4 Step Plan To Put League On Right Foot-David Aldridge

[duncan228]

If this should be in the NBA Forum please move.


http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/david_aldridge/8794077.html

4-step plan to put league on right foot
By David Aldridge
Inquirer Columnist

"So, you want this job."
- President Kennedy, to Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater in early 1963, as recalled in The Final Days.

For two decades, David Stern was almost always the smartest guy in the room, and he didn't mind letting you know it. But he's out of his depth now, having to be briefed by law enforcement about the virus that's infiltrated his NBA and needing to depend on the kindness of bookies and other miscreants to find out whether it's metastasized.

To see Stern, a liberal who has been occasionally approached about running for the U.S. Senate, talking about wiretaps and 24-hour surveillance of his referees on Tuesday, as the FBI and other law-enforcement officials have apparently discussed as potential remedies, was to see someone in intellectual pain.

But that's where the league is today, searching for some way to stanch the bleeding that the FBI's investigation of former referee Tim Donaghy created.

It is not imperative to throw the baby out with the bath water. No matter what you hear and read, NBA officials get it right most of the time under conditions that their brethren in the NFL, baseball and the NHL don't face. Yet most everyone with a laptop thinks the NBA guys stink, when in reality, most referees are pretty good.

But Stern has to move quickly to address the public perception that his sport has been and is tainted and that the league favors certain stars and teams. It no longer matters if there's any truth to it (Would a league looking to raise its TV ratings allow the ratings-death Spurs to be in four Finals since 1999?); that's what far too many people believe.

Here are four suggestions:

[B]Step 1: Blue-ribbon panel, stat. While Stern said this week he would get his hands "as dirty as they possibly could be" in trying to find solutions, he needs to recuse himself on this one. Someone outside of Olympic Tower needs to take a long, hard look at the league's structure for hiring, retaining, grading and teaching its officials.

Stern should appoint a five-person panel that would operate independently of the league's investigations. The panel should have free rein to look at everything and interview any and everyone, examine all relevant documents - including referees' ratings, for example - and come back by next year's All-Star Game in New Orleans with recommendations that Stern will take to the league's Board of Governors for immediate consideration.

One panel: Jerry West, Bill Russell, Billy Cunningham, former Knicks executive Ed Tapscott (who's also a lawyer) and, if he's up to it, former referee Hugh Evans, who works for the league but whose integrity during 28 years as a ref was beyond reproach. (Evans has had health problems in recent years.)

Step 2: Rehire Joey Crawford - and do it publicly. Crawford is scheduled to go to New York this week to meet with Stern for the first time since the league suspended Crawford from the playoffs. His crime was recidivism; again hijacking a high-profile game by tossing a star element - in this case, Tim Duncan - while Duncan was sitting on the Spurs' bench, laughing.

Crawford had been warned before by Stern not to bigfoot big games, but his famous temper again got ahead of his brain. And for a while, it looked as if the 29-year veteran had worked his last game. But after the Donaghy revelations, bringing back the game's best official is imperative.

Step 3: Engage the players. Player concerns about officiating aren't just sour grapes. There are some players who genuinely care about the game and could make meaningful suggestions. For example, coaches and general managers are part of the ratings system for referees; why aren't players? Think about the likes of Derek Fisher, Malik Rose, Antawn Jamison, Steve Nash and Michael Redd.

Yes, there are some players with grudges against officials and vice versa, but this will not work if everyone isn't part of the solution.

Step 4: Be bold. Perhaps it's time to take the referees out of the league office all together, just as the league has farmed out its drug-testing program. Maybe the NBA's refs should be graded by officials from IAABO, the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials, instead of the league.

No matter how well-meaning, the league has biases that favor certain styles of officiating over others. And the league's director of operations, Stu Jackson, and the supervisor of officials, Ronnie Nunn, have their critics. That would be the case no matter who was grading the refs, but as Stern said Tuesday, the league has to look at everything.

"Is it working? I don't think it is working," a veteran official said last week. Officials "look at how far they move up, and they only really care about what Ronnie and Stu want them to do. If somebody gives them a tidbit of information, they'll say, 'Well, what do Ronnie and Stu think? Because they're the ones who hold my life in their hands.' "

[boutons_]

The players and the game are so fast now, I think going to 4 refs would help.

[exstatic]

Actually there is one very easy solution to the ref situation: increase the payroll 33%, and send four officials to each game. After the national anthem (when there is no time to make or retract a bet), the league calls in which ref sits out as alternate. If you're a crooked ref, would you lay money down on a game you're not sure that you are working?

[boutons_]

4 officials already go to each game. IIRC, one is in reserve in case one ref can't work (sick or hurt).

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

4 officials already go to each game. IIRC, one is in reserve in case one ref can't work (sick or hurt).

Are you sure? I remember games this season (or before) where they were down to two refs because of an injury to a third.

[objective]

there's only 4 officials for some playoff games

[Southwest Texas Fan]

I know its been mentioned but maybe this is a good time to introduce instant replay to the NBA.

