ShackO
06-24-2006, 06:12 PM
I agree it is very difficult to ref a NBA game. The following is an article I read a while back about the officiating in the NBA. I think they miss a lot more than the 7% of missed calls that they claim.. And there is plenty of replays to back it up..... (and some of those missed calls come @ crucial times that essentially effects or changes the outcome of games.)
We have argued and gone over this thousands of times as I guess most fans of the game have.... The only thing I see as a possible aid (I don't believe there is a solution) is to simplify the game.. Less rules to make calls on... That is not going to happen any more than the MLB is going to pursue the steroid abuse......
I don't think any fans on the loosing end of a choreographed game are going to be happy..... But I have misjudged the stupidity of some people before...
Has NBA officiating evolved with the game? (http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5320410)
For many years a referee's lot was not a happy one.
The NBA first saw the light of day in 1946 in the guise of the Basketball Association of America. Ten owners (or managing partners) of the initial 11 BAA franchises were tightly connected with professional hockey franchises - either in the National Hockey League or the American Hockey League.
Accordingly, the progenitors of the BAA insisted that their fledgling games be officiated along the lines of hockey. Hard, knock-down contact was acceptable. Bruising screens were the norm. The operating principle was no blood, no foul. So the early refs mostly sucked on their whistles and adjudicated out-of-bounds disagreements.
Refs were also encouraged to add to the spectacle by hamming up their calls - pantomiming every hack, bunny-hopping every charge, looping their hands in dramatic fashion to indicate palming violations, and so on. In addition to providing the fans with a colorful sideshow, this heavy-handed procedure was aimed at "selling" the calls. By convincing the offended players and coaches that the calls were indubitably correct, arguments and abuse were supposedly short-circuited. In actuality, the refs' act just inflamed everybody's dissatisfaction.
In the beginning, refs were paid anywhere from $25-35 per game. And when Arnie Heft famously asked Commissioner Maurice Podoloff for a $10 raise, Podoloff blew his stack and accused Heft of trying to bankrupt the league.
When the BAA's fan base (such as it was) eventually recoiled from the brutality of the game, the refs were instructed to go the other way and call every tickle foul. For several years, the refs were spectacularly inconsistent and every game was an adventure.
Things settled down somewhat after the betting scandals wreaked havoc upon college basketball in the early '50s. With the college game in disgrace, the NBA (so formed in 1948 when the BAA absorbed the most successful franchises in the National Basketball League) was allegedly the only honest hoops in town. Still, one holdover NBA official, Sol Levy, was booted from the league for conspiring with gamblers to fix games. Several other refs were suspected of doing the same, but no further action was taken.
Then in 1954, the unthinkable happened. That's when noted referee Charlie Eckman handed in his whistle and became the coach of the Fort Wayne Pistons. In his initial seasons, Eckman led the Pistons to first-place finishes in the Western Division. Is it at all imaginable for Steve Javie, say, to become an NBA coach?
The NBA became even more prominent when the college game was revisited by an even more wide-spread betting scandal in 1961. With the top pro leagye firmly established, refs quit their day jobs, toned down their on-court antics, and became full-time game officials. The likes of Mendy Rudolph, Jake O'Donnell, Sid Borgia, Earl Strom, Richie Powers, and Norm Drucker became well-known figures.
Rudolph went so far as to say that NBA officials have the same kind of judicial expertise as members of the Supreme Court. In any case, the game was a joint exercise in which the players and the refs encountered each other with a certain degree of respect.
Then, in the mid-'70s, came the autocratic regime of Darell Garretson. When Garretson became the senior ref, the coach-ref relationship changed. The referees became the ultimate presences in the games while the coaches (and the players) were reduced to subservient roles. Any form of protest by word or deed was instantly punishable by technical fouls. The two dictatorial whistle-blowers officially became three blind mice in 1988.
This imperial (and antagonistic) state of affairs lasted until Garretson retired and Ed T. Rush became the Director of Officiating in 1998.Here's how Rush defined the attitude that a ref should bring to his work: "We see ourselves as choreographing an athletic event and providing the proper setting where the world's greatest athletes can show their skills."
