PDA

View Full Version : Taking a player's reaction out of the game.



pianoman
09-24-2010, 08:17 AM
http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/69240/20100924/nba_expands_technical_fouls_for_overt_player_react ions_to_calls/

The NBA announced the guidelines for technical fouls will expand to include "overt" player reactions to referee calls.

The rule is intended to prevent excessive complaining from players.

When players demonstratively throw their hands in the air or demonstrate how he was fouled by hitting his own arm, a technical will be issued.

Even if a player excessively asks about a call in a civilized, referees are instructed to issue a technical foul.

Via ESPN

Read more: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/69240/20100924/nba_expands_technical_fouls_for_overt_player_react ions_to_calls/#ixzz10RsBIvgQ
__________________________________________________ _______________

They are taking life out of the game. Ever since the 90's they have done nothing to improve the game. The 90's were more physical, and just fun to watch.

Daniel33
09-24-2010, 08:32 AM
thats crap!
Sports is about wrong decisions, with no discussion i dont see much passion in the game anymore thats *****. We could watch a polo game which might have more emotion then.

Brad8888
09-24-2010, 08:38 AM
Didn't they already try to do something like this a few years ago? If it is a further crackdown beyond what they did then, good luck in enforcing it with any consistency.

Talk about a totally subjective way to potentially manipulate games by the officials, too -- a few questionable calls in a tight game, players and coaches react, the opponents go to the line or ejections occur, game turns ugly and a formerly close game is not anymore.

People have emotions. Stern needs to get over himself on this one IMO. If used incorrectly, it could damage the league.

Unclebuck
09-24-2010, 08:48 AM
I don't like the sounds of this. Trying to take the ref's judgment out of when to call a technical is not going to work and it is wrong. Every situation is not the same - let the refs have the option of when to call a T

MagicRat
09-24-2010, 09:05 AM
I don't like the sounds of this. Trying to take the ref's judgment out of when to call a technical is not going to work and it is wrong. Every situation is not the same - let the refs have the option of when to call a T

With a lot of the older guys retiring, I guess they figure all these young refs need some training wheels?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/sports/basketball/15referee.html?_r=2

O'Bird
09-24-2010, 09:42 AM
I don't like the sounds of this. Trying to take the ref's judgment out of when to call a technical is not going to work and it is wrong. Every situation is not the same - let the refs have the option of when to call a T

Good points all, astute counterargument.

Also, predictably, there will be chaos in the first two months.

This may be harder to rescind than the too-short three-point line.

____________

pwee31
09-24-2010, 10:10 AM
I'll wait till it plays out, but it sounds terrible. Mostly b/c you have players who gesture/complain b/c they were ACTUALLY FOULED who are now being punished by the overreactions of players (mostly superstars) who feel they're fouled on every play, and that they never foul on the other end.

Best example was the home game against the Cavs a couple year ago, where Granger clearly didn't foul Lebron on the lob inbound pass and then the Pacers ran the same type of play and Lebron was called for the foul and threw a hissy fit!

Depending on how strict this policy is, we could see a jump in ejections this year

HC
09-24-2010, 10:20 AM
Personally I have never been one to enjoy Rasheed's tirades over the years. However, that is the extreme side of it. They have to allow for the players to at least have some sort of reaction, it is only human.

Shade
09-24-2010, 10:25 AM
While I agree that the whining and demonstrative behavior needs to be curbed, the NBA needs to realize that basketball is an emotional game. You can't turn humans into robots, no matter how many rules you lay down.

Also, if the officiating wasn't so poor overall, there would probably be fewer complaints about bad calls.

Brad8888
09-24-2010, 10:41 AM
I'll wait till it plays out, but it sounds terrible. Mostly b/c you have players who gesture/complain b/c they were ACTUALLY FOULED who are now being punished by the overreactions of players (mostly superstars) who feel they're fouled on every play, and that they never foul on the other end.

Best example was the home game against the Cavs a couple year ago, where Granger clearly didn't foul Lebron on the lob inbound pass and then the Pacers ran the same type of play and Lebron was called for the foul and threw a hissy fit!

Depending on how strict this policy is, we could see a jump in ejections this year

Completely agree. Imagine a player getting fouled with no call. The player instinctively reacts and demonstrates how he is fouled while turning and running towards the official, who ignores him. The player then continues to complain while his hometown crowd is lustily booing. The official could theoretically run that player for having committed multiple technical foul infractions on a single play even if the player was correct about the missed call and is simply reacting in a human manner given the emotional situation of the flow of the game.

Basketball is a sport played by people. It is not a video game where the players are just computer generated characters devoid of emotions.

Eleazar
09-24-2010, 10:54 AM
I do think there needs to be something done for the actual overreactions, but this is just excessive and an overreaction on the NBA's part.

binarysolo
09-24-2010, 10:56 AM
Isn't this the same thing they did a few years back. My understanding was that they got pretty strict about things a few years ago, let it get looser to this point, and are now going back to the strict way.

I'm surprised at all the negative reaction. Basketball is an emotional sport but complaining about the officiating is one way I do not care to see that emotion channeled. I hate the whining. Sure, sometimes guys get fouled and no call is made, but that doesn't mean they have to "overtly react" to it -- they can talk to the official during a stoppage in play or have the coach do it or what have you. Practically every time down the floor you have someone looking at the ref in disbelief and throwing their arms in the air. Get rid of it, I say.

naptownmenace
09-24-2010, 11:02 AM
While I agree that the whining and demonstrative behavior needs to be curbed, the NBA needs to realize that basketball is an emotional game. You can't turn humans into robots, no matter how many rules you lay down.

Also, if the officiating wasn't so poor overall, there would probably be fewer complaints about bad calls.

I agree with everything above. There's nothing to add other than if they really do implement this, it's only going to put the spotlight on the referees more and alienate the players and the fans from them.

O'Bird
09-24-2010, 11:23 AM
There's nothing to add other than if they really do implement this, it's only going to put the spotlight on the referees more and alienate the players and the fans from them.

If you're right, the result would be the opposite of what the league intends. It wouldn't be the first time.

judicata
09-24-2010, 11:42 AM
I don't find this all that apocalyptic. Its a pretty brightline rule: shut up and play.

mildlysane
09-24-2010, 11:49 AM
JO and SJax might as well retire....

Shade
09-24-2010, 11:49 AM
I do think there needs to be something done for the actual overreactions, but this is just excessive and an overreaction on the NBA's part.

