Watch out SPURS.... Ref alert

[Mavsman]

1st off, I think it will be Spurs in 5....... However that's without the ref factor.

I know I'm not letting last year go... but Wade got so many calls that he was basicly having free throw practice to get going. (starting w/ game 3)

If James gets that kind of luxury it will give the CAVS two games, but the SPURS should be able to overcome.

REFS, Please let them play it out!

Go Spurs!

[ChumpDumper]

:rolleyes

[BigBeezie]

I agree 100%. The refs kept D-Wade at the charity stripe all game.

[Trainwreck2100]

Wade's FT shooting>>>>>>Brawny's FT shooting

[FromWayDowntown]

Blaming referees is ALWAYS weak. If you want to win, play better.

[Martin R]

weak?

look at this and then talk : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6SpBM8dB4k

[FromWayDowntown]

weak?

look at this and then talk : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6SpBM8dB4k

It's always weak. Period.

[Darkwaters]

weak?

look at this and then talk : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6SpBM8dB4k

That video is negated by the way the guy can't spell "hand checking"

[Mavsman]

Blaming refs is weak..... No excuses they didn't get it done.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks, Sybil.

[FromWayDowntown]

Thanks, Sybil.

Maybe we've witnessed a conversion.

[Mavsman]

Wade has turned into a marketing machine (I even like his Barkley spots) & with the league still wanting the next Mike........

I know bron is everywhere, but you haven't seen anything yet if he wins a finals

I just hope they let them play. If so Spurs in 5

[The Waco Kid]

Refs have been negated, as neither team can hit FTs.

[v2freak]

Blaming referees is ALWAYS weak. If you want to win, play better.

I think at a certain point, it's completely legit to point to the refs. Most of the time, a person can only determine unfair officiating by actually watching the games. Bad calls don't always make it onto the box score.

[ClingingMars]

they'd better not give LeBron star treatment. if so, those refs better fear for their lives.

-Mars

[FromWayDowntown]

I think at a certain point, it's completely legit to point to the refs. Most of the time, a person can only determine unfair officiating by actually watching the games. Bad calls don't always make it onto the box score.

I don't dispute that officials make bad calls, but I also don't think that bad calls determine games. There are far too many other things that go into whether a team wins or loses; it's extremely superficial to contend that the sole determining factor in whether a team wins or loses is a call or calls that might even be objectively incorrect. Even in a one point game, there may be missed free throws, missed open shots, poor rebounding, unforced turnovers, bad defense and all sorts of other things that allowed the game to be that close. Officials don't have anything to do with poor offensive or defensive execution and blaming them for losses that can be blamed on poor offensive or defensive execution is a cop-out, I think.

[WalterBenitez]

7 game$ $erie$ > 4 game$ $erie$ :greedy

[ImpartialObserver]

I don't dispute that officials make bad calls, but I also don't think that bad calls determine games. There are far too many other things that go into whether a team wins or loses; it's extremely superficial to contend that the sole determining factor in whether a team wins or loses is a call or calls that might even be objectively incorrect. Even in a one point game, there may be missed free throws, missed open shots, poor rebounding, unforced turnovers, bad defense and all sorts of other things that allowed the game to be that close. Officials don't have anything to do with poor offensive or defensive execution and blaming them for losses that can be blamed on poor offensive or defensive execution is a cop-out, I think.
I agree with the notion that good teams can overcome poor officiating, however, poor officiating is not the same as corrupt officiating.

Do you believe large gambling syndicates have ever been able to bribe NBA referees? If what you said, "...it's extremely superficial to contend that the sole determining factor in whether a team wins or loses is a call or calls that might even be objectively incorrect." is true, then bribing an NBA ref wouldn't make sense right? So if that is the case, then how come there is no NBA team in Las Vegas, a city that is literally begging for an NBA team? Why is David Stern adamant about the sportsbooks in Vegas not taking NBA bets (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2335631) in order for Vegas to get a team?

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree with the notion that good teams can overcome poor officiating, however, poor officiating is not the same as corrupt officiating.

Do you believe large gambling syndicates have ever been able to bribe NBA referees? If what you said, "...it's extremely superficial to contend that the sole determining factor in whether a team wins or loses is a call or calls that might even be objectively incorrect." is true, then bribing an NBA ref wouldn't make sense right? So if that is the case, then how come there is no NBA team in Las Vegas, a city that is literally begging for an NBA team? Why is David Stern adamant about the sportsbooks in Vegas not taking NBA bets (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2335631) in order for Vegas to get a team?

