How can David Stern watch this crap and not do anything?
Post Reply
1 of 1
NBA officiating is a GD joke
1,078 Views |
10 Replies |
Last: 14 yr ago by mazag08
agree. Sadly it has gone both ways today in this game. Horrible for both teams.
[This message has been edited by Bunk Moreland (edited 1/29/2012 5:11p).]
[This message has been edited by Bunk Moreland (edited 1/29/2012 5:11p).]
There have definitely been bad calls both ways, but that doesn't excuse this ****.
bad at the NBA level, bad at the NCAA level, absolutely awful at the high school & lower level.
that should lead not to the question "how does David Stern not do anything?" and perhaps to the question "where can we find better quality sports officials?" or maybe "is it possible to have consistently well-officiated basketball games at any level???"
that last part is interesting - you want to sit back and say "well shoot - they just need to hire better officials!" but in reality, if we've never seen any sustained period of good consistent officiating, what makes us think it's even possible in the first place?
quite the interesting discussion.
that should lead not to the question "how does David Stern not do anything?" and perhaps to the question "where can we find better quality sports officials?" or maybe "is it possible to have consistently well-officiated basketball games at any level???"
that last part is interesting - you want to sit back and say "well shoot - they just need to hire better officials!" but in reality, if we've never seen any sustained period of good consistent officiating, what makes us think it's even possible in the first place?
quite the interesting discussion.
There are too many manipulations of each rule.
Game 1: Team A sets 12 screens and not once was the screener completely set. No fouls.
Game 2: Team A does the same thing, thinking they are doing it correctly (or that its not enough to be called for foul) and half of them are called for moving screens.
I think this needs to happen..
1. Decide before the season exactly which things will be called and which things will be allowed to slide more.
2. Call these things EVERY TIME.
3. Get rid of as much interpretation as you can. A foul is a foul at the beginning and and the end of a game. If it means completely relaxing on certain fouls (contact outside of the paint, loose ball, etc) then fine.. but Im tired of refs calling things once and then later they arent a foul.
4. Punishment. Fine a referee if he makes a blatant bad call. If a ref goes on a spree out of emotion, fine him. Get them out of the game. The focus should be on the players and the game, not the referees.
Game 1: Team A sets 12 screens and not once was the screener completely set. No fouls.
Game 2: Team A does the same thing, thinking they are doing it correctly (or that its not enough to be called for foul) and half of them are called for moving screens.
I think this needs to happen..
1. Decide before the season exactly which things will be called and which things will be allowed to slide more.
2. Call these things EVERY TIME.
3. Get rid of as much interpretation as you can. A foul is a foul at the beginning and and the end of a game. If it means completely relaxing on certain fouls (contact outside of the paint, loose ball, etc) then fine.. but Im tired of refs calling things once and then later they arent a foul.
4. Punishment. Fine a referee if he makes a blatant bad call. If a ref goes on a spree out of emotion, fine him. Get them out of the game. The focus should be on the players and the game, not the referees.
Solid ideas Mazag.
Even with all those implementations, there would still be 30-50 50/50 type of calls each game where the ref has to make a quick call on the spot.
I've personally become immune to the bad officiating in the NBA. I just accept it for what it is and hope that the calls even out at the end of the day.
Even with all those implementations, there would still be 30-50 50/50 type of calls each game where the ref has to make a quick call on the spot.
I've personally become immune to the bad officiating in the NBA. I just accept it for what it is and hope that the calls even out at the end of the day.
>>"is it possible to have consistently well-officiated basketball games at any level???"<<
YES. However, the REAL question is "is it possible to have games officiated to the level that fans are satisfied with?" The answer is and always will be NO. Impossible.
Part of it is a rooting interest. There is no way for a fan to be objective -- not even a little bit. I've officiated 2 sports at a very high level (D2 college in both) and I can't be objective about most Aggie games. You can pretend you can be objective, but you're just fooling yourselves. As long as there is a rooting interest, you won't be satisfied with the officiating, even if your team wins.
Part of it is ignorance. Most people don't know how games are officiated, what the rules are, or what the officials are doing or looking at. They THINK they know because they've played or watched a sport for years, but it is a totally different ball game out there when 1) you are objective; 2) you are charged with enforcing rules, which people are naturally prone to dislike; 3) you've actually gone through the rule book word by word, read interpretations, and learn how to interpret the rules on the field/court through experience.
No one will want to hear this, but most fans make ass-clowns out of themselves when talking about rules and officiating.