So, the NBA is overreacting to overreacting.

I :love: irony.

imawhat
09-24-2010, 11:56 AM
At one point in time, only coaches were allowed to communicate with the referees. I wouldn't mind seeing that, just to see what it's like.

ChicagoJ
09-24-2010, 12:04 PM
The last several posts were really good.

I'm in favor of anything the NBA does to enforce a "shut up and play" situation. Although this seems to be an overreaction to an overreaction problem, its better than allowing the status quo.

This, "the NBA game is emotional" nonsense is part of the problem. The referee is not changing the call because you complain or throw a fit. So shut up. Or get ejected. I don't care which. At least this way, the immature temper tantrums will stop.

I just hope they take care of ejecting players during a dead ball. The last thing you want to see is the referees stop an opponent's fast break because Stephen Jackson is 70 feet behind the play, sreaming at an official while his man is about to score. Let them finish the play and then eject Stephen. Not that I'm specfically thinking of any play against the Nets in a playoff game or anything...

Kstat
09-24-2010, 12:33 PM
This is a really, really bad idea. Nothing good will come of this.

King Phoenix
09-24-2010, 12:46 PM
Stern need to realize that these are highly competitive athletes here! Which means emouons are gonna run high. Anyone with a passion for something shows how much things mean to them in one way or another! Now some players are known for this kinda stuff so I understand to an extent! But all to be punished is rediculous! All this rule is gonna do is make the athletes more frustrated when they get a technical and then there is really gonna be suspensions. I mean the refs make mistakes and if your wrong your wrong and if others kno your wrong they have to right to vent it in a positive way! Think about when that brawl that happened when David stern was there...he didn't look like some kind of expression with a monotenous look on his face no! He showed how he felt at the time and even got out of his seat to look....DOUBLE TECHNICAL! And to stay on him, how about this new CBA? What happens when both sides can't come to an agreement after a while is he gonna frustrated...ABSOLUTELY! So them making his rule is actually more a less of a way to take away human emotions which these players were born with! THIS ISNT KINDGERGARTEN YOU CANT TELL GROWN MEN THAT THEY CANT SHOW ANY EMOTIONS EVEN WHEN THEYVE BEEN WRONGED! THAT'S UNCIVILIZED!

SO TO END THIS I SAY STERN IS BEING UNREASONABLE AND NEED TO REALIZE WHO HES DEALING WIT...HUMANS NO ROBOTS U CANT JUS FLIP A SWITCHAND THEN EMOTIONS GO AWAY! COME ON STERN!

Since86
09-24-2010, 12:50 PM
It's not what you say, but how you say it. I tell that to one of my buddies all the time.


Even if a player excessively asks about a call in a civilized, referees are instructed to issue a technical foul.

That's where it's going to turn ugly. SJax/JO should have gotten a lot more techs than they did, but a player who walks over to a ref just to talk about the situation shouldn't get t'ed up. And it's really hard to define "excessive."

I think the NBA should promote conversation between officials. It's a good thing if a player goes up and asks why it was a foul, or asks the limits of contact. Why in the world would you punish that type of interaction?

The whole system is designed to pamper players, and now you're going to punish them for acting like divas on the most basic level? That makes sense.

pacerDU
09-24-2010, 01:02 PM
The last several posts were really good.

I'm in favor of anything the NBA does to enforce a "shut up and play" situation. Although this seems to be an overreaction to an overreaction problem, its better than allowing the status quo.

This, "the NBA game is emotional" nonsense is part of the problem. The referee is not changing the call because you complain or throw a fit. So shut up. Or get ejected. I don't care which. At least this way, the immature temper tantrums will stop.

They're not just ruling on the "temper tantrums" though. From what was quoted at the top, they're going to assess techs even if the player signals that he was hit...

"When players demonstratively throw their hands in the air or demonstrate how he was fouled by hitting his own arm, a technical will be issued."

That is ridiculous in my opinion. Anyone who's played basketball, or any athletically-based sport, knows that it's only human nature to react to a perceived missed call. It might only be a quick motion that he was hacked across the arm and then he'll continue playing, but that's now supposed to by called a tech - absurd!

This is along the same lines for me as a player not allowing to celebrate a good play as that's considered "taunting". Absolute joke.

I understand the need to curb Rasheed Wallace type complaining, but most players don't do anything like that. Removing emotion (or trying to because removing emotion is impossible) from a sport can only hurt it. Sport by nature is emotional. It's like telling someone; "you are not to show emotion during sex".

As was mentioned by someone above, bring back the 90's rules. More physical ball. It'll strengthen rivalries and allow for a more free sport. I have no problem with a lower score, as long as players can react to situations like human beings.

LoneGranger33
09-24-2010, 01:10 PM
http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/69240/20100924/nba_expands_technical_fouls_for_overt_player_react ions_to_calls/

The NBA announced the guidelines for technical fouls will expand to include "overt" player reactions to referee calls.

The rule is intended to prevent excessive complaining from players.

When players demonstratively throw their hands in the air or demonstrate how he was fouled by hitting his own arm, a technical will be issued.

Even if a player excessively asks about a call in a civilized, referees are instructed to issue a technical foul.

Via ESPN

I hear that if you hit yourself hard enough it'll warrant a flagrant foul.

Kstat
09-24-2010, 01:11 PM
I hear that if you hit yourself hard enough it'll warrant a flagrant foul.

Line of the day.

ChicagoJ
09-24-2010, 01:13 PM
Emotion does not have to mean "complaining to the officials about the call."

I hate quoting Steven Covey, but you can't control what happens to you. You can, however, control your reaction.

Just shut up and play. The objective is to outscore your opponent, and those teams that minimize the emotional disruptions and distractions seem to do better than the teams that are up and down based on their emotions.

Of course, the league shouldn't have to create special rules to enforce this. This is only coming about because they've been to lazy to enforce it consistently in the past. I get that. Just as they spent a long era being too lazy to enforce traveling (and in my opinion still don't call it often enough.)

The players will adjust. And it will be a better product.

Kstat
09-24-2010, 01:16 PM
I prefer to have some emotion with my basketball.

ChicagoJ
09-24-2010, 01:19 PM
Fine. Take it out on the other team. Not the officials.

