PDA

View Full Version : Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book



Robertmto
06-16-2011, 03:34 AM
Anybody ever read it? I'm 8 chapters in and all I can say is....."WOW"

Really opens ur eyes. Its only 15 bucks at Barnes N Nobles, Borders etc and 10 most online retailers, do yourself a favor and pick it up

aero
06-16-2011, 03:59 AM
I thought it was blocked from being published ? Never knew they ended up releasing it. Ill have to go look for it then.

graphic-er
06-16-2011, 09:46 AM
Big Rob, please just tell me one thing, does it implicate David Stern in influencing the games in favor of the superstars and major markets?

Roaming Gnome
06-16-2011, 11:46 AM
I've read it, but when you want to discuss it, it doesn't hold much credibility with those you'd like to actually discuss it with. Personally, I can see a lot of what he talks about "possibly" happening, however.... I can see him over embellishing a lot of what he is talking about.

All in all, I enjoyed reading it!

Unclebuck
06-16-2011, 11:51 AM
Does he give any real insight to officiating or is it just over-the-top and bitter allegations

Robertmto
06-16-2011, 12:06 PM
Big Rob, please just tell me one thing, does it implicate David Stern in influencing the games in favor of the superstars and major markets?

of course lol


I've read it, but when you want to discuss it, it doesn't hold much credibility with those you'd like to actually discuss it with. Personally, I can see a lot of what he talks about "possibly" happening, however.... I can see him over embellishing a lot of what he is talking about.

All in all, I enjoyed reading it!

i'm sure parts are embellished, but with all the details; its hard to discredit the entire thing. I would imagine at least 80% of it to be true


Does he give any real insight to officiating or is it just over-the-top and bitter allegations
Its very insightful. Nothing like "He didn't like Kobe, so he continuously calls traveling and then makes fun of his mom". Instead he gives stories of WHY the refs dont like or do like players, and how for a few calls a game try to mess with the player. Everythign seems to be first hand, no "and i heard"

Roaming Gnome
06-16-2011, 12:16 PM
I felt there was a lot of good stuff talking about the day in day out stuff about the job before he really started talking about his own life and how he got hooked into the underworld. Really, the story is more about himself even though he doesn't hold back on how he feels there are issues with how the NBA handles its officials.

I do like how he got into how the certain officials personalities and interactions with players would influence how they may call a game. Honestly, I thought there was a lot of interesting and believable things in there. As MTO explained.... he lays some of the most egregious claims out very well that if you don't take them at face value.... you do at least think about them.


I do suggest reading it for the entertainment value.... Walk away with what you feel you can believe.

vapacersfan
06-16-2011, 12:55 PM
I did not realize this was released, thank you for the update. I just purchased it. Not sure how much of it I will beleive, but at the very least it should be a fun book to read

Dr. Awesome
06-17-2011, 02:07 PM
It sucks it's a discredited ref that came out with this, because while I'm convinced a lot of games are influenced, I also believe he is bitter and will make a lot of stuff up. I'd love to here what he says about Stern though.

HeliumFear
06-17-2011, 03:50 PM
I read one of his claims was that a certain official (Bavetta,I believe)would always give a bunch of calls to the home team if they were getting blown out to try and get them back in it.

A blog did a breakdown of the foul calls and showed the claim was bogus.

I'd link it but I read that forever ago and don't remember what site it was.

rock747
06-17-2011, 04:03 PM
I thought the NBA threatened to sue if it was written or something? I didn't know it actually was released. I will have to pick it up.

JB24
06-17-2011, 04:10 PM
I read one of his claims was that a certain official (Bavetta,I believe)would always give a bunch of calls to the home team if they were getting blown out to try and get them back in it.

A blog did a breakdown of the foul calls and showed the claim was bogus.

I'd link it but I read that forever ago and don't remember what site it was.


http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/11341/did-dick-bavetta-prop-up-weaker-teams

vapacersfan
06-17-2011, 04:15 PM
Thanks for that.

I just bought ratethenbarefs.com, and one of my projects for next year (or whereever we have a season) is to tape a game (not a Pacers) and go through and break down each call, observing what refs made them.

It will be a huge time consumer, but I think it might be fascinating to see if any trends exist.

Robertmto
06-19-2011, 07:23 PM
really enjoyed the book, took it with a grain of salt of course, but believe (however embellished) his claims were true about the refs and how the refs are "trained" before games

Pacersalltheway10
06-19-2011, 07:40 PM
really enjoyed the book, took it with a grain of salt of course, but believe (however embellished) his claims were true about the refs and how the refs are "trained" before games

What do you mean by "trained"

xBulletproof
06-19-2011, 08:50 PM
Guys a convicted liar and cheat. I wouldn't believe enough of what he said to read it. I hope nobody else would either. He has everything to gain by lying.

Robertmto
06-19-2011, 11:05 PM
What do you mean by "trained"

they show footage of missed calls and/or explain that certain players have been getting away with things and that they should be cracked down on. Only (as he explains it) they say it in "seedy" ways and leave it up to the refs as how to take it.


Guys a convicted liar and cheat. I wouldn't believe enough of what he said to read it. I hope nobody else would either. He has everything to gain by lying. hearing this makes me think you have NO idea of the situation. How did he cheat? He was convicted of NOTHING that has ANYTHING to do with cheating NBA games.

Mark
06-19-2011, 11:09 PM
I just finished reading this a couple weeks ago. Sadly I tend to believe 90% of what he wrote. He may have embellished, but in broad strokes most of what he said, I believe, is probably right.

I would recommend it to any NBA fan. If for no other reason than entertainment value. I always like hearing the kinda "behind the scenes" stories about players and so forth. There are a couple hilarious stories in there that come to mind.

1. Apparently Charles Barkley at some point got pissed at Donaghy and dumped a bucket of ice on Donaghy as he was showering post game.

2. He says Dick Bavetta once ran out of the shower buck naked to intercept media questions directed at the other refs. (Sorry for scarring you all for life with that mental image)

I was always a little leery of this whole scandal and how quickly Stern was able to make it disappear. This book gives a little insight to the other side.

rock747
06-19-2011, 11:20 PM
Guys a convicted liar and cheat. I wouldn't believe enough of what he said to read it. I hope nobody else would either. He has everything to gain by lying.

Does not mean he is lying about this. I'm sure the NBA would like you to believe he is such a dirty scumbag and that none of what he said could be true. Why would he want to take on the NBA? I don't see why he would be bitter towards the NBA at all?

rock747
06-20-2011, 01:15 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5914330n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

Everything he says seems pretty plausible here. The startling factor is that he had an almost 80% success rate betting on games and they weren't all just games he was officiating. The FBI guy also says he hasn't lied about anything.

Midcoasted
06-20-2011, 02:34 AM
Guys a convicted liar and cheat. I wouldn't believe enough of what he said to read it. I hope nobody else would either. He has everything to gain by lying.

You are dead wrong!!! He admitted to the FBI that the NBA is considered "entertainment" so therefore the league can legally dictate to the officials who wins and loses, who gets the calls, etc... The FBI never investigated this claim because it is LEGAL!!!

I'm sorry but when you talk to the FBI to get your sentenced REDUCED, you DON'T LIE! Everyone thinks "yea he would lie to them to get ouy of trouble," but the truth is if you lie to the FBI they WILL find out you were lying and ADD YEARS, not take them away. Donaghy helped friends bet on games, but the league still dictated alot to him on what he would call, who he would call, what team, if any, should get the favorable calls, etc...

He told the FBI the truth. The NBA is fixed by TPTB in the FO, and maybe even deeper than that. Look at the ruling on the Pat's "Spygate" in the NFL. The US Supreme Court ruled that the NFL is considered "entertainment" so a team can't be held criminally liable for "cheating," and the league offices in all major sports cannot be considered criminals for dictating to the refs who wins because their leagues are categorized as "ENTERTAINMENT!!!"

Everyone who believes the leagues are all 100 percent clean and honest, you are the biggest sheep I have ever seen. Sadly it is most of the population. Bahhhhh.

And all of you doubters watched Reggie never win one because of bad call after bad call, and truly believe the league didn't have a hand in that.

Midcoasted
06-20-2011, 02:40 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5914330n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

Everything he says seems pretty plausible here. The startling factor is that he had an almost 80% success rate betting on games and they weren't all just games he was officiating. The FBI guy also says he hasn't lied about anything.

I didn't even read you post fully but you were dead on. Read my post. It is what really happened. He never lied to the FBI. He told them the truth, which is why he didn't rot in prison forever. The FBI just can't do anything because it is legal.

How else would he have been right 80 percent of the time? He was an inside connection. He knew who the league would dictate to win certain games and he would bet on them. Still sometimes the other teams play so good, even the refs can't beat them. I've seen this happen several times in my life. Probably about 20 percent of the time, so it makes alot of sense.

ilive4sports
06-20-2011, 02:42 AM
Guys a convicted liar and cheat. I wouldn't believe enough of what he said to read it. I hope nobody else would either. He has everything to gain by lying.

And the NBA is full of saints who would never lie, especially about how games are reffed.

Midcoasted
06-20-2011, 02:44 AM
Does he give any real insight to officiating or is it just over-the-top and bitter allegations

Of course I thought I would see UncleBuck in here shilling it up for the league office.

Bball
06-20-2011, 04:06 AM
You don't need Donaghy's words to show that NBA reffing isn't always on the up and up... you instead have his actions.

vapacersfan
06-20-2011, 12:12 PM
Can I double thank you post Bball. Tripple?

I do not agree with the whole premise midcoasted posted (if it was fixed from the top down we would know by know, if from noone else other then Timmy) but I do think there are certain level of influences.

My book comes in today from Amazon. Look forward to reading it

MTM
06-20-2011, 02:20 PM
What's interesting to me is that Mark Boyle, a voice I greatly respect and someone who has credentials and experience with the league to be a voice we all listen to.... has argued that we should all stop complaining about the refs, and that all games are fairly officiated. I give Mr. Boyle's opinion a great deal of credibility, yet I still have questions about information from a guy like Donaghy - disgraced as he is.

rock747
06-20-2011, 02:33 PM
What's interesting to me is that Mark Boyle, a voice I greatly respect and someone who has credentials and experience with the league to be a voice we all listen to.... has argued that we should all stop complaining about the refs, and that all games are fairly officiated. I give Mr. Boyle's opinion a great deal of credibility, yet I still have questions about information from a guy like Donaghy - disgraced as he is.

I thought about that too. However, I think it is hard for someone to sway their opinions about an entity they have invested so much time and energy into. People also worry about their reputations when talking about situations such as this. I almost don't want to read the book because of how believable it could be.

I would genuinely like to believe that the NBA is 100% credible. However, after years of watching and so much smoke surrounding the league; its hard to logically wright all this stuff off.

Since86
06-20-2011, 02:37 PM
I love how people "discredit" Donaghy by pointing out that he's a convicted felon.

No ****. He's a convicted felon for doing exactly what he's writing about!!

That's like saying the Enron guys aren't credible, when they talk about accounting fraud.

