Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

    wait, wait, wait, the Jordan rules refrs to the defensive rules the Detroit Pistons used to defend Jordan in the late 80's and early 90's. it had nothing to do with him getting calls or not getting calls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Rules

    Joey Crawford never tried to pick a fight with Duncan. The word fight was refering to an argument, not a physical altercation
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-12-2008, 12:01 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      wait, wait, wait, the Jordan rules refrs to the defensive rules the Detroit Pistons used to defend Jordan in the late 80's and early 90's. it had nothing to do with him getting calls or not getting calls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Rules

      Joey Crawford never tried to pick a fight with Duncan. The word fight was refering to an argument, not a physical altercation
      I was referring to the book written by Sam Smith , not the Wikipedia definition?????

      I have no idea what you are referring to with Crawford and Duncan

      Comment


      • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

        Sam Smith's book title is essentially an ironic play on the rough and tumble treatment of Chuck Daly's "Jordan Rules" vs. the equally brutal way MJ treated his teammates. It can also be seen as talking about the resentment they had for Mike based on the assumed preferential treatment afforded MJ by the Chicago Bulls organization.

        It didn't really have anything to do with the way he was officiated by refs or treated by the NBA at large. It was a behind-the-scenes look at the inner complexities and turmoil of the Chicago Bulls roster during their first championship season.

        As a sidenote, anyone who hasn't read it, needs to. People forget that, at that time, most people over 15-years-old thought MJ was a bigger douchebag than they think Kobe is now (aside from the whole rape thing, I guess). Amazing book, which, as I recall, is where the infamous "Will Vanderbilt" story comes from.
        Last edited by JayRedd; 06-12-2008, 01:36 PM.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

          Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
          I was referring to the book written by Sam Smith , not the Wikipedia definition?????

          I have no idea what you are referring to with Crawford and Duncan
          I read that book and you are just not correct.

          Besides repeating what I already said, there isn't anything else I can say about the Crawford vs TD thing.

          On the more general point of the allegations: it is interesting because those most associated with the game don't believe the allegations put forth by Donaghy. Players, coaches, beat writers, columnists who only cover the NBA - are much less likely to believe the allegations then do the media types who only cover the NBA maybe in the finals, or those fans that perhaps aren't diehards.

          As Ric Buucher said this is all insane - and he was referring to those who are buying into the conspiracy.
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-12-2008, 01:55 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

            This stuff is not at all new. The NBA has been long thought shady. These conspiracy is now just reaching the limelight. The NBA is the only sport in which the players even mention the conspiracy...

            "I guess they were only doing what they were told to do." -Antonio Davis reffering to officials...

            Ray Allen-

            "I think there's no question about that. The league, as a marketing machine, the bottom line is about making money," Allen said. "It behooves everybody for the league to make more money, and the league knows that Philadelphia is going to make more money with L.A. than we would with L.A."
            "I used to always think the series were fixed when I was in high school, then when I got to the NBA I said there's no way they could be fixed. But even last year against Indiana in Game 5 (of Milwaukee's first-round series) it seemed like everything went against us," Allen said.

            George Karl-
            Bucks coach George Karl said conspiracy theories were "summer talk," although he claimed three other NBA coaches had called him after Game 5 to raise that very issue.

            "Sam Cassell said that Kevin Garnett and Rod Strickland had called him, so it's out there," Karl said.

            The NBA has always laughed off the charge, but conspiracy theorists often point to Game 7 of the 1993 Western Conference finals in making their case -- saying Phoenix got an inordinate number of calls against Seattle because the league wanted to see a Suns-Chicago Bulls final.

            "Here was the scenario: A Barkley-Jordan final, and Barkley did a commercial for NBC three weeks before the finals -- and he told me about it. And then they shoot 67 free throws in the final game," said Karl, who coached the SuperSonics in that game.

            There were 100 foul shots taken in that game, 64 by the Suns. Seattle was called for 38 personal fouls and had three players disqualified; Phoenix was whistled for 27 fouls and had no one foul out.