My favorite memory is still when I watched Chuck Person thump his chest in Larry Bird's face during Game #4 of the '91 playoffs. I don't have a problem with emotion. Or trash talking. I don't like temper tantrums directed at the officials, though. And of course I don't like when coaches use press conferences to lobby the officials either.

Kstat
09-24-2010, 01:20 PM
...except now there's so much gray area, practically any emotional reaction is going to be penalized.

If you want to take the ref abuse out of the game, then fine. But that isn't this. Any sort of reaction, even not directed at the referee, can be penalized as an act of defiance. It's a terrible idea.

ChicagoJ
09-24-2010, 01:27 PM
It's a terrible idea.

The status quo is a terrible idea.

At least this is something.

If I were king for a day, I'm sure I wouldn't have done it this way. But come on, the other choice was "nothing at all" and that's not working. There's more whining on an NBA court than a preschool playground when the kids don't get a nap.

At some point in time, the NBA has to stop embracing all the immaturity.

Kstat
09-24-2010, 01:29 PM
the status quo is still better than this. The recent expanding of calling technicals had reduced player reactions significantly. Not enough, but it wasn't intolerable. This isn't an epidemic that needed to be squashed with an atom bomb.

pacerDU
09-24-2010, 01:49 PM
My favorite memory is still when I watched Chuck Person thump his chest in Larry Bird's face during Game #4 of the '91 playoffs.

Um...you do realize that would be called a technical foul today right?

That is the sort of thing everyone likes, yet today's Anti Emotion Movement by the NBA is removing it.

Doddage
09-24-2010, 01:53 PM
When players demonstratively throw their hands in the air or demonstrate how he was fouled by hitting his own arm, a technical will be issued.
My first thought:

http://sports.mylaunchpad.com.my/Portals/0/Basketball/NBA/TimDuncan_010110_L.jpg

Shade
09-24-2010, 02:39 PM
I hate quoting Steven Covey, but you can't control what happens to you. You can, however, control your reaction.

That is not true. Reactions can certainly influence future actions, and do so regularly.

Kstat
09-24-2010, 02:45 PM
My first thought:

http://sports.mylaunchpad.com.my/Portals/0/Basketball/NBA/TimDuncan_010110_L.jpg

You do wonder at what point this rule will become a joke. I think it's when Tayshaun Prince and Tim Duncan miss half the season due to massive technical foul suspensions, despite being the quietest players on the floor. They both have that exact same reaction at least 3-4 times a game.

focused444
09-24-2010, 02:52 PM
I hope the refs enforce this equally across the board. Nothing is worse for the game than "superstar calls" I absolutely hate that! It makes me want to never watch another game when I see that type of thing go down. Whats makes it even worse is that the announcers just acknowledge a superstar call like its part of the freaking game. LBJ is one of the biggest complainers to refs in the NBA, probably because he knows it works. If this new rule can be a backdoor way to getting rid of superstar treatment I would love it. The idea of coaches only being allowed to communicate with refs sounds great. Shut up and play!

Also the number of techs go up, then we could expect the number of suspensions due to too many techs to go up. The league may have to adjust.

ChicagoJ
09-24-2010, 02:55 PM
Um...you do realize that would be called a technical foul today right?

Yeah, and that bothers me a heck of a lot more than this does.

Putnam
09-24-2010, 03:30 PM
I think it is funny that we're describing behaviors as "only human nature." There is nothing "only human nature" about basketball. If there were, there would be paintings of Neanderthal ballers on the Lascaux cave walls. There is nothing fundamentally human about throwing an orange ball through a metal hoop laced with string, or about wearing underwear in public. There is nothing inevitable about the act of dribbling, and nothing morally superior about the three-second rule. It is all just some stuff that people made up, that turns out to be entertaining.


.

Kstat
09-24-2010, 03:33 PM
...and yet none of that has anything to do with the topic hand, which is trying to eliminate normal human emotions...

BillS
09-24-2010, 03:54 PM
While they still are subjective, they at least say "demonstratively" and "excessively". I suspect it's the difference between making gestures and hands in the air after an issue takes place vs. making them toward the referee or repeatedly talking about the same call.

Like anything else, the proof will be in the enforcement.

Trader Joe
09-24-2010, 04:00 PM
I think it is funny that we're describing behaviors as "only human nature." There is nothing "only human nature" about basketball. If there were, there would be paintings of Neanderthal ballers on the Lascaux cave walls. There is nothing fundamentally human about throwing an orange ball through a metal hoop laced with string, or about wearing underwear in public. There is nothing inevitable about the act of dribbling, and nothing morally superior about the three-second rule. It is all just some stuff that people made up, that turns out to be entertaining.


.

Games have been played since the dawn of time. Emotions associated with those games have probably also been present.

Heck the Aztec's used to sacrifice the losers of a game they played.

Sports and competition and the emotions associated with it are about as basic human nature as you can get.

Right after food, water, breathing, shelter, and sex, I'd say competition is the next most important thing for most human psyches.

Since86
09-24-2010, 04:07 PM
Right after food, water, breathing, shelter, and sex, I'd say competition is the next most important thing for most human psyches.

I would say competition is THE most important thing.

Food, water, shelter, and sex all revolve around it. Cain killed his brother Able because of competition.

While basketball might not be human nature, the emotions they're trying to keep in check most certianly are.

Putnam
09-24-2010, 04:36 PM
Sports and competition and the emotions associated with it are about as basic human nature as you can get.

This just isn't true. Competition for mates and for territory, yes. Competition to put a ball into a hoop -- no. The fact that the Aztecs played a ball game and sacrificed the losers is rather a proof that sports is odd behavior, not that it is normal.


Right after food, water, breathing, shelter, and sex, I'd say competition is the next most important thing for most human psyches.

Again, this just isn't true.


I don't want to derail this thread, and you can all object to the new rule if you want to. All I'm saying is that the appeal to "basic human nature" makes less sense the more you know about humans.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

HeliumFear
09-24-2010, 04:47 PM
Refs call technicals on all of these issues already (some more than others). The NBA might just be getting it down on paper,like they did with the traveling rules recently.

Brad8888
09-24-2010, 04:48 PM
This just isn't true. Competition for mates and for territory, yes. Competition to put a ball into a hoop -- no. The fact that the Aztecs played a ball game and sacrificed the losers is rather a proof that sports is odd behavior, not that it is normal.



Again, this just isn't true.