PacerDude
06-20-2011, 04:01 PM
Haven't read it (probably won't) but as is usually the case with whistle blowers, the truth is somewhere inbetween.

indyaway
06-20-2011, 04:42 PM
If I recall correctly, one of the top sports gamblers in Vegas (the type that employs people just to place his bets, because casinos don't want to take them and his money can literally move a line) said that he relied quite a bit of referee scouting and stats. He didn't say they're fixing games, but did make clear that they do have measurable patters that influence to some degree the outcome of games. I'll try to look it up...

xBulletproof
06-20-2011, 08:41 PM
Guess I'm a sheep and whatever else people said because I don't believe this douche.

He fixed games to make money, being dishonest to fatten his own wallet. Now the more fantastical he makes the 'corruption' sound, the more attention he will garner and the more books he will sell. Again, it helps him gain more money by doing so. Excuse me while I don't go out of my way to believe it.

Guys like this are full of more **** than a colostomy bag. Whatever he has to do to put money in his pocket, and some people eat it up because they love a conspiracy theory behind anything, and everything. He probably works for the Illuminati too, and cuts Scully and Mulder in on the take so they don't expose him to the FBI as well.

Come on.

Since86
06-21-2011, 10:37 AM
Yeah you're right.

A guy who fixed games talking about how broke the system is has zero credibility on the subject.

Good thing the NBA caught him and stopped what he was doing. Wait, the NBA didn't catch him?

You mean to tell me that the NBA didn't know what was going on until the FBI knocked on their door?

WHOA!!!

The fact that the NBA had NO FREAKING CLUE what Donaghy was doing, shows that they could still be just as clueless to another referee doing the exact same thing. It's pretty damn obvious that the NBA either doesn't care, instructing refs to do so, or have absolutely no valuable way of grading their referees.

Think about this for a minute.

A referee purposely made bad calls in order to fix games, AND NO ONE KNEW. Not one person inside the NBA had any idea that it was happening.

I say, that the NBA might still have a problem and use Donaghy as my evidence that it could happen, and might still be happening.

You say, that the NBA doesn't have a problem and use Donaghy as your evidence, because he got caught.

The fact that he did do it, and got away with it, shows that the system that the NBA has in place right now, is broken. It's too easy to get away with fixing games.

If you see a cockroach run across your floor, and you kill it, do you think that you no longer have a roach problem? I doubt it.

Robertmto
06-21-2011, 12:10 PM
Guess I'm a sheep and whatever else people said because I don't believe this douche.

He fixed games to make money, being dishonest to fatten his own wallet. Now the more fantastical he makes the 'corruption' sound, the more attention he will garner and the more books he will sell. Again, it helps him gain more money by doing so. Excuse me while I don't go out of my way to believe it.

Guys like this are full of more **** than a colostomy bag. Whatever he has to do to put money in his pocket, and some people eat it up because they love a conspiracy theory behind anything, and everything. He probably works for the Illuminati too, and cuts Scully and Mulder in on the take so they don't expose him to the FBI as well.

Come on.

he was cleared by BOTH the NBA AND FBI from any charges of "fixing games" but again..we will let you tell the story

Midcoasted
06-21-2011, 12:20 PM
Robertmto, exactly! I don't know why xbulletproof can't get this through his head, but his bias is clearly showing. Donaghy didn't personally fix games to bet on them! Yea he bet on games. He didnt fix the games he called to bet on them. He bet on other games he didn't ref as well. Donaghy's whole point was that the league dictated to him which games to fix or not. Therefore, he had insider info which games would be fixed or not, and had his goons place the bets accordingly.

There is no other logical way he would have been right 80 percent of the time. How else does this just slip under the nose of the NBA? And noone in the NBA thought anything was wrong? Because he wasn't doing anything wrong, other than placing bets on games he had insider info on.

Since86
06-21-2011, 12:25 PM
he was cleared by BOTH the NBA AND FBI from any charges of "fixing games" but again..we will let you tell the story

I think you're arguing semantics. Donaghy did make calls to get the score in the range to win bets based on the spread. While he might not have determined the winner, he determined by how much.



What we haven't even talked about is that Donaghy, as told even by his associates that went down with him, was getting $2,000 per correct pick for games that he didn't even referee. He could pick winners by spread, just by knowing which referees were assigned games, and by knowing player's phsyical conditions. He was so good at it, that they raised his cut from $2,000 to $5,000. He was given more than $30,000 just for those picks, ON GAMES HE DIDN'T EVEN REFEREE.

vapacersfan
06-21-2011, 12:30 PM
Waiting for the people who say he is only 80% lucky.

As well as the people (same ones who defend the NBA at every twist and corner) to say the NBA did not catch him (which is a fact many seem to be missing) because nothing was, is, or ever will be wrong with the current system.

If it aint broke, why fix it, right?

shags
06-21-2011, 06:48 PM
Waiting for the people who say he is only 80% lucky.

As well as the people (same ones who defend the NBA at every twist and corner) to say the NBA did not catch him (which is a fact many seem to be missing) because nothing was, is, or ever will be wrong with the current system.

If it aint broke, why fix it, right?

What I have a problem with is people who believe David Stern tells the officials before the game that a certain team must win, like it's the WWE. I think that's just crazy. And yet by reading this thread, there are people who actually believe that. It's very frustrating, which is why I should be avoiding this thread.

I can believe that certain officials have conditional or unconditional biases towards certain players, coaches, or even owners. And that certain officials have tendencies in which they ref games. And that officials could know that, and place bets accordingly. I thought Donaghy didn't win by betting the spread, but by betting the over/under. I could be wrong on that though.

I'd like to see more transparency with officiating. I'd like to see the NBA do a video website explaining what the correct ruling on all rules is, and then rate the refs on calls they make throughout the games. Explain why certain refs are awarded playoff games, and why they assign refs to games throughout the season and postseason.

But I'd like to see a lottery where non-playoff teams have equivalent odds to get the top 3 picks. I doubt either will happen.

vapacersfan
06-21-2011, 08:51 PM
What I have a problem with is people who believe David Stern tells the officials before the game that a certain team must win, like it's the WWE. I think that's just crazy. And yet by reading this thread, there are people who actually believe that. It's very frustrating, which is why I should be avoiding this thread.


You have extremists on every side in everything in life. I never said it is fixed (via Stern per say) though Hicks did a poll a while back on how much people think the league is fixed. While most said they would not be surprised if Stern "dictated" who he wanted to win, most people believed it was just good natured "human bias" mixed in with "the refs suck and the NBA will never admit it" along with a few "cough Lakers Kings game 6 cough



I can believe that certain officials have conditional or unconditional biases towards certain players, coaches, or even owners. And that certain officials have tendencies in which they ref games. And that officials could know that, and place bets accordingly. I thought Donaghy didn't win by betting the spread, but by betting the over/under. I could be wrong on that though.


Agreed, and dont know enough about the Donaghy case to comment on the last point.



I'd like to see more transparency with officiating. I'd like to see the NBA do a video website explaining what the correct ruling on all rules is, and then rate the refs on calls they make throughout the games. Explain why certain refs are awarded playoff games, and why they assign refs to games throughout the season and postseason.


UB found a ref show they used to do on NBATV, but it seemed the website they had was quite dull. Still interesting, and the kind of stuff I would LOVE to see more of on a regular basis



But I'd like to see a lottery where non-playoff teams have equivalent odds to get the top 3 picks. I doubt either will happen.

Agreed

Robertmto
06-22-2011, 12:57 PM
he admits in the book to betting spreads, not over/unders

Slick Pinkham
06-22-2011, 02:08 PM
There is no other logical way he would have been right 80 percent of the time

He explained exactly how and why he bet on the Dick Bavetta games, but his explanation was thoroughly debunked. What Donagy said happened in that instance SIMPLY DID NOT HAPPEN. Dick Bavetta did not ref games in such a way that big underdogs benefitted.

Is there truth in some of the many things Donaghy says? Probably... it wouldn't make a broadly interesting story otherwise.

But I do pay attention when something that he alleges is so very specific that fact-checking is possible, and the result of that fact-checking is that his whole allegation is proven to be wrong.

Substantial claims require compelling evidence, not just entertaining story-telling.

I haven't read his book, but I would like to do so. It is important however, I would think, to read it with a bit of a skeptical mindset. And being "skeptical" is a healthy mindset: it merely means that if some contension doesn't seem plausible then you should demand some verifiable evidence as support. A skeptic is not a sheep, or a cynic, or a naysayer, or anything else that is wrongly associated with the word. It is merely a person who asks for substantial and independently testable evidence to be lined up when a significant claim is made. It is the mindset of every good scientist, of every good judge, of every good lawyer, of every good doctor, and of most thoughtful people in lots of walks of life. It is certainly not the mindset of lots of conspiracy theorists, however.

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:35 PM
Being skepitcal is a good thing, you're right. We just happen to place our skepticism in two different places.

I choose to be skeptical of a league who says that they don't have a refereeing problem when I see blantant super-star calls and biasness towards good teams, combined with the fact that one of their refs was charged and convicted of fixing games, and the league didn't even suspect anything was wrong.

I just don't understand how anyone can say the NBA does a good job policing their refs when the system allowed one of them to fix games for mutliple years without anyone noticing.

One would think that one scandal was enough.

Slick Pinkham
06-22-2011, 04:19 PM
...one of their refs was charged and convicted of fixing games.

You are being more than a little loose with the facts. Convictions in these two counts are not convictions in "fixing games":

1) conspiracy to engage in wire fraud
and
2) transmitting wagering information through interstate commerce

He does allege that the 6th game of the 2002 Western Conference Finals was "fixed" but claims that he was not involved. So far there seems to have been little corroboration for this allegation.

vapacersfan
06-22-2011, 04:24 PM
You are being more than a little loose with the facts. Convictions in these two counts are not convictions in "fixing games":

1) conspiracy to engage in wire fraud
and
2) transmitting wagering information through interstate commerce

He does allege that the 6th game of the 2002 Western Conference Finals was "fixed" but claims that he was not involved. So far there seems to have been little corroboration for this allegation.


Leaving out the last point, are points 1 and 2 not enough to raise red flags for you? Espcially if you are a senior manager/owner of the NBA?

vapacersfan
06-22-2011, 04:24 PM
As for game 6, my opinion is it was either fixed or one of the worst reffed games in the history of the NBA, and the NBA choose it would be better to cover their ears and say "la la la la" instead of admitting they screwed up

Slick Pinkham
06-22-2011, 04:37 PM
Leaving out the last point, are points 1 and 2 not enough to raise red flags for you? Espcially if you are a senior manager/owner of the NBA?

It is certainly worrisome.

Even Donaghy doesn't ever claim that he fixed games as to who won or lost, though.

He claims to have started out by passing on insider info, like for instance "I came to the stadium and Kobe was limping and Derek Fisher was coughing" and "Refs X and Y have that game and they are known to have quick whistles, which should favor team Z"

He then was apparently not good enough at that, since he got in over his head in debt to gamblers and sought to make it up by literally betting on every game possible (or maybe he got addicted to the thrill?). When he was still in hot water, he went to driving up the scores with an abundance of late whistles in games he reffed.

