Do you think Game Six of the 2002 WCF was fixed?

[Galileo]

Do you think Game Six of the 2002 WCF was fixed?

Los Angeles Lakers vs. Sacremento Kings

1. Yes, it was fixed by David Stern and Bob Delaney

2. Yes, it was fixed by David Stern, Bob Delaney, and Dick Bavetta

3. No, the game wasn't fixed

4. Not sure

Evidence and analysis here:

VIDEO EVIDENCE

Kings vs. Lakers, 2002 WCF Game 6, Part 1 of 3
http://www.gazotube.com/LcS10rSrOhI.html

Kings vs. Lakers, 2002 WCF Game 6, Part 2 of 3
http://www.gazotube.com/ZlByVWEEXE8.html

Kings vs. Lakers, 2002 WCF Game 6, Part 3 of 3
http://www.gazotube.com/b0KJvlSUB-w.html

NBA: Where Rigged Games Happens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4t5RMFt5u8&feature=player_embedded

NBA Fixed
http://www.video4viet.com/watchvideo.html?id=H_i3Vnd0n44&title=Nba+Fixed

WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Ralph Nader and League of Fans' letter to NBA Commissioner David Stern regarding egregious officiating
http://www.leagueoffans.org/sternletter.html

A Professional Gambler's Take on the Tim Donaghy Scandal
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/4966/a-professional-gambler-s-take-on-the-tim-donaghy-scandal

Excerpts From The Book The NBA Doesn't Want You To Read
http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read

Reviewing the calls: Lakers-Kings Game 6
http://www.82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm

REPORT TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION
http://www.nba.com/media/PedowitzReport.pdf

EXPERT ANALYSIS

NBA is FIXED!
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98742

Deadspin: Excerpts From The Book The NBA Doesn't Want You To Read
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137891

[Whisky Dog]

I didn't know it was broken

[Quiet Strength]

I didn't know it was broken

:lol

[Flux451]

let's change history! Who's with me.....................let's go get some ice cream.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Yes. I'll never forget watching that game. God I hate the Lakers.

[DMX7]

5. Let's just stop talking about this.

[baseline bum]

No, but calling that foul on Bibby for getting smashed in the face by Bryant's elbow at the end was shameful. Bavetta's an idiot.

[SA210]

Of course it was, and so were many games against us.

[TDMVPDPOY]

any games against the lakers on their court is always fix....

fck themj

[mazerrackham]

No, but calling that foul on Bibby for getting smashed in the face by Bryant's elbow at the end was shameful. Bavetta's an idiot.

Bibby didn't get a foul on that play, but not calling it on Bryant was a travesty.

[spurs1990]

Yes it was slanted towards LA. Anyone who watched it knew it INSTANTLY.

More importantly, I would similarly state the 2006 semifinals between San Antonio and Dallas was poorly officiated in favor of the Mavericks. The NBA did not want a Spurs-Pistons rematch.

[barbacoataco]

Not sure I'd call it "fixed" in the sense the 1919 World Series was fixed. Sacramento missed some shots they could have made. The Lakers were going to the line a lot, but they did have Shaq and Kobe, who are two of the most un-guardable players around.
I still believe that inb a 7 game series the better team wins, even if one ref in one game had it out for one team or another. But the NBA needs to do something to assure fans that the refs are fair and neutral.

[Allanon]

:lol

[Galileo]

sorry, this was supposed to be a poll, but something f'd up.

[phyzik]

:lol

As much as I hate the fucking Fakers, the Spurs have certainly had their fair share of games go their way.

I thik shit happens but there is no way to completely fix the game. If your team plays, you will win.... Covering the spread is a different story.

Its all about the spread....

[Allanon]

As much as I hate the fucking Fakers, the Spurs have certainly had their fair share of games go their way.

I thik shit happens but there is no way to completely fix the game. If your team plays, you will win.... Covering the spread is a different story.

Its all about the spread....

I think the spread is covered by the individual players themselves rather than the refs. I've seen spread breaking plays often enough on meaningless baskets to make me wonder.

The spread might be something I would question, but not the 7 game series winners.

[phyzik]

I think the spread is covered by the individual players themselves rather than the refs. I've seen spread breaking plays often enough on meaningless baskets to make me wonder.

The spread might be something I would question, but not the 7 game series winners.

Exactly.... the best team will win.... with a few exceptions that are highly questionable in the last 10 years.... Spurs vs Suns.... Lakers vs Kings.... Mavs vs Heat.... Mavs vs Spurs...

[da_suns_fan]

Im not sure it was "fixed", but there might have been influence to extend the "de-facto" finals.

Not sure what this is doing in the Spurs forum.

[AussieFanKurt]

2. Yes, it was fixed by David Stern, Bob Delaney, and Dick Bavetta

[z0sa]

It's a business. Lakers are good for business.

So the real question is: how good are the Lakers for business?

[AussieFanKurt]

It's a business. Lakers are good for business.

So the real question is: how good are the Lakers for business?

Its sad its like this.
It should be sport more than entertainment
Good sport brings spectators

[JWest596]

Fixed or not, the perception of the lack of integrity in the NBA falls solely on the shoulders of David Stern. You either follow the rule book of basketball fairly and accurately as possible or you have something else.

Subjective interpretations of the rules from "superstar rules" to "rookie rules", etc. serves no one but breeds skepticism, doubt and cynicism.

And no one to date has ever once accused David Stern that the integrity of the NBA game was paramount over the marketing of the NBA or the pursuit of profit.

It's that simple nor is it that hard to comprehend. And it will lead to public eventually turning its back on the NBA when it is finally and irrevocably perceived as "entertainment" instead of a sport.

Stern should have been fired immediately after Doneghy. It happened on his watch and he should have been held accountable and wasn't. In that regard, yes the fix is in.

Baseball understood this in 1919, the NBA will learn the hard way.

[raspsa]

All energy focused on enjoying this season. What's passed is past. You'll go crazy playing the "what if" game.

[will_spurs]

People who believe Game 6 of the 2002 WCF wasn't fixed also typically believe the following:
- ice skating isn't fixed
- no boxer was ever paid to go down
- there's no doping in cycling
- ice hockey isn't all about brawls

and so on and so forth.