I don't want to derail this thread, and you can all object to the new rule if you want to. All I'm saying is that the appeal to "basic human nature" makes less sense the more you know about humans.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Competing successfully is the basis of Darwinism, no? Survival of the fittest and all of that. How is that determined if not through competing for mates, food, and other things essential to survival?

While not comparing basketball to those things, I think it is worth pointing out that for professional basketball players, they in essence are competing for not just the sake of playing a game as most of us here would, but rather for their livelihoods, and that would have to, in my viewpoint at least, create a far higher level of emotional attachment to both the outcomes of games and the factors that help to determine those outcomes, with the officiating being one of those factors.

Perhaps the league motto should be changed to the serenity prayer "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."

Roaming Gnome
09-24-2010, 04:49 PM
I'm sure this will revert down to "official's judgement" after a couple weeks into the season. I'm sure the "throwing your arms up" and publicly showing up the officials will be scrutinized from here on out, but civilized discussion will not get anyone a tech by the first of the new year.

How I see it.....

Trader Joe
09-24-2010, 04:51 PM
This just isn't true. Competition for mates and for territory, yes. Competition to put a ball into a hoop -- no. The fact that the Aztecs played a ball game and sacrificed the losers is rather a proof that sports is odd behavior, not that it is normal.



Again, this just isn't true.


I don't want to derail this thread, and you can all object to the new rule if you want to. All I'm saying is that the appeal to "basic human nature" makes less sense the more you know about humans.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

What are you talking about?

Sports derived from the competition for mates and territory.

It's still competition. Period.

We base everything we do off of it...not just games.

Jobs. Competition.
Mates. Competition.
Homes. Competition.
School. Competition.
Sports. Competition.

I think you're trying to over complicate things.

Fair to say that in early humans athletic prowess would have probably been the deciding factor for mates, territory, food, etc. IMO. Sports are just an organized extension. The competition that takes place within sports is inherently human.

Heck, me arguing my side of this and you supporting yours, what is it at its most basic core? Competition.

I don't see how you can honestly say that the competition and the emotions reflected during sports, including basketball, aren't directly connected to basic human nature and instincts. These emotions reflected by these players are probably some of the most basic and primal human emotions we see on a daily basis. Fed by adrenaline and increased testosterone.

clownskull
09-24-2010, 04:55 PM
I hope the refs enforce this equally across the board. Nothing is worse for the game than "superstar calls" I absolutely hate that! It makes me want to never watch another game when I see that type of thing go down. Whats makes it even worse is that the announcers just acknowledge a superstar call like its part of the freaking game. LBJ is one of the biggest complainers to refs in the NBA, probably because he knows it works. If this new rule can be a backdoor way to getting rid of superstar treatment I would love it. The idea of coaches only being allowed to communicate with refs sounds great. Shut up and play!

Also the number of techs go up, then we could expect the number of suspensions due to too many techs to go up. The league may have to adjust.

yes, this is something that worries me a great deal. will guys like lebron, wade and kobe get no more room to complain than the average player or will they get more? i get a bad feeling that these guys will be not held to a similar level of tolerance and be allowed to get away with more because they bring in the big bucks and stern doesn't want his golden geese to get tossed out when they could throw out some joe schmoes instead and pretend it applies equally to all. i doubt it will be applied to all players evenly.

Trader Joe
09-24-2010, 04:57 PM
As far as the rule itself, I think it's silly. How long til we just program robots to referee games?

xBulletproof
09-24-2010, 04:58 PM
Emotion will still be in the game. If crying and throwing a hissy fit at officials is the "emotion" you enjoy seeing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. None of that crap is necessary at all.

When Hibbert dunks, he's still free to show emotion. When a guy gets beat he's still free to show emotion that he's upset with himself for getting beat. He's just no longer free to show up the referee while doing so after a call is made. Absolutely fine with me.

No idea what's wrong about this in any way at all.

Trader Joe
09-24-2010, 04:59 PM
Late in a close game...

Close call perhaps charging vs. blocking...

Player in a sense of the moment and instinct throws his arms up in the air, and is given a technical for showing up the ref...why? Tech decides the game...perhaps player was just admonishing himself or maybe he was just frustrated, but the ref felt he was being "shown up".

Slippery slope IMO.

This very scenario could happen under the wording of this rule.

beast23
09-24-2010, 05:18 PM
I don't find this all that apocalyptic. Its a pretty brightline rule: shut up and play.I sat behind the Pacer bench for a few games several years ago. I still remember the ref coming over to the bench after hearing Jalen's mouth for several trips down the court. After having already hit Jalen with one "T", the ref's instruction to the bench was "You take care of this ***** or I WILL!!!".

Jalen came to the bench for the rest of the second quarter and there were no problems the rest of the way. The ref did the Pacers a favor that probably wasn't deserved, but it did take care of the situation.

From my perspective, I never did like Jalen. I found the whole thing kind of humorous and probably would have enjoyed the second T as much as the way the ref chose to handle it.

But the point is that the ref has plenty of discretion. I think one way of handling the problem would be for the refs to be less tolerant of the frequent offenders.

ChicagoJ
09-24-2010, 05:20 PM
-snip- and instinct throws his arms up in the air, and is given a technical for showing up the ref

That's not instinctive. That's learned behavior.

Some of you just don't give human beings enough credit. These bad habits can be unlearned.

At what point in time did we become confused about competition vs. emotional outbursts that are typically temper tantrums?

Look at a football field. After any given play, you can see a defender thumping his chest for making a tackle even though he gave up a first down. You can see a guy score a touchdown and toss the ball to the official and act like "he's been in the end zone before", you can see a premeditated dance, and you can watch a RB and LB get up after a great hit and smack either other on the helmet and say, "nice hit."

There's a full spectrum of possible emotions that are loosely associated with competition that are not eliminated by this, and yet the emotion that all of you are associating with competition (anger directed at an authority figure) isn't really associated with competition.

I continue to believe that the humans that play the game of basketball are sophisticated enough to adjust to any change in rules or enforecement of rules that are already in place.

Dece
09-24-2010, 05:35 PM
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but if they call more technicals this will be lousy.

Talking about people in the heat of the game expressing displeasure, how could they not? As long as they aren't being confrontational to the official about it in many cases it's unclear if they are displeased with the call, their opponent, themselves, or whatever. Can you really T a guy up for yelling at himself for making a mistake?

vapacersfan
09-24-2010, 05:44 PM
I don't find this all that apocalyptic. Its a pretty brightline rule: shut up and play.

