGoode
06-15-2008, 09:26 PM
Heh. That's awesome. A guy with 37 posts telling Buck that he should try watching an NBA game.

rock, I don't always agree with UncleBuck, but I bet he's watched more NBA games in the last 3 years than you've watched in your entire life.



#of posts does not always = basketball knowledge. Like I stated before, it depends on how much a fan has invested in the NBA game, on how they view the degree of integrity the league has or has not. It would be difficult for me to acknowledge that the games are being manipulated in any fashion, if I had spent a lot of time and money going to the games. Sometimes not being close to the picture gives one a clearer view of the picture.

Bball
06-15-2008, 10:08 PM
The 'someone' you mentioned is a well-known liar who is looking to lessen his consequences by taking others down with him regardless of whether those others did anything wrong.

Officiating in sports is wacky. The NBA is no more or less than other sports -- NFL, MLB, even racing. NBA travels a lot. NFL has offensive holding. MLB has ever-changing strike zones. Racing (all levels) has accepted forms of cheating (as Kyle Petty once said -- "everyone cheats").

What exactly about the NBA is so terribly wacky? I'd suggest stating claims instead of asking avid NBA fans to "watch a game".

Racing doesn't accept cheating. That's not to say cheating doesn't exist, but that is at an individual level. If a driver/crew/team gets caught cheating, they get punished.

That said, Nascar does have a reputation for being a little WWE themselves... which includes questions about some caution flags for 'debris' which some will argue is really just a flag to bunch the pack back up and make it more entertaining (sound familiar?). ...Which is basically what some have accused the NBA of doing.

There has also been talk that Nascar might've given a wink and a nod to a particular team here and there to grease the skids for a shot at 'storybook' win every so often.

I like the way Putnam has described things. ...And as I've been saying- If all of this scrutiny improves officiating, makes the game more pure, and increases consistency from official to official and game to game- GREAT!

But Stern seems to be intent on dodging the question and maintaining the status quo. That's not going to improve anything, and will continue to leave the door open to even more scrutiny and theories.

Donaghy existed under the noses of fans, other refs, and the NBA... and if the NBA is to be believed- he went undetected even by them. If the NBA wanted refs to tip the scales to make for more entertaining games, doesn't Donaghy prove how easy that would be? And if anyone notices something, or squeals- just deny it. Plausible deniability is usually an effective dodge. ...at least for a while.

-Bball

Anthem
06-15-2008, 11:32 PM
#of posts does not always = basketball knowledge. Like I stated before, it depends on how much a fan has invested in the NBA game. . . Sometimes not being close to the picture gives one a clearer view of the picture.
In theory, I hear what you're saying. But it's hardly applicable here.

I was specifically responding to rock's comment that UncleBuck should try watching the occasional NBA game.

rock747
06-16-2008, 12:04 AM
Heh. That's awesome. A guy with 37 posts telling Buck that he should try watching an NBA game.

rock, I don't always agree with UncleBuck, but I bet he's watched more NBA games in the last 3 years than you've watched in your entire life.

heh. Yeah it is awesome. You have no idea who I am. You should watch who you bet with.

I can't wait till I reach the 13,000 message board post plateau. Then I will have the NBA "knowledge" that you and Unclebuck have. I didn't even mean for that to be an insult in the first place.

Oh ya, I only have 32 posts.

Naptown_Seth
06-16-2008, 12:04 AM
SamBear,

I don't know about your local representative, but I wouldn't trust mine to walk a dog let alone investigate anything.
Tim D will probably be a "consultant" for a congressman before you know it. ;)

But SamBear is right that it couldn't hurt to let them know that you at least would like to see a little due diligence from an outside interest involving a major anti-trust exempt business.

You know the FCC has had to threaten TV stations to properly use the freely given airwaves for true HD broadcasting. Doesn't the gov't have better things to do than worry about the quality of TV? No, because it's not about the "thing", it's about the money that is generated by that thing and about how the gov't, ie the citizens, let companies off the hook for big money in order to keep this entertainment available with some agreed upon standard (fair, highest quality, etc).

When the gov't nips at heels of sports, film, TV, radio, etc it's specifically because these are things the citizens care about and impact their life everyday, including financially. We just take it for granted because it's always there, but underneath it should be just like any other business.

The gov't in this case works as all our voices combined because lord knows if any one of us sent a letter to Stern he wouldn't be coming to our house to explain himself.

JohnnyBGoode
06-16-2008, 08:58 AM
In theory, I hear what you're saying. But it's hardly applicable here.

I was specifically responding to rock's comment that UncleBuck should try watching the occasional NBA game.

I was in no way saying that UB should watch the occasional NBA game, I know that he attends tons of games and his posts show that he has tremendous knowledge of the game. I don't think that one can ascertain a poster's grasp of the NBA soley by the # of posts said poster has made. Tbird, is a prime example of low post count and a very high intelect for the game. I am in no way defending rock's post, just pointing out that one's knowledge of basketball is not totally indicated by a high post count.

I do believe that hard core fans become so close to the NBA style game and officiating, that they become numb to what is truly happening. Is the game rigged? I don't know, however there is ample evidence of some pretty damn bad officiating, to raise doubt in my little mind as to the integrity of the league.

Unclebuck
06-16-2008, 09:45 AM
I just don't understand why you vehemently say that there's no possible way this could be true. Watch an NBA game man, the NBA officiating is whacky.

In my real life, no one has ever said that to me, most people who I know say, "are you really watching another game" "you need to get out more" "You still watch the NBA", but my favorite, is this "so do you watch every game"

JohnnyBGoode
06-16-2008, 10:01 AM
In my real life, no one has ever said that to me, most people who I now say, "are you really watching another game" "you need to get out more" "You still watch the NBA", but my favorite, is this "so do you watch every game"

So, do you? Just kidding UB. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you think it is possible that you have watched so many NBA games that you view and accept bad officiating as just bad officiating without even entertaining the thought that something is amiss? You have stated that you have seen many bad or questionable calls, have you asked yourself why? If there are so many bad calls, wouldn't it behoove the league to penalize the ref's severely for making so many bad calls? When the league overturns a win by a team based on an overly amount of critical bad calls, then I may come over to your side. Yeah, I know, you are going to say that the refs are human and it is a difficult game to ref, however that arguement is getting very stale in my mind.