[AussieFanKurt]

People who believe Game 6 of the 2002 WCF wasn't fixed also typically believe the following:
- ice skating isn't fixed
- no boxer was ever paid to go down
- there's no doping in cycling
- ice hockey isn't all about brawls


:toast

[Muser]

It was nearly 8 years ago, let it go...

[FromWayDowntown]

It was fixed and in fact, EVERY SINGLE PLAYOFF GAME that the Spurs have lost since 2001 was directly attributable to David Stern's agenda and the influence that he exercises over the league's officials.



Um, what's that? They've won a lot more playoff games than they've lost while that agenda was in place? Huh? And they've won 4 championships? And played in 6 conference finals? Well, uh, just imagine what they could have done if only Stern hadn't been the puppet master pulling the strings. . . . Yeah, that's it.

[temujin]

I pretty much believe that the whole issue boils down to the distinction between those that think professional basketball is a sport, and those that think it's a business.

Just about any business can be fixed, given the proper conditions.

[will_spurs]

Um, what's that? They've won a lot more playoff games than they've lost while that agenda was in place? Huh? And they've won 4 championships? And played in 6 conference finals? Well, uh, just imagine what they could have done if only Stern hadn't been the puppet master pulling the strings. . . . Yeah, that's it.

You assume 2 things:
a) Stern doesn't want the Spurs to win
b) if Stern hasn't hampered the Spurs progress, then he hasn't hampered any other team's progress

Re: a), I'm not so sure. In every story you need a good guy, and that's the Spurs, kind of the cinderella story of the small market team, nice players, charity, dedication, hard work and so on. That's 50% of American values. On the other side the Lakers, all bling, riches, spoiled, flashy, big market "one size fits all" franchise with loaded with superstars who don't mind making the headlines for no reason. That's the other 50% of American values.

In short, there's no reason to screw with the Lakers or Spurs. The teams to screw with are Portland, Toronto, Sac-town and so on.

b) well, that's an obvious logical flaw. As I stated before, eyes and a functioning brain are the only 2 things required to realize that that game was fixed. In short, I'm happy to state that whoever believes Game 6 of the 2002 WCF wasn't fixed is either blind or dumb. Take your pick.

And we didn't have to wait for Donaghy to know that.

[hater]

not fixed. Influenced.


those who think the NBA is fixed, as in Stern chooses which team will win it. Are crazy conspiracy theorists.

on the other hand, those who think the NBA is not influenced at all, are delusional lemmings.

[Spurs Brazil]

Not fixed

[easjer]

not fixed. Influenced.


those who think the NBA is fixed, as in Stern chooses which team will win it. Are crazy conspiracy theorists.

on the other hand, those who think the NBA is not influenced at all, are delusional lemmings.

I think that may be one of the best, most logical outlines I've ever heard about NBA conspiracy theories.

:toast

[easjer]

It was fixed and in fact, EVERY SINGLE PLAYOFF GAME that the Spurs have lost since 2001 was directly attributable to David Stern's agenda and the influence that he exercises over the league's officials.



Um, what's that? They've won a lot more playoff games than they've lost while that agenda was in place? Huh? And they've won 4 championships? And played in 6 conference finals? Well, uh, just imagine what they could have done if only Stern hadn't been the puppet master pulling the strings. . . . Yeah, that's it.

:lol

The Spurs are the biggest flaw in the conspiracy theorists' arguments, being team players with a boring, defense-centered game, with superstars who are efficient but boring, and a small-market team to boot.

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which the Spurs could win 4 championships if things are fixed. Two or three? Actually, yeah, then you can have a conspiracy based argument that the Spurs were the perfect team to deflect suspicion of game fixing.

However, I have a hard time with the fact that we (you and I) have in the past discussed in advance how certain games were likely to be affected because of the release of the referee schedules and we were right. We've known that certain referees influence the game, and that certain referees have officiated in favor of certain teams and/or players.

I really think Hater summed up it best - influenced, yes. Fixed, no.

But the reality is that the refs can influence a whole lot, but ultimately (in at least 95% of the cases) the players are the ones who either rise above and play so well that the calls have minimal impact or they allow themselves to be bothered by it and allow it to affect their game. And that can't be fixed unless the players are fixing it. Which is a whole other can of worms.

[dbestpro]

There was a time in the 70s where the game was played as a team and a foul was a foul. Money has changed all of that. When there is more money made in merchandising that in the actual game the corruption is inevitable. Even the international draw of the Spurs has made them a money franchise.

Yes, Sacramento got screwed, but so did the Seahawks against the Steelers. It;s like trying to read the same book and expecting a different ending. At least the Spurs get to win in some of the books. Imagine the King, Warriors, Pacer and worst yet Nugget, Mav or Sun fan. You really have to feel for these guys as they read the same book never to find themselves in that final chapter. But then they turn dirtbag and kind of get what they deserve.

[NFGIII]

I don't know if it was fixed but that game should go down as one of the worst officiated games ever. Bibby's foul on Kobe in particular. Some of the calls in favor of Shaq were mighty peculiar, too.

I don't know how this is going to play out but I feel this will not end well for the NBA.

[FromWayDowntown]

You assume 2 things:
a) Stern doesn't want the Spurs to win
b) if Stern hasn't hampered the Spurs progress, then he hasn't hampered any other team's progress

Re: a), I'm not so sure. In every story you need a good guy, and that's the Spurs, kind of the cinderella story of the small market team, nice players, charity, dedication, hard work and so on. That's 50% of American values. On the other side the Lakers, all bling, riches, spoiled, flashy, big market "one size fits all" franchise with loaded with superstars who don't mind making the headlines for no reason. That's the other 50% of American values.

Ask a fan of just about any NBA team other than the San Antonio Spurs whether the Spurs are perceived as "good guys" and I'm pretty sure you'll get a resounding "no." While the Spurs might be objectively nice people and good guys who engender a significant amount of respect, they've been the men in the black hats in the NBA story for a long time -- at least in terms of perception. Bruce Bowen has been called a billion different negative names by fans of opposing teams and journalists; Manu Ginobili may be more vilified, but in less colorful terms. Tony Parker and Tim Duncan have earned respect, but are routinely castigated for things that they do on court that are unrelated to their actual skills as basketball players.

To be sure, I agree with you that the Spurs are the good guys -- I think much of the blowback they get is rooted in the fact that they've been exceedingly successful for an extremely long period of time while repeatedly vanquishing team after team over that span. Through this run, the Spurs have (I think) two legitimate "rivals" -- the Lakers and Mavericks. Everyone else hates the Spurs because the Spurs seem to always beat them.