            "So there's a little paranoia there, but tomorrow night that means nothing," Karl said. "The board room is behind closed doors in New York City, so no one's ever going to know.

            Rasheed Wallace-"I still don't think they (Cavaliers) beat us, we beat ourselves," Wallace said. "And I think we also fell victim to that personal NBA thing where they are trying to make it a world game and get (television) ratings. They wanted to put their darling in there (the NBA Finals) and they did, and look what ended up happening.

            "This game ain't basketball anymore, it's entertainment," Wallace said. "It's starting to get like the WWF. There ain't no real wrestling anymore either. It's all fake."



            There are numerous other instances things have been said, but I'm not going to continue researching. No other sport has the players crying conspiracy like the NBA.

            Why try to write Donahgys claims off as bogus immeadiately?

            On the more general point of the allegations: it is interesting because those most associated with the game don't believe the allegations put forth by Donaghy. Players, coaches, beat writers, columnists who only cover the NBA - are much less likely to believe the allegations then do the media types who only cover the NBA maybe in the finals, or those fans that perhaps aren't diehards.
            Well of course players and coaches are going to write it off. They will be hit with a hefty fine if they talk against the NBA, we've seen that many times. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. The beat writes and columnists don't want to be thought of as conspiracy wack jobs. It's pretty easy to see why they wouldn't say anything publicly.

            As Ric Buucher said this is all insane - and he was referring to those who are buying into the conspiracy.
            People are skeptical because this isn't just a new thing. The NBA has been scrutinized for this for years. If this was the first time something like this had been mentioned people probably would shrug it off.


            http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/p...?urn=nba,51022
            http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2001/...1/1208098.html
            http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...on-t-mean.html
            Last edited by rock747; 06-12-2008, 02:15 PM.
            "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

            Comment


            • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

              rock, all those comments were made during an NBA playoff series, they were all just trying to get calls for the next game and or they were frustrATED BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST LOST A GAME. . We have Pat Riley and Phil Jackson to thank for that practice.


              I was entertained when I was watching Jackson's press conference the other day when he said that he rememebers in the Bulls vs Pacers series in 1998 that Pippen had eseentially taken Mark Jackson out of the games 1 and 2 and then Bird complained and in game 3 Pippen got 2 fouls against Mark Jackson - and Dick Bevetta made both of those calls.

              But everyone know that Dick calls things close

              Comment


              • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                To further back it up, he offers specific dates with a specific set of referres (2 of the three........being told by 1 of the three in advance of the game)..............

                Rarely is slander done so specifically.
                Plax80 is offline Report Post
                You call that "specific?

                "I know of this game where two guys out of three were told to fix things?"

                The fact he said only 2 out of three refs cheated is the biggest condemnation possible.

                If the NBA was fixing games, WHY WOULD THEY ONLY LET TWO OUT OF THREE REFS IN ON IT?

                The reason he HAS to say it was 2 out of 3, is because by saying all three, he puts names to his allegations, and he knows he can't back it up.

                By only accusing two out of 3, he can sit back and let everyone else guess which ones he's talking about.

                It's the lamest scam attempt in the history of conspiracy theories.

                Donaghy is saying just enough so that people can fill in the blanks themselves, and little enough that he's not on the hook to actually prove anything. It's insulting to anybody with an IQ over 20.
                Last edited by Kstat; 06-12-2008, 02:50 PM.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                  If the NBA was fixing games, WHY WOULD THEY ONLY LET TWO OUT OF THREE REFS IN ON IT?
                  Maybe, because the less people that know the better? You only need two people to call fouls and agree with each other on it.
                  "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                    Bob Delaney - the "third referee" is a former cop and he was an undercover cop for sometime and helped to bring down parts of the NJ Mob. He and Dick Bevetta do not get along well. So I'm sure Delaney would have blown the whistle on Bevetta if he suspected something.


                    here is a newsy article worth reading

                    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/sp...gewanted=print


                    The Gravity of Donaghy’s Accusations Is Unclear
                    By HOWARD BECK
                    LOS ANGELES — Troubling new allegations of referee misconduct have dampened the celebratory mood here at the N.B.A. finals, although the line between temporary crisis and long-term scandal is not clear.

