tlongII
08-07-2007, 04:36 PM
http://portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=118642894202285800
On the whole, I feel sorry for NBA referees. A good many of them have never struck me as people happy with their lot in life, and now that one of their own, Tim Donaghy, apparently has been caught fiddling with point spreads, things have gotten even worse for them.
The Aug. 13 edition of ESPN the Magazine features a story by Ric Bucher that gives some insight into how referees are feeling, and it’s not a pretty picture.
Apparently the officials believe they no longer are being backed by the league and are chafing under the constant evaluation — and ensuing criticism — that they are undergoing.
There also is the unattributed notion that since the league’s supervisor of officials, Ronnie Nunn, wasn’t considered a great ref during his 19 years packing a whistle, he’s in no position to tell them how to do their job.
The league, you see, is asking for uniformity in referee calls — and the refs think that’s taking away their personality and ability to use their own fine judgment.
While I sympathize with men attempting to perform one of the world’s toughest jobs, I find it extremely difficult to agree with them.
And I’ve never understood the notion that to evaluate one’s performance, you have to have been better at that task than the one you’re evaluating.
In other words, who is Roger Ebert to be telling Robert Redford how to act? Or why should the Detroit Tigers listen to their manager, Jim Leyland — he never played a game in the big leagues, so what does he know?
Obviously, these sorts of ideas — along with the concept that because someone was really good at doing something, it means he or she could teach it to someone else — are ridiculous.
What I perceive with the referees is a culture change that may not be repaired until many of the current refs retire. A lot of the veteran referees spent many years in the league as basketball’s version of the Lone Ranger. They roamed the country meting out their own forms of justice, largely as they pleased. There was little evaluation, and many of them thought of themselves as larger than the law.
And now that someone is trying to tell them how to do their job, they’re very uncomfortable.
But I’m afraid they’re going to have to get used to it or move on. Standardization of calls and uniformity is exactly what is needed. If nothing else, it’s a way of trying to eliminate bias — which, as I’ve written before, is the league’s biggest threat to fair officiating.
Oakland Raiders’ Managing Partner Al Davis, a bit of a rogue himself, was asked about the NBA’s referee scandal during a news conference recently and his answer was “I don’t worry about gambling, I worry about bias.”
A referee trying to manipulate a point spread late in a game to cover a bet he’s made somewhere? I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about it. I don’t think it’s going to happen very often.
But officials making certain calls because of a grudge against a player or a team, yes — I’ve seen it.
Officials so apparently in awe of a certain player they’re reluctant to call a foul or violation on him? Seen it many times.
Referees with obvious feuds going on against certain players or teams? Darned right. You’ve seen it, too, if you’ve watched the league for any time at all.
I don’t think the league, until recently, realized how much this affected its fan base. This sort of game-to-game bias, as much as any other thing, has turned millions of fans away from the league. I hear it constantly from disenchanted NBA fans.
And that’s too bad. NBA referees are tons better than college referees. But over the years, the league let them enforce the rules in a haphazard manner — often based on such precepts as rookie or veteran player, superstar or scrub, great team or cellar dweller — and it has obscured how well most of them can call a game.
Their personalities sometimes cloud their judgment. And that leaves the league no choice but to eliminate their personalities.
[email protected]
This very similar to how I feel about the NBA refs...
On the whole, I feel sorry for NBA referees. A good many of them have never struck me as people happy with their lot in life, and now that one of their own, Tim Donaghy, apparently has been caught fiddling with point spreads, things have gotten even worse for them.
The Aug. 13 edition of ESPN the Magazine features a story by Ric Bucher that gives some insight into how referees are feeling, and it’s not a pretty picture.
Apparently the officials believe they no longer are being backed by the league and are chafing under the constant evaluation — and ensuing criticism — that they are undergoing.
There also is the unattributed notion that since the league’s supervisor of officials, Ronnie Nunn, wasn’t considered a great ref during his 19 years packing a whistle, he’s in no position to tell them how to do their job.
The league, you see, is asking for uniformity in referee calls — and the refs think that’s taking away their personality and ability to use their own fine judgment.
While I sympathize with men attempting to perform one of the world’s toughest jobs, I find it extremely difficult to agree with them.
And I’ve never understood the notion that to evaluate one’s performance, you have to have been better at that task than the one you’re evaluating.
In other words, who is Roger Ebert to be telling Robert Redford how to act? Or why should the Detroit Tigers listen to their manager, Jim Leyland — he never played a game in the big leagues, so what does he know?
Obviously, these sorts of ideas — along with the concept that because someone was really good at doing something, it means he or she could teach it to someone else — are ridiculous.
What I perceive with the referees is a culture change that may not be repaired until many of the current refs retire. A lot of the veteran referees spent many years in the league as basketball’s version of the Lone Ranger. They roamed the country meting out their own forms of justice, largely as they pleased. There was little evaluation, and many of them thought of themselves as larger than the law.
And now that someone is trying to tell them how to do their job, they’re very uncomfortable.
But I’m afraid they’re going to have to get used to it or move on. Standardization of calls and uniformity is exactly what is needed. If nothing else, it’s a way of trying to eliminate bias — which, as I’ve written before, is the league’s biggest threat to fair officiating.
Oakland Raiders’ Managing Partner Al Davis, a bit of a rogue himself, was asked about the NBA’s referee scandal during a news conference recently and his answer was “I don’t worry about gambling, I worry about bias.”
A referee trying to manipulate a point spread late in a game to cover a bet he’s made somewhere? I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about it. I don’t think it’s going to happen very often.
But officials making certain calls because of a grudge against a player or a team, yes — I’ve seen it.
Officials so apparently in awe of a certain player they’re reluctant to call a foul or violation on him? Seen it many times.
Referees with obvious feuds going on against certain players or teams? Darned right. You’ve seen it, too, if you’ve watched the league for any time at all.
I don’t think the league, until recently, realized how much this affected its fan base. This sort of game-to-game bias, as much as any other thing, has turned millions of fans away from the league. I hear it constantly from disenchanted NBA fans.
And that’s too bad. NBA referees are tons better than college referees. But over the years, the league let them enforce the rules in a haphazard manner — often based on such precepts as rookie or veteran player, superstar or scrub, great team or cellar dweller — and it has obscured how well most of them can call a game.
Their personalities sometimes cloud their judgment. And that leaves the league no choice but to eliminate their personalities.
[email protected]
This very similar to how I feel about the NBA refs...