That truth may, as much as anything, be manifest by the fact that the Spurs have proven to be ratings Kryptonite -- even Lebron James couldn't bring ratings to a Finals involving the Spurs. If the league's motivation in rigging games is to drive viewers to create revenue, it's done an extremely poor job in executing that motive by not doing more to keep the interest-sapping Spurs out of the Finals.


b) well, that's an obvious logical flaw. As I stated before, eyes and a functioning brain are the only 2 things required to realize that that game was fixed. In short, I'm happy to state that whoever believes Game 6 of the 2002 WCF wasn't fixed is either blind or dumb. Take your pick.

And we didn't have to wait for Donaghy to know that.

Oh, I'm not at all saying that Stern has only hampered the Spurs progress. In fact, I'm saying that Stern hasn't hampered any team's progress. Certainly, Kings fans believe that they had the better team in 2002 -- and maybe they did -- but to me, the Kings cost themselves that series when they didn't corral the rebound that led to Horry's game-winner. Gather in that one rebound, and the game is over; of course, they didn't and that was a pattern in that series, as the Lakers outrebounded the Kings in 5 of the 7 games, and usually by a handy margin. They cost themselves that series when they shot like garbage for parts of Game 7, including going 16-30 from the stripe in that game.

I don't think Game 6 was "fixed," and whether that makes me blind or dumb is something I'll leave to you to decide. What I do know is that regardless of what anyone thinks about the officiating in Game 6, the Kings could have closed out the series in 5 if they had just corralled that one more rebound and they would have won the series in 7 if they had maintained their poise in Game 7 and shot better from the line. Either way, what kept the Kings out of the Finals that year wasn't the officiating -- it was the Kings' failure to execute at key moments and the Lakers' execution in those key moments. Neither of those things have anything to do with the officials.

[FromWayDowntown]

However, I have a hard time with the fact that we (you and I) have in the past discussed in advance how certain games were likely to be affected because of the release of the referee schedules and we were right. We've known that certain referees influence the game, and that certain referees have officiated in favor of certain teams and/or players.

I'm not sure that I've ever really gone that far. I think my point has always been that officials are idiosyncratic and that if you watch them closely, you can pick up on the way that they do things. Some officials call games that tend to be more favorable to certain teams, but I don't think that's a team-specific agenda at play. Dan Crawford, for years and years, allowed teams to just play in the playoffs and that style definitely favored more rugged teams than those that relied on getting to the line a lot. Steve Javie is clearly unconcerned with pissing off home crowds and, therefore, tends to give the road team a more even game than it might usually expect in a big game. Joey Crawford is a technically brilliant official whose play calling is exceptional, but he's a hot head who can allow his greatness to be shadowed by his emotions. There are other examples, but all of them are fairly well-known.

There are also a bunch of officials who seem to get overwhelmed by a big moment, who get intimidated by home crowds, who will try to atone for blowing a call by blowing a different call, who will get pissed at coaches who complain and blow the whistle according to that, and some who just aren't very good. All of those things are idiosyncratic and not (I think) driven by any particular agenda.

Then there is a group of officials who are just plain good at what they do. Their calls are almost always correct, their personalities stay out of the game, they aren't swayed by the crowd, they don't try to get into make-up calls and all of that.

Finally, I also think some officials tend to call games in a manner to manipulate the score to try to create an exciting finish (Bavetta).

Do those things affect the way a game is called? Sure. Are they the consequence of some broad agenda to favor particular teams over others? I don't see that -- these categories are far too consistent, over a variety of games involving a variety of teams, to evidence any sort of overt team-based favoritism.


I really think Hater summed up it best - influenced, yes. Fixed, no.

I think officiating will always influence games, but again, I don't think there's a particular agenda for or against any particular teams, cities, or players that universally drives that influence. And that's my ultimate problem with the complaints that underlie threads like this one.


But the reality is that the refs can influence a whole lot, but ultimately (in at least 95% of the cases) the players are the ones who either rise above and play so well that the calls have minimal impact or they allow themselves to be bothered by it and allow it to affect their game. And that can't be fixed unless the players are fixing it. Which is a whole other can of worms.

At bottom, I firmly believe that the players decide every single game; no matter how the officials are blowing their whistles, a team can win any game if it takes care of its business by rebounding the basketball, runs its offense efficiently, and remains poised no matter what the whistles might be.

[easjer]

I think that is a totally fair summation, and I don't think we disagree on much.


Do those things affect the way a game is called? Sure. Are they the consequence of some broad agenda to favor particular teams over others? I don't see that -- these categories are far too consistent, over a variety of games involving a variety of teams, to evidence any sort of overt team-based favoritism.

I tend to agree with you that there is not really a broad agenda that can be determined via watching officials; but I maintain that when you can predict certain outcomes or behaviors by officials, there is something wrong and an element introduced to the game which ought not be there if you don't want to fan the flames.

You point out certain instances of behaviors, some fair (Javie, Dan Crawford) and some that pose problems or potential issues of unfairness (Bavetta, Joey Crawford, your second paragraph). If the NBA wants to keep things on the up and up - those refs should no longer be employed, and certainly not during potentially pivotal games.

I am one of the people who will jump on officiating after a game if there it was egregiously bad, win or lose. I bitch about refs. I generally state what we clearly agree on though - that ultimately, it's the players that determine the outcome (and obviously - the players are the ones shooting/rebounding/passing, etc) in most cases. But there are times (eh, 5% was probably too high, granted) that the officials have the opportunity to disrupt the game by interfering with the flow, by not calling the game evenly on both sides, by awarding fouls in such a way that a key player is taken out. To some extent, the players/team are responsible for adjusting to the calls on a given night, but there are instances (uh, Duncan being thrown out for laughing pops to mind - and the ref was disciplined for that, as if it could change the outcome of the game after the fact) where refs do influence or affect the game beyond their bounds.

And while the NBA continues to allow that, continues to allow those officials to remain on the payroll, there are going to continue to be questions about the legitimacy of the game.

[temujin]

The Spurs are NOT the good guys, by any means.
Good guys never win it all in real life.

Without the links of Popovich, in particular with Mr Stern, the Spurs would have been EXACTLY where they were in the 70s and early 80s and in the DR era.

