NBA to revamp ref gambling rules; Jackson, Nunn see roles reduced

[RonMexico]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3079309

NBA to revamp ref gambling rules; Jackson, Nunn see roles reduced

By Chris Sheridan

NEW YORK -- Technically, it turns out every single NBA referee was crooked, after all -- although none of them are going to be punished for it.

And, strange as it may seem, those very same referees will now be permitted to gamble in a multitude of ways.

That development, along with a reduction in duties for league executives Stu Jackson and Ronnie Nunn, were revealed Thursday by NBA commissioner David Stern following the league's Board of Governors meeting.

Stern said an internal review had found that all of the league's 56 referees violated the contractual prohibition against engaging in gambling, with more than half of them admitting to placing wagers in casinos. But Stern said none of the violations was major, and no referees had admitted to wagering in a sports book or with a bookie.

"Our ban on gambling is absolute, and in my view it is too absolute, too harsh and was not particularly well-enforced over the years," Stern said. "We're going to come up with a new set of rules that make sense."

"It's too easy to issue rules that are on their faith violated by $5 Nassau, sitting at a poker table, buying a lottery ticket and then we can move along," Stern said. "And by the time I got through and I determined going into a casino isn't a capital offense ... I'm the CEO of the NBA and I'll take responsibility."

In other developments Thursday:

• Stern said the NBA still did not know for sure whether former referee Tim Donaghy impacted the outcome of games he had placed bets on, saying the answers to all pertinent Donaghy questions will not be known until the government declares the case closed, which cannot happen until Donaghy is sentenced in federal court in January. Stern said the league was interested in speaking to Donaghy and expected to have an opportunity to do so in the coming weeks or months. Stern also said the league had received no additional information indicating that any other referees bet on NBA games or distributed information related to NBA games.

• Stern said there would not yet be any punitive action taken against coach Isiah Thomas and/or owner James Dolan of the New York Knicks. A jury decided earlier this month that they had sexually harassed a former team executive, but Stern said he would wait until Thomas' and Dolan's appeals are decided before deciding whether to take disciplinary action. In the meantime, Stern has mandated that every single employee of all 30 NBA teams undergo sensitivity training.

• The board heard what "wasn't a very uplifting report" about the situation in Seattle, where there has been no progress on funding for a new arena that would keep the SuperSonics in the city. Stern called himself an optimist but said his "optimism is waning" when it comes to the team's future there.

• Stern also took somewhat of a wait-and-see attitude on the question of expansion or relocation into Las Vegas, saying the board wanted to wait to see which of the two competing arena projects gets the go-ahead before addressing the issue further.

• Jackson, the league's executive vice president of operations, will lose some of his power in the months ahead. Basically, his job will be divided in two. Jackson will retain control over basketball operations, and a new executive will be hired by the NBA to oversee all aspects relating to the officiating staff. Jackson will continue to hand out on-court discipline and deal with many of the league's international ventures, but will give up his referee responsibilities. Jackson will retain all those responsibilities in the interim.

Nunn, the league's director of officials, will spend more time on the road concentrating on the mentoring of young officials. He also will cease doing a show on NBA-TV that focused on the league's officiating. Stern said Nunn told him that "it's more valuable for him to be on the road than to do his television show."

"We are broadening and taking more responsibility and we are doing it with the people that we have and we're going to add to them," Stern said, "but certainly it's not a reduction of responsibility."

• The Board received an interim progress report from attorney Lawrence Pedowitz, who is conducting a comprehensive review of the league's officiating policies and methods. As part of that review, Pedowitz interviewed each of the NBA's referees and asked them whether they had undertaken any form of gambling, which (other than placing wagers on horses at thoroughbred tracks during the offseason) is prohibited under the referees' collective bargaining agreement.

"Everyone violated the rule in some way, whether it was playing poker, buying lottery tickets & but I don't consider it a violation of the rules to buy a lottery ticket or play golf for $5," Stern said.