                    Tim Donaghy, the disgraced former referee, has accused league officials of manipulating games. Commissioner David Stern has dismissed the claims as “baseless” and the desperate words of a convicted felon who is seeking a light sentence after admitting to conspiring with gamblers.

                    Coaches, players and fans are left to navigate the rhetoric and the accusations without a reliable compass. “The whole Donaghy thing just makes me sick,” Boston Coach Doc Rivers said Wednesday as the Celtics and the Lakers were preparing for Game 4 of the finals.

                    Donaghy’s latest accusations were contained in a four-page letter filed Tuesday in United States District Court in Brooklyn. In the letter, Donaghy said that N.B.A. executives directed referees “to manipulate games” in order to “boost ticket sales and television ratings,” and he cited several alleged examples, including a highly disputed 2002 playoff series between the Lakers and the Sacramento Kings.

                    When he spoke with reporters Tuesday night, Stern repeatedly stated that all of Donaghy’s claims have been investigated by the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors.

                    “We said it in July, and we’ll say it again on the first anniversary: there’s one criminal here,” Stern said.

                    His implication was that if the authorities had discovered other criminal misconduct, they would have acted on it. That is not necessarily the case, according to legal experts.

                    “It takes a long time to investigate cases,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School and a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.

                    Levenson said there were many possible explanations for the absence of criminal charges. She said authorities could still be investigating; they could have “high suspicion” of a criminal act but insufficient proof; or the allegations could simply be false. In some instances — like Donaghy’s accusation of impropriety in a 2002 playoff series — the statute of limitations could have expired, she said.

                    “It doesn’t at all follow that because they didn’t file charges that you can dismiss the allegations,” Levenson said. But, she added: “We have to take it for what it is — allegations. Whether they’re true or false probably remains to be answered.”

                    Levenson said the allegations could prompt the court to delay Donaghy’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for July 14 in Brooklyn.

                    Levenson and another former prosecutor raised questions over the timing of the claims. Donaghy’s lawyer, John Lauro, had already filed a plea letter last month, but without any of the provocative details that were presented Tuesday.

                    “It looks more desperate,” Levenson said of making the claims now. “It looks like he might be stretching. It has less credibility. Things that are in sentencing memos look like last gasps to get whatever they can from the court. We always look at those with a grain of salt. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It doesn’t mean it is true.”

                    Ed McDonald, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said that making the claims now “detracts from the significance of what he had to say, by Lauro’s not raising it in the first letter.”

                    Donaghy was arrested last summer and pleaded guilty to two felony counts in August. He faces up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine, but he is expected to receive a lighter sentence for cooperating with the authorities.

                    Lauro provided enough details in the letter so that specific games that were allegedly tainted by referee misconduct could be recognized. The letter pointed to Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals, in which the Lakers were awarded 40 free throws, including 27 in the fourth quarter, in a victory over the Kings that forced a Game 7.

                    According to Lauro’s letter: “Tim learned from Referee A that Referees A and F wanted to extend the series to seven games. Tim knew Referees A and F to be ‘company men,’ always acting in the interest of the N.B.A., and that night, it was in the N.B.A.’s interest to add another game to the series.”

                    The game was refereed by three tenured veterans: Dick Bavetta, Ted Bernhardt and Bob Delaney. Bernhardt has retired from the league. Under N.B.A. rules, Bavetta and Delaney are not permitted to speak to the news media. However, Delaney, a former New Jersey state trooper, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claims in an interview with ESPN.

                    “This is not the first time a known or convicted criminal has lied about me before the judicial system,” Delaney said Wednesday. “I have an extensive law enforcement background, and still train police officers. I have dealt with criminals and informants, and I know full well they are capable of doing and saying anything.”