Cheerfull folks invited to the party, but not really in the inner circle of "friends" celebrating more seriously at the end of it.

[21_Blessings]

It was fixed as much as games 2 and 5 were in the 2002 WCF.

Ultimately the refs did not make Webber choke in game 7. He was born a choker.

[21_Blessings]

And LMAO @ people thinking Donaghy has credibility here.

Let's ignore the FACT that Donaghy BET ON GAMES HE OFFICIATED. HE OFFICIATED the 2007 Spurs/Suns series and made some blatantly terrible calls. hmmmm :flag:

[jag]

So many people in this forum live in a fantasy world.

[quentin_compson]

The officiating in that game was a joke, to put it that way.

I really really liked the Kings back then, still we shouldn't forget that they made a lot of costly mistakes in game 7 (missing a ton of free throws, for one).

I'm with Pop who once said that in a best of 7 series, the better team always wins.

[Baseline]

Yes it was slanted towards LA. Anyone who watched it knew it INSTANTLY.

More importantly, I would similarly state the 2006 semifinals between San Antonio and Dallas was poorly officiated in favor of the Mavericks. The NBA did not want a Spurs-Pistons rematch.

Totally agree.

I've estated this numerous times about the 2006 playoff series with the Mavs. Cuban had been whistle-blowing all season long, and his influence had the refs running scared in that series. Not that Stern disagreed with the Spurs losing, either. It may be the one time Stern has agreed with Cuban.

Tim was hacked on the wrist on the final play of regulation in Game 7. This was right under the basket with about 2 seconds remaining and the score tied. The foul wasn't called (refs swallowed their whistles), the game went into OT, and we lost.

Does anybody have a video of that play? Either Diop or Dirk fouled Duncan. It seems like Dirk admitted it after the game.

So for all the people who say "the better team wins in a 7-game series"? Well, that depends on how the refs call key plays in the games. In the Game 7 mentioned above, if the right call is made, the Spurs advance...and most likely pummel the Miami Heat in the Finals.

To me, that 2006 Game 7 is one of the most overlooked (and blatantly obvious) ref mistakes in NBA history.

[Allanon]

not fixed. Influenced.


those who think the NBA is fixed, as in Stern chooses which team will win it. Are crazy conspiracy theorists.

I agree.



on the other hand, those who think the NBA is not influenced at all, are delusional lemmings.

I sort of agree with this depending on your meaning of influenced.

A) Superstar calls - yes
B) Giving in to the crowd - yes
C) "I'm not sure about this call, I'll give the down team this call" - yes
D) Bibby bitched me out, Kobe's been cool, I'll give Bibby the foul - yes
E) I don't like Sheed dissin' me, I'm gonna give him a tech - yes
F) Ron Artest has a reputation for holding, I'll give him that foul though I'm not 100% sure - yes
G) Makeup calls - yes

Refs are human, they're definitely influenced by time, place and score. But this is to be expected.

But to say they're ALL (or mostly) corrupt or puppeted by Stern is nuts.

[JustinJDW]

It wasn't "fixed", just influenced.

People use the words fixed too much. Fixed means that the Kings purposely lose the game. That's not what happened. The Kings weren't throwing the game. The officiating was just purposely influenced to help the Lakers. "Rigged" is a better term.

Fixed isn't the right word.

[exstatic]

I think the more important question is will a pissed off ref corps be the bag men for Stern anymore?

[exstatic]

Hopefully the old ones don't come back and we never find out

Not keeping up, are we? The refs are back.

[dbestpro]

It wasn't "fixed", just influenced.

People use the words fixed too much. Fixed means that the Kings purposely lose the game. That's not what happened. The Kings weren't throwing the game. The officiating was just purposely influenced to help the Lakers. "Rigged" is a better term.

Fixed isn't the right word.

The plastic surgeon said he didn't fix your face, he only influenced it.

[SA210]

Of course it was, and so were many games against us.

[superbigtime]

Yes it was fixed by Stern and his crooked refs.

[easjer]

I sort of agree with this depending on your meaning of influenced.

A) Superstar calls - yes
B) Giving in to the crowd - yes
C) "I'm not sure about this call, I'll give the down team this call" - yes
D) Bibby bitched me out, Kobe's been cool, I'll give Bibby the foul - yes
E) I don't like Sheed dissin' me, I'm gonna give him a tech - yes
F) Ron Artest has a reputation for holding, I'll give him that foul though I'm not 100% sure - yes
G) Makeup calls - yes

Refs are human, they're definitely influenced by time, place and score. But this is to be expected.

But to say they're ALL (or mostly) corrupt or puppeted by Stern is nuts.

I agree with the italicized only portion.

The bolded, italicized portion though. . .

Let me put it like this. I can agree that the refs are human and will make human errors in calling the game and possibly be influenced by a variety of factors, like those you mention.

In my job, there are also human errors - mixing up a deadline, transposing two numbers, misunderstanding what an accounting code is to be used for. It happens.

But in my job, there is a point at which you will no longer be employed if you continue to make the same errors over and over and don't learn from your previous mistakes. In fact, I would think that to be true of most jobs. That if you screw it up, you no longer retain it after a certain, measurable time.

I'd like to know why that doesn't seem to happen so much in the NBA. Yes, refs are let go every year, but some of the worst offenders have been on the payroll the longest.

I'm not saying that is proof the system/games/officials/NBA are rigged, but I am saying it feeds the flames of conspiracy, unnecessarily so imo. If Stern wants to avoid this, then there are options that could be employed. Greater transparency in reviews of the officials, more openness about what happens with officials behind the scenes, and even things like challenges or instant replay. I know people think it would slow the pace of the game too much (and true, it's not like in football, where there is a lot more standing around waiting), but there are a number of calls which affect the outcomes of games that are decried after the fact, when it is simply too late to do anything about it.

Going back to the 2006 Mavs/Spurs series that has been mentioned - remember the game where Michael Finley was called for a technical foul for getting tangled up with Jason Terry (I believe)? Dirk Nowitski took and made the free throw that was part of the penalty assessed for the technical foul. The Mavs went on to win that game by 1 point. The technical foul was rescinded by the league the following day - in part because Finley was fined and could have faced suspension if he'd accrued another. But the main damage was already done, because the game was lost by a point.