[King]

I know its been mentioned but maybe this is a good time to introduce instant replay to the NBA.

To review what? If you're reviewing calls, you're going to slow the game down a ton. And there really aren't that many questionable plays. They already review three pointers at the buzzer - but what else? The NFL doesn't even review calls.

[boutons_]

Instant replay works for start/stop/slow sports with few and distinct plays like baseball or football, but basketball is pretty much continuous action with about an avg of 100+ possessions.

[TDMVPDPOY]

how about refs that do college games?? get them mixed with the nba refs

[FromWayDowntown]

I like Aldridge's suggestions here.

I think the league's officials, by and large, do a great job with an extremely difficult task.

I do think, though, that the league would be well-served by having officials evaluated on a more objective basis. Whether it's the sole evaluation tool or a means to determine if the league's own evaluative processes are satisfactory, I think that would be a necessary step in this effort. I think that the evaluation should also be transparent -- at least teams should be given the information gleaned from that part of the investigation. If it turns out that the outside evaluations are significantly at odds with the league's own methods for evaluating officials over the course of a season, there would seem to be clear proof of an intrinsic problem with NBA officials.

[boutons_]

self-regulation and voluntary compliance never works, which is why businesses love self-regulation and voluntary compliance.

[Southwest Texas Fan]

Instant replay works for start/stop/slow sports with few and distinct plays like baseball or football, but basketball is pretty much continuous action with about an avg of 100+ possessions.


Thanks for the info.

[picnroll]

If the IAABO oversees FIBA refs Aldridge struck out big time on that suggestion.

[PM5K]

Actually there is one very easy solution to the ref situation: increase the payroll 33%, and send four officials to each game. After the national anthem (when there is no time to make or retract a bet), the league calls in which ref sits out as alternate. If you're a crooked ref, would you lay money down on a game you're not sure that you are working?

Am I on crack or is that a really good idea?

[JsnSA]

I don't understand why Alderidge thinks bringing back Joey Crawford would be good for the league.

Yes he can be one of the best refs at times , but he also will take control of the game for his own reasons. He has done it before and seems to show no real remorse for those times. Just because he may not be doing it to make money doesn't mean it isn't just as bad. The fucker threw out a star player from an important game for LAUGHING ON THE BENCH!!! That is unacceptable.

That is not the kind of Ref you want to bring back if you want people to have faith in the leagues officials.

[Despot]

Crawford will probably be offered another position in the league, he will not be brought back as a ref, not after the Donaghy mess.

[SpursFanFirst]

Instant replay works for start/stop/slow sports with few and distinct plays like baseball or football, but basketball is pretty much continuous action with about an avg of 100+ possessions.

True. But what about a challenge rule, like in football?

[boutons_]

A challenge rule in basketball would be perhaps practical. But that means the NBA would have to have its own multipe cameras probably and at EVERY game, rather than depending on commercial cameras of televised games.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the biggest problem with a replay system in the NBA is that most of the calls are matters of judgment or individual discretion. I could see a system like the NFL's, in which objectively verifiable calls could be challenged -- out of bounds plays; possession questions; timing questions; foot on the line questions and things like that. I don't think we'll ever see -- nor do I think it would be practical to implement -- a system in which every type of call could be challenged.

[greywheel]

The players and the game are so fast now, I think going to 4 refs would help.

I've been saying this in discussions with friends for about two years now. The league always uses the excuse that the game it so fast and that the refs have so much to watch out for, that I always wondered, why not add an extra set of eyes then?

[King]

True. But what about a challenge rule, like in football?

But to challenge what? A foul or non-foul? I can understand challenging something like a goaltend or if someone stepped on the line - but those are so rare. Instant replay is not what the game needs at all.

[SpursFanFirst]

But to challenge what? A foul or non-foul? I can understand challenging something like a goaltend or if someone stepped on the line - but those are so rare. Instant replay is not what the game needs at all.

Each team would receive a certain number of challenges per game to use as the coach sees fit.

[exstatic]

I don't understand why Alderidge thinks bringing back Joey Crawford would be good for the league.

Yes he can be one of the best refs at times , but he also will take control of the game for his own reasons. He has done it before and seems to show no real remorse for those times. Just because he may not be doing it to make money doesn't mean it isn't just as bad. The fucker threw out a star player from an important game for LAUGHING ON THE BENCH!!! That is unacceptable.

That is not the kind of Ref you want to bring back if you want people to have faith in the leagues officials.
Yeah, I think Crawford is everything that is WRONG with NBA refs. I think they not only need to keep him gone, but flush out a lot of the other refs with "personality". Too many of the refs think peeps are there to see them ref and take over a game. Crawford needs to be sent to the glue factory. He's already proven once, after the 2003 WCFs, that any contrition he may act out is ultimately consumed by his massive ego. No third chances.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Actually there is one very easy solution to the ref situation: increase the payroll 33%, and send four officials to each game. After the national anthem (when there is no time to make or retract a bet), the league calls in which ref sits out as alternate. If you're a crooked ref, would you lay money down on a game you're not sure that you are working?