Since86
06-16-2008, 10:15 AM
I think the truth is this: Either the NBA, on some level, by an unknown amount of people, actively pursues the manipulation of the game, or..... they're painfully human beings. Biased, flawed, imperfect.

The horrible calls? Have you ever done a bad job? Or even a "horrible" job at something you can at other times do pretty well? I have and I care to guess everyone else has. More than a few times over a long period of time. The best make mistakes, too.

Superstar calls? Human expectations. Side A of this is that they go in knowing certain players are excellent at certain things, and sometimes they think they see something they didn't, based on expectations. I think this is another basic human characteristic. Seeing what we want or expect to see, vs. what actually happened.

Side B is this: They know who the stars are. Some of them seem to honestly feel that it's better to go easy on the stars in regards to fouls because they think that's the "right" thing to do because they're the show's main event. A purist would hate this, and I'm not a fan of it either, but we are all capable of understanding this.

Rookie calls? The unknown, other than they're supposed to be raw: Less skilled, less coordinated, less efficient than they're going to be, so if it looks like they screwed up, they probably did (even if they really didn't. See expectations above).

Additionally, the expectations can extend in other directions as well, and that means the door is open for more mistakes. Teams have reputations, non-star/rookie players have certain reputations.

And this sums up, for me atleast, as to why the officiating is so bad.

There should be ZERO expectations. Expecting something to happen where you're paid to witness the action and make calls accordingly. You're not watching the actual play if you make assumptions.

Do defensive players start running down the floor to play offense, if say KG catches the ball wide open 15ft away from the basket? He's going to knock down that shot well over half the time. Hell he probably hits that shot half the time with a defender on him.

No, they stay with the play and see it out. Players would get lashed by coaches if they gave up on plays and assumed the outcome.

Same standard with officials. See the play out. Don't have expectations, don't assume you know what's going to happen.

If there's contact call it, if not then let the play continue.

I don't care if he's a rookie or an 18yr vet. A travel doesn't change between white players or black players. Out of bounds doesn't know the difference between a player who played 4 years of college, or a player that was done after his freshman season.

LeBron doesn't get to shoot at bigger baskets than anyone else, so why should he be officiated any differently?

A foul is a foul, a travel is a travel, and out of bounds is out of bounds. Call the game the same way. Officials should never adjust the way they make calls based on the players. They are there to enforce the rules of the game. Rules make the game what it is because they hold the same standards to everyone regardless of size, strength, skin color, age, and skill level.

Consistancy, consistancy, consistancy. That's all you can ask for, and that's not the product given. Why it's not given is the reason behind all the questioning.

If I would perform my job differently everyday as they do, then I would be fired.

Unclebuck
06-16-2008, 10:41 AM
so do you watch every game"

So, do you? Just kidding UB. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you think it is possible that you have watched so many NBA games that you view and accept bad officiating as just bad officiating without even entertaining the thought that something is amiss? You have stated that you have seen many bad or questionable calls, have you asked yourself why? If there are so many bad calls, wouldn't it behoove the league to penalize the ref's severely for making so many bad calls? When the league overturns a win by a team based on an overly amount of critical bad calls, then I may come over to your side. Yeah, I know, you are going to say that the refs are human and it is a difficult game to ref, however that arguement is getting very stale in my mind.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________

They do fine, fire, suspend, and reprimand refs all the time. Every call each ref makes is graded. The NBA refs are watched more closely than the MLB or NFL officials.

On a more general topic of the NBa refs, I like the old school refs, Like Earl Strom who used to know how to work a game. He had a feel for how a game was going, when to make calls and when not too.

To be 100% honest, my biggest problem with the refs is when they make too many calls, when they call too many fouls.

To me the worst refereed playoff game I've ever seen was a Spurs vs Mavs game a few years ago, Nellie was still the coach, and I think over 90 free throws were shot.
It was horrible not because it was unfair in any way, it wasn't biased at all, but it was a terrible game to watch and for that I blame the refs.

I'll go so far, I'll step out on a limb (no one will agree with me) but I think part of a refs job is to make a game fun to watch. Wait, wait, let me finish. That does not mean make it close, it just means to keep it moving, don't call every little foul. If a player goes over the back on a rebound, don't call a foul, just give the other team the ball and get on with the game.

JohnnyBGoode
06-16-2008, 10:55 AM
[/B]


So, do you? Just kidding UB. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you think it is possible that you have watched so many NBA games that you view and accept bad officiating as just bad officiating without even entertaining the thought that something is amiss? You have stated that you have seen many bad or questionable calls, have you asked yourself why? If there are so many bad calls, wouldn't it behoove the league to penalize the ref's severely for making so many bad calls? When the league overturns a win by a team based on an overly amount of critical bad calls, then I may come over to your side. Yeah, I know, you are going to say that the refs are human and it is a difficult game to ref, however that arguement is getting very stale in my mind.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________

They do fine, fire, suspend, and reprimand refs all the time. Every call each ref makes is graded. The NBA refs are watched more closely than the MLB or NFL officials.

On a more general topic of the NBa refs, I like the old school refs, Like Earl Strom who used to know how to work a game. He had a feel for how a game was going, when to make calls and when not too.

To be 100% honest, my biggest problem with the refs is when they make too many calls, when they call too many fouls.

To me the worst refereed playoff game I've ever seen was a Spurs vs Mavs game a few years ago, Nellie was still the coach, and I think over 90 free throws were shot.
It was horrible not because it was unfair in any way, it wasn't biased at all, but it was a terrible game to watch and for that I blame the refs.

I'll go so far, I'll step out on a limb (no one will agree with me) but I think part of a refs job is to make a game fun to watch. Wait, wait, let me finish. That does not mean make it close, t just means to keep it movg, don't call every little foul. If a player goes over the back on a rebound, don't call a foul, just give the other team the ball and get on with the game.

They do fine, fire, suspend, and reprimand refs all the time. Every call each ref makes is graded. The NBA refs are watched more closely than the MLB or NFL officials.

Yeah, and who does the gradeing? I would venture a guess that the list of fired refs is a short one. I think that the reprimanding of the refs is done with a wink and a nod. If the NBA and Stern wanted the officating to be on the level, they would somehow make the refs independent and not under the direct control of Stern and the NBA.

ABADays
06-16-2008, 01:15 PM
Same standard with officials. See the play out. Don't have expectations, don't assume you know what's going to happen.