Also in that series was the infamous foul against Tim Duncan because Dirk stepped on him. And of course the referenced foul in game 7. It can and should be argued that the Spurs should have played so that these didn't count - and I won't go against that. Had they played better, made more shots from the line, rebounded better, etc - these little things would not have mattered. Manu doesn't foul Dirk, it doesn't matter.

BUT - there is no recourse in the game, when it is close and these decisions do affect the bottom line point totals. The officials can review at the close of quarters - but what about when there is an egregious miscall?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I can wish for, as a fan, greater transparency to be assured it's not fixed. That Stern chooses to leaves things shrouded in mystery and only admit fault when it's too late to change the outcome (without providing recourse) continues to perpetuate the situation.

[picc84]

I'm willing to admit it was fixed, as long as its acknowledged the Kings had similar advantageous circumstances positioned their way in multiple games of that series and still managed to lose it. I know we weren't happy about the officiating in Sacramento, games 2, 3 (15 fta to 35 for sac), and 5, or Sacramento hotel chefs poisoning Kobe's food before games. And we didnt make Sac choke on their own homecourt in game 7. Doug "Aim for the shotclock" Christie, Chris "Brick this ft and then glare" Webber, and Peja "That wasnt a shot, it was a pass" Stojakochoke did that all on their own.

So yea, game 6 might have been fixed but the better team won that series.

[xellos88330]

Personally, I do not care. It is in the past.

[picc84]

For good measure, Bibby was holding Kobe before he caught the elbow...it was a foul.

Not saying game 6 wasn't rigged, but people act like Bibby was just standing there minding his own business. The foul wasn't called on his chin for impeding Kobe's elbow. It was called for holding.

[Allanon]

If you guys are willing to accept the Lakers win was "fixed" or "rigged"; you also have to accept that other games in that series were fixed/rigged for the Kings.

And if you accept all that, you also have to accept that the Spurs cheated their way to 4 Championships, that the NBA is a farce and that you are crazy for investing your emotions in a sport you know is rigged.

Does anybody seriously believe the evil Lakers win through cheating while the angelic Spurs win through high moral values, integrity and hard work?

[LOL@MavsFan]

And shouldnt the Spurs have kept Jax...jesus...it was forever ago...

[HarlemHeat37]

I don't think it was "rigged", but it was obviously influenced..if the Lakers are involved, this will happen most of the time, this has been the case forever..Sacramento still choked though, as did Manu when we should have beat Dallas despite the refs..

I often wonder if Kobe Bryant wasn't a Laker, would he still be in prison right now?..

[Allanon]

I often wonder if Kobe Bryant wasn't a Laker, would he still be in prison right now?..

This is exactly the false anti-Laker bias I speak of. There's this feeling that the Lakers get help that no other team in the NBA gets.

You wonder if Kobe Bryant isn't in prison because he's a Laker. But do you ever wonder "Are there ANY NBA players in prison?"

This isn't an exclusive thing, it's not just Kobe Bryant that isn't in jail, this is EVERY NBA player, EVERY NBA team. Just like the conspiracy theorists saying the Lakers only won 4 Championships via the cheat but they don't bring up that the Spurs also won 4 via the cheat.

You could say the judicial system favors NBA athletes; but the Laker bias has to twist this into "Laker players don't go to jail" or "Kobe Bryant didn't go to jail because he's a Laker".

These conspiracy theories are based on a false Laker bias.

[HarlemHeat37]

A LONG list of athletes in all of the 4 major NA sports have served jail time, including JR Smith just this past Summer, and most of them are for crimes that are a lot less severe than the alleged crime that Kobe committed..

I wonder what the case would have looked like had he not been playing for the most popular franchise in the NBA, which in turn would have obviously severely decreased his overall popularity..

[Allanon]

A LONG list of athletes in all of the 4 major NA sports have served jail time, including JR Smith just this past Summer, and most of them are for crimes that are a lot less severe than the alleged crime that Kobe committed..

I wonder what the case would have looked like had he not been playing for the most popular franchise in the NBA, which in turn would have obviously severely decreased his overall popularity..

JR Smith, a Denver Nugget, killed a man.
90 days in jail for killing somebody? 90 whole days, shoot if I killed a man, I'd be in jail at least 5 years.

Jayson Williams, not a Laker but he was an NBA player, killed a man in 2002 and is still walking around as a free man.

It's not about the Lakers, it's about NBA athletes.

[HarlemHeat37]

Jayson Williams' trial is still ongoing, and many expect him to end up in jail..he also had to pay 2.75 million $ to the family..so he lost all that $ AND he's probably gonna end up in jail once the trial is over..

[Allanon]

Jayson Williams' trial is still ongoing, and many expect him to end up in jail..he also had to pay 2.75 million $ to the family..so he lost all that $ AND he's probably gonna end up in jail once the trial is over..

He killed the man 7 years ago. The trial has been over for years now. There is no ongoing trial.

He was already acquitted although he may be re-tried.

Paying money is the normal way for NBA athletes to get out of sticky situations.

[VivaPopovich]

Chris Webber was a badass stud as a player and now is a grinning idiot as an announcer. That's the real scandal.

[HarlemHeat37]

No, the retrial is ongoing, there was a big story about it in the area here(since Jayson was popular as a Net here)..they interviewed many legal experts, and many expect him to end up receiving jail time..

So at the end, he's going to have paid a heavy amount AND go to jail in the opinions of many..

[HarlemHeat37]

JR Smith was in a car accident that killed his own friend..while it's clearly tragic and stupid, even most regular people get away with limited jail time or nothing for the same crime..

In fact, there was a guy that went to my High School when I was in my senior year, and his speeding resulted in hitting a tree and killing the passenger..he got no jail time at all..it happens a lot..

[FromWayDowntown]

But in my job, there is a point at which you will no longer be employed if you continue to make the same errors over and over and don't learn from your previous mistakes. In fact, I would think that to be true of most jobs. That if you screw it up, you no longer retain it after a certain, measurable time.

I'd like to know why that doesn't seem to happen so much in the NBA. Yes, refs are let go every year, but some of the worst offenders have been on the payroll the longest.

I'd suggest (respectfully, of course) that your conclusion is unfounded. I think there's a perception that the same officials make the same mistakes repeatedly or that they have an aggravating tendency to make those mistakes in big moments.