"About half had gone to casinos over a period of years with no great frequency. No sports books. No bookmakers," Stern said, adding that enforcement of the gambling rule was so lax that referees traditionally held a large poker tournament at their annual meeting.

Some referees acknowledged making wagers with their colleagues on college games between their alma maters, as well as bets in football polls and in NCAA Tournament basketball pools, Stern said.

Stern said the gambling rules in the referees' labor agreement were outdated in regards to changing attitudes toward gambling in the United States, and he said they'd be rewritten to allow various forms of gambling, including casino betting (but not on sports) during the offseason. Stern also disclosed that some owners had pushed for a change to the rules that would have allowed in-season gambling at casinos, too.

Stern also announced some changes relating to referees:

• The identities of the referees assigned to specific NBA games will now be released the morning of the game, rather than 90 minutes before tip-off. Stern said this would eliminate that information being used as currency in the gambling business.

• Referees will be given more training and gambling-related counseling during the season, rather than the past practice having them attend one lecture prior to the season.

• Referees will be subject to more detailed background and security checks, and the league will begin to look at statistical trends in NBA games and how they correspond to gambling trends in those games.

• The league will promote more accessibility between referees and NBA teams, and more formal interaction between them.

[RonMexico]

It seems to me that Stern finally realized Stu Jackson is an idiot.

I'm still not sure how this will affect the quality of the officiating as this "training" and "big brother is watching" may weigh on them mentally. Although Salvatore can't get any worse....

[phx_13]

if I recall in the playoffs, Stern said he can't interpet the rules he has to enforce them when it came to the suspensions of Stoudemire and Diaw going to check on nash after he got hip checked into the scores table oh but now although gambling of any kind is forbidden Stern brings it upon himself to INTERPRET the rule and makes some types of gambling ok am I the only person that sees something wrong with this.

[FromWayDowntown]

if I recall in the playoffs, Stern said he can't interpet the rules he has to enforce them when it came to the suspensions of Stoudemire and Diaw going to check on nash after he got hip checked into the scores table oh but now although gambling of any kind is forbidden Stern brings it upon himself to INTERPRET the rule and makes some types of gambling ok am I the only person that sees something wrong with this.

There's actually a pretty significant difference in the sense that the suspension rule is an established rule of the game, while the no-gambling rule is a provision in a contract between the league and its officials.

Without getting too technical about it, if you contract with someone and there's a provision in the contract that benefits you, you have the legal right to ignore that provision if you decide to. That's your prerogative, since you are the intended beneficiary of that promise.

With a rule, all teams in the league have agreed to be bound by that rule. It isn't intended to benefit one side or the other -- it determines how the game will be administered and by what rules certain decisions will be made. The Commissioner represents all teams and, in that position, he cannot simply decide that a rule no longer applies -- that decision is up to the teams; if the teams decided to abolish the rule or to change the way it's worded, that's their prerogative. But until the teams make that election, there is no basis for the Commissioner to ignore the rule.

[JMarkJohns]

There's actually a pretty significant difference in the sense that the suspension rule is an established rule of the game, while the no-gambling rule is a provision in a contract between the league and its officials.

Without getting too technical about it, if you contract with someone and there's a provision in the contract that benefits you, you have the legal right to ignore that provision if you decide to. That's your prerogative, since you are the intended beneficiary of that promise.

With a rule, all teams in the league have agreed to be bound by that rule. It isn't intended to benefit one side or the other -- it determines how the game will be administered and by what rules certain decisions will be made. The Commissioner represents all teams and, in that position, he cannot simply decide that a rule no longer applies -- that decision is up to the teams; if the teams decided to abolish the rule or to change the way it's worded, that's their prerogative. But until the teams make that election, there is no basis for the Commissioner to ignore the rule.

That's great. Honestly... I'm still sick to my stomach how certain infractions can be overlooked because intent to blemish the game wasn't there, but other infractions can be deemed intended and actions suspected passed off as certainty despite such occuring because of an emotional reaction to an open provocation.

I'm very sad by it. I understand, and still don't blame the NBA for the suspensions, but why can one based upon intent evolve while the other is ruled by the letter of the law?