If there's contact call it, if not then let the play continue.

I don't care if he's a rookie or an 18yr vet. A travel doesn't change between white players or black players. Out of bounds doesn't know the difference between a player who played 4 years of college, or a player that was done after his freshman season.

LeBron doesn't get to shoot at bigger baskets than anyone else, so why should he be officiated any differently?

A foul is a foul, a travel is a travel, and out of bounds is out of bounds. Call the game the same way. Officials should never adjust the way they make calls based on the players. They are there to enforce the rules of the game. Rules make the game what it is because they hold the same standards to everyone regardless of size, strength, skin color, age, and skill level.

Consistancy, consistancy, consistancy. That's all you can ask for, and that's not the product given. Why it's not given is the reason behind all the questioning.

If I would perform my job differently everyday as they do, then I would be fired.

I've been saying this for years. If you gave every player the same advantages that were given to "superstars" what would you have? More superstars! One of the worst was allowing Patrick Ewing literally sprint across the lane without dribbling and never call a travel. It made me sick how early they attached themselves to LeBron.

Everyone plays the same game. Do it right.

Trader Joe
06-16-2008, 01:49 PM
Because this stuff has been floating around for years!! It is just now being publicized because someone has actually accused the NBA publicly. I just don't understand why you vehemently say that there's no possible way this could be true. Watch an NBA game man, the NBA officiating is whacky.

NFL officiating is extremely whacky too. However, the NFL hype machine covers up most of their crap.
MLB also has rules issues. How many times this season have we seen a home run called back when it actually was one or a hit called a home run when it clearly wasn't?

All sports have officiating issues. The NBA just gets its balls busted the most cause its refs are more out in the open and are forced to make more calls.

Trader Joe
06-16-2008, 01:56 PM
I look at this logically. If the NBA was truely fixed or if outcomes were being altered someone, somewhere by now would have gotten their toes stepped on and spilled the beans. Those are just the facts. Companies that cheat don't last that long doing it, someone rats someone else out or someone lets the cat out of the bag on accident or someone forgets to tie up a loose end. It would not have taken this long for a crooked ref with his back up against the wall to come up with a story like this. Donaghy is a desparate man willing to point out every questionable call in NBA history to save his own butt. The fact that people would take the word of a FELON over someone like Stern's just blows my mind. I know Stern may not be perfect, but as far as I can tell he's at least more credible than Tim Donaghy.

Owners have millions of dollars tied into these teams, and believe it or not most of these guys are pretty smart, and I don't think they'd appreciate the NBA screwing them for the past two decades. Some will say "Well most are turning a profit anyway." Thats all fine and good, but do you think the Maloofs would have been hunky dorey with losing out on all the cash that would have come from a trip to the NBA finals? I highly, highly doubt it.

Peck
06-16-2008, 02:05 PM
I guess I am just having a hard time understanding why everyone is so locked into their positions on this. I suppose not everybody is as wishy washy as I am.:(

I want to believe the NBA is all fine and well and in fact as a league I do tend to believe that.

However there are a few things that keep gnawing away at me.

First and formost is the video and audio of Hugh Hollins admitting during a game that he changed a foul against Chris Webber to another Bullets player because Chris had 5 fouls. Why this hasn't been brought back up as a smoking gun I don't know.

Second, I lived through the Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan era.

Yes, yes I know great players etc., etc., etc. and to me this has nothing to do with the Pacers because we sucked so we were never in the mix IMO.

Again, at this time I do not believe that there is a league wide conspiracy to manipulate outcomes, rig games, whatever.

However if there is one rotten apple in the mix, who is to say there isn't two or three or maybe even someone at another level doing something.

Since86
06-16-2008, 02:06 PM
The fact that people would take the word of a FELON over someone like Stern's just blows my mind. I know Stern may not be perfect, but as far as I can tell he's at least more credible than Tim Donaghy.

Why is he a FELON? Because he was cheating at his profession for gambling purposes.

It's not like he got busted for drugs, and tried to cut a deal to get lesser punishment made a story up. He got busted for doing exactly what you're saying doesn't happen.

HE CHEATED FOR TEAMS TO COVER HIS BETS! Every game he officiated was manipulated by him on purpose.

The league was fixed and proven to be fixed from him now being a felon. Is he correct when saying that the league office is behind it too? I doubt it. But Donaghy being able to ref games, even after a NBA investigation into him shows that it is extremely possible that other refs don't call the games fairly.

That's like saying that because MLB popped a doper, that all the other players are clean. How many refs need to become felons with regards to gambling before it raises an eyebrow?

There have been thoughts about game manipulation for years prior to this. When an actual ref gets busted for it, we're now supposed to believe that everything is hunky dorry because Stern said so? That doesn't make sense. Is there one dirty ref out there? I don't know. Is there twenty? I don't know. I do know that the ref's league wide aren't that good. They're wildly inconsistant which gave someone like Donaghy a perfect system to be able to fly under the radar for so long.

He was able to make calls that he shouldn't have to cover his bets without anyone in the league office batting an eye. That doesn't make you have less confidence in the league? I'm not saying they're dirty, but my God they're about as incompetent as can be.

Trader Joe
06-16-2008, 02:19 PM
Why is he a FELON? Because he was cheating at his profession for gambling purposes.

It's not like he got busted for drugs, and tried to cut a deal to get lesser punishment made a story up. He got busted for doing exactly what you're saying doesn't happen.

HE CHEATED FOR TEAMS TO COVER HIS BETS! Every game he officiated was manipulated by him on purpose.

The league was fixed and proven to be fixed from him now being a felon. Is he correct when saying that the league office is behind it too? I doubt it. But Donaghy being able to ref games, even after a NBA investigation into him shows that it is extremely possible that other refs don't call the games fairly.

That's like saying that because MLB popped a doper, that all the other players are clean. How many refs need to become felons with regards to gambling before it raises an eyebrow?

There have been thoughts about game manipulation for years prior to this. When an actual ref gets busted for it, we're now supposed to believe that everything is hunky dorry because Stern said so? That doesn't make sense. Is there one dirty ref out there? I don't know. Is there twenty? I don't know. I do know that the ref's league wide aren't that good. They're wildly inconsistant which gave someone like Donaghy a perfect system to be able to fly under the radar for so long.