But I'd tell you that the officials who work games that have big moments and that truly make a difference in winning titles or not are officials who are most frequently correct of all the officials working in the NBA. There's a reason that Joey Crawford, Dick Bavetta, Steve Javie, Dan Crawford, Bob Delaney, Ed Rush, Bennett Salvatore and those guys always seem to be around when there's controversy -- and it's not always because they seek to create it. It's because over the course of long, long NBA seasons, year-after-year, they are the most technically correct officials in the league. They get big games because they are the best of the best. They are, alas, human, and they do, unfortunately, sometimes miss things in those big moments. But they are cast in the middle of controversy over the things that they miss because they routinely earn the right to be on the floor in those sorts of games.

Think about it this way: the league employs roughly 60 officials to work its regular season games. For the last decade, it whittles that list of 60 officials down to roughly 35 to work first round playoff games. When the second round rolls around, the list of 35 officials who worked the first round is narrowed to about 24 or so who work the 2nd round. The Conference finals are handled by a group of about 18 officials from the 24 who made round 2. And the Finals are called by the elite of the elite -- 12 of the 18 who worked the conference finals.

For officials like Steve Javie, Joey Crawford, and Danny Crawford, a normal playoff season will involve calling 4-6 first round games, 4-5 conference semifinals games, 2-3 conference finals games, and 1 or 2 Finals games. There's a really, really good chance, in most years that those sorts of officials are going to be on the floor for at least one game in 12 or 13 of the 15 playoff series.

And they are going to be there frequently when the chips are most certainly on the table, and the human mistakes that arise from the speed of the game, the size of the players, and the pressure of the moment are going to be magnified and arise more regularly for them because of their regular participation. And those mistakes, infrequent as they might actually be from an objective standpoint, are going to be magnified because the games at the highest levels tend to involve very closely-matched teams playing at extremely high competitive levels.

Can we wish they were closer to perfect? Sure. But can we say they should all be fired or replaced because they make mistakes that are magnified by the moment in which they occur? I don't think so; frankly, I think the reaction of fans would be even more angry if those officials were displaced in favor of less-experienced officials who are more likely to give in to the magnitude of the moment.

Consider the case of Mark Wunderlich in 2009. Here's a younger guy who is moving up the ladder and, in 2008, became a Finals-level official. He's the prototype of exactly what you're wishing for -- new blood to replace some portion of the old guard. Wunderlich, in fact, remained a Finals official again in 2009, so he's pretty firmly ensconced in the league's stable of elite officials. Now, what is Mark Wunderlich most remembered for in the 2009 playoffs? His bad no-call at the end of Game 4 in Dallas of the Nuggets/Mavericks series. Obviously, you're not asking that these guys be perfect, but Wunderlich's case demonstrates (I think) that even if the older guys were replaced by younger guys, the same mistakes will be made and the same complaining about affected games and referee influence will attach.

I'd also tell you that things are far more transparent now than they've ever been with the officials -- we have assignments early each morning, we know who the designated crew chiefs are, we hear mea culpas from the league about mistaken calls. Slightly less obvious are the changes in who resides in that elite class and who is fading from it. Dick Bavetta was not a playoff crew chief after Round 2 in 2009. The 2008 and 2009 Finals were infused with several new whistle-blowing faces -- Scott Foster, Mark Wunderlich, Tom Washington, Monty McCutchen, Derrick Stafford. And their ascension came at the expense of Dick Bavetta, Ed Rush, Bob Delaney, Jack Nies, and Joe Forte. In fact, of the 12 officials who worked the 2005 NBA Finals, only 6 worked the 2009 NBA Finals, meaning that in 5 years, that cadre of elite officials has turned over by half. The same sort of turnover is evident at the Conference Finals level, and at the Conference Semifinal level.

It's happening, but curiously, it's not quelling the complaints.

[Allanon]

No, the retrial is ongoing, there was a big story about it in the area here(since Jayson was popular as a Net here)..they interviewed many legal experts, and many expect him to end up receiving jail time..

So at the end, he's going to have paid a heavy amount AND go to jail in the opinions of many..

Can you tell me the date the retrial started?

[Allanon]

JR Smith was in a car accident that killed his own friend..while it's clearly tragic and stupid, even most regular people get away with limited jail time or nothing for the same crime..

Involuntary manslaughter while driving through a stop sign? He only ended up serving 30 days in jail.



In fact, there was a guy that went to my High School when I was in my senior year, and his speeding resulted in hitting a tree and killing the passenger..he got no jail time at all..it happens a lot..

You say he was speeding so the accident was caused by him and resulted in a death.

No jail time? I find this hard to believe but there may be more lax laws where you live. Where I live if your reckless driving results in manslaughter, you're looking at a year in prison at least unless you're underage.

[easjer]

FWD, I have to bow to your far greater and more studied knowledge of the officials.

You make a well reasoned argument for why the mistakes might be amplified and seem more egregious than what they really are.

I can agree that there are greater steps towards transparency. But I think more could be done and I think the league as a whole needs to have, at least, an open conversation about how things could be changed in the game without slowing it down. Maybe nothing. But as I stated, there is no recourse to challenge officials when it really matters - in plain English, when the blown call actually happens.

I don't know if there is a good way to do it. Probably not a way that would both quiet the conspiracy theorists and keep up the flow of the game. I'd be interested to hear what players though of a set number of coaches challenges during the game - I would suspect that players would most often rather keep playing and not disrupt any sense of rhythm and allow their muscles to cool down in lieu of replays that delay the game for 5 or so minutes per challenge proving them right. Because games that truly come down to the calls are pretty few and far between in the end, aren't they?

But can you agree, at least partially, that the NBA's past actions may have contributed to the conspiracy theorists? Because that is my main contention.

[TheSullyMonster]

I don't think it was "rigged", but it was obviously influenced..if the Lakers are involved, this will happen most of the time, this has been the case forever..Sacramento still choked though, as did Manu when we should have beat Dallas despite the refs..

I often wonder if Kobe Bryant wasn't a Laker, would he still be in prison right now?..

Often? Damn, that was what-6 years ago?

Man, that case was dismissed because there wasn't enough evidence, the woman was a schizo who couldn't keep her story straight, she refused to testify anyway, and there wasn't any physical evidence.


This is exactly the false anti-Laker bias I speak of.

You and the Yankees. Suck it up with your titles and easy free agent acquisitions.