Rush and his successor, Ronnie Nunn, have reopened the game-time dialogue between the referees and the participants. The result is a somewhat more friendly, less confrontative atmosphere that has certainly improved the flow of the game.
But what kind of job are today's refs doing?
Given that NBA basketball is so fast, the players so incredibly athletic, and the pressures so great, the refs are doing an adequate job. The biggest problem is the sheer athleticism of the players, who move (and react) so quickly that by the time a ref responds to a particular sequence the action is long gone and forgotten. At the same time, anticipating fouls, non-fouls, or any kind of violations is bound to be erroneous simply because of the speed at which the players can change direction, change hands, and generally improvise their movements with and without the ball. The proper stance is to be ready to anticipate, but not be locked into a predetermined call. Hey, if reffing NBA games was easy then anybody could do it.
Here are the biggest problems:
# Officials delaying their whistles while a player is fouled in the act of shooting a relatively easy lay-up. Should the shot fall, then the whistle will be silent. Should the shot miss, then the tooter will toot. The subsequent late whistles drive coaches and players to distraction. Sure, the officials want to avoid making unnecessary calls that jam up the smooth unfolding of the game, but a foul is a foul is a foul.
# Despite the refs' insistence that make-up calls would actually constitute two bad calls in succession and therefore never happen, make-up calls are routine.
# The extra "European Step" that drivers are allowed makes playing legit defense impossible on a one-on-one basis.
# If refs are not supposed to follow the flight of the ball, then how can they accurately adjudicate goal-tending violations? And how can refs be asked to follow the action while also keeping track of offensive and defensive 3-second violations? The answer here is for a pair of auxiliary refs to be positioned somewhere off-court at roughly the level of the basket (perhaps on raised seats like tennis officials) and be assigned the task of calling only basket, and lane violations.
# More ex-players should be encouraged to become refs, only because of their increased athletic-competition IQ.
Referees maintain that their calls are correct 93% of the time. This is an admirable rate of accuracy, but there are certain qualifications. One bad call (with a 7% probability) at the wrong time can turn a ball game the wrong way. Also, non-calls are equally as decisive as calls and are not tallied.
Several of the newest NBA arenas have as many as 12 cameras recording the games (compared with about half that number utilized by the various networks in nationally televised games) for the eventual perusal of the home team's coaches and video coordinators. According to these admittedly biased observers, the extra angles provided by the extra cameras show that refs botch about one-third of their calls.
Poor referees are allowed to continue working even after their malfeasance has been demonstrated.
(((In sum, the players are more skilled at what they do than the refs are skilled at what they do, and therein lies an unsolvable problem.)))
So where do NBA refs rate among their peers in the other major sports?
Behind umpires, if only because baseball is a more static game in which umpires can generally anticipate precisely where any given play will come to a judgment point.
Ahead of football officials, who for the most part can't differentiate between meaningful and minor contact.
Here are my two favorite referee stories, and they both involve Dick Bavetta:
Back when I was coaching in the CBA, my Savannah Spirits were playing in Wisconsin when word came through our radio play-by-play announcer that an NBA player had just hit an NBA ref. One of the officials working the CBA game (and who's now a long-time NBA ref) overheard the news and said this:"I hope it was that jerk Bavetta."
Some seasons back, the Sixers were playing in New Jersey and the game was on the line. Earl Strom and Bavetta were the senior refs, and Strom made a last-second call that went against the Nets and won the game for Philadelphia. But Bavetta came running and jumping to the scorer's table from his spot along the time-line, saying, "No! No! I got a push off against McGinnis!"
Strom said to Bavetta, "Are you overruling my call?"
"I got pushing off right here!" Bavetta insisted, and the Nets wound up winning the game. Later, the players were walking into their locker rooms when the door to the referees' locker room came flying open and Bavetta staggered out. His shirt was torn, there was a big knot over his eye, and he was desperately running and looking for a place to hide. Then Strom stepped out into the runway and shouted after Bavetta, "You'll take another one of my (bleeping) calls again, right, you (bleep)?"