                    The FBI has made inquiries about Bavetta, according to a former N.B.A. referee who was interviewed by federal agents last year.

                    Hue Hollins, who retired in 2003 and has been outspoken about the N.B.A.’s treatment of referees, said he met for about an hour with two agents from New York before last season.

                    In addition to asking questions about Donaghy, Hollins said the agents inquired extensively about Bavetta. They asked if he ever noticed that Bavetta “was making sure that the home team would win, and I told them I had no idea because I didn’t work with him a lot.”

                    Hollins said the agents did not ask about a specific team, game or series and did not ask about Game 6 in 2002.

                    “They were very specific about their questioning, as though they had heard something,” Hollins said. “They knew exactly what they were going after.”

                    He said that he didn’t tell them much about either Donaghy or Bavetta, saying he had never noticed suspicious activity by either man. He said it would be difficult for a single referee to affect the outcome of a game.

                    Mark Cuban, the outspoken Dallas Mavericks owner, who has been a leading critic of the N.B.A.’s officiating program, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claim that league officials had orchestrated anything.

                    “There’s no way on God’s green Earth that David Stern has ever done anything to influence the outcome of a game,” Cuban told ESPN.com.

                    Two current N.B.A. referees, in separate interviews, also said Donaghy’s claims were not credible. “I’ve been refereeing since I was 18 years old; I’ve never suspected a referee of cheating in my life,” said a referee, who required anonymity because the N.B.A. prohibits referees from speaking to the news media.

                    Another referee said that Donaghy appeared to be cherry-picking the most well-known and most-controversial games in order to make the biggest impact.

                    “He took a poorly refereed game that everyone knew was a poorly refereed game,” said the referee, referring to Game 6. “He knows where to punch.”

                    Donaghy’s charges have given new life to conspiracy theories about N.B.A. officiating, generating suspicion and conjecture in blogs and on sports talk shows.

                    Given the intensity of the coverage, there is also the possibility of Congressional hearings. There is no indication that the House committee that investigated the steroids scandal in baseball will take up the matter.

                    Scot Pollard, a former Kings center who fouled out of the game in question, sounded doubtful about Donaghy’s charges.

                    “You can’t put credibility in a guy that wasn’t there, didn’t ref the game and doesn’t have a lot of friends in this world right now,” said Pollard, who now plays for Boston. “That game was controversial, anyway. It’s an easy one for somebody to make up a conspiracy theory about.”

                    Katie Thomas, Michael S. Schmidt and Billy Witz contributed reporting.
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-12-2008, 03:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Bob Delaney - the "third referee" is a former cop and he was an undercover cop for sometime and helped to bring down parts of the NJ Mob. He and Dick Bevetta do not get along well. So I'm sure Delaney would have blown the whistle on Bevetta if he suspected something.
                      This is great. The NBA hires officials to referee fixed games, and decides bring in former law enforcement officers.

                      The NBA is apparently one of the smartest sporting organizations on earth, and at the same time they are completely incompetent when it comes to fixing games.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 06-12-2008, 03:07 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                        Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                        Maybe, because the less people that know the better? You only need two people to call fouls and agree with each other on it.
                        Without all 3 officials you cannot fix the way a game is called. You only need two refs to agree with a foul, but 2 refs cannot overrule another ref on the floor. They can't just erase another referee's calls, and if they did that for an entire game, it would be completely obvious.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                          Without all 3 officials you cannot fix the way a game is called. You only need two refs to agree with a foul, but 2 refs cannot overrule another ref on the floor. They can't just erase another referee's calls, and if they did that for an entire game, it would be completely obvious.
                          No, but they could call fouls on a certain team one way in the 4th quarter. While the other ref calls the game normally.