[Mr.Robinson]

If you guys are willing to accept the Lakers win was "fixed" or "rigged"; you also have to accept that other games in that series were fixed/rigged for the Kings.

And if you accept all that, you also have to accept that the Spurs cheated their way to 4 Championships, that the NBA is a farce and that you are crazy for investing your emotions in a sport you know is rigged.

Does anybody seriously believe the evil Lakers win through cheating while the angelic Spurs win through high moral values, integrity and hard work?

Game 6 was blatant. Game 6 was an abomination.

[Allanon]

Often? Damn, that was what-6 years ago?

Man, that case was dismissed because there wasn't enough evidence, the woman was a schizo who couldn't keep her story straight, she refused to testify anyway, and there wasn't any physical evidence.

Agreed. She also had man juice from 3-4 guys in here + Kobe's within a 48 hour period.



You and the Yankees. Suck it up with your titles and easy free agent acquisitions.

Agreed again. Free Agent acquisitions are certainly much easier in Big Cities. If you want to call fixing or rigging, it's right here. Big cities attract big free agents and Big Free Agents are often the diet of Champions.

(Shaq, Sheed, KG, Ray Allen, Dennis Rodman)

It's no surprise that the only exception to this was the Spurs who internally developed their own Big Free Agents in Manu and Tony Parker.

That's your rigging and fixin' right there.

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD, I have to bow to your far greater and more studied knowledge of the officials.

You make a well reasoned argument for why the mistakes might be amplified and seem more egregious than what they really are.

I can agree that there are greater steps towards transparency. But I think more could be done and I think the league as a whole needs to have, at least, an open conversation about how things could be changed in the game without slowing it down. Maybe nothing. But as I stated, there is no recourse to challenge officials when it really matters - in plain English, when the blown call actually happens.

See, I think that's intrinsic to sports. This postseason in baseball has illustrated that umpires are fallible and that their mistakes are occasionally costly to teams (and, by extension, to fans). It has no challenge system to speak of (other than for home runs) and teams just deal with the chance of a mistake.

I don't subscribe to the notion that challenges and replays are a panacea for the problems you describe. Even with the NFL's challenge by replay systems in place, we still see officiating mistakes that cannot be corrected and that leave fans disgruntled. That's particularly true on wholly discretionary calls, which are not reviewable in any league, for a variety of reasons. The truth is, I think, that mistakes are among the breaks of the game and we tolerate them, even in the most important situations, because there is a degree of human error that exists in every aspect of the game.


I don't know if there is a good way to do it. Probably not a way that would both quiet the conspiracy theorists and keep up the flow of the game.

I don't think the mechanics of a system would be impossibly difficult for the NBA, but I think the substance of the system would be terribly unsatisfying to fans. First of all, as in football, I don't think that the league would (or should) permit reviews of purely discretionary calls -- in the NFL, there is no review of whether a defensive player interfered with an offensive receiver and there is no review of whether an offensive player held a defensive player. The officials call what they see and if they're objectively wrong in the moment, the recourse is not reversal of that discretionary call on the field, in that moment, but is instead a disciplinary action by the league.

I think the same would be true in the NBA, because so much of NBA officiating is subjective and discretionary. I could see that a challenge system might work to overturn an official's ruling of a block because the defensive player was in the restricted area, if the replay showed conclusively that the player was not in the restricted area, but then again, would the review also encompass whether the defender was moving or whether the offensive player accepted the ball below the hash marks? If so, what if the replay showed that the offensive player travelled, but that on the far side of the lane, a defensive player held another offensive player -- then what? Do you negate the block because of the travel but negate the travel because of an uncalled foul? I realize that from an aspirational standpoint, that might be exactly what some would want, but from a practical standpoint, I think the potential for funny business would actually increase.

I think the other impractical aspect to this is that you could, for the most part, only review affirmative calls and not no-calls, which are frequently as problematic as the calls themselves. Suppose that Pop is convinced that Duncan got mauled without a call and wants to challenge that decision, but subsequent to the supposed mauling, Kobe led a fast break for a dunk only to have Manu throw some crazy length-of-the-court pass to Timmy for a dunk and then have Parker steal the ensuing inbounds pass and get a layup and then have Richard Jefferson called for a bump on the defensive end. At that point, Pop's challenge is honored -- what then? Suppose that the officials had the power to rule that there was a foul on the initial play; do they negate the 3 baskets and the foul that came afterwards and restart the clock at the point where the foul should have been called?

Certainly, these are crazy hypotheticals, but I suppose that they're the very sort of problems that the league has considered in its slowly-evolving use of replay. And I think the league is right to be worried about those sorts of things.

I absolutely agree that missed calls are among the most frustrating aspects of watching NBA games. But then, so too are missed free throws and bad passes and poor decisions and sprained ankles and tendonosis.


But can you agree, at least partially, that the NBA's past actions may have contributed to the conspiracy theorists? Because that is my main contention.

I'm not sure that I can agree with that. I think people cobble together this anecdote and that anecdote to create a story that they believe, which vilifies the league as the ultimate manipulator of outcomes for the sake of the league's perceived best interests. If people are inclined to do that, I'm not sure the league could do anything to stop it. As my prior post pointed out, I think the league is moving toward a new generation of officials -- perhaps some that lack the celebrity of the current group of high-end referees -- and that until those officials have repeatedly been involved in making tough judgment calls in high-profile games, they will go about their business relatively anonymously. I do think that the fazing out of a few specific officials will temper some of the public apprehension; at the same time, I think a rapid movement towards running those guys out of the league will only exacerbate the belief that the officials have been in on pushing whatever supposed agenda underlies the conspiracy theories.

[easjer]

See, I think that's intrinsic to sports. This postseason in baseball has illustrated that umpires are fallible and that their mistakes are occasionally costly to teams (and, by extension, to fans). It has no challenge system to speak of (other than for home runs) and teams just deal with the chance of a mistake.

I don't subscribe to the notion that challenges and replays are a panacea for the problems you describe. Even with the NFL's challenge by replay systems in place, we still see officiating mistakes that cannot be corrected and that leave fans disgruntled. That's particularly true on wholly discretionary calls, which are not reviewable in any league, for a variety of reasons. The truth is, I think, that mistakes are among the breaks of the game and we tolerate them, even in the most important situations, because there is a degree of human error that exists in every aspect of the game.