He was able to make calls that he shouldn't have to cover his bets without anyone in the league office batting an eye. That doesn't make you have less confidence in the league? I'm not saying they're dirty, but my God they're about as incompetent as can be.

I suppose I'm willing to accept the idea that refs might be cheating without the league's knowledge, but even that opens up a lot of questions and possible loopholes. Is the NBA really that dumb? I doubt it. Would refs who are calling games fairly be OK with refs cheating? Again, I doubt it. Would the refs who are not cheating not realize that those refs are cheating? Again, I doubt it. So to me there isn't much grey area in this either, the NBA has a widespread epidemic of refs cheating or its really only one isolated issue.

SamBear
06-16-2008, 02:25 PM
SamBear,

I don't know about your local representative, but I wouldn't trust mine to walk a dog let alone investigate anything.

:laugh:

Unclebuck
06-16-2008, 02:33 PM
They do fine, fire, suspend, and reprimand refs all the time. Every call each ref makes is graded. The NBA refs are watched more closely than the MLB or NFL officials.

Yeah, and who does the gradeing? I would venture a guess that the list of fired refs is a short one. I think that the reprimanding of the refs is done with a wink and a nod. If the NBA and Stern wanted the officating to be on the level, they would somehow make the refs independent and not under the direct control of Stern and the NBA.

Do you think the refs like Stern/NBA - I certainly don't think they do.

Anthem
06-16-2008, 02:35 PM
I was in no way saying that UB should watch the occasional NBA game
Nope, rock did.

Since86
06-16-2008, 02:37 PM
I suppose I'm willing to accept the idea that refs might be cheating without the league's knowledge, but even that opens up a lot of questions and possible loopholes. Is the NBA really that dumb? I doubt it. Would refs who are calling games fairly be OK with refs cheating? Again, I doubt it. Would the refs who are not cheating not realize that those refs are cheating? Again, I doubt it. So to me there isn't much grey area in this either, the NBA has a widespread epidemic of refs cheating or its really only one isolated issue.

You might be willing to accpet it? Sorry to break it to you, but it happened. Whether you want to believe it's possible or not doesn't matter, just like no matter how much I want to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

I don't want to think that the league is tainted either, but at the same time i want anti-steriod athletes. What I want and what's the truth are two completely different things.

Donaghy is now a felon because he fixed games. That is 100% undeniable fact. Because he is guilty of it, it gives the story credibility.

The system that was in place didn't work. It gave Donaghy an avenue to profit off of his position of power. He went unchecked for years. How long would he have been able to work the league if the FBI hadn't uncovered him in their investigation? They weren't even investigating anything to do with the league.

The NBA is really that dumb, or they condone it. Either or. I hope, and think, that they're just that dumb. I say it has to be either or, because they didn't bust Donaghy. Until they were contacted by the FBI, with their findings, they went about business as usual.

Trader Joe
06-16-2008, 02:40 PM
I'm saying the idea of multiple refs which has not been proven at all.

Anthem
06-16-2008, 02:40 PM
I can't wait till I reach the 13,000 message board post plateau. Then I will have the NBA "knowledge" that you and Unclebuck have.
Well it's not hard to know more than me! :D I wouldn't consider myself terribly knowledgeable, especially on this board where we've got guys like UB, tbird, Rimfire, Kstat, JayRedd, Peck, etc. Post count means absolutely nothing in terms of knowing the NBA, but it does imply something about how well you know the people who post here.

If you'd been around for longer, you'd have known that UB watches more than a few NBA games (understatement). Telling him "try watching a game" would be like telling Bball "try being negative about Jermaine O'Neal."

Seriously, though, welcome to the board.

Since86
06-16-2008, 02:46 PM
How many need to get caught before the realization that the current system isn't working?

One more? Two? Ten?

If it's broke, then fix it. Getting rid of Donaghy doesn't fix it. The system allowed Donaghy to do what he did. It allows someone else to do it. Make it to where it can't or won't be done.

pacerDU
06-16-2008, 02:48 PM
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________

...I like the old school refs, Like Earl Strom who used to know how to work a game. He had a feel for how a game was going, when to make calls and when not too.



I understand what you're saying here UB, I too prefer it when they let the players play, but this is one problem I have with the officiating.

There shouldn't be a right or wrong time to make a call. Officiating should be completely black and white, no levels of gray. I know that everyone's human and makes mistakes, but that's not what I'm referring to here. What I'm saying is that no official should be changing the way they make calls based on the circumstance. The rules are the rules.

Just like in the Spurs - Lakers game when Barry got fouled at the end with no call. That would've been called a foul at any other time during the game. Why was it not called there? I absolutely hate it when I hear a commentator say "They won't make that call at this point of the game". Why? If it's a breach of the rules then call it. Ok, a great game my be decided at the free-throw line rather than played out. So be it, the integrity of the rules should not be compromised simply because it would be more entertaining if the rule wasn't followed at that moment.

Yes this is entertainment, but it's also competition. Competition must be impartial for it to be fair.

This continues on to superstar calls. No one can deny they exist. Tell me with a straight face that Kobe gets called the same way a free-agent rookie does. He doesn't and everyone knows it. Whether or not it's based on expectation or there's a more sinister motive is up for debate. It touches on what Since86 was saying however - there should be no expectation. Call what you see, not what you think you see. Superstar calls are another breach of the rules.

Getting onto the game-fixing debate. My feeling is the same as what Phil Jackson mentioned. The officials should be part of an external organization not connected with the NBA at all. This wouldn't prevent corruption amongst officials any more than it would now. However it would help enormously in alleviating any perception that the NBA itself was involved.

Trader Joe
06-16-2008, 02:50 PM
How many need to get caught before the realization that the current system isn't working?

One more? Two? Ten?

If it's broke, then fix it. Getting rid of Donaghy doesn't fix it. The system allowed Donaghy to do what he did. It allows someone else to do it. Make it to where it can't or won't be done.

One more proves a pattern.
Right now going in there and tearing things up would be like cutting off your foot when you have one infected toe.

Since86
06-16-2008, 02:57 PM
If the toe was a completely vital part of your being, then I would agree with you.

The toe of the league would be like the ushers. They're important to help get you around and keep the balance of the arena, but really don't serve a whole lot of purpose.

If there is no confidence in the referees, then there is no confidence in the entire league. They're probably the eyes. Without them you just stumble around and bump into things.