                          Don't get me wrong I want the NBA to have intergrity and this all to be proved wrong. BUT I am not just going to write this off. I have seen too much sketchy officiating in NBA games and this talk has been around too much for me to just automatically shrug this off.
                          Last edited by rock747; 06-12-2008, 03:16 PM.
                          "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                            Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                            No, but they could call fouls on a certain team one way in the 4th quarter. While the other ref calls the game normally.



                            Don't get me wrong I want the NBA to have intergrity and this all to be proved wrong. BUT I am not just going to write this off. I have seen too much sketchy officiating in NBA games and this talk has been around too much for me to just automatically shrug this off.
                            One question I have is how can the NBA possibly prove it didn't happen. What would convince you, what would convince most fans.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                              The Times just did a pretty in-depth story on this whole thing.

                              It's pretty long, so I'll bold the highlights.



                              The Gravity of Donaghy’s Accusations Is Unclear

                              Howard Beck
                              New York Times

                              http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/sp...pagewanted=all


                              June 12, 2008

                              The Gravity of Donaghy’s Accusations Is Unclear

                              By HOWARD BECK

                              LOS ANGELES — Troubling new allegations of referee misconduct have dampened the celebratory mood here at the N.B.A. finals, although the line between temporary crisis and long-term scandal is not clear.

                              Tim Donaghy, the disgraced former referee, has accused league officials of manipulating games. Commissioner David Stern has dismissed the claims as “baseless” and the desperate words of a convicted felon who is seeking a light sentence after admitting to conspiring with gamblers.

                              Coaches, players and fans are left to navigate the rhetoric and the accusations without a reliable compass. “The whole Donaghy thing just makes me sick,” Boston Coach Doc Rivers said Wednesday as the Celtics and the Lakers were preparing for Game 4 of the finals.

                              Donaghy’s latest accusations were contained in a four-page letter filed Tuesday in United States District Court in Brooklyn. In the letter, Donaghy said that N.B.A. executives directed referees “to manipulate games” in order to “boost ticket sales and television ratings,” and he cited several alleged examples, including a highly disputed 2002 playoff series between the Lakers and the Sacramento Kings.

                              When he spoke with reporters Tuesday night, Stern repeatedly stated that all of Donaghy’s claims have been investigated by the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors.

                              “We said it in July, and we’ll say it again on the first anniversary: there’s one criminal here,” Stern said.

                              His [Stern's] implication was that if the authorities had discovered other criminal misconduct, they would have acted on it. That is not necessarily the case, according to legal experts.

                              “It takes a long time to investigate cases,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School and a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.

                              Levenson said there were many possible explanations for the absence of criminal charges. She said authorities could still be investigating; they could have “high suspicion” of a criminal act but insufficient proof; or the allegations could simply be false. In some instances — like Donaghy’s accusation of impropriety in a 2002 playoff series — the statute of limitations could have expired, she said.

                              “It doesn’t at all follow that because they didn’t file charges that you can dismiss the allegations,” Levenson said. But, she added: “We have to take it for what it is — allegations. Whether they’re true or false probably remains to be answered.”

                              Levenson said the allegations could prompt the court to delay Donaghy’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for July 14 in Brooklyn.

                              Levenson and another former prosecutor raised questions over the timing of the claims. Donaghy’s lawyer, John Lauro, had already filed a plea letter last month, but without any of the provocative details that were presented Tuesday.

                              “It looks more desperate,” Levenson said of making the claims now. “It looks like he might be stretching. It has less credibility. Things that are in sentencing memos look like last gasps to get whatever they can from the court. We always look at those with a grain of salt. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It doesn’t mean it is true.”

                              Ed McDonald, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said that making the claims now “detracts from the significance of what he had to say, by Lauro’s not raising it in the first letter.”

                              Donaghy was arrested last summer and pleaded guilty to two felony counts in August. He faces up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine, but he is expected to receive a lighter sentence for cooperating with the authorities.

                              Lauro provided enough details in the letter so that specific games that were allegedly tainted by referee misconduct could be recognized. The letter pointed to Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals, in which the Lakers were awarded 40 free throws, including 27 in the fourth quarter, in a victory over the Kings that forced a Game 7.