I won't minimize what he did. I won't overblow it either and claim that he was some sort of robot aligning game outcomes to the wishes of David Stern or anyone else, or even working in cahoots with any other refs. He doesn't claim that, to my knowledge (again, I haven't read the book). He was in fact isolating his behavior from other refs, scrambling to cover his own completely out-of-control personal gambling problem. Bad refs exist. Crooked refs even exist. I need a little more than the sayso of Mr. Donaghy to think that the NBA is pro wrestling on hardwood, however.

vapacersfan
06-22-2011, 04:43 PM
It is certainly worrisome.

Even Donaghy doesn't ever claim that he fixed games as to who won or lost, though.

He claims to have started out by passing on insider info, like for instance "I came to the stadium and Kobe was limping and Derek Fisher was coughing" and "Refs X and Y have that game and they are known to have quick whistles, which should favor team Z"

He then was apparently not good enough at that, since he got in over his head in debt to gamblers and sought to make it up by literally betting on every game possible (or maybe he got addicted to the thrill?). When he was still in hot water, he went to driving up the scores with an abundance of late whistles in games he reffed.

I won't minimize what he did. I won't overblow it either and claim that he was some sort of robot aligning game outcomes to the wishes of David Stern or anyone else, or even working in cahoots with any other refs. He doesn't claim that, to my knowledge (again, I haven't read the book). He was in fact isolating his behavior from other refs, scrambling to cover his own completely out-of-control personal gambling problem. Bad refs exist. Crooked refs even exist. I need a little more than the sayso of Mr. Donaghy to think that the NBA is pro wrestling on hardwood, however.

Never argued any of that, and you stated it well.

However, I still have a hard time explaining many of the things that happened, and will comtinue to roll my eyes at the way the NBA handles many situations with refs. Hell, the fact they never caught Timmy D says enough for me right there.

Since86
06-22-2011, 04:44 PM
It is certainly worrisome.

Even Donaghy doesn't ever claim that he fixed games as to who won or lost, though.

Yes he did. He said he made calls to cover the point spread. That's "fixing" games.

As far as the charges he was convicted of, there is no such charge of "fixing games." 6 players from Toledo were point shaving, and they were charged with "conspiracy to commit sports bribery" but I guess they didn't "fix" games either.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4146980

vapacersfan
06-22-2011, 04:45 PM
Stupid question. What is point shaving?

Since86
06-22-2011, 04:52 PM
Stupid question. What is point shaving?

Purposefully missing shots or letting the other team score to cover the point spread.

MTM
06-22-2011, 04:55 PM
Point shaving - when a game that should be won by 8-10 points is only won by 5-7 points because a Ref makes calls benefitting the losing team, or a player on the winning team intentionally makes plays that allow the other team to score a few "meaningless" points. This is most crucial when you are betting the "spread". The team that is supposed to win still wins, but not by as many points.

I started reading the Donaghy book last night. I finished Bill Simmons' book of basketball (700+ pages) last month, so it is interesting to read them back to back. So far, it appears that what Donaghy did was apply his knowledge of interpersonal relationships to betting situations in games he did and did not ref. But I am only 2 chapters in.

Slick Pinkham
06-22-2011, 04:55 PM
I think that a great many refs are capable of making huge errors in calling games, and the human element is a simpler explanation of bad officiating as opposed to league orchestration of the game outcome.

I would never say that the latter is impossible, just that to take that stance would require some pretty substantial corroborating evidence, at least to me. I don't think that the NBA is some super-capable organization that would sucessfully cover all of its tracks if it wanted to fix games, so corroboration could be somewhat easy to find if it existed.

As a side point, one also has to ask if the reward of taking such actions (fixing a game to prolong a series by one game, for a marginal amount of extra TV ad revenue) would be worth the substantial risk of it being uncovered and devasting your sport.

I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of Mr. Stern and ever wishing to take that risk, even setting aside personal morality and just considering risk-reward ratio and consequences.

vapacersfan
06-22-2011, 05:02 PM
Last point:

What if it is no Stern. What if it is select mid level managers or select officials?

Either way, good conversation. Look forward to reading the book

Since86
06-22-2011, 05:03 PM
Sports gambling expert R. J. Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R._J._Bell&action=edit&redlink=1), president of sports betting information site Pregame.com, tracked every game Donaghy worked from 2003 to 2007.

He discovered that during the two seasons investigated by the NBA, the teams involved scored more points than expected by the Las Vegas sports books 57 percent of the time. In the previous two seasons, this only happened 44 percent of the time.

According to Bell, the odds of such a discrepancy are 1 in 1,000, and there was "a 99.9 percent chance that these results would not have happened without an outside factor". He also found 10 straight games in 2007 in which Donaghy worked the game that the point spread moved 1.5 points or more before the tip—an indication that big money had been wagered on the game. The big money won every time—another indication that "something (was) going on".

However, Bell suggested that there was no way anyone who wasn't in on the fix could have known that something was amiss about Donaghy's actions during a game; he said it would have been another year at the earliest before anyone could have caught on.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-23>[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Donaghy#cite_note-23)</SUP>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Donaghy#Betting_scandal

What other proof do you need? He said he did it, he was convicted of doing it, and there is statisical evidence he did it.

Human error isn't something that you can measure.

Donaghy won $30,000 betting on games that he didn't even referee. He was so good at it that his cut went from $2,000 to $5,000. They aren't going to give him a big cut, and it takes a TON of money to move lines.

If Donaghy is/was that good at just merely guessing games, then he should have quit being a ref and sat at home collecting all the money instead of a small cut.

Slick Pinkham
06-22-2011, 05:08 PM
Yes he did. He said he made calls to cover the point spread. That's "fixing" games.


According to the wiki article (sorry I don't have a better source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Donaghy) he drove up the overall score in his games during that period by calling more fouls on both teams, i.e. not affecting the spread ,but affecting the "over" since more points were scored than predicted by the "line" in 57% of his games.

Even an analysis of the calls that he made couldn't establish a correlation to his whistles favoring any one team, the winner or the loser, just that he made more calls that drove up scoring for both teams, late in games, and apparently when the outcome was decided.

The 57% figure (as opposed to higher) tells you even he wasn't going overboard and he would lose his bet rather than do something too obviously crooked. (I guess he planned on not getting caught).

edit: No, I am not saying that Donaghy's biased calls to affect scoring was human error. That would be stupid. It is a serious charge, but the serious evidence I need to see, as a skeptic, was indeed provided: his own admission. This was corroborated by the stats showing he affected games in favor of the "over".

I am merely saying that the overwhelming majority of bad officiating, in my personal opinion, is due to human error.

It's kind of funny, but I'm not even sure that Donaghy was accused of bad officiating before he was caught. He seem to pick his spots well enough. Hardly anyone would notice if the Kings beat the Grizzlies 102-93 instead of 96-87 in a nondescript regular season game due to a rash of late whistles.

Robertmto
06-22-2011, 11:04 PM
Yes he did. He said he made calls to cover the point spread. That's "fixing" games.

no, he never said that

in this book at least

proof?

Since86
06-23-2011, 09:42 AM
He called "more" fouls because he was trying to get the spread right, not drive up the score. Although the over/under would be influenced by it, but I don't think that was the main intent.



They did not spell out specific games that Donaghy officiated and placed bets on, nor would they say if he made calls during the game to help a team cover the spread.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2975532




"Referee Joe Crawford had a grandson who idolized [Allen] Iverson," writes Donaghy. "I once saw Crawford bring the boy out of the stands and onto the floor during warm-ups to meet the superstar. Iverson and Crawford’s grandson were standing there, shaking hands, smiling, talking about all kinds of things. If Joe Crawford was on the court, I was pretty sure Iverson’s team would win or at least cover the spread."


http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2009/12/did-tim-donaghy-really-win-70-of-his.html


With Donaghy it was after being investigated by the FBI for allegations that he bet on games, making calls that affected the point spread.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/victor-and-matt-sports-podcast/2011/05/12/disgraced-nba-referee-tim-donaghy-did-help-the-game-now-putting-life-back-together/

Here's a review of his book


YOU'RE JIMMY BATTISTA, a professional gambler with humongous lines of credit with bookmakers from Singapore to South Philly. You have a rogue NBA referee named Tim Donaghy in your pocket.

He's picking winners of games he's officiating (against the spread) and he's hitting at a 78 percent clip, and you're betting with both fists from Taiwan to Timbuktu. He's 37-10 that one magical 2006-07 season, which means you are reading this on the Internet on that Caribbean island you own, sunning yourself beside the Olympic-sized pool alongside your eight-bedroom mansion.

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/stan_hochman/20110216_Book_offers_fascinating_look_into_Donaghy _scandal.html

I've already linked to another article talking about how the point spread would move up to 1.5points on the games that Donaghy worked, indicating that big money had been bet.


EDIT: It's also worth noting that he denies he "fixed" games, but he fails to understand that when something in a game is already predetermined, like the winner/score/point spread, it's still "fixing" the game, because you're making sure you're going to cover a bet.

While he might not have picked the winner and loser of the actual game, he picked the winners and losers of the people betting.

IMHO, he's just trying to justify his actions to himself.

Robertmto
06-23-2011, 04:06 PM
all those allegations and investigations you just quoted....he was acquitted off by the NBA and FBI. And he never once ADMITTED to making calls to cover point spreads, so again you are spewing slander as fact is all of your posts.

(for the record, im not standing up for the guy, but the league IS fixed IMO)

Since86
06-23-2011, 04:09 PM
In order for it to be slander, I have to know I'm wrong. And anyways, you must have missed the part where I said "this is a review OF HIS BOOK."

It's the very last one I quoted, but here it is again.

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/stan_hochman/20110216_Book_offers_fascinating_look_into_Donaghy _scandal.html

EDIT: And besides, one of them is a freaking quote from Donaghy himself. The one where he says Iverson's team would either win OR ATLEAST COVER THE SPREAD.

Robertmto
06-23-2011, 04:12 PM
yes, he bet games HE REFFED AGAINST THE SPREAD, where does that say he FIXED GAMES, AGAINST THE SPREAD? you are just assuming

Since86
06-23-2011, 04:26 PM
yes, he bet games HE REFFED AGAINST THE SPREAD, where does that say he FIXED GAMES, AGAINST THE SPREAD? you are just assuming

Wait a minute....

You're going to try and tell me that he called the games 100% to the best of his ability, regardless if he was going to cover the spread or not?

HAHAHAHA okay....

If you were him, and you had a bet riding on a game with a point spread of, say, five points, wouldn't you try to influence the game to make sure that you covered your bet? Most certainly.

And you're definitely going to do that if you are giving the mob advice on who they should place their bets with.

If he has money riding on a game that he referee'd, you can bet your *** he made calls to help make sure he won that bet.

EDIT: That's like being caught with a test answer key, and trying to say that you didn't look at the answers, you just wanted to see the questions. Of course you're going to fix the game, if you have the power to do so!!

EDIT2: And he wasn't charged of "fixing" games because, like it's already been said, the NBA is entertainment. The general public isn't guaranteed any outcome at all. Illegal betting is against the law. Fixing a game/race/whatever is not.