Trader Joe
06-16-2008, 03:05 PM
I just don't think one guy cheating is enough to damn the league. Thats my opinion on it.

Since86
06-16-2008, 03:08 PM
No one is saying that the league is damned, or completely corrupt.

What is being said is that the current system does not work and needs fixed. A Tim Donaghy should never be able to happen. Yes, there are always people who will try things but they need to be able to snif those people out and not keep them in a position to hurt the league.

The fact that he was able to blend in makes you stratch your head. He was just another bad ref until it was found out that he was actually doing it on purpose.

Trader Joe
06-16-2008, 03:10 PM
Why was he able to blend in though? Because there are a lot of bad refs? I'm not sure how you best go about fixing that.

Since86
06-16-2008, 03:20 PM
Getting rid of Violet Palmre would be a pretty good place to start.

No, not all college refs are good. There some real stinkers out there, but giving them incentives to actually move up would be another. Does that even happen?

I personally think that the refs should be about as human as the rims. Brevetta doing the electric slide before he calls a blocking foul makes him part of the entertainment. He's a few short steps away from being a honorary Globetrotter official. They should be an afterthought, should completely blend in like the official score keeper. Getting in personal grudges like Joey Crawford and TD was a complete joke. He wants to have a spat with players then he needs to learn baseball.

rock747
06-16-2008, 04:26 PM
Well it's not hard to know more than me! :D I wouldn't consider myself terribly knowledgeable, especially on this board where we've got guys like UB, tbird, Rimfire, Kstat, JayRedd, Peck, etc. Post count means absolutely nothing in terms of knowing the NBA, but it does imply something about how well you know the people who post here.

If you'd been around for longer, you'd have known that UB watches more than a few NBA games (understatement). Telling him "try watching a game" would be like telling Bball "try being negative about Jermaine O'Neal."

Seriously, though, welcome to the board.

Thanks! I really did not mean to insult with the "watch a game" comment. I figure if a person is seeking a Pacer's message board, they are a pretty dedicated Pacer/NBA fan to begin with.

btowncolt
06-16-2008, 04:37 PM
I read somewhere that the NBA is rigged.

rock747
06-16-2008, 04:39 PM
Getting onto the game-fixing debate. My feeling is the same as what Phil Jackson mentioned. The officials should be part of an external organization not connected with the NBA at all. This wouldn't prevent corruption amongst officials any more than it would now. However it would help enormously in alleviating any perception that the NBA itself was involved.

Yeah. I agree. The NBA should definetly do this. It would certainly alleviate suspicion of them trying to dictate officiating.

NorCal_Pacerfan
06-16-2008, 07:55 PM
I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of NBA fans just aren't very bright....

I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of human beings aren't very bright...

Putnam
06-16-2008, 10:00 PM
I look at this logically. If the NBA was truely fixed or if outcomes were being altered someone, somewhere by now would have gotten their toes stepped on and spilled the beans. Those are just the facts.

One premise cannot lead to a conclusion. You aren't being logical. Logic is more than, "It seems to me..."




I think part of a ref's job is to make a game fun to watch. Wait, wait, let me finish.

I couldn't agree more, at least as far as the referees' role. I think the game needs to go back to being a non-contact sport for it to work, but you never said a truer word than when you said the refs need to keep the game fun.




I read somewhere that the NBA is rigged.


:link:

YoSoyIndy
06-16-2008, 10:01 PM
Racing doesn't accept cheating. That's not to say cheating doesn't exist, but that is at an individual level. If a driver/crew/team gets caught cheating, they get punished.

That said, Nascar does have a reputation for being a little WWE themselves... which includes questions about some caution flags for 'debris' which some will argue is really just a flag to bunch the pack back up and make it more entertaining (sound familiar?). ...Which is basically what some have accused the NBA of doing.

There has also been talk that Nascar might've given a wink and a nod to a particular team here and there to grease the skids for a shot at 'storybook' win every so often.

I like the way Putnam has described things. ...And as I've been saying- If all of this scrutiny improves officiating, makes the game more pure, and increases consistency from official to official and game to game- GREAT!

But Stern seems to be intent on dodging the question and maintaining the status quo. That's not going to improve anything, and will continue to leave the door open to even more scrutiny and theories.

Donaghy existed under the noses of fans, other refs, and the NBA... and if the NBA is to be believed- he went undetected even by them. If the NBA wanted refs to tip the scales to make for more entertaining games, doesn't Donaghy prove how easy that would be? And if anyone notices something, or squeals- just deny it. Plausible deniability is usually an effective dodge. ...at least for a while.

-Bball

In fact, racing does accept a form of cheating. That's essentially what made Indy so popular. Teams would drive innovation so much that USAC would have to create new rules to limit such innovations. Sure, it wasn't breaking a specific rule, but there would be a lot of bending and twisting. It also made it the most exciting race out there.

Now teams cheat through enhanced fuel and slightly-altered bodies (i.e., too low too the ground). NASCAR has definitely caught some, but it's impossible to police everything. There's just not enough time in the weekend to keep the event moving in a reasonable amount of time. Think about it -- teams get days to bend the rules while officials get minutes to assure authenticity.

Back to the subject at hand... You really think it was easy for Donaghy? Just because he got away w/ it doesn't mean it was easy. Like a man cheating on his wife or an employee stealing from a register, there takes a lot of strategic planning and cold-hearted lying. Donaghy is no doubt cold-hearted.

What do you want Stern to say? He did a complete investigation after it happened. He (awkwardly) stood in front of media and took an unlimited amount of questions and answered them directly. Why should he go through that again? Because a well-known cheat claims it? No rational person would go through the same process again just because a liar claims something with no evidence.

And most importantly -- It is completely un-American to say you are fine with all of the scrunity if it improves efficiency. That's in the ball park of racial profiling, Click It or Ticket, and any other process that assumes guilt before any evidence points that way.

Trader Joe
06-16-2008, 10:04 PM
Sorry.

You aren't being logical. You stated a premise. One premise cannot lead to a conclusion.





This is true. I've actually taken two logic based philosophy classes so far for my gen ed credits, but I think I covered my bases as to how my thinking works.

You could represent my argument: F=If the NBA is fixed and M=Many people knew about it and B=The beans would have been spilled. It woudl look like this
F ^ M --> B

Roaming Gnome
06-16-2008, 10:22 PM
I understand what you're saying here UB, I too prefer it when they let the players play, but this is one problem I have with the officiating.