I would agree with this is we did not have NBA referees who want to be more about the show then the NBA players are.

Do players need to shut up and play? Yes

Does the NBA need to fix the horrible officiating? HELL YES

No matter who you talk to, everyone will admit NBA officials are the worst. I do not know why it is that way, and I am not sure what the solution is, but just saying "Well you guys will have zero emotion or else" is not the solution.

At least not in my opinion.........

vapacersfan
09-24-2010, 05:45 PM
The last several posts were really good.

I'm in favor of anything the NBA does to enforce a "shut up and play" situation. Although this seems to be an overreaction to an overreaction problem, its better than allowing the status quo.

This, "the NBA game is emotional" nonsense is part of the problem. The referee is not changing the call because you complain or throw a fit. So shut up. Or get ejected. I don't care which. At least this way, the immature temper tantrums will stop.

I just hope they take care of ejecting players during a dead ball. The last thing you want to see is the referees stop an opponent's fast break because Stephen Jackson is 70 feet behind the play, sreaming at an official while his man is about to score. Let them finish the play and then eject Stephen. Not that I'm specfically thinking of any play against the Nets in a playoff game or anything...

I agree, but can we also have the same standard for NBA officials.

It wont change the outcome, but maybe admit when a call was blown. OR maybe just have the refs not eject a player for staring him down the wrong way....not thinking of Tim Duncan or anything.....

vapacersfan
09-24-2010, 05:47 PM
It's not what you say, but how you say it. I tell that to one of my buddies all the time.



That's where it's going to turn ugly. SJax/JO should have gotten a lot more techs than they did, but a player who walks over to a ref just to talk about the situation shouldn't get t'ed up. And it's really hard to define "excessive."

I think the NBA should promote conversation between officials. It's a good thing if a player goes up and asks why it was a foul, or asks the limits of contact. Why in the world would you punish that type of interaction?

The whole system is designed to pamper players, and now you're going to punish them for acting like divas on the most basic level? That makes sense.

I agree.

Like another poster said though, I would love to see where only one team captain could talk to the ref.

I know I asked about this idea years ago and someone (maybe Kstat but I may be wrong) said the idea was used in Rugby but they did not think it would work in the NBA.

Or maybe I remembered the idea from when I played rubgy. IDR but I do remember thinking of this years ago.

Regardless I agree civilized discussion should never be penalized. At least not as long as you are not trying to show the refs up

vapacersfan
09-24-2010, 05:52 PM
Fine. Take it out on the other team. Not the officials.

My favorite memory is still when I watched Chuck Person thump his chest in Larry Bird's face during Game #4 of the '91 playoffs. I don't have a problem with emotion. Or trash talking. I don't like temper tantrums directed at the officials, though. And of course I don't like when coaches use press conferences to lobby the officials either.

I disagree 110%

If a player did that now a days he would get a T for "taunting".

I do not want to see you cussing the ref out, but throwing your arms around in frustration is not going to make me think you are a prima-donna, even if you play for the other team.

I think every sport (including track) needs to have some emotion in it. If not you are just a robot going through the motions.

What's next. Are they going to T the crowd up for getting to loud or booing the officials?

SycamoreKen
09-24-2010, 06:54 PM
The league should fine the players after the game based on the reaction, the call, and other factors. If the offending player keeps doing the same thing over and over, suspend them for a game or two. That way they can clean it up without making the officials do even more stuff. Plus they ca acknowledge the ref made a bad call and not penalize if the player is justified in his muted response. Not all the players do this all the time, so just ding the ones hard that do.

Sookie
09-24-2010, 07:23 PM
The problem is, I think it introduces even more superstar bias. Kobe and Lebron are the worst offenders. I'm betting they won't get called for this much.

I can understand the NBA feeling like it needs to do something about the excessive whinning. Because it is at a ridiculous level. But this was going too far.

Trader Joe
09-24-2010, 08:08 PM
That's not instinctive. That's learned behavior.

Some of you just don't give human beings enough credit. These bad habits can be unlearned.

At what point in time did we become confused about competition vs. emotional outbursts that are typically temper tantrums?

Look at a football field. After any given play, you can see a defender thumping his chest for making a tackle even though he gave up a first down. You can see a guy score a touchdown and toss the ball to the official and act like "he's been in the end zone before", you can see a premeditated dance, and you can watch a RB and LB get up after a great hit and smack either other on the helmet and say, "nice hit."

There's a full spectrum of possible emotions that are loosely associated with competition that are not eliminated by this, and yet the emotion that all of you are associating with competition (anger directed at an authority figure) isn't really associated with competition.

I continue to believe that the humans that play the game of basketball are sophisticated enough to adjust to any change in rules or enforecement of rules that are already in place.

Expressing frustration or anger is not a learned human reaction.

judicata
09-24-2010, 10:05 PM
Expressing frustration or anger is not a learned human reaction.

I would say most of the crying that goes on in the NBA is well beyond the ordinary manifestation of frustration and anger. Hardly a shot is contested or a foul called where a player isn't pantomiming indignation or innocence. It is absurd.

Hicks
09-24-2010, 11:30 PM
Expressing frustration or anger is not a learned human reaction.

Controlling yourself when you want to express frustration or anger is a learned human reaction. If these rules stick, most of them will learn how to restrain themselves.

SycamoreKen
09-24-2010, 11:46 PM
Expressing frustration or anger is not a learned human reaction.

How you express frustration and anger is definitely a learned behavior once you get to the age of recognizing what you get for the reaction. I would guess that would be around 2 or 3? I learned how to react to frustration and anger by watching my dad, none of them very positive. I see middle school players react to situations because of what their parents or the players they watch do. It can be unlearned.

Putnam
09-25-2010, 08:36 AM
Apologies to everyone who is annoyed by the anthropology angle of this thread.


Trader Joe, I accept your last reply to me. It is certain that striving is fundamentally human. But not all striving is fundamental, and the point I make in my first post (which denied that sports competition in general and fussing about bad calls in particular is fundamental human behavior) still stands.

Sports competition is not very close to basic human nature at all. It is interesting and entertaining because it artificially focuses and magnifies one human impulse (dominating one's rivals) into a narrow time and space. The sort of competition you rightly speak of as natural involves real matters of conflict (a mate, home territory, fertile farm ground, etc). Really caring about whether a ball goes through a hoop is a luxury open only to people who have their next meal and a place to sleep tonight already secured.