Here's the deal:
NBA: a joke. Its an entertainment first league and the officiating is geared toward that. Very little comparison to the college game. However, its very consistent toward that purpose.
NCAA: reasonably good. Its better than it was 20 years ago, but it suffers from regional consistency problems -- east coast and mid-west officials do things different than their south and west peers. Also suffers from conference hypocrisy -- want coaches to behave but won't always support the officials when they enforce behavior rules, especially when the AD calls and *****es.
HS: depends on the area. Training is good some places and not so good other places. Its hard to recruit and keep good officials because those always *****ing about the quality are the first ones to scream at them at a game.
Think of it this way: if you're a computer software engineer, how would you like a user of your program to come to your office and scream to you that you don't know jack crap about what you're doing? Officials deal with that same level of scenario every game.
From a logical perspective, you have to wonder why most fans think officiating is no better than it was 5, 10, 20, and 50 years ago. You will NEVER be satisfied with the officiating because they're doing something out there that most people don't understand.
YES. However, the REAL question is "is it possible to have games officiated to the level that fans are satisfied with?" The answer is and always will be NO. Impossible.
Part of it is a rooting interest. There is no way for a fan to be objective -- not even a little bit. I've officiated 2 sports at a very high level (D2 college in both) and I can't be objective about most Aggie games. You can pretend you can be objective, but you're just fooling yourselves. As long as there is a rooting interest, you won't be satisfied with the officiating, even if your team wins.
Part of it is ignorance. Most people don't know how games are officiated, what the rules are, or what the officials are doing or looking at. They THINK they know because they've played or watched a sport for years, but it is a totally different ball game out there when 1) you are objective; 2) you are charged with enforcing rules, which people are naturally prone to dislike; 3) you've actually gone through the rule book word by word, read interpretations, and learn how to interpret the rules on the field/court through experience.
No one will want to hear this, but most fans make ass-clowns out of themselves when talking about rules and officiating.
Here's the deal:
NBA: a joke. Its an entertainment first league and the officiating is geared toward that. Very little comparison to the college game. However, its very consistent toward that purpose.
NCAA: reasonably good. Its better than it was 20 years ago, but it suffers from regional consistency problems -- east coast and mid-west officials do things different than their south and west peers. Also suffers from conference hypocrisy -- want coaches to behave but won't always support the officials when they enforce behavior rules, especially when the AD calls and *****es.
HS: depends on the area. Training is good some places and not so good other places. Its hard to recruit and keep good officials because those always *****ing about the quality are the first ones to scream at them at a game.
Think of it this way: if you're a computer software engineer, how would you like a user of your program to come to your office and scream to you that you don't know jack crap about what you're doing? Officials deal with that same level of scenario every game.
From a logical perspective, you have to wonder why most fans think officiating is no better than it was 5, 10, 20, and 50 years ago. You will NEVER be satisfied with the officiating because they're doing something out there that most people don't understand.
If a computer software engineer makes a bad program..it wont sell. The difference is.. We have to buy the crap these refs sell because there are no other options and no repercussions like there are for somebody with a real job.
^^^
sorry maz, I was with you for a while, but this last post is completely off base. categorically untrue and hopelessly misinformed.
sorry maz, I was with you for a while, but this last post is completely off base. categorically untrue and hopelessly misinformed.
Uh.. if you are going to say that then you will need to tell me why. Because I have no idea what you are talking about
Fair enough - I'm referring to your point that the officials face no repercussions as opposed to someone who has a real job.
[rambling alert. sorry in advance.]
Basketball officials are evaluated and rated on many of the games that they do. These evaluations and ratings are compiled and used during assessments of the individual's job performance. Officials are routinely fined [loss of game check(s)] and/or suspended for offenses that are egregious enough to warrant such action (you may not agree on what it takes to be considered egregious, but that's a different argument really). Consistent under-performance can end up in the official losing their schedule at whatever level of the game they are at - say for example a D1 basketball official is consistently rated low, he will eventually lose his D1 games. That's not to say that the official will be "fired from officiating" or anything, because what will happen is he will drop back down to D2 or something like that.