Which is why wrestling, eventhough it's fixed, is legal.

rock747
07-08-2011, 12:26 AM
Just finished reading the book. I recommend it to any NBA fan. Everything he says is reasonable and does not come off as bitter in any way. In fact, it all seems very plausible. He passed polygraph tests that confirmed he was telling the truth about Dickb Bavetta being brought in to manipulate outcome of games. Pretty interesting. The book flows well too. A good read. Even if you are very skeptical, it is still worth it.

Robertmto
07-08-2011, 02:11 AM
Wait a minute....

You're going to try and tell me that he called the games 100% to the best of his ability, regardless if he was going to cover the spread or not?

HAHAHAHA okay....

If you were him, and you had a bet riding on a game with a point spread of, say, five points, wouldn't you try to influence the game to make sure that you covered your bet? Most certainly.

And you're definitely going to do that if you are giving the mob advice on who they should place their bets with.

If he has money riding on a game that he referee'd, you can bet your *** he made calls to help make sure he won that bet.

EDIT: That's like being caught with a test answer key, and trying to say that you didn't look at the answers, you just wanted to see the questions. Of course you're going to fix the game, if you have the power to do so!!

EDIT2: And he wasn't charged of "fixing" games because, like it's already been said, the NBA is entertainment. The general public isn't guaranteed any outcome at all. Illegal betting is against the law. Fixing a game/race/whatever is not.

Which is why wrestling, eventhough it's fixed, is legal.

THE NBA CLEARED HIM OF ANY "FIXING" OF GAMES!!!! What don't u understand? Are you REALLY trying to tell me that IF PLAUSIBLE Stern wouldn't have burned TD's reputation on a stake just to make the NBA look innocent?

Everytime i read this forum you refuse to be wrong. convinced you argue just to have something to do all day

Since86
07-08-2011, 09:30 AM
Wow, two weeks later.

Obviously you're not taking the time to actually read what I wrote.

He cannot be charged with "fixing" any games. BECAUSE IT'S ENTERTAINMENT.

We can pause so you can read that again. Read it a second time? Okay good, we can continue.

If a "fixed" game was illegal, then we wouldn't have professional wrestling. Contrary to popular belief, WWE TNA whatever you watch is fake. The matches are FIXED.

OH NO! FIXED MATCHES! CALL THE COPS!!

But sadly, there isn't a crime being commited. It's the exact same thing with any professional sport. Football, baseball, basketball, badminton, whatever sport you want to think of.

So because entertainment cannot be "fixed" there is no "fixing" crime towards Donaghy.

What you're failing to understand is that he was charged with crimes AS A RESULT of him fixing the games. He "fixed" the games in order to bet on them. "Fixing" a game isn't illegal, betting on them is.

Thank you for the personal jab though. I appreciate it. Now back to your reading comprehension lessons.

EDIT: And Stern didn't "burn" Donaghy's reputation because Donaghy did a pretty good job of that himself. Stern wanted as much distance from him as possible, which is why he called him "rogue." It was a dicey situation for the NBA, and Stern wasn't going to roll around in the mud with him.

He tried washing his hands of the situation as quickly and as quietly as possible to keep the image of the NBA, and it's officials, in tact as much as possible.

It wouldn't have done any good to push Donaghy's face in the mud, because all it would have done was put mud on Stern's hands.

But whatever, keep telling yourself that he bet on games that he referee'd but didn't influence the outcome at all. Because we all know a convict wouldn't cheat. :rolleyes:

rock747
07-08-2011, 07:21 PM
Wow, two weeks later.

Obviously you're not taking the time to actually read what I wrote.

He cannot be charged with "fixing" any games. BECAUSE IT'S ENTERTAINMENT.

We can pause so you can read that again. Read it a second time? Okay good, we can continue.

If a "fixed" game was illegal, then we wouldn't have professional wrestling. Contrary to popular belief, WWE TNA whatever you watch is fake. The matches are FIXED.

OH NO! FIXED MATCHES! CALL THE COPS!!

But sadly, there isn't a crime being commited. It's the exact same thing with any professional sport. Football, baseball, basketball, badminton, whatever sport you want to think of.

So because entertainment cannot be "fixed" there is no "fixing" crime towards Donaghy.

What you're failing to understand is that he was charged with crimes AS A RESULT of him fixing the games. He "fixed" the games in order to bet on them. "Fixing" a game isn't illegal, betting on them is.

Thank you for the personal jab though. I appreciate it. Now back to your reading comprehension lessons.

EDIT: And Stern didn't "burn" Donaghy's reputation because Donaghy did a pretty good job of that himself. Stern wanted as much distance from him as possible, which is why he called him "rogue." It was a dicey situation for the NBA, and Stern wasn't going to roll around in the mud with him.

He tried washing his hands of the situation as quickly and as quietly as possible to keep the image of the NBA, and it's officials, in tact as much as possible.

It wouldn't have done any good to push Donaghy's face in the mud, because all it would have done was put mud on Stern's hands.

But whatever, keep telling yourself that he bet on games that he referee'd but didn't influence the outcome at all. Because we all know a convict wouldn't cheat. :rolleyes:

Umm, it's not illegal to fix contests that are legally bet on? I think a problem would arise here... Are you sure about that? Also, it has been proven that Donahgy did not fix games.

Robertmto
07-09-2011, 11:23 AM
its sad that u think that is true.

vapacersfan
07-09-2011, 06:11 PM
Holy bump....

Since86
07-11-2011, 09:49 AM
Umm, it's not illegal to fix contests that are legally bet on? I think a problem would arise here... Are you sure about that? Also, it has been proven that Donahgy did not fix games.

Like horseracing? Yes, it is illegal to "fix" a horse race by giving a horse dope. No, it's not illegal because it was "unfair," but rather it's illegal because it's abusing the horse.

Do boxers get arrested for taking a dive? No.

EDIT: I'm not using this because it's wiki, but because of the language being used because obviously a couple of you are having trouble wrapping your minds around the concept.




Match fixing does not necessarily involve deliberately losing a match. Occasionally, teams have been accused of deliberately playing to a draw or a fixed score where this ensures some mutual benefit (e.g. both teams advancing to the next stage of a competition.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_fixing#Match_fixing_to_a_draw_or_a_fixed_sco re

Oh, and look at this...

Fixing the result of a more particular proposition might be seen as less likely to be noticed - for example, scandalized former National Basketball Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association) referee Tim Donaghy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Donaghy) has been alleged to have perpetrated some of his fixes by calling games in such a manner as to ensure more points than expected were scored by both teams, thus affecting "over-under (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-under)" bets on the games whilst also ensuring that Donaghy at least did not look to be outright biased (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias). Also, bets are increasingly being taken on individual performances in team sporting events, which in turn has seen the rise of a phenomenon known as spot-fixing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot-fixing), although it is currently unlikely that enough is bet on an average player to allow someone to place a substantial wager on them without being noticed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_fixing#Individual_performance_in_team_sports

And here's a good example at a team throwing a game, and it wasn't illegal.


For example, in the closing game of the 2004 season, the Indianapolis Colts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_Colts) faced the Denver Broncos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Broncos). With a win, the Broncos would advance to the playoffs as a wild card and face the Colts as their first round playoff opponent. It would seem the Colts had little incentive to win as their loss would ensure that they would play a team they dominated in the 2003 Wild Card game. Sure enough, the Colts rested their starters, lost the game, and went on to blow out the Broncos the following week in the playoffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_fixing#Better_playoff_chances

Losing a game on purpose? No way....ARREST THEM!!!!

MTM
07-11-2011, 10:56 AM
I too just finished the book. It was a really fast read. It was incredibly interesting.

It was written from a guy who admits readily that he made life mistakes and got himself screwed up, lost his marriage, his kids, his career, his reputation. He names the names of people he thinks are responsible, and he defends those that weren't. Some were his friends, and now some no longer talk to him because of what he did.

I thought as far as the NBA topic was concerned, he was telling the truth - or at least his version of the truth as far as he remembered it. Sometimes I wondered if he knew more about a couple of people, or he was protecting a couple people, but generally the stories seemed to have a high level of veracity. He names the names of refs and the vendettas that they have against certain players and how he gambled based on refs' personal habits. He explains how Dick Bavetta loves close games and was very much a yes-man for the league in calling big games. In this way, he believes Bavetta affected outcomes - perhaps not deliberately, but subtly. That, to me, makes much more sense than some back office conspiracy theory.

The only two times I thought he was lying or holding back was when he mentions a lady "friend" that he was accused of having an affair with. He claims they didn't. His treatment of the situation in the book implies he did. The other involves the distinction he makes between "fixing" games and just using personal insights to bet. I think he did both, but he was very personally affected by his dad's view of him and his kids' views of him, and they seemed to be more "ok" with him if he didn't "fix" games. So I think he wrote the book to apologize to them and argue he didn't. I think he probably did. The distinction, though, doesn't make the rest of the stories false.

His chapter on how to fix the NBA and the reffing problems is very interesting. Some of the ideas are ones floated on here regularly.

Finally - this book helped explain to me how and why some of the mid-90s Pacers/Knicks games seemed to be reffed in such a manipulative way. He didn't name those series directly, but if there was referee manipulation involved, then those games make sense to me. And I really believe that a couple of times Reggie was able to beat the Knicks AND the refs. I always had believed it, having watched the games and feeling like some games were being subtly massaged toward one outcome or another. Donaghy admits that this type of thing happens all the time.

The stunning thing to me in the book was that he learned, through his involvement in the underworld, that at least 2 refs in the 90s were on payrolls of gambling bosses, but he didn't know who - and that was before he got heavily involved himself.

So you had an NBA scheme that instructed refs to "focus" on certain things about a specific team in the pre-game meeting (for example hypothetically, watch the shuffling of feet by Reggie, watch the illegal screens by Dale, etc.), then you had refs with certain preferences (Dick Bavetta's preference for close games, which may explain the phantom 4-point play by Larry Johnson), and refs with certain dislike of players, along with a few refs who are blatantly on the take. Shake it up, add it all together, and that explains the reffing in the NBA for the past 20 years. I believe every word of THAT.

Unclebuck
07-11-2011, 11:18 AM
So you had an NBA scheme that instructed refs to "focus" on certain things about a specific team in the pre-game meeting (for example hypothetically, watch the shuffling of feet by Reggie, watch the illegal screens by Dale, etc.), then you had refs with certain preferences (Dick Bavetta's preference for close games, which may explain the phantom 4-point play by Larry Johnson), and refs with certain dislike of players, along with a few refs who are blatantly on the take. Shake it up, add it all together, and that explains the reffing in the NBA for the past 20 years. I believe every word of THAT.


Sure Refs are asked to focus on certain things before a game that to me sounds like the right approach. if the prior playoff game the refs missed 4 traveling calls on patrick Ewing, sure it makes sense that the crew for the next game should be told to watch for Ewing traveling, maybe give him a warning the first time and then call it when he gains an advantage.

I don't understand how the 4-point play is a sign of anything, except the ref made a completely horrible call and that ref Jess Kersey lost a ton of $$ as a result of that one call.

Sure refs are people and sure they have personal biases against certain players, especially if they complain all the time.