                              According to Lauro’s letter: “Tim learned from Referee A that Referees A and F wanted to extend the series to seven games. Tim knew Referees A and F to be ‘company men,’ always acting in the interest of the N.B.A., and that night, it was in the N.B.A.’s interest to add another game to the series.”

                              The game was refereed by three tenured veterans: Dick Bavetta, Ted Bernhardt and Bob Delaney. Bernhardt has retired from the league. Under N.B.A. rules, Bavetta and Delaney are not permitted to speak to the news media. However, Delaney, a former New Jersey state trooper, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claims in an interview with ESPN.

                              “This is not the first time a known or convicted criminal has lied about me before the judicial system,” Delaney said Wednesday. “I have an extensive law enforcement background, and still train police officers. I have dealt with criminals and informants, and I know full well they are capable of doing and saying anything.”

                              The FBI has made inquiries about Bavetta, according to a former N.B.A. referee who was interviewed by federal agents last year.

                              Hue Hollins, who retired in 2003 and has been outspoken about the N.B.A.’s treatment of referees, said he met for about an hour with two agents from New York before last season.

                              In addition to asking questions about Donaghy, Hollins said the agents inquired extensively about Bavetta. They asked if he ever noticed that Bavetta “was making sure that the home team would win, and I told them I had no idea because I didn’t work with him a lot.”

                              Hollins said the agents did not ask about a specific team, game or series and did not ask about Game 6 in 2002.

                              “They were very specific about their questioning, as though they had heard something,” Hollins said. “They knew exactly what they were going after.”

                              He said that he didn’t tell them much about either Donaghy or Bavetta, saying he had never noticed suspicious activity by either man. He said it would be difficult for a single referee to affect the outcome of a game.

                              Mark Cuban, the outspoken Dallas Mavericks owner, who has been a leading critic of the N.B.A.’s officiating program, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claim that league officials had orchestrated anything.

                              “There’s no way on God’s green Earth that David Stern has ever done anything to influence the outcome of a game,” Cuban told ESPN.com.

                              Two current N.B.A. referees, in separate interviews, also said Donaghy’s claims were not credible. “I’ve been refereeing since I was 18 years old; I’ve never suspected a referee of cheating in my life,” said a referee, who required anonymity because the N.B.A. prohibits referees from speaking to the news media.

                              Another referee said that Donaghy appeared to be cherry-picking the most well-known and most-controversial games in order to make the biggest impact.

                              “He took a poorly refereed game that everyone knew was a poorly refereed game,” said the referee, referring to Game 6. “He knows where to punch.”

                              Donaghy’s charges have given new life to conspiracy theories about N.B.A. officiating, generating suspicion and conjecture in blogs and on sports talk shows.

                              Given the intensity of the coverage, there is also the possibility of Congressional hearings. There is no indication that the House committee that investigated the steroids scandal in baseball will take up the matter.
                              Scot Pollard, a former Kings center who fouled out of the game in question, sounded doubtful about Donaghy’s charges.

                              “You can’t put credibility in a guy that wasn’t there, didn’t ref the game and doesn’t have a lot of friends in this world right now,” said Pollard, who now plays for Boston. “That game was controversial, anyway. It’s an easy one for somebody to make up a conspiracy theory about.”

                              Katie Thomas, Michael S. Schmidt and Billy Witz contributed reporting.


                              The Pollard quote at the end pretty much tells me that he was joking around in signature Pollard style when he was quoted previously after hearing about the allegations as saying something like [paraphrasing] "I knew something was up."

                              Also, according to Hue Hollins, the FBI clearly has been investigating around.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment


                              • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                                No, but they could call fouls on a certain team one way in the 4th quarter. While the other ref calls the game normally.
                                You cant fix a game that way. If the other team is committing fouls, there is nothing to keep the third ref from calling them.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X