I suppose it's the price of sports, accepting that human element. As I said, it will always come back to the players to adjust to the officials and the way the officials are calling a game. Which reminds me that I think some of the elements of human error could/should be fixed (superstar calls, for example).

Also, it makes me tingly when I see words like panacea in a basketball forum.


I don't think the mechanics of a system would be impossibly difficult for the NBA, but I think the substance of the system would be terribly unsatisfying to fans. First of all, as in football, I don't think that the league would (or should) permit reviews of purely discretionary calls -- in the NFL, there is no review of whether a defensive player interfered with an offensive receiver and there is no review of whether an offensive player held a defensive player. The officials call what they see and if they're objectively wrong in the moment, the recourse is not reversal of that discretionary call on the field, in that moment, but is instead a disciplinary action by the league.

I think the same would be true in the NBA, because so much of NBA officiating is subjective and discretionary. I could see that a challenge system might work to overturn an official's ruling of a block because the defensive player was in the restricted area, if the replay showed conclusively that the player was not in the restricted area, but then again, would the review also encompass whether the defender was moving or whether the offensive player accepted the ball below the hash marks? If so, what if the replay showed that the offensive player travelled, but that on the far side of the lane, a defensive player held another offensive player -- then what? Do you negate the block because of the travel but negate the travel because of an uncalled foul? I realize that from an aspirational standpoint, that might be exactly what some would want, but from a practical standpoint, I think the potential for funny business would actually increase.

I think the other impractical aspect to this is that you could, for the most part, only review affirmative calls and not no-calls, which are frequently as problematic as the calls themselves. Suppose that Pop is convinced that Duncan got mauled without a call and wants to challenge that decision, but subsequent to the supposed mauling, Kobe led a fast break for a dunk only to have Manu throw some crazy length-of-the-court pass to Timmy for a dunk and then have Parker steal the ensuing inbounds pass and get a layup and then have Richard Jefferson called for a bump on the defensive end. At that point, Pop's challenge is honored -- what then? Suppose that the officials had the power to rule that there was a foul on the initial play; do they negate the 3 baskets and the foul that came afterwards and restart the clock at the point where the foul should have been called?

Certainly, these are crazy hypotheticals, but I suppose that they're the very sort of problems that the league has considered in its slowly-evolving use of replay. And I think the league is right to be worried about those sorts of things.

I absolutely agree that missed calls are among the most frustrating aspects of watching NBA games. But then, so too are missed free throws and bad passes and poor decisions and sprained ankles and tendonosis.

:lol SFIE and I had this same discussion (again) on the way home. We both think it would be prohibitive to the game to have on demand replay, for exactly the reasons you describe - what if that replay shows other violations?

And you pinpointed one of the other biggest issues - how do you challenge a non-call? That is perhaps one of the biggest frustrations as a fan, a blatant, obvious foul that isn't called (cough cough 2008 Lakers series cough cough). It is nearly impossible.

And as I said, I suspect, if polled, the players would be opposed to it, much as we see arguing with the officials. And that even if coaches had the ability to challenge, they would be unlikely to use it often because of the ways it could impact the team and clock management and player rotation.


I'm not sure that I can agree with that. I think people cobble together this anecdote and that anecdote to create a story that they believe, which vilifies the league as the ultimate manipulator of outcomes for the sake of the league's perceived best interests. If people are inclined to do that, I'm not sure the league could do anything to stop it. As my prior post pointed out, I think the league is moving toward a new generation of officials -- perhaps some that lack the celebrity of the current group of high-end referees -- and that until those officials have repeatedly been involved in making tough judgment calls in high-profile games, they will go about their business relatively anonymously. I do think that the fazing out of a few specific officials will temper some of the public apprehension; at the same time, I think a rapid movement towards running those guys out of the league will only exacerbate the belief that the officials have been in on pushing whatever supposed agenda underlies the conspiracy theories.

I think you are right that quickly and publicly running them out would exacerbate the problem, and I will grudgingly concede to you that conspiracy theorists will find something in anything

(sidebar: Only because SFIE and I argued on the way home about whether the 2007 playoffs could be seen as proof for or against a conspiracy by the NBA, and took opposite sides, which sort of proves your point, and also because I immediately thought that sending these guys out quietly and after these allegations against the league have been put forward and written into a book, albeit by an questionable convicted criminal, could be seen as proof if one wanted to read into it. Do you think a fedora or a beret would look better in tinfoil?)

but I do still think the NBA has mishandled the various situations with officials in the past and fueled the fire all on their own.

If the league is opening the curtains on this, that's better for everyone. I hope they continue moving in that direction. I will probably always have some scepticism about officials though; I don't believe Stern is rubbing his hands together and cackling while he picks next year's winners, and I doubt Stern is quietly urging officials to help out certain players or certain teams. But I have friend whose husband has been reffing for years; before they had kids, he was considering working towards becoming an NBA ref (he currently does high school and division II college, football and basketball). One night over some beers he explained to me exactly how he could influence a game if he wanted to and how subtle the manipulations can be. I think most refs are fairly honest (he is) and don't intentionally interfere; but likewise I can't assume they all are.

Also, your lawyer-y debating tactics are pretty good. Do you do trial?

[pjjrfan]

No, but calling that foul on Bibby for getting smashed in the face by Bryant's elbow at the end was shameful. Bavetta's an idiot.

I gotta agree with that. That game was very frustrating and the NBA still defends it as a well called game. If you saw the game it was sickening.

[iggypop123]

of course game 6 was fixed. just as game 5 was fixed. it was just our turn , the kings didnt argue when they had it in their favor in game 5 did they?

[sabar]

In my job, there are also human errors - mixing up a deadline, transposing two numbers, misunderstanding what an accounting code is to be used for. It happens.

But in my job, there is a point at which you will no longer be employed if you continue to make the same errors over and over and don't learn from your previous mistakes. In fact, I would think that to be true of most jobs. That if you screw it up, you no longer retain it after a certain, measurable time.

I'd like to know why that doesn't seem to happen so much in the NBA. Yes, refs are let go every year, but some of the worst offenders have been on the payroll the longest.

This part is easy -- the extreme majority of jobs don't require their employees to have precision to a tenth of a second. Most tasks can be thought out. Even intense jobs like an air traffic controller have a few seconds to make decisions, but refs do it virtually at an instant.

The preseason highlighted how difficult the job is versus how easy it is perceived to be.