Since86
07-11-2011, 11:20 AM
To be fair, you also don't think Tim Donaghy is a sign of anything.

Unless David Stern himself comes out and admits something, you're not going to believe it. We already know that.

rock747
07-11-2011, 01:11 PM
I thought as far as the NBA topic was concerned, he was telling the truth - or at least his version of the truth as far as he remembered it. Sometimes I wondered if he knew more about a couple of people, or he was protecting a couple people, but generally the stories seemed to have a high level of veracity. He names the names of refs and the vendettas that they have against certain players and how he gambled based on refs' personal habits. He explains how Dick Bavetta loves close games and was very much a yes-man for the league in calling big games. In this way, he believes Bavetta affected outcomes - perhaps not deliberately, but subtly. That, to me, makes much more sense than some back office conspiracy theory.



I did not get the feeling the Bavetta affecting the outcomes was not so deliberate. In fact didn't he even qoute him saying things like, "San Antonio needs this win, that's why they have me working it." Then when given the polygraph test and asked if this type of thing was true, he passed.

rock747
07-11-2011, 01:19 PM
Like horseracing? Yes, it is illegal to "fix" a horse race by giving a horse dope. No, it's not illegal because it was "unfair," but rather it's illegal because it's abusing the horse.

Do boxers get arrested for taking a dive? No.


Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that isn't the institution manipulating the outcome. That is the individual.

The colts deciding the lose the game... wasn't the NFL telling them not to win. The colts had it locked up already.

If the NFL came to the Colts organization and said, "hey we want to get teh Broncos in the playoffs, don't win", don't you think that might be a bit more of a problem?

The gambling community knew the Colts situation and realized that they would probably rest starters, etc..

rock747
07-11-2011, 01:20 PM
Sure Refs are asked to focus on certain things before a game that to me sounds like the right approach. if the prior playoff game the refs missed 4 traveling calls on patrick Ewing, sure it makes sense that the crew for the next game should be told to watch for Ewing traveling, maybe give him a warning the first time and then call it when he gains an advantage.

I don't understand how the 4-point play is a sign of anything, except the ref made a completely horrible call and that ref Jess Kersey lost a ton of $$ as a result of that one call.

Sure refs are people and sure they have personal biases against certain players, especially if they complain all the time.

Have you read the book?

Since86
07-11-2011, 01:28 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that isn't the institution manipulating the outcome. That is the individual.

The colts deciding the lose the game... wasn't the NFL telling them not to win. The colts had it locked up already.

If the NFL came to the Colts organization and said, "hey we want to get teh Broncos in the playoffs, don't win", don't you think that might be a bit more of a problem?

The gambling community knew the Colts situation and realized that they would probably rest starters, etc..

Uh....wrestling?

And why would it be a problem? What law(s) would be broken?

The NFL, or whoever, can fix as many games as they want too. It wouldn't violate anyone's right, it wouldn't cheat anyone. It doesn't harm anyone in any way, what so ever.

Would it be a bad idea for a league to fix games? Most certainly. We like the idea that anything can happen. Popularity would plummet, yes.

But none of that leads to any legal or civil issues.

Geesh, just take a look at the BCS. Certain teams start out way ahead of the competition just because they're in a certain conference, and isn't based on anything other than the idea that major conferences should be better.

And we're talking about the difference between losing a couple hundred thousand dollars to go to a bowl game and profiting a couple of million dollars.

Boise State has lost out on how much money just because they don't play in a power conference, and we're going to argue whether or not it's illegal to play a game to a determined outcome because fans will feel cheated?

Come on now.

Unclebuck
07-11-2011, 01:45 PM
Have you read the book?


No, have not read it, I was only spcifically commenting on the post that I quoted.

I certainly don't want to spend my money on the book., If someone wants to send it to me free, I'd read it

rock747
07-11-2011, 01:46 PM
Uh....wrestling?

And why would it be a problem? What law(s) would be broken?

The NFL, or whoever, can fix as many games as they want too. It wouldn't violate anyone's right, it wouldn't cheat anyone. It doesn't harm anyone in any way, what so ever.

Would it be a bad idea for a league to fix games? Most certainly. We like the idea that anything can happen. Popularity would plummet, yes.

But none of that leads to any legal or civil issues.

Geesh, just take a look at the BCS. Certain teams start out way ahead of the competition just because they're in a certain conference, and isn't based on anything other than the idea that major conferences should be better.

And we're talking about the difference between losing a couple hundred thousand dollars to go to a bowl game and profiting a couple of million dollars.

Boise State has lost out on how much money just because they don't play in a power conference, and we're going to argue whether or not it's illegal to play a game to a determined outcome because fans will feel cheated?

Come on now.

Professional Wrestling?

Do people gamble on professional wrestling?
It is known by everyone that professional wrestling outcomes are predetermined. It is accepted. People could get their hands on that information before hand.

People gamble on the NBA, there are odds put on teams. If the games are manipulated to favor certain teams, that would allow for instances like Donahgy's to happen. A 75% success rate is unheard of.

It's not really about cheating the fans, but the people who place bets on games that are susposed to be legitimate sporting contests, might be getting legitly screwed.

I just have a hard time believing you can present something as being legitimate when its not.

Since86
07-11-2011, 01:48 PM
Betting on the NBA is illegal. Just because you can go online and make wagers doesn't mean that it's legal.

Look at all the poker sites that have been shut down for illegal gambling.

So your argument is flawed at the most basic fundamental level.

EDIT: Do you even know that the 1919 Black Sox scandal resulted in the players being acquitted of charges?

They admitted to throwing the World Series, and they walked.

Hicks
07-11-2011, 01:53 PM
Pro wrestling is more of a kind of physical theatre than it is a sport. I wouldn't bundle it with leagues like the NFL or the NBA. Betting on pro wresting would be like betting on the outcome of a new play or the ending of a movie (a movie where all spoilers were underwraps some how, I guess).

rock747
07-11-2011, 01:54 PM
Betting on the NBA is illegal. Just because you can go online and make wagers doesn't mean that it's legal.

Look at all the poker sites that have been shut down for illegal gambling.

So your argument is flawed at the most basic fundamental level.

What? Betting on the NBA is not illegal. That is assuming you aren't an official, player, coach, etc.

Perhaps you are the one with the flawed argument here?

Since86
07-11-2011, 02:01 PM
In 99.9% of the country, it's illegal.

There are very few places that it can be done.

EDIT: That law essentially keeps revenue-starved states on the outside of an estimated $80 billion to $380 billion illegally bet on sporting events in the United States each year. Those estimates dwarf the $2.5 billion wagered on sports in Nevada, according to the 1999 National Gambling Impact Study. Including an $18 billion multistate pari-mutuel betting circuit, regulated betting doesn't even equal a quarter of the cash handled by backroom bookies.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/27/cx_aw_0127gambling.html

Since86
07-11-2011, 02:03 PM
Pro wrestling is more of a kind of physical theatre than it is a sport. I wouldn't bundle it with leagues like the NFL or the NBA. Betting on pro wresting would be like betting on the outcome of a new play or the ending of a movie (a movie where all spoilers were underwraps some how, I guess).

I agree, but what's the difference between sports and a movie, in legal terms?

Hicks
07-11-2011, 02:05 PM
I agree, but what's the difference between sports and a movie, in legal terms?

Beats me; I just thought you were rolling with the idea that you could lump WWE an NFL together with regards to the concept of both being equally valid in fixing games, and I'm not sure that's the case at all.

With sports, there's the presumption of fair play (to a point; of course we know it's not that simple), whereas WWE isn't expected to be fair play because it's not a real competition.

Since86
07-11-2011, 02:09 PM
I'm not saying wrestling and other sports are the same, but rather other sports have the right/opportunity to be the same, if they wanted too.

We, as fans, are not protected by laws so games are fair and that they aren't pre-determined.

If the NBA wanted to fix every single game of the season, they can do that. Yes, they would see consequences, but not legal ones.

Hicks
07-11-2011, 02:11 PM
I have no idea if they would have the right to or not, but they'd damn well better make it clear up front that that is what they're doing; they better not be quiet about that kind of a decision.

vapacersfan
07-11-2011, 03:31 PM
Betting on the NBA is illegal. Just because you can go online and make wagers doesn't mean that it's legal.

Look at all the poker sites that have been shut down for illegal gambling.

So your argument is flawed at the most basic fundamental level.

EDIT: Do you even know that the 1919 Black Sox scandal resulted in the players being acquitted of charges?

They admitted to throwing the World Series, and they walked.

Can't you bet on sports outcomes in Vegas?

Since86
07-11-2011, 03:53 PM
I followed that up. Yes, Vegas and New Jersey but even as big as they are they still make up a very small percentage of betting.

99.9% of sports betting is done illegally.

vapacersfan
07-11-2011, 03:59 PM
Yeah, I missed that

MTM
07-11-2011, 04:23 PM
Sure Refs are asked to focus on certain things before a game that to me sounds like the right approach. if the prior playoff game the refs missed 4 traveling calls on patrick Ewing, sure it makes sense that the crew for the next game should be told to watch for Ewing traveling, maybe give him a warning the first time and then call it when he gains an advantage.

I don't understand how the 4-point play is a sign of anything, except the ref made a completely horrible call and that ref Jess Kersey lost a ton of $$ as a result of that one call.

Sure refs are people and sure they have personal biases against certain players, especially if they complain all the time.

His point in the book was that it becomes manipulation when the entire pre-game meeting is about one team and calling violations only on one team, with the implied directive that a good "company" ref understands what outcome the NBA wants before the game.

vapacersfan
07-11-2011, 04:29 PM
No, have not read it, I was only spcifically commenting on the post that I quoted.

I certainly don't want to spend my money on the book., If someone wants to send it to me free, I'd read it

Yet even if someone sent you a free copy I can already right up your review

"This was a PR piece with him trying to cover his behind. He was one rouge ref who screwed up and David Stern punished him accordingly. If anything was going on Stern would know about it and would admit it publicly. This book was a good novel but nothing is true and Stern knows everything about the NBA and would admit if something shady was going on"

MTM
07-11-2011, 04:30 PM
No, have not read it, I was only spcifically commenting on the post that I quoted.

I certainly don't want to spend my money on the book., If someone wants to send it to me free, I'd read it


Classic Hoosier mentality (in the pejorative sense, there are a lot of good things about the Hoosier mentality too) - I can relate to it because I am from it, but it continues to frustrate me to no end even after almost 40 years of watching it occur, particularly because it is so flagrant from a distance. Someone offers an overstated and uninformed opinion, typically out of context because they don't think that being informed or even relevant to the conversation is a prerequisite to voicing opposition.

As for the book - in most cities there are publicly-funded buildings known as libraries. That is where I was able to find a copy of the book, without spending a dime. Outside the box thinking can be tough for some who suffer from the malady described in the earlier paragraph.

Unclebuck
07-12-2011, 02:22 PM
Classic Hoosier mentality (in the pejorative sense, there are a lot of good things about the Hoosier mentality too) - I can relate to it because I am from it, but it continues to frustrate me to no end even after almost 40 years of watching it occur, particularly because it is so flagrant from a distance. Someone offers an overstated and uninformed opinion, typically out of context because they don't think that being informed or even relevant to the conversation is a prerequisite to voicing opposition.