Now, as to complaining. Most humans in most nations today and in nearly all nations in the past accepted the wrong judgments of their superiors in silence. The idea that it is natural to pitch a fit when a judgement goes against your wishes is very modern and very Western. Americans are the richest and most self-entitled people in history by a wide margin. We shouldn't think that the way we think is normal human behavior. So, yes, LeBron James thinks he is entitled to get the calls he wants. But he is not a normal subject.

D-BONE
09-25-2010, 09:08 AM
Give it a try. As long as the refs try to enforce with some semblance of uniformity and discretion as to what really constitutes excessive, demonstrative reaction.

If the player is called for a foul and he immediately turns away from the ref, contorts his face, grits his teeth, and makes two fists in displeasure, but doesn't "whine" or direct himself toward the official, is that a T? If it generally is not called, I'm okay with it. It's all the over the top histrionics, wailing, and on-going complaining in the refs face that needs to be curtailed.

Or what if the player dribbles the ball forcefully against the floor once, but does not glare, gesture, or verbally assault the ref with complaints?

I have to see the perspective with which it's enforced. The two scenarios I describe would not warrant a tech in my opinion. A quick release of frustration without showing up or otherwise bombarding the officials with non-stop tantrums. Personally, I get tired of watching some of the players continuously acting like spoiled brats.

WhackoJacko
09-25-2010, 09:40 AM
As it happens with all things in life, the pendulum swings too far in one direction and there is a correction back the other way. Players have taken the complaining and theatrics too far and now the league is trying to bring it back to an acceptable level. Make no mistake the players will adjust to this new rule. The NBA is both entertainment and a serious sport and I see this new rule as an attempt to push the NBA back towards the serious sport side of the equation. I think that the NBA brass are concerned that the game has moved too far to the Harlem Globetrotter side of the scale and some fans are tuning them out as not being legit.

Cactus Jax
09-25-2010, 10:44 AM
Apologies to everyone who is annoyed by the anthropology angle of this thread.


Trader Joe, I accept your last reply to me. It is certain that striving is fundamentally human. But not all striving is fundamental, and the point I make in my first post (which denied that sports competition in general and fussing about bad calls in particular is fundamental human behavior) still stands.

Sports competition is not very close to basic human nature at all. It is interesting and entertaining because it artificially focuses and magnifies one human impulse (dominating one's rivals) into a narrow time and space. The sort of competition you rightly speak of as natural involves real matters of conflict (a mate, home territory, fertile farm ground, etc). Really caring about whether a ball goes through a hoop is a luxury open only to people who have their next meal and a place to sleep tonight already secured.

Now, as to complaining. Most humans in most nations today and in nearly all nations in the past accepted the wrong judgments of their superiors in silence. The idea that it is natural to pitch a fit when a judgement goes against your wishes is very modern and very Western. Americans are the richest and most self-entitled people in history by a wide margin. We shouldn't think that the way we think is normal human behavior. So, yes, LeBron James thinks he is entitled to get the calls he wants. But he is not a normal subject.

No but Americans have pushed this world farther technologically 10x more than any other nation has, and now has made things like cell phones, computers, and e-mail normal human behaviors.

As for the topic itself, I think it's a little absurd trying to get rid of all emotion. I remember Shawn Kemp dunking on people's heads and pointing and gloating over them and people love it, and I also remember when Chris Gatling blocked a dunk of his and Kemp got the ball back and dunked it and got fouled by him, and they basically shook hands after the play. Those were the days.

SycamoreKen
09-25-2010, 11:11 AM
I think the problem might not be dealing with reactions directed at the refs themselves, but at reactions, as d-bone noted, that are not. I think many players make reactions not to the call, but in frustration in committing the foul or turnover. If the ref can tell the difference and not penalize the ones not directed at them or another ref, then it is less of a worry.

I wonder if the other 2 refs will be responsible for watching the whistle blowing ref's back when they make a call? Say ref A calls a foul and when he turns to report it the player that fouls makes a gesture of displeasure or says to a team mate that the call was bogus. Does ref B call him for a T when he hears and sees his reaction?

Eleazar
09-25-2010, 11:20 AM
This just isn't true. Competition for mates and for territory, yes. Competition to put a ball into a hoop -- no. The fact that the Aztecs played a ball game and sacrificed the losers is rather a proof that sports is odd behavior, not that it is normal.


Competition no matter what it is for is still just competition and a natural occurrence. In fact it is so natural people try to make everything into a competition. We enjoy competition because we want to survive, and before civilization the only way to survive was to compete. If we didn't enjoy competition we most likely would not have made it this far as a species.

As far as the Mayans and Aztecs. It is actually an outdated idea that they sacrificed (this is the key word) the loser. In fact it is far more likely they sacrificed the winner. If you think about it. The gods only want the best and most pure. So if you are going to sacrifice to them you are going to sacrifice the best and most pure. In a competition the best and most pure are not those who lose, but those who win.



Trader Joe, I accept your last reply to me. It is certain that striving is fundamentally human. But not all striving is fundamental, and the point I make in my first post (which denied that sports competition in general and fussing about bad calls in particular is fundamental human behavior) still stands.

Sports competition is not very close to basic human nature at all. It is interesting and entertaining because it artificially focuses and magnifies one human impulse (dominating one's rivals) into a narrow time and space. The sort of competition you rightly speak of as natural involves real matters of conflict (a mate, home territory, fertile farm ground, etc). Really caring about whether a ball goes through a hoop is a luxury open only to people who have their next meal and a place to sleep tonight already secured.

Actually sports is exactly like human nature. We are naturally pack animals. We socialize, and we naturally don't like other groups, goes back to survival of the fittest. In sports each team is just like a clan of people at war with each other. It just takes on a more civilized appearance. It is the exact same thing just in a different form.

[/QUOTE]
Now, as to complaining. Most humans in most nations today and in nearly all nations in the past accepted the wrong judgments of their superiors in silence. The idea that it is natural to pitch a fit when a judgement goes against your wishes is very modern and very Western. Americans are the richest and most self-entitled people in history by a wide margin. We shouldn't think that the way we think is normal human behavior. So, yes, LeBron James thinks he is entitled to get the calls he wants. But he is not a normal subject.[/QUOTE]

Actually most people may not complain to the superiors, but they do complain amongst themselves. If it is bad enough after a while of keeping it within themselves it boils up into a huge outburst of emotion and violence.