Discipline of officials happens much more often that the average fan would like to believe, however it is extremely rare for such discipline to be made public, and frankly I agree with that decision. Making that information public can have no positive benefit on any future situation that official may be in or any game he may be working.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure I'll mention that I have a reputation on the football boards of rigorously fighting against the masses when they're going ape sh*t crazy about officiating during some of our games. I have officiated varsity high school level football and basketball (certainly not the experienced official that the gentleman above is, but I have dipped my feet in the waters). I don't subscribe to the generic statement "well you haven't been an official before you don't know what it's like" basically because it doesn't really mean anything. The one application of that statement I do generally believe is that most people who haven't officiated sports before don't understand why a call may be missed, which I believe is something that's very interesting to consider especially considering your thoughts earlier about fines/penalties for officials missing calls, screwing up, etc...
It is my personal belief that positioning is the single biggest issue related to "missed calls" in the entire world of sports officiating. Consider, for example, the ump-cam in football (when they mount a camera on the umpire's cap). You watch that video and can't help but think "damn... what an unbelievable cluster-****". And with that, about 50-55% of holding calls have to come from that position. I'm not trying to throw out the "ooooh it's a hard job" or any junk like that - just a simple statement that there are many times that, based on an official's position on the playing surface (instead of from a lofted TV angle), there is not a good view of the competitive matchup that is in question.
The concept of objectivity is one I don't like to argue about too much but I must confess I believe it to be true as 91 stated. If you have a basketball game between the Rockets and the Spurs, your typical Rockets fan will react to approx 95% of the fouls called against the Spurs with nothing more than a nod of the head with the possibility of acknowledging 5% with a "wow, ok that was a gift" type of reaction (to what you would consider an egregiously terrible call). On the flip side of that, fouls called against Houston will draw approx 25-35% head nods, 45-55% "what? come on...." and maybe 20% "WHAT!??!?!?!?! THAT'S F*ING TERRIBLE!" What I'm getting at is the very close, 50/50 type calls... they get extremely over-analyzed when they go against your team (not you specifically, I'm speaking in generalities), and they're written off as clear fouls when they go the other way. We all know an obvious foul when we see one, and we all know a blatant bad call when we see one.
When interpretations of rules are placed in the hands of humans, you are 100% guaranteed to see the influence of the human element. A basketball referee is taught to call a foul when a player's rhythm, speed, balance, or quickness is improperly affected by the actions of an opponent. It is categorically impossible to draw a solid, definitive line of what falls into this category and what doesn't - a lot is left up to a single official's judgement.
To reference back to the NBA, I recall an out of bounds call in the Mavericks-Spurs game the other night during overtime where the officials went to video replay to ensure they got the call right. They looked at slow motion replay from like 4 different angles for a good 3 minutes and it was impossible to definitively tell who the ball went out off of. That is the environment these folks are working in, except they get only one look from an often bad angle at full speed. Of course they're going to miss a LOT of stuff.
On some of your thoughts above:
Sure. They do their best on stuff like this, but there is only so much video they can dig-up for examples and whatnot. It sounds great in theory and works for some instances, but invariably you run into a situation where someone has to decide "ok, that looks a lot like the foul we saw in that video, but he didn't make quite as much contact as the example they showed us --- is it still enough to be a foul?"
I hate the concept of "swallowing the whistle" at the end of the game and I'm with you - a foul is a foul. Historically the NHL had the worst reputation in this area when it came to overtime in the playoffs - penalties simply just stopped getting called to a very, very extreme level.
Something that's very interesting about this point tho - think back to the last drive of the A&M vs Texas football game. You already know where I'm going with this - the "helmet contact" personal foul. One of the biggest arguments against that call from all over TexAgs was that "you can't make that call this late in the game with so much on the line!" It wasn't an argument that the player wasn't hit in the head (he obviously was), it was about the level of interpretation and the time in the game that it was called.
Fines - No problem whatsoever with a fine being issued to an official who is blatantly not doing their job (see the Syracuse basketball game in the Big East tournament last year when the officials seemed to stop working the last few seconds of the game). If an official is consistently out of position or doing something mechanically wrong over and over that is causing them to miss calls, ok I can understand that as well. What I can't agree with is issuing a fine to an official for disagreeing with that person's judgement. The job of the official (to completely over-simplify it) is to administer a game and call fouls/penalties to the best of their ability when they believe a player/team has been wronged. It is not the job of a sports official (nor is it stated in any official's job description) that the job is to call every game perfectly, and obviously neither you nor I expect or anticipate perfection. An official calling a foul (ultimately right or wrong) that he believes to be a foul is an official performing his job as described.