As for the book - in most cities there are publicly-funded buildings known as libraries. That is where I was able to find a copy of the book, without spending a dime. Outside the box thinking can be tough for some who suffer from the malady described in the earlier paragraph.


Us Hoosiers don't know nothin about no libaries

Hicks
07-12-2011, 02:28 PM
Classic Hoosier mentality (in the pejorative sense, there are a lot of good things about the Hoosier mentality too) - I can relate to it because I am from it, but it continues to frustrate me to no end even after almost 40 years of watching it occur, particularly because it is so flagrant from a distance. Someone offers an overstated and uninformed opinion, typically out of context because they don't think that being informed or even relevant to the conversation is a prerequisite to voicing opposition.

As for the book - in most cities there are publicly-funded buildings known as libraries. That is where I was able to find a copy of the book, without spending a dime. Outside the box thinking can be tough for some who suffer from the malady described in the earlier paragraph.

Wow. You managed to be rude to UB and insult all of us who live in Indiana at the same time! Thanks!

MTM
07-12-2011, 02:41 PM
UB was rude well before my post in this string. He is a great poster, but the constant irrascibility deserves a response from time to time.

As for those of you who live in Indiana - it's my hometown and I was trying to make a point about a mindset that I often refer to as "Hoosier mentality", not about the quality of people - my apologies for going overboard and using a general term inappropriately. Hoosiers are awesome - but the "Hoosier mentality" deserves to be challenged from time to time.

Unclebuck
07-12-2011, 02:55 PM
I re-read my posts oin this thread and I don't know where I was rude or even close to rude.

Irrascibility:
1. Prone to outbursts of temper; easily angered.
2. Characterized by or resulting from anger.

That is not me

Unclebuck
07-12-2011, 02:56 PM
Of course I thought I would see UncleBuck in here shilling it up for the league office.


They pay me a nice salary every year, so you do what you have to do

daschysta
07-12-2011, 03:08 PM
UB was rude well before my post in this string. He is a great poster, but the constant irrascibility deserves a response from time to time.

As for those of you who live in Indiana - it's my hometown and I was trying to make a point about a mindset that I often refer to as "Hoosier mentality", not about the quality of people - my apologies for going overboard and using a general term inappropriately. Hoosiers are awesome - but the "Hoosier mentality" deserves to be challenged from time to time.

Hardheadedness and ignorant stubbornness are not qualities limited to hoosiers, nor even towards the Midwest or South in general (as much as they may seem to be). You can't see how referring to those negative traits as uniquely Hoosier may be offensive to people?

Hicks
07-12-2011, 03:10 PM
UB was rude well before my post in this string. He is a great poster, but the constant irrascibility deserves a response from time to time.

As for those of you who live in Indiana - it's my hometown and I was trying to make a point about a mindset that I often refer to as "Hoosier mentality", not about the quality of people - my apologies for going overboard and using a general term inappropriately. Hoosiers are awesome - but the "Hoosier mentality" deserves to be challenged from time to time.

Well, as long as you call it "Hoosier mentality", you continue to paint with too broad of a brush.

MTM
07-12-2011, 03:11 PM
I re-read my posts oin this thread and I don't know where I was rude or even close to rude.

Irrascibility:
1. Prone to outbursts of temper; easily angered.
2. Characterized by or resulting from anger.

That is not me

Agreed - I re-read them too. You were not rude, exactly. What prompted my post was your responses in opposition to the discussion about a book that many of us have read, without you reading the book, but when challenged whether you read it, rather than to further educate yourself to aid in the discussion by actually reading it, you tell us that you wouldn't bother reading it unless someone sent you the book for free. So in other words, you wanted to have an uninformed opinion, and to participate in opposing the discussion, but you would not take an effort to learn anything more on the subject before continuing to dialogue, and the only solution that you saw was that one of us had to buy the book for you.

Synonyms for irascible: crabby, cranky, cross, crotchety, grouchy, grumpy, irritable, peevish, snarky, snippety, snippy

Unclebuck
07-12-2011, 03:16 PM
Agreed - I re-read them too. You were not rude, exactly. What prompted my post was your responses in opposition to the discussion about a book that many of us have read, without you reading the book, but when challenged whether you read it, rather than to further educate yourself to aid in the discussion by actually reading it, you tell us that you wouldn't bother reading it unless someone sent you the book for free. So in other words, you wanted to have an uninformed opinion, and to participate in opposing the discussion, but you would not take an effort to learn anything more on the subject before continuing to dialogue, and the only solution that you saw was that one of us had to buy the book for you.

Synonyms for irascible: crabby, cranky, cross, crotchety, grouchy, grumpy, irritable, peevish, snarky, snippety, snippy


I am more than happy to read the book, but I don't want any of my hard earned money going to Mr. Donaghy - that was my only point.

And my comments were not about the book, but were in response to your comments on the book. I fail to see how that is out of bounds.

vapacersfan
07-12-2011, 03:56 PM
What is this "li-bra-ry" you speak of?

PS. UB if you are serious as soon as I finish reading my copy I will send it to you. PMS me your name and mailing address

Hicks
07-12-2011, 04:29 PM
PMS me your name and mailing address

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/piVnArp9ZE0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

McKeyFan
07-12-2011, 04:35 PM
What is this "li-bra-ry" you speak of?

As a Hoosier, I find the libary to be very fustrating.

óLarry Bird

Unclebuck
07-18-2011, 09:00 AM
OK, I am about halfway through the book. Very entertaining.

I was a little shocked to read the part about the brawl when he said "they (meaning the refs) quickly intervened before the cup was thrown. That is complete B.S. the refs besides Nunez Jr did nothing.

As for the other stuff in the book, nothing I've read so far has surprised me at all. - But I am going to comment more on that stuff after I finish the book either tonight or tomorrow night. No smoking gun so far. Sure refs are people too and they will hold grudges, and refs tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the players who don't ***** on every call. Yeah I knew that.

Since86
07-18-2011, 11:57 AM
Don't you argue saying there isn't super-star calls?

Unclebuck
07-18-2011, 01:04 PM
Don't you argue saying there isn't super-star calls?


Not nearly as many as most people think or want to believe. Just because lebron james gets a call doesn't mean it was because he is a superstar. The ref could have just missed it. But the foul thing - giving a foul to a non-superstar has been going on for years. Actually most of "these things" used to be a lot worse in the 70's and 80's.

Since86
07-18-2011, 01:13 PM
So the refs cheat.

Officiating the games with different standards between players is cheating.

MTM
07-18-2011, 01:40 PM
So the refs cheat.

Officiating the games with different standards between players is cheating.

I am not sure "cheating" is the best way to describe it. Wouldn't it be cheating only if it was against the rules to do it? But if the league endorses the idea that officials have different standards for different types of players, then it is within the "rules". Right?

I think the better term for it is "manipulation", and that's really what the book suggests is happening. Subtle and deliberate manipulation of plays and players - not always with a particular outcome in mind, but with goals determined by an individual ref's personal bias or self-interest. Some refs have biases against individual players. Some refs have biases about how close the score of a game should be. Some refs might/do have a financial interest in the game. When refs have financial stakes in the calls, whether small (example, Donaghy's stories of refs betting their tip money on which ref calls the first foul of the game) or big (Donaghy getting $2,000 per correctly picked game), then I think you could arge that is "cheating" because it would presumably be against the rules to do so.

Unclebuck
07-18-2011, 01:48 PM
So the refs cheat.

Officiating the games with different standards between players is cheating.


Ok, so they cheat.

I don't believe that, but that is fine. Refs are people too.

daschysta
07-18-2011, 01:49 PM
I agree with buck that most of the stuff in the book is pretty obvious, and as people it's difficult to be impartial towards certain ******* players that are complaining about every single call, and that certain calls are based on expectations. As long as there is a fast paced game and human refs certain things will happen. The real problem would be tampering to achieve a certain outcome, which I don't think even donaghy claims is happening.

Also body type effects calls too, players like james and wade get the benefit of the doubt, but they are also strong as oxes and get pounded all the time. you shouldn't be punished for being strong enough to absorb contact when a weaker player would have been more thrown off by the same hack.

Star players will obviously get more calls than average players just based on the amount of time they have the ball and how often they are put into a position to be fouled. You can't just look at raw stats and make a claim that "cheating" is happening. Our very own Danny Granger was among the leagues highest free throw shooting players in his MIP year, despite his reputation as a jumpshooter, Howard gets hacked constantly and doesn't get half the calls he could if the game was called fairly... alot of these players are so physically dominate that the only way to stop them under current defensive rules IS to foul them, their ability to take the contact and still get up a shot has nothing to do with it.

Refs make mistakes, but they're people too, and basketball is a very hard game to officiate at the highest level.

Hicks
07-18-2011, 02:46 PM
I recall there being a story in there about he and another ref, I believe during summer league, betting or daring one another to see who could go the longest without calling a foul.

How the hell is that just "being human" as opposed to being a deviant within your field?

Unclebuck
07-18-2011, 02:55 PM
I recall there being a story in there about he and another ref, I believe during summer league, betting or daring one another to see who could go the longest without calling a foul.

How the hell is that just "being human" as opposed to being a deviant within your field?


Yeah, that was summer league. I forget how long they held off calling a foul.

Is it deviant for the refs to let fouls go with 5 minutes to go when one team is ahead by 25 points. I say no, get the game over.

Hicks
07-18-2011, 03:01 PM
Yeah, that was summer league. I forget how long they held off calling a foul.

Is it deviant for the refs to let fouls go with 5 minutes to go when one team is ahead by 25 points. I say no, get the game over.

Unless you're equating the two situations, I don't see the relevance.

MTM
07-18-2011, 03:04 PM
Yeah, that was summer league. I forget how long they held off calling a foul.

Is it deviant for the refs to let fouls go with 5 minutes to go when one team is ahead by 25 points. I say no, get the game over.

In that story about betting to see which ref would call a foul first- it was interesting that he deliberately called a travel violation (if I am recalling the story correctly) instead of a foul - even though the play should have been a foul - just to avoid losing the bet. That story resonated with me because there are calls like that every once in awhile where it seems so deliberately wrong that there cannot be any reasonable explanation for the call other than the fact that the ref had a personal reason to avoid making the obviously correct call.

I agree with UB about the way a game might be called up 25 vs a close game. Again I would consider that manipulation rather than cheating. I think too that everyone involved understands in those situations that the whistles blow a little differently, and I agree that there are times when it is appropriate to officiate that way.

Unclebuck
07-18-2011, 03:14 PM
Unless you're equating the two situations, I don't see the relevance.


I'm not equating the two, just bringing up an intance when I think it is OK for the refs to adjust their calls to the game.

Yeah, I've seen refs call a travel when an offensive foul is the better call, although they likely travel after the foul is commited.

One that happens all the time and I have no problem with it. In a rebounding situation, the player goes over-the-back, and the ball goes off of the player that was fouled. Refs usually instead of calling a foul, they just give the ball to the players team that was fouled. But technically speaking either it is a foul or the other team gets the ball. But I have no problem just giving the team that should have the ball the ball and not calling the foul.

or refs will sometimes see if the ball goes in the basket before the call a foul, if it goes in, play on, if it doesn't go in call the foul, I'm not a big fan of that one.