There shouldn't be a right or wrong time to make a call. Officiating should be completely black and white, no levels of gray. I know that everyone's human and makes mistakes, but that's not what I'm referring to here. What I'm saying is that no official should be changing the way they make calls based on the circumstance. The rules are the rules.

Just like in the Spurs - Lakers game when Barry got fouled at the end with no call. That would've been called a foul at any other time during the game. Why was it not called there? I absolutely hate it when I hear a commentator say "They won't make that call at this point of the game". Why? If it's a breach of the rules then call it. Ok, a great game my be decided at the free-throw line rather than played out. So be it, the integrity of the rules should not be compromised simply because it would be more entertaining if the rule wasn't followed at that moment.

Yes this is entertainment, but it's also competition. Competition must be impartial for it to be fair.

This continues on to superstar calls. No one can deny they exist. Tell me with a straight face that Kobe gets called the same way a free-agent rookie does. He doesn't and everyone knows it. Whether or not it's based on expectation or there's a more sinister motive is up for debate. It touches on what Since86 was saying however - there should be no expectation. Call what you see, not what you think you see. Superstar calls are another breach of the rules.

Getting onto the game-fixing debate. My feeling is the same as what Phil Jackson mentioned. The officials should be part of an external organization not connected with the NBA at all. This wouldn't prevent corruption amongst officials any more than it would now. However it would help enormously in alleviating any perception that the NBA itself was involved.


Bravo.... Bravo.... I applaud you and this excellent post. This has taken everything that has been rolling around in my head about what disturbs me about the NBA before this Donaghy drivel and lays it out there.

I just wonder if the officials actually called it like they actually see it (no expectations), would the players eventually change their games to suit the calls?

Personally, I could give a ***** if (Name your superstar) fouled out early in a game. I bet you though, after a few DQ's he would be making a serious effort to change his game. I do like the thought of the NBA relinquishing control of the officials to an independent entity to lessen the thought of having to make a call that is not in the spirit of the rules just to ensure they are held within favorable status with the NBA.

Unclebuck
06-17-2008, 08:31 AM
Personally, I could give a ***** if (Name your superstar) fouled out early in a game. I bet you though, after a few DQ's he would be making a serious effort to change his game. I do like the thought of the NBA relinquishing control of the officials to an independent entity to lessen the thought of having to make a call that is not in the spirit of the rules just to ensure they are held within favorable status with the NBA.

I'll throw this out. I think it is crazy that players can foul out. Does an offensive lineman have to sit down after his second holding of the game. Does a QB have to sit down after his second intentioanl grounding penalty, or how about a DB for his second pass interferrence. Or a baseball player for his second error, or third strike out. NO of course not, so why should a basketball player foul out. I don't care if he has committed 15 fouls in a game - the team gets penalized enough without players fouling out.

I know the argument against this is that tons of fouls will be committed. Who wants the other team to shoot a ton of Free throws.

And count me as someone who wants to see the other teams star players stay in the game. (Not because I'm there to star gaze, but I want to see the other team whole)

Putnam
06-17-2008, 08:45 AM
I'll throw this out. I think it is crazy that players can foul out. Does an offensive lineman have to sit down after his second holding of the game. Does a QB have to sit down after his second intentioanl grounding penalty, or how about a DB for his second pass interferrence. Or a baseball player for his second error, or third strike out. NO of course not, so why should a basketball player foul out. I don't care if he has committed 15 fouls in a game - the team gets penalized enough without players fouling out.


This isn't a reasonable comparison. The penalties for infractions in football are much more drastic than in basketball.

The football player who draws a 10-yard penalty hurts his team very seriously. In basketball, committing a foul, when the option is giving the other guy an easy lay-up, is often good strategy.

Unclebuck
06-17-2008, 09:13 AM
This isn't a reasonable comparison. The penalties for infractions in football are much more drastic than in basketball.

The football player who draws a 10-yard penalty hurts his team very seriously. In basketball, committing a foul, when the option is giving the other guy an easy lay-up, is often good strategy.

So, I still don't want players to be disqualified for committing a foul. A player who commits a foul at midcourt on Paul Pierce when the team is in the penalty hurts the team very badly.

If you want to set up some system where a greater penalty once a player gets a certain number of fouls, I suppose I could live with that. Like on the 7th foul, give the team 3 free throws to make 2. ( better yet just give the other team two points and keep the game moving)

I don't expect any of these rules to be adopted. But at least allow 7 fouls before a guy fouls out - that will help

Putnam
06-17-2008, 09:36 AM
So, I still don't want players to be disqualified for committing a foul. A player who commits a foul at midcourt on Paul Pierce when the team is in the penalty hurts the team very badly.

If you want to set up some system where a greater penalty once a player gets a certain number of fouls, I suppose I could live with that. Like on the 7th foul, give the team 3 free throws to make 2. ( better yet just give the other team two points and keep the game moving)

I don't expect any of these rules to be adopted. But at least allow 7 fouls before a guy fouls out - that will help


Wow. I don't like the thought of even more free throws. How about, instead of what you say, we cut back even further on the holding and pushing fouls, but allow goaltending?

Goal tending exhibits physical prowess. It takes a real athlete to time his jump up over 10 feet and swipe away a ball that is arcing downward toward the basket. If goaltending were allowed, the game would have to work on quick transitions -- getting the shot up before the other team's goaltender got into position. I'd love that.

Perhaps there could/should be fewer fouls called (and more rough play allowed) when the ball is up for grabs. the guy who commits an over-the-shoulder reach for a rebound ought to get the ball, not a foul. But once a player has possession, there just shouldn't be any contact. Most possession fouls are just ugly, non-athletic brutishness.

The key here is that we agree that the game should be less in the hands of the referees. We want basketball games to really go to the better team and not to whoever impresses the judges. We want basketball to be more like mortal combat, and less like figureskating.

count55
06-17-2008, 09:42 AM
I'll throw this out. I think it is crazy that players can foul out. Does an offensive lineman have to sit down after his second holding of the game. Does a QB have to sit down after his second intentioanl grounding penalty, or how about a DB for his second pass interferrence. Or a baseball player for his second error, or third strike out. NO of course not, so why should a basketball player foul out. I don't care if he has committed 15 fouls in a game - the team gets penalized enough without players fouling out.