Sprees based on emotion - It's funny that we expect pure, unwavering and perpetual "professionalism" from sports officials while considering it completely acceptable to berate them with demeaning insults and threats while they're simply trying to do their job. Coaches go on sprees based on emotion, players go on sprees based on emotion, and officials are guilty of it as well. It is a product of the environment, and as much as officials shouldn't do it, we return to the concept of the human element. Officials do this significantly less than players, coaches, and fans as it is. Without being down on the playing surface with the players, coaches, and officials, it is nearly impossible to know if one of these "sprees" is warranted or not... because sometimes it absolutely is. One thing officials are charged with is heavily asserting control of games and game situations where the actions and attitudes of the participants take a turn for the worse. If a game is going to hell with escalating fouls and/or trash talk or something of that sort, you will see officials "reel it in" so to speak, and it can often come across as the official "making the game about himself" or something like that. It looks bad from the outside when you're not down in the trenches, but it is an extremely effective tool to prevent the entire situation from going to hell.
Frankly speaking, when you watch the top levels of sports (upper echelon of college/semi-pro sports and professional spors), you're looking at the best officials available in those sports whether you're willing to accept that or not. It's easy to sit back and watch the NBA and D1 basketball and say "well sh*t these officials suck, they need to hire better officials". Ok, where do you think the better officials are then?
[This message has been edited by asf-07 (edited 2/1/2012 10:14a).]
[rambling alert. sorry in advance.]
Basketball officials are evaluated and rated on many of the games that they do. These evaluations and ratings are compiled and used during assessments of the individual's job performance. Officials are routinely fined [loss of game check(s)] and/or suspended for offenses that are egregious enough to warrant such action (you may not agree on what it takes to be considered egregious, but that's a different argument really). Consistent under-performance can end up in the official losing their schedule at whatever level of the game they are at - say for example a D1 basketball official is consistently rated low, he will eventually lose his D1 games. That's not to say that the official will be "fired from officiating" or anything, because what will happen is he will drop back down to D2 or something like that.
Discipline of officials happens much more often that the average fan would like to believe, however it is extremely rare for such discipline to be made public, and frankly I agree with that decision. Making that information public can have no positive benefit on any future situation that official may be in or any game he may be working.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure I'll mention that I have a reputation on the football boards of rigorously fighting against the masses when they're going ape sh*t crazy about officiating during some of our games. I have officiated varsity high school level football and basketball (certainly not the experienced official that the gentleman above is, but I have dipped my feet in the waters). I don't subscribe to the generic statement "well you haven't been an official before you don't know what it's like" basically because it doesn't really mean anything. The one application of that statement I do generally believe is that most people who haven't officiated sports before don't understand why a call may be missed, which I believe is something that's very interesting to consider especially considering your thoughts earlier about fines/penalties for officials missing calls, screwing up, etc...
It is my personal belief that positioning is the single biggest issue related to "missed calls" in the entire world of sports officiating. Consider, for example, the ump-cam in football (when they mount a camera on the umpire's cap). You watch that video and can't help but think "damn... what an unbelievable cluster-****". And with that, about 50-55% of holding calls have to come from that position. I'm not trying to throw out the "ooooh it's a hard job" or any junk like that - just a simple statement that there are many times that, based on an official's position on the playing surface (instead of from a lofted TV angle), there is not a good view of the competitive matchup that is in question.
The concept of objectivity is one I don't like to argue about too much but I must confess I believe it to be true as 91 stated. If you have a basketball game between the Rockets and the Spurs, your typical Rockets fan will react to approx 95% of the fouls called against the Spurs with nothing more than a nod of the head with the possibility of acknowledging 5% with a "wow, ok that was a gift" type of reaction (to what you would consider an egregiously terrible call). On the flip side of that, fouls called against Houston will draw approx 25-35% head nods, 45-55% "what? come on...." and maybe 20% "WHAT!??!?!?!?! THAT'S F*ING TERRIBLE!" What I'm getting at is the very close, 50/50 type calls... they get extremely over-analyzed when they go against your team (not you specifically, I'm speaking in generalities), and they're written off as clear fouls when they go the other way. We all know an obvious foul when we see one, and we all know a blatant bad call when we see one.
When interpretations of rules are placed in the hands of humans, you are 100% guaranteed to see the influence of the human element. A basketball referee is taught to call a foul when a player's rhythm, speed, balance, or quickness is improperly affected by the actions of an opponent. It is categorically impossible to draw a solid, definitive line of what falls into this category and what doesn't - a lot is left up to a single official's judgement.