Similarly if the defender fouls the ball handler, but he doesn't lose the ball, the ref won't call a thing, just keep playing. But if the ball handler falls down or loses the ball the ref has to call it.

Again though, I grew up watching the NBA in the late 70's and 80's and the idea of situational calls was much more prevaliant than today. Believe it or not, today the refs are more like robots, see a foul call it, 70's and 80's the refs were much more of a mindset of "calling the game" sure if a game involved two physical teams the experienced and top rated refs would call it very differently than if two finese teams played. Keep in mind these were the top rated refs who did this, it was the way the refs were taught. A guy like Earl Strom was a master at it, he didn't just make calls, he IMO made the individual game better.

Maybe that wasn't the best way to do it, but that is how I got used to it. maybe that is why I get into arguments with many of you over the officiating. My perspective is different

Since86
07-18-2011, 03:19 PM
Ok, so they cheat.

I don't believe that, but that is fine. Refs are people too.

But it's all okay, because the refs are people too?

Obviously there is going to be biasness, but the system should help weed biasness out, or atleast minimize it as much as possible. That's not currently what is happening. Joey Crawford and his firing/quitting or whatever you wanna call it between him and Tim Duncan is all the proof I need.

Since86
07-18-2011, 03:23 PM
I agree with buck that most of the stuff in the book is pretty obvious, and as people it's difficult to be impartial towards certain ******* players that are complaining about every single call, and that certain calls are based on expectations. As long as there is a fast paced game and human refs certain things will happen. The real problem would be tampering to achieve a certain outcome, which I don't think even donaghy claims is happening.

Also body type effects calls too, players like james and wade get the benefit of the doubt, but they are also strong as oxes and get pounded all the time. you shouldn't be punished for being strong enough to absorb contact when a weaker player would have been more thrown off by the same hack.

Star players will obviously get more calls than average players just based on the amount of time they have the ball and how often they are put into a position to be fouled. You can't just look at raw stats and make a claim that "cheating" is happening. Our very own Danny Granger was among the leagues highest free throw shooting players in his MIP year, despite his reputation as a jumpshooter, Howard gets hacked constantly and doesn't get half the calls he could if the game was called fairly... alot of these players are so physically dominate that the only way to stop them under current defensive rules IS to foul them, their ability to take the contact and still get up a shot has nothing to do with it.

Refs make mistakes, but they're people too, and basketball is a very hard game to officiate at the highest level.

Which explains why Boozer pushes other players in the back and doesn't get a foul called? I can buy that excuse if it happened for one game, but he did it repeatedly throughout the series. The NBA reviews every game, if they wanted that foul to be called they'd say "Hey, watch Boozer pushing people in the back."

Considering it happened the entire series, I can come up with two logical conclusions.

1) The NBA didn't care enough to point it out.
2) The refs didn't care enough to call it.

I don't care which explanation is the truth, because they both show that the system sucks.

Since86
07-18-2011, 03:24 PM
I'm not equating the two, just bringing up an intance when I think it is OK for the refs to adjust their calls to the game.

Yeah, I've seen refs call a travel when an offensive foul is the better call, although they likely travel after the foul is commited.

One that happens all the time and I have no problem with it. In a rebounding situation, the player goes over-the-back, and the ball goes off of the player that was fouled. Refs usually instead of calling a foul, they just give the ball to the players team that was fouled. But technically speaking either it is a foul or the other team gets the ball. But I have no problem just giving the team that should have the ball the ball and not calling the foul.

or refs will sometimes see if the ball goes in the basket before the call a foul, if it goes in, play on, if it doesn't go in call the foul. Similarly if the defender fouls the ball handler, but he doesn't lose the ball, the ref won't call a thing, just keep playing. But if the ball handler falls down or loses the ball the ref has to call it.

Again though, I grew up watching the NBA in the late 70's and 80's and the idea of situational calls was much more prevaliant than today

I can live with those types of calls too, but that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about the refs deliberately influencing the game in favor of one particular side. None of those scenarios address that.

Unclebuck
07-18-2011, 03:30 PM
We're talking about the refs "deliberately" influencing the game in favor of one particular side. None of those scenarios address that.


I think that is very minimal at the most.

I think what happens is people think that the league wants a certain team, so they look to see evidence of the refs making calls to try and get that certain team to win, and they use as evidence the situational calls that I discussed in my prior post. They suggest that situational calls prove the point that the refs and the NBA are trying to get the outcome they want. That is where I disagree.

The two games involving the Pacers that stick out in my mind: the 4 point play - I am 100% convinced that was just a horrible call, the ref blew it, honest human error on jess kersey's part.

The other game was game 6 in NY in 1999. At the most crucial point of the game, the Knicks got several calls to go their way that IMO was a big factor in the Knicks winning game 6. bevetta was one of the refs in that game.

McKeyFan
07-18-2011, 03:38 PM
Yeah, that was summer league. I forget how long they held off calling a foul.

You sure? I remember it being a real game.

Unclebuck
07-18-2011, 03:40 PM
You sure? I remember it being a real game.


I just read that part last night.

There were some other bets on real games, but if I remember the correct calls were made early in the game.

edit: I just want to link this tyhread
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=39566&highlight=donaghy

rock747
07-18-2011, 04:06 PM
I believe that the wager on who would call the first foul was in a regular season game. Have you read the Bavetta stuff yet?

Unclebuck
07-18-2011, 04:14 PM
I believe that the wager on who would call the first foul was in a regular season game. Have you read the Bavetta stuff yet?


I'll double check. tonight.

Edit: I did double check and it was a summer league game and the first foul was called with 3 minutes left in the first quarter - made by the other ref. There were only two refs calling the game.

Since86
07-18-2011, 04:25 PM
What would need to happen in order to change your opinion, UB? Stern coming out and admitting it?

It's simply too easy to sweep everything under the excuse that refs are human.

MTM
07-18-2011, 04:39 PM
I too just finished the book. It was a really fast read. It was incredibly interesting.

It was written from a guy who admits readily that he made life mistakes and got himself screwed up, lost his marriage, his kids, his career, his reputation. He names the names of people he thinks are responsible, and he defends those that weren't. Some were his friends, and now some no longer talk to him because of what he did.

I thought as far as the NBA topic was concerned, he was telling the truth - or at least his version of the truth as far as he remembered it. Sometimes I wondered if he knew more about a couple of people, or he was protecting a couple people, but generally the stories seemed to have a high level of veracity. He names the names of refs and the vendettas that they have against certain players and how he gambled based on refs' personal habits. He explains how Dick Bavetta loves close games and was very much a yes-man for the league in calling big games. In this way, he believes Bavetta affected outcomes - perhaps not deliberately, but subtly. That, to me, makes much more sense than some back office conspiracy theory.

The only two times I thought he was lying or holding back was when he mentions a lady "friend" that he was accused of having an affair with. He claims they didn't. His treatment of the situation in the book implies he did. The other involves the distinction he makes between "fixing" games and just using personal insights to bet. I think he did both, but he was very personally affected by his dad's view of him and his kids' views of him, and they seemed to be more "ok" with him if he didn't "fix" games. So I think he wrote the book to apologize to them and argue he didn't. I think he probably did. The distinction, though, doesn't make the rest of the stories false.

His chapter on how to fix the NBA and the reffing problems is very interesting. Some of the ideas are ones floated on here regularly.

Finally - this book helped explain to me how and why some of the mid-90s Pacers/Knicks games seemed to be reffed in such a manipulative way. He didn't name those series directly, but if there was referee manipulation involved, then those games make sense to me. And I really believe that a couple of times Reggie was able to beat the Knicks AND the refs. I always had believed it, having watched the games and feeling like some games were being subtly massaged toward one outcome or another. Donaghy admits that this type of thing happens all the time.

The stunning thing to me in the book was that he learned, through his involvement in the underworld, that at least 2 refs in the 90s were on payrolls of gambling bosses, but he didn't know who - and that was before he got heavily involved himself.

So you had an NBA scheme that instructed refs to "focus" on certain things about a specific team in the pre-game meeting (for example hypothetically, watch the shuffling of feet by Reggie, watch the illegal screens by Dale, etc.), then you had refs with certain preferences (Dick Bavetta's preference for close games, which may explain the phantom 4-point play by Larry Johnson), and refs with certain dislike of players, along with a few refs who are blatantly on the take. Shake it up, add it all together, and that explains the reffing in the NBA for the past 20 years. I believe every word of THAT.


I think I am somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between Since86 and UB.

I don't think every ref is intentionally manipulating outcomes of games. I don't believe a vast referee conspiracy exists (Donaghy confirms this, I think) and I don't think it is easy to be a good NBA official. Good officials are aware of game situations, which players are impacted by calls, and the pace of a particular game - but a great official is principally and primarily objective about the outcome of any particular play or game. Officials have good games and bad games, just like players, and just like you and me at work some days.

I do think some refs allow personal biases to reduce their objectivity, which affects outcomes. I do think that the league states its preferences for particular objectives to the refs in pre-game meetings, and depending on the content of these meetings, the outcome of games can be manipulated as a result. I do think there are a small number of NBA refs who have been deliberately manipulating game outcomes, but I think overall this is a very small number of refs. But... if you combine the various factors for lack of objectivity, there can be games that are deliberately manipulated toward a particular outcome - and this is at the heart of what I see as critical to whether this league is ultimately fair or not.

Since86
07-18-2011, 04:45 PM
I think I'm in the middle. I just go to the extreme to make a point.

I don't think the league tells refs to cheat/manipulate, for the record. I think the refs are smart enough to realize that the NBA has attached their buggy to the superstar/big market horses.

The NBA has just turned a blind eye to accountability, and don't care enough to make the system better.

I doubt there are many refs, if any, that are making a profit on the games they officiate. I think the overall well being of the league is their top priority, and not the actual game of basketball itself.

EDIT: It just frustrates me that a Donaghy can come out and show you that the system is broken, and it just gets swept aside like he's not credible at all. The fact that he was able to do what he did, for as long as he did, with no one knowing shows that the system is broken.

McKeyFan
07-19-2011, 08:09 PM
Yeah, that was summer league. I forget how long they held off calling a foul.


No, it was summer league AND regular season.

"We played this little game during the regular season and summer league."

-- page 68

Kemo
07-20-2011, 04:14 AM
Out of all the referees, the one that I truly can't stand .. and would spit on the ground they walk on.. as an NBA ref .. ... is Violet Palmer ..

The only basketball games that she should be able to ref , are 6th-8th grade , and possibly YMCA summer-league games..

Believe me when I say , I can't stand Joey Crawford , like most of you .... but at least he is somewhat competent ..

But Palmer , she is truly horrible as an NBA referee ...

When a Pacer's game starts, and I see her name announced, I can pretty much guess with 90% certainty , that she will make not only make some horrid calls/no-calls , but the type of bad calls she makes will usually swing momentum to the other team...


Did I forget to say that I detest Violet Palmer as a referee?