In any case, NBA officials are strictly a necessary evil. But John Chaney had the perfect remedy: Rig up each referee with a battery and a series of attached wires, give both coaches a push-button zapper, and allow each coach two zaps per ref.
We have argued and gone over this thousands of times as I guess most fans of the game have.... The only thing I see as a possible aid (I don't believe there is a solution) is to simplify the game.. Less rules to make calls on... That is not going to happen any more than the MLB is going to pursue the steroid abuse......
I don't think any fans on the loosing end of a choreographed game are going to be happy..... But I have misjudged the stupidity of some people before...
Has NBA officiating evolved with the game? (http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5320410)
For many years a referee's lot was not a happy one.
The NBA first saw the light of day in 1946 in the guise of the Basketball Association of America. Ten owners (or managing partners) of the initial 11 BAA franchises were tightly connected with professional hockey franchises - either in the National Hockey League or the American Hockey League.
Accordingly, the progenitors of the BAA insisted that their fledgling games be officiated along the lines of hockey. Hard, knock-down contact was acceptable. Bruising screens were the norm. The operating principle was no blood, no foul. So the early refs mostly sucked on their whistles and adjudicated out-of-bounds disagreements.
Refs were also encouraged to add to the spectacle by hamming up their calls - pantomiming every hack, bunny-hopping every charge, looping their hands in dramatic fashion to indicate palming violations, and so on. In addition to providing the fans with a colorful sideshow, this heavy-handed procedure was aimed at "selling" the calls. By convincing the offended players and coaches that the calls were indubitably correct, arguments and abuse were supposedly short-circuited. In actuality, the refs' act just inflamed everybody's dissatisfaction.
In the beginning, refs were paid anywhere from $25-35 per game. And when Arnie Heft famously asked Commissioner Maurice Podoloff for a $10 raise, Podoloff blew his stack and accused Heft of trying to bankrupt the league.
When the BAA's fan base (such as it was) eventually recoiled from the brutality of the game, the refs were instructed to go the other way and call every tickle foul. For several years, the refs were spectacularly inconsistent and every game was an adventure.
Things settled down somewhat after the betting scandals wreaked havoc upon college basketball in the early '50s. With the college game in disgrace, the NBA (so formed in 1948 when the BAA absorbed the most successful franchises in the National Basketball League) was allegedly the only honest hoops in town. Still, one holdover NBA official, Sol Levy, was booted from the league for conspiring with gamblers to fix games. Several other refs were suspected of doing the same, but no further action was taken.
Then in 1954, the unthinkable happened. That's when noted referee Charlie Eckman handed in his whistle and became the coach of the Fort Wayne Pistons. In his initial seasons, Eckman led the Pistons to first-place finishes in the Western Division. Is it at all imaginable for Steve Javie, say, to become an NBA coach?
The NBA became even more prominent when the college game was revisited by an even more wide-spread betting scandal in 1961. With the top pro leagye firmly established, refs quit their day jobs, toned down their on-court antics, and became full-time game officials. The likes of Mendy Rudolph, Jake O'Donnell, Sid Borgia, Earl Strom, Richie Powers, and Norm Drucker became well-known figures.
Rudolph went so far as to say that NBA officials have the same kind of judicial expertise as members of the Supreme Court. In any case, the game was a joint exercise in which the players and the refs encountered each other with a certain degree of respect.
Then, in the mid-'70s, came the autocratic regime of Darell Garretson. When Garretson became the senior ref, the coach-ref relationship changed. The referees became the ultimate presences in the games while the coaches (and the players) were reduced to subservient roles. Any form of protest by word or deed was instantly punishable by technical fouls. The two dictatorial whistle-blowers officially became three blind mice in 1988.
This imperial (and antagonistic) state of affairs lasted until Garretson retired and Ed T. Rush became the Director of Officiating in 1998.Here's how Rush defined the attitude that a ref should bring to his work: "We see ourselves as choreographing an athletic event and providing the proper setting where the world's greatest athletes can show their skills."
Rush and his successor, Ronnie Nunn, have reopened the game-time dialogue between the referees and the participants. The result is a somewhat more friendly, less confrontative atmosphere that has certainly improved the flow of the game.