To reference back to the NBA, I recall an out of bounds call in the Mavericks-Spurs game the other night during overtime where the officials went to video replay to ensure they got the call right. They looked at slow motion replay from like 4 different angles for a good 3 minutes and it was impossible to definitively tell who the ball went out off of. That is the environment these folks are working in, except they get only one look from an often bad angle at full speed. Of course they're going to miss a LOT of stuff.
On some of your thoughts above:
quote:
1. Decide before the season exactly which things will be called and which things will be allowed to slide more.
2. Call these things EVERY TIME.
Sure. They do their best on stuff like this, but there is only so much video they can dig-up for examples and whatnot. It sounds great in theory and works for some instances, but invariably you run into a situation where someone has to decide "ok, that looks a lot like the foul we saw in that video, but he didn't make quite as much contact as the example they showed us --- is it still enough to be a foul?"
quote:
3. Get rid of as much interpretation as you can. A foul is a foul at the beginning and and the end of a game. If it means completely relaxing on certain fouls (contact outside of the paint, loose ball, etc) then fine.. but Im tired of refs calling things once and then later they arent a foul.
I hate the concept of "swallowing the whistle" at the end of the game and I'm with you - a foul is a foul. Historically the NHL had the worst reputation in this area when it came to overtime in the playoffs - penalties simply just stopped getting called to a very, very extreme level.
Something that's very interesting about this point tho - think back to the last drive of the A&M vs Texas football game. You already know where I'm going with this - the "helmet contact" personal foul. One of the biggest arguments against that call from all over TexAgs was that "you can't make that call this late in the game with so much on the line!" It wasn't an argument that the player wasn't hit in the head (he obviously was), it was about the level of interpretation and the time in the game that it was called.
quote:
4. Punishment. Fine a referee if he makes a blatant bad call. If a ref goes on a spree out of emotion, fine him. Get them out of the game. The focus should be on the players and the game, not the referees.
Fines - No problem whatsoever with a fine being issued to an official who is blatantly not doing their job (see the Syracuse basketball game in the Big East tournament last year when the officials seemed to stop working the last few seconds of the game). If an official is consistently out of position or doing something mechanically wrong over and over that is causing them to miss calls, ok I can understand that as well. What I can't agree with is issuing a fine to an official for disagreeing with that person's judgement. The job of the official (to completely over-simplify it) is to administer a game and call fouls/penalties to the best of their ability when they believe a player/team has been wronged. It is not the job of a sports official (nor is it stated in any official's job description) that the job is to call every game perfectly, and obviously neither you nor I expect or anticipate perfection. An official calling a foul (ultimately right or wrong) that he believes to be a foul is an official performing his job as described.
Sprees based on emotion - It's funny that we expect pure, unwavering and perpetual "professionalism" from sports officials while considering it completely acceptable to berate them with demeaning insults and threats while they're simply trying to do their job. Coaches go on sprees based on emotion, players go on sprees based on emotion, and officials are guilty of it as well. It is a product of the environment, and as much as officials shouldn't do it, we return to the concept of the human element. Officials do this significantly less than players, coaches, and fans as it is. Without being down on the playing surface with the players, coaches, and officials, it is nearly impossible to know if one of these "sprees" is warranted or not... because sometimes it absolutely is. One thing officials are charged with is heavily asserting control of games and game situations where the actions and attitudes of the participants take a turn for the worse. If a game is going to hell with escalating fouls and/or trash talk or something of that sort, you will see officials "reel it in" so to speak, and it can often come across as the official "making the game about himself" or something like that. It looks bad from the outside when you're not down in the trenches, but it is an extremely effective tool to prevent the entire situation from going to hell.
Frankly speaking, when you watch the top levels of sports (upper echelon of college/semi-pro sports and professional spors), you're looking at the best officials available in those sports whether you're willing to accept that or not. It's easy to sit back and watch the NBA and D1 basketball and say "well sh*t these officials suck, they need to hire better officials". Ok, where do you think the better officials are then?
[This message has been edited by asf-07 (edited 2/1/2012 10:14a).]
Great post. I stand corrected on the punishment issue. Lots of good info. Thanks.
Featured Stories
See All
Gavin Grahovac named co-SEC Player of the Week
by Richard Zane
Jorian Wilson earns SEC Freshman of the Week honors
by Richard Zane
16:33
4h ago
2.0k
Earley talks road sweep of Mizzou, what lies ahead for No. 20 A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
7:09
3h ago
1.5k
5:57
3h ago
1.2k
rca21978
The Horns will be without their starting short stop when they come to visit
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
43
AggiePoot
The Horns will be without their starting short stop when they come to visit
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
35