Just making sure I didn't forget to mention that ... hehehehe

;-)




.

Shade
07-20-2011, 07:42 AM
The only reason Violet Palmer is still and NBA referee is because she's a woman.

Unclebuck
07-20-2011, 08:08 AM
The only reason Violet Palmer is still and NBA referee is because she's a woman.


Then why isn't Dee Kantner still an NBA referee

King Tuts Tomb
07-20-2011, 09:10 AM
The Violet Palmer hate is so overblown. She's no better or worse than most of the other refs in the league. She's easily recognized so people always remember when she makes a call.

Let's save our distaste for refs who truly deserve it, like Joey Crawford.

Hicks
07-20-2011, 09:59 AM
The Violet Palmer hate is so overblown. She's no better or worse than most of the other refs in the league. She's easily recognized so people always remember when she makes a call.

Let's save our distaste for refs who truly deserve it, like Joey Crawford.

Agree to disagree. I cringe when I see her at Conseco.

Peck
07-20-2011, 12:32 PM
How can there be a discussion of incompetent refs and the name Benete Salvatore not be at the forfront?

Shade
07-20-2011, 12:54 PM
Then why isn't Dee Kantner still an NBA referee

They only need one.

Shade
07-20-2011, 12:55 PM
The Violet Palmer hate is so overblown. She's no better or worse than most of the other refs in the league. She's easily recognized so people always remember when she makes a call.

Let's save our distaste for refs who truly deserve it, like Joey Crawford.

No, she really is that bad.

King Tuts Tomb
07-21-2011, 02:42 AM
If her name was Vincent Palmer and she was a 5'10" guy you wouldn't know he existed.

The complaining about the refs in the NBA has gotten stupid. It seems to me like a way for NBA fans to feel some sense of superiority to someone on the court. You're asking human beings to register and catalog tens of thousands of actions over the course of a game. There will be mistakes, obviously, but the sheer number of calls they get correct in real time is mind blowing.

And I don't think NBA refs are all that fantastic either. I don't like some of the antics of Salvatore and Crawford for sure, but it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. I blame local game coverage, ESPN and Bill Simmons for making this a bigger deal than it is.

Shade
07-21-2011, 09:00 AM
If her name was Vincent Palmer and she was a 5'10" guy you wouldn't know he existed.

The complaining about the refs in the NBA has gotten stupid. It seems to me like a way for NBA fans to feel some sense of superiority to someone on the court. You're asking human beings to register and catalog tens of thousands of actions over the course of a game. There will be mistakes, obviously, but the sheer number of calls they get correct in real time is mind blowing.

And I don't think NBA refs are all that fantastic either. I don't like some of the antics of Salvatore and Crawford for sure, but it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. I blame local game coverage, ESPN and Bill Simmons for making this a bigger deal than it is.

My opinion of NBA refs is formed from my personal experience, not what the knuckleheads at ESPN tell me what is good or bad.

If I was as bad at my job as some of these guys (and ladies) were, I would've been fired a looooong time ago.

Unclebuck
07-21-2011, 09:56 AM
Yeah you're right.

A guy who fixed games talking about how broke the system is has zero credibility on the subject.

Good thing the NBA caught him and stopped what he was doing. Wait, the NBA didn't catch him?

You mean to tell me that the NBA didn't know what was going on until the FBI knocked on their door?

WHOA!!!

The fact that the NBA had NO FREAKING CLUE what Donaghy was doing, shows that they could still be just as clueless to another referee doing the exact same thing. It's pretty damn obvious that the NBA either doesn't care, instructing refs to do so, or have absolutely no valuable way of grading their referees.

Think about this for a minute.

A referee purposely made bad calls in order to fix games, AND NO ONE KNEW. Not one person inside the NBA had any idea that it was happening.

I say, that the NBA might still have a problem and use Donaghy as my evidence that it could happen, and might still be happening.

You say, that the NBA doesn't have a problem and use Donaghy as your evidence, because he got caught.

The fact that he did do it, and got away with it, shows that the system that the NBA has in place right now, is broken. It's too easy to get away with fixing games.

If you see a cockroach run across your floor, and you kill it, do you think that you no longer have a roach problem? I doubt it.


Did you read the book and do you believe Donaghy? Because if you do then you will believe that he never fixed games. he flat out said he never fixed games. He said several times even for the games that he bet on where he was one of the three refs that he had to still try to make the right calls. Now, maybe we can argue about what "fixed" means, but he denies ever fixing games.

I have read the whole book now and I believe him 100% in what he says he did, the way he bet on the games and the fact he won 70%-80% of the time. And I believe that he believes everything he has in book.

I don't see how the NBA could have ever discovered what Donaghy was doing, except through the FBI and or if someone who was helping Donaghy bet came clean.

Honestly, after reading the book, I feel a little better about the whole scandal, there is actually less there than what it seemd at the time. Again that is if you believe Donaghy.

More than anything it is sad how much he threw away with his gambling addiction

McKeyFan
07-21-2011, 11:54 AM
Did you read the book and do you believe Donaghy? Because if you do then you will believe that he never fixed games. he flat out said he never fixed games. He said several times even for the games that he bet on where he was one of the three refs that he had to still try to make the right calls. Now, maybe we can argue about what "fixed" means, but he denies ever fixing games.

I have read the whole book now and I believe him 100% in what he says he did, the way he bet on the games and the fact he won 70%-80% of the time. And I believe that he believes everything he has in book.

I don't see how the NBA could have ever discovered what Donaghy was doing, except through the FBI and or if someone who was helping Donaghy bet came clean.

Honestly, after reading the book, I feel a little better about the whole scandal, there is actually less there than what it seemd at the time. Again that is if you believe Donaghy.

More than anything it is sad how much he threw away with his gambling addiction
Yeah, it's difficult to figure just how much to believe him. I generally do. The story line rings true.

But let's also remember he was corrupt.

As a couple others have already said, it seems plausible that he's not telling the truth in a couple of places—claiming nothing intimate with the woman he fratinized with quite a bit. The other would be insisting so much he did not fix games. Hard to know.

He is complex and rather hypocritical. One story that captures this is when he was first in prison and telling stories of being harrassed. He was also struggling not to gamble and sent a letter of complaint to the warden regarding the inmates who were gambling illegally in the common area. That led to the warden shutting down the betting in prison, and let to Donaghy being even further harrassed by inmates.

Now, it seems to me, if you want to steer clear of trouble in prison you wouldn't write tattle-tale letters to the warden. But Donaghy, himself guilty of illegal gambling, suddenly finds enough self-righteousness to expose his fellow inmates.

This story is really a microcosm of his larger story. A guy who sells his soul and ruins his integrity as a ref and threatens the integrity of the entire league—well, suddenly, he finds the inner self-righteousness to try and expose the entire NBA.

I'm not saying I don't believe a lot of what is in the book is true. I just don't have all that much respect for Donaghy. I think his best ref friend (Scott Foster?) exhibited an understandable response by never speaking to him again.

One other little anecdote. He tries throughout to promote his overall integrity, despite a lapse of a few years. Yet, he complains when the U.S. Attorney grilled him for faking his SAT. He rationalized that as youthful indiscretion.

I don't care, dude, how old you are. If you get someone else to take your SAT for you, you are pitiful and corrupt. Apparently, from early on.

rock747
07-21-2011, 01:01 PM
Yeah, it's difficult to figure just how much to believe him. I generally do. The story line rings true.

But let's also remember he was corrupt.

As a couple others have already said, it seems plausible that he's not telling the truth in a couple of placesóclaiming nothing intimate with the woman he fratinized with quite a bit. The other would be insisting so much he did not fix games. Hard to know.

He is complex and rather hypocritical. One story that captures this is when he was first in prison and telling stories of being harrassed. He was also struggling not to gamble and sent a letter of complaint to the warden regarding the inmates who were gambling illegally in the common area. That led to the warden shutting down the betting in prison, and let to Donaghy being even further harrassed by inmates.

Now, it seems to me, if you want to steer clear of trouble in prison you wouldn't write tattle-tale letters to the warden. But Donaghy, himself guilty of illegal gambling, suddenly finds enough self-righteousness to expose his fellow inmates.

This story is really a microcosm of his larger story. A guy who sells his soul and ruins his integrity as a ref and threatens the integrity of the entire leagueówell, suddenly, he finds the inner self-righteousness to try and expose the entire NBA.

I'm not saying I don't believe a lot of what is in the book is true. I just don't have all that much respect for Donaghy. I think his best ref friend (Scott Foster?) exhibited an understandable response by never speaking to him again.

One other little anecdote. He tries throughout to promote his overall integrity, despite a lapse of a few years. Yet, he complains when the U.S. Attorney grilled him for faking his SAT. He rationalized that as youthful indiscretion.

I don't care, dude, how old you are. If you get someone else to take your SAT for you, you are pitiful and corrupt. Apparently, from early on.


I kind of wondered if that letter was an attempt to be transferred to a different prison because of the harrassment. Perhaps he was just using his gambling addiction as a ploy to get himself moved to a different prison where he could be safer. I believe at that time he was really getting abuse from the other inmates. That thought crossed my mind anyways.

Since86
07-21-2011, 05:16 PM
We're gonna go back two weeks and argue over the definition of "fixing?" Donaghy can say he didn't "fix" games if it makes him sleep better at night, but his actions are considered "fixing" games. You don't have to change the outcome, by influencing the final score, which he did, is fixing a game. He fixed.the.game in order to make sure bets were covered.

Its a waste of time to rehash that argument, I made my case for it over the last two pages. If you don't agree or have some other proofor evidence that it isn't fixing then im all ears. But Donaghy can call it tic-tac-toe for all I care. Its still fixing games. I use his actions to define it, not his opinion owhether or not he did.

Edit: sorry for the typos. Posting from my phone sucks

Since86
07-21-2011, 05:23 PM
And I also find it rather funny that you, UB, used every excuse against Donaghy, even saying just the mere fact he was a convicted felon makes him unreliable. Now that you've read it, and itmakes you feel better about it all, suddenly you believe him.

Weird how your trust of what he says changes when it helps your opinion.

Unclebuck
07-22-2011, 08:39 AM
And I also find it rather funny that you, UB, used every excuse against Donaghy, even saying just the mere fact he was a convicted felon makes him unreliable. Now that you've read it, and itmakes you feel better about it all, suddenly you believe him.

Weird how your trust of what he says changes when it helps your opinion.


What exactly is my opinion. And my opinion of what are you referring too

MTM
07-22-2011, 01:35 PM
I have read the whole book now and I believe him 100% in what he says he did, the way he bet on the games and the fact he won 70%-80% of the time. And I believe that he believes everything he has in book.

Honestly, after reading the book, I feel a little better about the whole scandal, there is actually less there than what it seemd at the time. Again that is if you believe Donaghy.

More than anything it is sad how much he threw away with his gambling addiction

UB - These 3 paragraphs are something I completely agree with you about. I really think reading the book sheds some new light on the whole situation and answer questions that I always had in my mind about whether there was a league-wide conspiracy. I also found that his stories had a high level of veracity for the most part, and if there was a massive conspiracy, he would have outed it. It was a much more subtle type of manipulation going on.