Do you have any proof that large gambling syndicates have been able to bribe NBA officials to change the outcomes of games? I don't find your arguments concerning Las Vegas to be particularly persuasive, unless you're prepared to make the same arguments concerning NFL officials, MLB umpires, and NHL referees. Of the 4 major American sports, the NBA, curiously, is probably closest to accepting the possibility of a team relocating to Las Vegas. I would think that part of the Commissioner's adamance concerning the lack of NBA wagering as a precondition to that possibility stems from the chance that players (who are far more accessible than officials) would be likely targets of syndicates or individual bettors that might wish to engage in point shaving efforts.

Moreover, it would be remarkably difficult, in a practical sense, for an official to ensure an outcome for a gambler without arousing significant suspicion. As I noted before, officials have no say in matters like whether a team makes its shots, whether either team will execute offensively or defensively, or whether one team will make its free throws. Besides, were an official to undertake such a course of action, in more than a few instances, his efforts would be rather evident to those who carefully review their work. If you think Stern's reluctance to move a team to Vegas stems from concerns about gambling syndicates undermining his league's games, don't you think there would be significant concern about an official who undertook such acts. Again, I don't think an official could truly determine outcomes without being absolutely blatant about it because there are just too many variables -- which is precisely the reason why I don't think officiating dictates outcomes.

You can say, I guess, that the league doesn't carefully monitor officials, but I'd suggest to you that the 2007 Playoffs are significant evidence that the league is taking a harder look at the way in which officials call games. This season, several officials who had been working late into the playoffs in years past (Derrick Stafford and Bill Spooner being specific examples) were left out of playoff officiating assignments after the First Round. Meanwhile, the league actually advanced several good young officials -- notably Sean Corbin and Scott Foster -- to assignments in the Conference Finals. I suspect that those changes were entirely based on merit. And I think the officials have generally gotten the message that the league is judging them on the merits of their work. I think, frankly, that's been reflected in the quality of the officiating in this year's playoffs. For the most part, I think it's been excellent.

[raspsa]

I give the refs the benefit of the doubt. I don't see any fallout from the Joey crawford controversy. The refs rewarded the Spurs and manu for being aggressive against Utah in game 4 by awarding them a ton if FTs in the 4thQ. No doubt they will reward LBJ the same way as they should. I don't buy for a second any conspiracy theory involving the league office to favor the Cavs because they play more exciting ball; the last thing the NBA needs is a disgruntled exec to write an expose and cause a major scandal to jeopardize their multibillion dollar empire.

Just let the teams play and decide who will be the champion and have the grace to accept the outcome. The game was meant to be enjoyed.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

they'd better not give LeBron star treatment. if so, those refs better fear for their lives.

-Mars

This is the third or fourth time you've made this threat since the playoffs started. Grow up.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

James is going to get some borderline calls. That's a given.

The surprising thing about the Detroit series was that Gibson was getting those calls as well, if not more than James.

Gibson shot more FTs in the Detroit series than he did all year, regular season and previous series combined. In fact, he had more FTs than FGAs.

[Marcus Bryant]

Since the Spurs have obviously been the beneficiaries of a league office hellbent on seeing the league's smallest market win title #4, we must also consider the notion that they might want to ensure that the league's biggest star might get an early, um, "boost" in his career...

[ImpartialObserver]

Do you have any proof that large gambling syndicates have been able to bribe NBA officials to change the outcomes of games?
I live in Las Vegas, and work in the online gambling industry, which in a way is an extension of Vegas since most of the big action has moved offshore. I have heard stories from those I think are credible about fixes involving officials. Is that proof? No, but that coupled with the NBA no longer releasing the names of officials prior to games, referees staying in hotels under assumed names and following no prescribed travel schedule (http://www.thegreek.com/2006/nba-betting-tales.asp) imo strongly corroborates what I have been told. Why would the NBA do something like that if there wasn't a problem with their officials being corrupted? You could say it was a pre-emptive move, but to me it backed up what I had already been told.


I don't find your arguments concerning Las Vegas to be particularly persuasive, unless you're prepared to make the same arguments concerning NFL officials, MLB umpires, and NHL referees. Of the 4 major American sports, the NBA, curiously, is probably closest to accepting the possibility of a team relocating to Las Vegas.
I would definitely make that argument, and add to it by saying that any event that is wagered on will always be susceptible to having its officials bribed.


I would think that part of the Commissioner's adamance concerning the lack of NBA wagering as a precondition to that possibility stems from the chance that players (who are far more accessible than officials) would be likely targets of syndicates that might wish to engage in point shaving efforts.
I disagree with this for a couple of reasons. The first is that NBA players that actually get minutes usually make so much money today that any bribe amount simply wouldn't be worth the risk, but it would be naive imo to think this never happened especially in the days when players didn't make the kind of money they do now and had to work in the offseason. Officials on the other hand, are perfect targets for a number of reasons because they are corruptable as evidenced by their airline ticket tax evasion scheme. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804EFDF1038F930A35753C1A96E9582 60) It's not like it was really that much money they were saving, but it was enough to risk prison time. If they were willing to risk prison time over relatively trivial amounts, don't you think they would be susceptible to a gambler's bribe?