But what kind of job are today's refs doing?
Given that NBA basketball is so fast, the players so incredibly athletic, and the pressures so great, the refs are doing an adequate job. The biggest problem is the sheer athleticism of the players, who move (and react) so quickly that by the time a ref responds to a particular sequence the action is long gone and forgotten. At the same time, anticipating fouls, non-fouls, or any kind of violations is bound to be erroneous simply because of the speed at which the players can change direction, change hands, and generally improvise their movements with and without the ball. The proper stance is to be ready to anticipate, but not be locked into a predetermined call. Hey, if reffing NBA games was easy then anybody could do it.
Here are the biggest problems:
# Officials delaying their whistles while a player is fouled in the act of shooting a relatively easy lay-up. Should the shot fall, then the whistle will be silent. Should the shot miss, then the tooter will toot. The subsequent late whistles drive coaches and players to distraction. Sure, the officials want to avoid making unnecessary calls that jam up the smooth unfolding of the game, but a foul is a foul is a foul.
# Despite the refs' insistence that make-up calls would actually constitute two bad calls in succession and therefore never happen, make-up calls are routine.
# The extra "European Step" that drivers are allowed makes playing legit defense impossible on a one-on-one basis.
# If refs are not supposed to follow the flight of the ball, then how can they accurately adjudicate goal-tending violations? And how can refs be asked to follow the action while also keeping track of offensive and defensive 3-second violations? The answer here is for a pair of auxiliary refs to be positioned somewhere off-court at roughly the level of the basket (perhaps on raised seats like tennis officials) and be assigned the task of calling only basket, and lane violations.
# More ex-players should be encouraged to become refs, only because of their increased athletic-competition IQ.
Referees maintain that their calls are correct 93% of the time. This is an admirable rate of accuracy, but there are certain qualifications. One bad call (with a 7% probability) at the wrong time can turn a ball game the wrong way. Also, non-calls are equally as decisive as calls and are not tallied.
Several of the newest NBA arenas have as many as 12 cameras recording the games (compared with about half that number utilized by the various networks in nationally televised games) for the eventual perusal of the home team's coaches and video coordinators. According to these admittedly biased observers, the extra angles provided by the extra cameras show that refs botch about one-third of their calls.
Poor referees are allowed to continue working even after their malfeasance has been demonstrated.
(((In sum, the players are more skilled at what they do than the refs are skilled at what they do, and therein lies an unsolvable problem.)))
So where do NBA refs rate among their peers in the other major sports?
Behind umpires, if only because baseball is a more static game in which umpires can generally anticipate precisely where any given play will come to a judgment point.
Ahead of football officials, who for the most part can't differentiate between meaningful and minor contact.
Here are my two favorite referee stories, and they both involve Dick Bavetta:
Back when I was coaching in the CBA, my Savannah Spirits were playing in Wisconsin when word came through our radio play-by-play announcer that an NBA player had just hit an NBA ref. One of the officials working the CBA game (and who's now a long-time NBA ref) overheard the news and said this:"I hope it was that jerk Bavetta."
Some seasons back, the Sixers were playing in New Jersey and the game was on the line. Earl Strom and Bavetta were the senior refs, and Strom made a last-second call that went against the Nets and won the game for Philadelphia. But Bavetta came running and jumping to the scorer's table from his spot along the time-line, saying, "No! No! I got a push off against McGinnis!"
Strom said to Bavetta, "Are you overruling my call?"
"I got pushing off right here!" Bavetta insisted, and the Nets wound up winning the game. Later, the players were walking into their locker rooms when the door to the referees' locker room came flying open and Bavetta staggered out. His shirt was torn, there was a big knot over his eye, and he was desperately running and looking for a place to hide. Then Strom stepped out into the runway and shouted after Bavetta, "You'll take another one of my (bleeping) calls again, right, you (bleep)?"
In any case, NBA officials are strictly a necessary evil. But John Chaney had the perfect remedy: Rig up each referee with a battery and a series of attached wires, give both coaches a push-button zapper, and allow each coach two zaps per ref.