I know the argument against this is that tons of fouls will be committed. Who wants the other team to shoot a ton of Free throws.

And count me as someone who wants to see the other teams star players stay in the game. (Not because I'm there to star gaze, but I want to see the other team whole)

I've always disagreed with this...to the point that I'd probably stop watching any league or level that instituted this. Fouling is a violation of the rules, and the idea that a player could foul out has plays a significant role in the discipline that players adopt in their disposition on fouling.

Six fouls should be plenty for a player to stay on the floor for 30-40 minutes in what is supposed to be a non-contact sport.

Unclebuck
06-17-2008, 10:16 AM
I've always disagreed with this...to the point that I'd probably stop watching any league or level that instituted this. Fouling is a violation of the rules, and the idea that a player could foul out has plays a significant role in the discipline that players adopt in their disposition on fouling.

Six fouls should be plenty for a player to stay on the floor for 30-40 minutes in what is supposed to be a non-contact sport.

So are all the penalties called in a football game. Don't you think offensive holding would cease if on the second one a guy was disqualified.

Not sure where the idea that basketball is a non-contact sport ever came from. That ended about at the time when they did away with the peach basket

avoidingtheclowns
06-17-2008, 10:33 AM
UB, should we convert the 3pt line to 7 points, designate all time offense and defensive units on teams and have to kick free throws? when do we move to turf floors?

Unclebuck
06-17-2008, 10:56 AM
UB, should we convert the 3pt line to 7 points, designate all time offense and defensive units on teams and have to kick free throws? when do we move to turf floors?

In a few years

count55
06-17-2008, 11:27 AM
Rules are arbitrary by nature. Why is a basket worth two points? Why do you have to dribble the ball? Why is the basket 10 feet? In football, why is a touchdown worth 6 points? Why do you get four downs to make a 1st? Why can't you use your hands (generally) in soccer?

The rules were set up to define the specific game. Because of that, and the basic arbitrary nature, comparison of rules between football and hockey and soccer and basketball is, generally, a waste of time. They were developed largely in a vacuum without regard to each other, and as such, share no common basis of logic or motivation.

With all that being said, the idea of the dribble, the basket height, the worth of made baskets, and fouls and fouling out are all integral parts of the game of basketball to me. Significantly alter or completely remove any of those, or many other arbitrary rules, and you no longer have basketball.

Over the existence of the NBA, I believe there have only been two rule changes that were necessary and have clearly enhanced game play: The shot clock and the 3-point shot. Generally, however, I believe most of the rule changes have been fruitless attempts to do something that generally cannot be done: Legislating your way to a higher quality of play.

Beyond that, I think the simple, judicious, and impartial enforcement of the rules that are in place is the best way to ensure quality of play. Watch the great players play with four fouls in the third quarter. I'm always amazed (and frustrated) to watch guys like Jordan, Pippen, Garnett manage to avoid picking up that next foul without a marked drop in performance. Players can play good defense without fouling. Pippen, arguably one of the best defenders ever, averaged 2.9 fouls per 36 minutes over his career.

To me, the disqualification is a limitation that forces players to play better and smarter. Without it, I don't think you'd see an enhancement because star players wouldn't have to worry about foul trouble. I think you'd see more fouls, more enforcers (designated foulers), and a general slow down of the game, as it would always be statistically better to take the foul than to give up a basket. Always. I don't believe the free throws are deterrance enough. I think there needs to be the threat of losing valuable players in addition to that.

Since86
06-17-2008, 12:30 PM
And most importantly -- It is completely un-American to say you are fine with all of the scrunity if it improves efficiency. That's in the ball park of racial profiling, Click It or Ticket, and any other process that assumes guilt before any evidence points that way.

Oh brother.....

Calling to fix a broken system is the same as racial profiling? I don't even know where to begin.


Rules are arbitrary by nature. Why is a basket worth two points? Why do you have to dribble the ball? Why is the basket 10 feet?

I agree with your whole post, but the part about why the basket is 10ft. That was just circumstance.

Dr. Naismith hung a peach basket from the elevated track at the YMCA he worked for. The track was 10ft off the ground, so viola thats why it's been 10ft ever since.

Also, in the orginal rules dribbling was against the rules.

Putnam
06-17-2008, 12:48 PM
Better oversight of NBA referees is nothing like racial profiling. YoSoy is being silly.

It would be more analogous to the Indiana Division of Weights and Measure, a boring little agency that goes around making sure consumers get their money's worth. Their stamp is on every gas pump, proving that you don't need to worry about getting shorted on the volume of gas you buy.

The W&M division doesn't assume without proof that gas stations are guilty of shortchanging customers. It assumes that it is responsible to enforce the standards. It is easy to see that the gasoline venders have an incentive to sell 0.998 gallons and call it a gallon. So the agency (which has no such motivation, since it doesn't benefit directly from the sales or profits of the stores it regulates) takes on the responsibility.


Similarly, NBA refs who are paid by the game have an incentive to extend series so they'll get more games and more pay. It isn't even necessary to prove that any ref has ever abused that incentive -- the incentive is there. A system that took that incentive away from all refs across the board would not be judging or profiling them It would simply be a better system.

rock747
06-17-2008, 12:58 PM
Wow. I don't like the thought of even more free throws. How about, instead of what you say, we cut back even further on the holding and pushing fouls, but allow goaltending?

Goal tending exhibits physical prowess. It takes a real athlete to time his jump up over 10 feet and swipe away a ball that is arcing downward toward the basket. If goaltending were allowed, the game would have to work on quick transitions -- getting the shot up before the other team's goaltender got into position. I'd love that.




You could never allow Goal Tending, unless its like the European Style. You could just have a Shawn Bradley size player camp aroun the rim and wait for every possible shot.

Since86
06-17-2008, 01:03 PM
Better oversight of NBA referees is nothing like racial profiling. YoSoy is being silly.

Completely argree. On the other side, I see criticism as being as engrained into American society as apple pie. We openly complain about everything that needs fixing, in hopes that something gets done.

Unclebuck
06-17-2008, 01:39 PM
Similarly, NBA refs who are paid by the game have an incentive to extend series so they'll get more games and more pay. It isn't even necessary to prove that any ref has ever abused that incentive -- the incentive is there. A system that took that incentive away from all refs across the board would not be judging or profiling them It would simply be a better system.