That's actually a pretty slick idea.

BTW, LMAO at Aldridge thinking Nash should be part of a referee evaluation process. Dude still hasn't stopped crying about the Horry incident and the subsequent suspensions.

[AlamoSpursFan]

True. But what about a challenge rule, like in football?

The challenge rule sucks. In football, and anywhere else it might be applied.

There should be an official (or maybe a team of officials, for objectivity's sake) watching the game on TV like most of us. When there is an obviously blown call (which TV has an uncanny knack for showing us, repeatedly...) they should call the lead official and say "hey, y'all blew that one...here's what we saw".

No red flags, no booth calls in the last 2 minutes, just common sense "here's one you missed" review of what happens on the court/field of play.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

They need to expand on ex's idea. Send five refs to every game, and then randomize the selection of four to call the game.

Still randomizes the selection of officials, and adding a fourth will put more eyes on the court and reduce the stress on officials.

[2centsworth]

give the coaches 2 challenges a game for replay. that won't slow the game down but a couple of minutes. In fact, it might slow down the whistle happy refs and speed up the game.

[King]

The challenge rule sucks. In football, and anywhere else it might be applied.

There should be an official (or maybe a team of officials, for objectivity's sake) watching the game on TV like most of us. When there is an obviously blown call (which TV has an uncanny knack for showing us, repeatedly...) they should call the lead official and say "hey, y'all blew that one...here's what we saw".

No red flags, no booth calls in the last 2 minutes, just common sense "here's one you missed" review of what happens on the court/field of play.

I don't agree at all. Part of officiating in any sport is that it's human decisions, and can have human error. Bad calls and all. If they're constantly up top correcting every call, it's not going to improve officiating - it's going to move it towards a completely computerized game. Why not remove the homeplate umpire and have a computer call the game? Remove all the field refs - have all penalty calls come from upstairs.

Not to mention if every call is looked at or overruled, you're slowing games down tremendously.

[Peter]

I don't agree at all. Part of officiating in any sport is that it's human decisions, and can have human error. Bad calls and all. If they're constantly up top correcting every call, it's not going to improve officiating - it's going to move it towards a completely computerized game. Why not remove the homeplate umpire and have a computer call the game? Remove all the field refs - have all penalty calls come from upstairs.

Not to mention if every call is looked at or overruled, you're slowing games down tremendously.

Yeah, I'm not ready for the 4 hour long NBA game.

[exstatic]

I think many are missing the point when comparing NFL instant replay to what you want in the NBA. No penalty calls are overruled in the NFL. The NFL looks at things like "is it a fumble?" or "is it a catch?" or "was the player in or out of bounds?". There are almost no calls like that in the NBA. Everything is a judgment call, and often it's the non-calls that have a huge impact. Are you wanting a review of non-calls? Theoretically, they could call a foul on every play.

The refs are going to miss calls, and they are going to blow calls. What I want to know at the end of the day is are they on the up and up?

[SpursFanFirst]

I think many are missing the point when comparing NFL instant replay to what you want in the NBA. No penalty calls are overruled in the NFL. The NFL looks at things like "is it a fumble?" or "is it a catch?" or "was the player in or out of bounds?". There are almost no calls like that in the NBA. Everything is a judgment call, and often it's the non-calls that have a huge impact. Are you wanting a review of non-calls? Theoretically, they could call a foul on every play.

The refs are going to miss calls, and they are going to blow calls. What I want to know at the end of the day is are they on the up and up?

Yes, basketball is a fast game...and yes, the officials make judgment calls, and sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong.
But...and not to beat a dead horse...let's look at last year's final game against Dallas in the WCSF...Manu fouled Dirk, and Dirk went to the line. Then, Dirk turned around and fouled, and nothing was called? If the coaches could challenge, Pop could've challenged that call, and perhaps changed the outcome of the game.
Challenges would be useful in this situation, no?

[L.I.T]

I could very envision a situation where coaches selectively use challenges to curtail fast breaks and blunt momentum of the other team. In a game with rapid changes of possession and shifts in momentum challenges would cause more game flow problems than anything else.

We already complain when refs call fouls a few seconds after a play has occurred, what more if a coach has the ability to stop a game dead in it's tracks.

[Clutch20]

They need to expand on ex's idea. Send five refs to every game, and then randomize the selection of four to call the game.

Still randomizes the selection of officials, and adding a fourth will put more eyes on the court and reduce the stress on officials.
I'm with Exstatic and Aggie Hoopsfan because Exstatic's pitch addresses the subject someone else here raised about the lack of checks and balances within the league office and official's corp.
However, I don't ever think the union will let this happen.

[exstatic]

I'm with Exstatic and Aggie Hoopsfan because Exstatic's pitch addresses the subject someone else here raised about the lack of checks and balances within the league office and official's corp.
However, I don't ever think the union will let this happen.
The NBRA is nothing. David Stern owns them. He undressed, humiliated, and basically fired one of their veteran leaders, and I don't remember them even issuing a statement.