It would be remarkably difficult, in a practical sense, for an official to ensure an outcome for a gambler. As I noted before, officials have no say in matters like whether a team makes its shots, whether either team will execute offensively or defensively, or whether one team will make its free throws. Besides, were an official to undertake such a course of action, in more than a few instances, his efforts would be rather evident to those who carefully review their work.
It depends on the type of bet the gambler wants fixed. Lets say the Spurs play the Hawks in SA. The three main types of bets taken on that game or any NBA game will be the spread, the moneyline, and the over/under. In the gambling world, it's almost a given that the Spurs would win the game and that is reflected in the moneyline price, so any kind of manipulation of that would be too obvious especially if the gambler wanted the Hawks to win outright. However, a clever ref can influence the spread on a game like that (spread would probably be Spurs -11 or so) especially in garbage time by awarding or not awarding free throws. A ref could certainly influence an over/under bet by calling the game tightly or letting them play depending on what the gambler wanted. I believe this is one of the reasons that every play by the officials is under such scrutiny now. I'd bet my life that those doing the grading are aware of the betting lines on every game they grade as a way of helping them look for dubious calls.


You can say, I guess, that the league doesn't carefully monitor officials, but I'd suggest to you that the 2007 Playoffs are significant evidence that the league is taking a harder look at the way in which officials call games. This season, several officials who had been working late into the playoffs in years past (Derrick Stafford and Bill Spooner being specific examples) were left out of playoff officiating assignments after the First Round. Meanwhile, the league actually advanced several good young officials -- notably Sean Corbin and Scott Foster -- to assignments in the Conference Finals. I suspect that those changes were entirely based on merit. And I think the officials have generally gotten the message that the league is judging them on the merits of their work. I think, frankly, that's been reflected in the quality of the officiating in this year's playoffs. For the most part, I think it's been excellent.
The officiating in the playoffs this year has been much, much better than in the past. Let's hope it stays that way, but there is one huge test left before a final grade can be given.

P.S. Your avatar lured me into this debate, lol.

[ClingingMars]

This is the third or fourth time you've made this threat since the playoffs started. Grow up.

Really? Is it? Somehow I actually don't recall EVER threatening the referees before on this board. Of course, I am known to have a terrible memory...

As for 'growing up', say that all you want, but I'm passionate about my Spurs, and about any sports team I support.

-Mars

[UV Ray]

I live in Las Vegas, and work in the online gambling industry, which in a way is an extension of Vegas since most of the big action has moved offshore. I have heard stories from those I think are credible about fixes involving officials. Is that proof? No, but that coupled with the NBA no longer releasing the names of officials prior to games, referees staying in hotels under assumed names and following no prescribed travel schedule (http://www.thegreek.com/2006/nba-betting-tales.asp) imo strongly corroborates what I have been told. Why would the NBA do something like that if there wasn't a problem with their officials being corrupted? You could say it was a pre-emptive move, but to me it backed up what I had already been told.


I would definitely make that argument, and add to it by saying that any event that is wagered on will always be susceptible to having its officials bribed.


I disagree with this for a couple of reasons. The first is that NBA players that actually get minutes usually make so much money today that any bribe amount simply wouldn't be worth the risk, but it would be naive imo to think this never happened especially in the days when players didn't make the kind of money they do now and had to work in the offseason. Officials on the other hand, are perfect targets for a number of reasons because they are corruptable as evidenced by their airline ticket tax evasion scheme. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804EFDF1038F930A35753C1A96E9582 60) It's not like it was really that much money they were saving, but it was enough to risk prison time. If they were willing to risk prison time over relatively trivial amounts, don't you think they would be susceptible to a gambler's bribe?


It depends on the type of bet the gambler wants fixed. Lets say the Spurs play the Hawks in SA. The three main types of bets taken on that game or any NBA game will be the spread, the moneyline, and the over/under. In the gambling world, it's almost a given that the Spurs would win the game and that is reflected in the moneyline price, so any kind of manipulation of that would be too obvious especially if the gambler wanted the Hawks to win outright. However, a clever ref can influence the spread on a game like that (spread would probably be Spurs -11 or so) especially in garbage time by awarding or not awarding free throws. A ref could certainly influence an over/under bet by calling the game tightly or letting them play depending on what the gambler wanted. I believe this is one of the reasons that every play by the officials is under such scrutiny now. I'd bet my life that those doing the grading are aware of the betting lines on every game they grade as a way of helping them look for dubious calls.


The officiating in the playoffs this year has been much, much better than in the past. Let's hope it stays that way, but there is one huge test left before a final grade can be given.

P.S. Your avatar lured me into this debate, lol.



Excellent analysis. Worth the read.