Well then that proves the refs are on the up and up, because they haven't done a very good job of extending series - only 1 NBA Finals series has gone 7 games since 1994.

While it is possible that a ref could work more than one game in a certain series - the NBA Finals is the only series where it is possible. But that is only for the very top refs like Bevetta, Joey Crawford, Danny Crawford and Steve Javi. Bevetta worked game 1 and game 5 - he's the only one so far to have worked 2 games. So then the question is who does he favor in game 1 when he has no idea how the series is going to go, who does he decide who to favor so he gets a game 5.

Putnam
06-17-2008, 01:47 PM
You could never allow Goal Tending, unless its like the European Style. You could just have a Shawn Bradley size player camp aroun the rim and wait for every possible shot.


If goaltending were allowed, the game would have to work on quick transitions -- getting the shot up before the other team's goaltender got into position. I'd love that.


:arrgh:

Putnam
06-17-2008, 01:50 PM
Well then that proves the refs are on the up and up, because they haven't done a very good job of extending series - only 1 NBA Finals series has gone 7 games since 1994.


It isn't even necessary to prove that any ref has ever abused that incentive -- the incentive is there. A system that took that incentive away from all refs across the board would not be judging or profiling them. It would simply be a better system.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

rock747
06-17-2008, 04:21 PM
:arrgh:

Well, the scoring would greatly decrease..

Hicks
06-17-2008, 05:17 PM
Allowing defensive goal tending is a horrible idea.

rock747
06-17-2008, 07:04 PM
Allowing defensive goal tending is a horrible idea.

agreed.

SamBear
06-17-2008, 08:40 PM
Something else to think about...

Plenty of warning signs for Stern, NBA

Rick Morrissey | In the wake of the news

Karla Knafel filed a lawsuit in 2002 against Michael Jordan, her former lover, and it was filled with the kinds of juicy revelations that make news cycles dizzy.

One of the details that made a brief appearance and then was largely forgotten is now the most interesting, at least in light of the officiating scandal that is threatening to swallow the NBA.

The lawsuit describes how Jordan and Knafel met:

"In the spring of 1989, Karla was working as a vocalist touring in a band that performed at a hotel in Indianapolis. After Karla's performance, Eddie Rush, an NBA referee, approached her and complimented her about her singing talent. During their conversation, Karla and Mr. Rush talked about the Chicago Bulls and Michael Jordan, who were in town to play the Indianapolis Pacers.

"Mr. Rush told Karla that he personally knew Jordan. To prove it, he telephoned Jordan at Jordan's Indianapolis hotel room and introduced him to Karla over the phone. Karla and Jordan then chatted for a while."

Back in 2002, I wrote about how unsettling it was that a referee was so chummy with an NBA player that he could pick up the phone and, perhaps unknowingly, help launch an affair. What else might a referee be able to do? What might a referee want in return for a favor? I contacted the NBA, which said it would look into the matter. A spokesman talked about the importance of limited contact between referees and players off the court. And then the story went away.

Except it didn't really go away, at least not in the broader sense of what's transpiring as the league wades through the allegations of former ref Tim Donaghy. Besides charging that two officials affected the outcome of a 2002 playoff game, he says that many referees are pals with general managers, coaches and players. He states that officials ask for autographs from players and socialize with coaches. One referee even played tennis regularly with a coach, Donaghy said.

The Jordan-Knafel story involving Ed F. Rush would seem to back up Donaghy's contention that fraternization between refs and players happens. It might even be the norm: business as usual.

One of the absolutes in sports is that the people who officiate the games have to be above reproach. You might be of the opinion that they can't see straight, but you're supposed to believe their failure to see properly is a function of poor eyesight, not gambling debts, bribery or pressure from the league office. Or their friendship with players.

As Commissioner David Stern correctly points out, the ugly allegations are coming from a man who is trying to save what's left of his skin. Donaghy has pleaded guilty to passing along inside information on NBA games to gamblers. Whatever he says should be met with extreme skepticism. When Jose Canseco alleged widespread steroid use in baseball, you could look at the pumped-up bodies of players and admit he might have a point. Donaghy's allegations are subtler.

But Stern knows he has a terrible situation on his hands, one that questions the integrity of his game—integrity being the most important thing of all. The public perception of a conspiracy now exists. And, as Stern also has to know, the perception of a conspiracy might as well be the real thing.

At the heart of Donaghy's allegations about the 2002 Lakers-Kings game is the assertion that the NBA wanted the higher-profile Lakers to win. In the fourth quarter of Game 6 of the Western Conference finals, the Lakers shot 27 free throws, the Kings nine. The referees in that game were Bob Delaney, Ted Bernhardt and Dick Bavetta. Federal investigators reportedly have been asking other referees about Bavetta's on-court decisions.

Stern challenged reporters to view the tape of the game in question.

"You can watch it, you can look at it again and you could see what we call correct, incorrect and non-call incorrect," he said. "… My guess is it won't be pretty, but it won't be dishonest and it won't be illegal. Of that, I assure you."

Of course, Stern can't assure you of anything right now. And some people don't want to be assured. For many, believing in a conspiracy theory is much more satisfying that believing your team isn't good enough.

There's a reason the league wants its officials to keep their distance from players and gamblers alike. Temptation is everywhere.

The NBA always has struck me as overly chummy. From top to bottom, there's a shared sense of hipness and the feeling that everyone, including some media members, are in it together. It doesn't take much of an imagination to wonder just how in it together everyone is. Would the NBA tell officials to let the Lakers beat the Kings, as Donaghy alleges? Would officials take it upon themselves to extend a series for the good of the league? Are other referees gambling on NBA games? If referees are, would it be such a leap to ask if players and coaches are gambling on games too?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you're the NBA's worst nightmare. And you're not alone.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-080614-nba-gambling-referees-stern-morrissey,1,4190641.column

rock747
06-17-2008, 09:27 PM
good read sambear. definetly interesting.

Hicks
06-17-2008, 11:21 PM
The Indianapolis Pacers........

:puke:

duke dynamite
06-19-2008, 06:54 PM
I understand where you are coming from SamBear, if you feel like this needs to be addressed, go for it. I'm not 100% supporting of this getting the government involved, but if you feel like something needs to be done, go for it. The worst that could come of this is you'll be right back here.