I would say that Roman citizens still take the cake of being the richest and most self-entitled people. I mean being a Roman citizen was more valuable than gold back then.

Putnam
09-25-2010, 11:49 AM
It is the exact same thing just in a different form.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgLddDmrrDUOW59u37-lSU2HAR8fnsspwqfyVHZIWtl6kZYNM&t=1&usg=__2xV-kx9isjwr7GpAustVHc3kvOY=




.

SMosley21
09-25-2010, 12:23 PM
If the players can no longer communicate with the referees, then the refs shouldn't be able to talk to the players either.

xBulletproof
09-25-2010, 05:13 PM
If the players can no longer communicate with the referees, then the refs shouldn't be able to talk to the players either.

Where did it say you can't talk to the refs?

Or did I miss something in the page of posts I didn't read? :laugh:

SMosley21
09-25-2010, 05:25 PM
Where did it say you can't talk to the refs?

Or did I miss something in the page of posts I didn't read? :laugh:

I'm saying, if the players can't complain at all, or even make gestures about a call, then the refs shouldn't be able to speak to the players either. Fans pay to see the players play, not to see the refs officiate.

The rule change is complete BS to me. Giving the already almighty refs even more power to determine the games at their own discretion is a huge mistake in my opinion. If there is no room for players to debate or question calls, then there should be absolutely no room for refs to make mistakes on calls and they should be held accountable for bad calls.

cgg
09-25-2010, 05:53 PM
Did no one read the entire article?



Some reactions will not be penalized, Johnson said. "Heat of the moment" reactions, like a defensive player briefly raising his hands to show he had proper position, will be acceptable.

Johnson also said players showing frustration with themselves will not be penalized, and players will still be able to discuss the game with the referees.

"We want referees and players to talk to understand each other," Johnson said. "If it's infrequent and not distracting, that's fine."

SMosley21
09-25-2010, 06:03 PM
I'll admit, I didn't read the entire article, just the highlighted part in the OP

cgg
09-25-2010, 06:07 PM
Well that was what RealGM highlighted. You have to click through to ESPN to see the rest.

vapacersfan
09-25-2010, 07:33 PM
Did no one read the entire article?

I read that, and SAYING it and DOING it are two different things.

This will come down to how the refs enforce it, and I bet you that the NBA (internally if not publicly) changes the nature of this rule at least once throughout the season.

I say it sarcastically, but I agree with the previous poster. If players are not allowed to have emotions or talk to the refs to ask a simple question, then the refs should be suspended if they talk to players of when they get overly emotional and trying to be the "star" of the show

xBulletproof
09-25-2010, 07:51 PM
Most of this thread is a gross overreaction to absolutely nothing.

Kemo
09-25-2010, 08:19 PM
Um...you do realize that would be called a technical foul today right?
.

Not only that , but isn't there a hefty fine as well for each technical foul assessed?

vapacersfan
09-25-2010, 11:12 PM
Most of this thread is a gross overreaction to absolutely nothing.

I guess you could call giving the refs even more power "nothing"....

I guess you could call taking away any emotion from a player "nothing"...

I tend to call is "scary", but I am willing to concede it may be nothing if the refs handle it properly and use common sense and good judgment.

Then again, that is asking a lot of NBA refs.

vapacersfan
09-25-2010, 11:16 PM
Not only that , but isn't there a hefty fine as well for each technical foul assessed?

Yes, and as stated earlier after X amount of T's you get suspended for each T as well

xBulletproof
09-25-2010, 11:44 PM
I guess you could call giving the refs even more power "nothing"....

I guess you could call taking away any emotion from a player "nothing"...

I tend to call is "scary", but I am willing to concede it may be nothing if the refs handle it properly and use common sense and good judgment.

Then again, that is asking a lot of NBA refs.

None of those things are the case. It does none of what you're saying.

That's why it's overreacting over "nothing".

I don't know what some of you are reading to come to these conclusions.

Wage
09-26-2010, 05:25 AM
I'm saying, if the players can't complain at all, or even make gestures about a call, then the refs shouldn't be able to speak to the players either. Fans pay to see the players play, not to see the refs officiate.

Speak for yourself. I sure as hell wouldn't pay to watch an unofficiated basketball game.

vapacersfan
09-26-2010, 05:32 PM
None of those things are the case. It does none of what you're saying.

That's why it's overreacting over "nothing".

I don't know what some of you are reading to come to these conclusions.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5609817




NBA referees will have more reasons to issue technical fouls next season.


At the referees' annual meeting in Jersey City, N.J., on Thursday, the league announced the guidelines for technical fouls will expand to include "overt" player reactions to referee calls.


Referees have been instructed to call a technical for:

• Players making aggressive gestures, such as air punches, anywhere on the court.


• Demonstrative disagreement, such as when a player incredulously raises his hands, or smacks his own arm to demonstrate how he was fouled.

• Running directly at an official to complain about a call.

• Excessive inquiries about a call, even in a civilized tone.


In addition, referees have been instructed to consider calling technicals on players who use body language to question or demonstrate displeasure.



They can also consider technicals for players who "take the long path to the official", walking across the court to make their case.


"The proper mindset, in every player's mind, is abstinence. That is: to not complain," NBA executive vice president of basketball operations Stu Jackson said. "The focus here is to just play the game. We have a great game. We have great players. We have a great product. Let's focus on executing offense and defense and being highly competitive. Complaining doesn't have a part in our game, and complaining has never changed a non-call to a call, or a call to a non-call."


For the 2006-07 season, the NBA announced a similar crackdown, but the effect was short-lived. Officials say this time they expect the new policies to stick.


Ron Johnson, the NBA's senior vice president of referee operations, said audience research was a major factor behind the most recent change.


"Our players are more personally connected to fans than any other sports," Johnson said. "We don't have masks. ... There's nothing you can hide on the expression of an NBA players. ... People expect hockey players to be fighting. They expect baseball managers to be kicking dirt on umpires. But that's not our game. That's not what our fans want. They tell us in many many ways and I think we have to adjust to meet the needs of our league and our fans. It's a business."


Some reactions will not be penalized, Johnson said. "Heat of the moment" reactions, like a defensive player briefly raising his hands to show he had proper position, will be acceptable.


Johnson also said players showing frustration with themselves will not be penalized, and players will still be able to discuss the game with the referees.


"We want referees and players to talk to understand each other," Johnson said. "If it's infrequent and not distracting, that's fine."


NBA coaches were informed of the changes last week. Beginning Sept. 29th, the league will make presentations on the new rules to the players in all NBA cities.


"We don't want our players looking like they're complaining about calls on the court because it makes them look like complainers," Johnson said.



"You do that six times in a game, it really starts to look bad on television. A lot of these things may not look as bad in the arena. But on TV, when attention is focused on it, it stands out."


The part I bolded is 100% a JUDGMENT call.

xBulletproof
09-26-2010, 05:33 PM
The part I bolded is 100% a JUDGMENT call.

Yes, yes it is.

vapacersfan
09-26-2010, 05:36 PM
Wow, so in one post you say you do not agree with me at all (when I said I hate this because it gives the refs more power and makes more judgment call) and now you say it is........Color me confused.

xBulletproof
09-26-2010, 05:45 PM
Every blown whistle in an entire NBA game is a judgment call. This gives them no more, or no less power than they had before. Besides that, these are the same refs that ALLOWED this problem to manifest itself because they hesitated to call technicals on people when it was probably deserved. Yet, now all of sudden these power hungry monsters are going to abuse it to effect the outcomes of the games?

If you say so.

vapacersfan
09-26-2010, 05:55 PM
There are some judgement calls, and I can live with that. I personally think the refs are the worst in the NBA because they are given to much lee way (and also because some of them want to be the star of the show instead of in the background).

It does give them more power IMO. If a players simply walks over and says "Why was that a foul" and gets T'd up that's a joke. But if you have enough faith in NBA refs not to be power hungry then good for you.

I do agree the refs allowed this to get out of control, but doesn't it make sense for the refs to go extreme to FIX the problem they caused (esp since the people at top want it fixed)

Like I bolded above, they tried this before. However, that did not last long......if it did not work last time why will taking it one step farther work this time

But whatever. Like you said "if you say so"....

Time will tell if this matters. It would actually be incredibly comical if this rule ends up effecting superstars more then the regular guys. Of course I do not think it will

xBulletproof
09-26-2010, 06:07 PM
Your concerns are in the article you posted, but it seems you only read the bolded parts.

Anyway the belief that NBA refs want to be the stars, and even more so truly believing that they'll call a technical for asking a simple question is just :rolleyes: worthy at best.

I think this is one of those things that has been blown out of proportion on this message board. Other places I chat didn't even bat an eye at this announcement. There's some pretty ridiculous statements in this thread.

vapacersfan
09-26-2010, 06:11 PM
That is your opinion. I do not think EVERY ref will think that way, but I do think some like the attention.

As far as me reading, I read the whole article. Actually twice........

Yes, I talked to friends about this who did not think it was a big deal. I also talked to a friend who I work with who hates it. She said she thinks the refs will use it as a way to "clean" things up when they get out of hand, and you will see silly cheap T's because the refs can.

Trader Joe
09-27-2010, 11:55 AM
Did no one read the entire article?

So I guess I have to say...wasn't this sort of the point of the rule that was already in place? What are they really changing or are they just becoming even more specific because the refs weren't capable (competent?) of controlling the game the way it was intended to be controlled the whole time.

Since86
09-27-2010, 04:19 PM
Anyway the belief that NBA refs want to be the stars, and even more so truly believing that they'll call a technical for asking a simple question is just :rolleyes: worthy at best.

I guess Tim Duncan really didn't get T'd up for laughing. I could have swore he did......

Have you ever even watched Joey Crawford ref a game? The man is always in the spotlight.

Hicks
09-27-2010, 04:50 PM
I guess Tim Duncan really didn't get T'd up for laughing. I could have swore he did......

Have you ever even watched Joey Crawford ref a game? The man is always in the spotlight.

How could that be? These new rules weren't in effect yet... ;)

vapacersfan
09-27-2010, 05:04 PM
I guess Tim Duncan really didn't get T'd up for laughing. I could have swore he did......

Have you ever even watched Joey Crawford ref a game? The man is always in the spotlight.

Thank you.

For the life of me I could not remember his name.


I really wanted to find video of him ejecting him for the stare down contest, but I got sidetracked at watching the one ref do his entusiastic motions.

xBulletproof
09-27-2010, 05:31 PM
Congrats, you've found what we call ... "the exception to the rule". I never would have known that could happen. I mean we haven't known that exceptions are in everything on this planet since we were born, right?

You don't make decisions based on the exceptions to the rule, otherwise we'd ban cars because they kill people among 1,000,000 other stupid decisions.

Since86
09-28-2010, 01:11 PM
You need to watch more NBA basketball if you think that situation is the exception. Can anyone actually say what happened that night surprised them?

I know it didn't surprise me. It was Joey Crawford acting like Joey Crawford.

xBulletproof
09-28-2010, 04:12 PM
You need to watch more NBA basketball if you think that situation is the exception. Can anyone actually say what happened that night surprised them?

I know it didn't surprise me. It was Joey Crawford acting like Joey Crawford.

Whether it's Duncan getting a T for laughing, or you're talking about Joey Crawford .... both are exceptions. Not every NBA ref is (or acts like) Joey, and players rarely (never, that I know of besides this once) have gotten a tech for laughing.

No clue what angle you're trying to use to say they aren't exceptions, because if they weren't exceptions the NBA wouldn't be pushing for this, and we wouldn't be talking about it. The players would have already adjusted.

Since86
09-28-2010, 04:21 PM
You really don't think the league wishes they had more refs like Joey Crawford? He isn't some mid-level referee for them, he works high profile games including NBA Finals.

The fact that someone they think highly enough to give such high meaning games shows that they don't have an issue the way Joey refs a game. And if the league gives him games in the Finals that sends out the message to younger officials to emulate how he officiates, and they shouldn't.

Joey shouldn't be a mentor of officials. He makes himself become part of the game, and the NBA rewards him for it.

It's called establishing a standard, and the standard should be higher than what they have. The complaints were already out there that the officials weren't very good, and that the league doesn't monitor them harshly enough.

Let's be real here. There is a lot of complaining about NBA officials and how they call games. Not only because they interject themselves into them, but the lack of consistancy they show in regards to close-calls. Giving them more power to enforce judgement calls isn't going to work out.