Just doesn't make any sense to me.

For Amare, OK, I'll grant there was an intended movement towards, but Diaw stepped up, then out and never got beyond three or four feet from his original seat.

Anyways... I'm just ranting. I hate this rulings ties to the other case of the summer. Just brings up issues all over again.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm very sad by it. I understand, and still don't blame the NBA for the suspensions, but why can one based upon intent evolve while the other is ruled by the letter of the law?

Because, as I said, one is the law and the other is a matter of contract.

Here's a real world example of the difference. Let's say that I contract with you JMark; you're going to pay me $100 to haul something in my truck. As part of that contract, we agree that if I get caught speeding, I've violated our deal. I deliver the goods, but have to admit that I got caught speeding along the way. You, being a good guy, decide that the speeding deal wasn't really that important because you were actually too worried about safety; as a result, you decide to pay me anyway, even though I technically violated the contract by speeding. That's your prerogative -- nothing makes you enforce that agreement.

Now, suppose that the cop who stopped me for speeding agrees with me that it was a pretty silly violation, but still writes me a ticket. When it comes time for me to go to court on the ticket I got for speeding while hauling your stuff, I argue to the judge that I shouldn't be fined because the cop thought it was a silly violation and because you didn't think it was a very big deal. The judge looks at the governing statute and it says that a person caught speeding shall be fined $100. He says he agrees with me that the cop and you were right, but ultimately says the law doesn't permit him to make an exception for anyone and that according to the law (the rules that he has to apply to everyone who gets a ticket for that violation) he's required to impose a $100 fine, regardless of whether the ticket was silly or not.

Here, the anti-gambling issue is purely contractual and is terminable at the will of the parties to the contract; the suspension for leaving the bench, on the other hand, is the law and Stern is the judge saying "I have no choice but to enforce it."

[diego]

i started a thread about this two hours after, totally missed this one! sorry.

aside from the suns fans gripe (the most legit complaint they've got yet!), it seems to me jackson and nunn got off easy. i dont have a problem with them "forgiving" certain gambling- a ref should be able to play poker, the lottery, go to the race track. but why didnt they know about all this before if they supposedly had background checks and rules against gambling?? no one is going to be held responsible for this gross incompetence? i can't believe more people arent calling for blood!

[JMarkJohns]

Because, as I said, one is the law and the other is a matter of contract.

Here's a real world example of the difference. Let's say that I contract with you JMark; you're going to pay me $100 to haul something in my truck. As part of that contract, we agree that if I get caught speeding, I've violated our deal. I deliver the goods, but have to admit that I got caught speeding along the way. You, being a good guy, decide that the speeding deal wasn't really that important because you were actually too worried about safety; as a result, you decide to pay me anyway, even though I technically violated the contract by speeding. That's your prerogative -- nothing makes you enforce that agreement.

Now, suppose that the cop who stopped me for speeding agrees with me that it was a pretty silly violation, but still writes me a ticket. When it comes time for me to go to court on the ticket I got for speeding while hauling your stuff, I argue to the judge that I shouldn't be fined because the cop thought it was a silly violation and because you didn't think it was a very big deal. The judge looks at the governing statute and it says that a person caught speeding shall be fined $100. He says he agrees with me that the cop and you were right, but ultimately says the law doesn't permit him to make an exception for anyone and that according to the law (the rules that he has to apply to everyone who gets a ticket for that violation) he's required to impose a $100 fine, regardless of whether the ticket was silly or not.

Here, the anti-gambling issue is purely contractual and is terminable at the will of the parties to the contract; the suspension for leaving the bench, on the other hand, is the law and Stern is the judge saying "I have no choice but to enforce it."

Yeah... logically I can understand. Emotionally I can ponder... I know what you're saying. You do a great job of presenting the case. Still... It's just hard to swallow is all, no matter how logical the fan.

[RonMexico]

i started a thread about this two hours after, totally missed this one! sorry.

aside from the suns fans gripe (the most legit complaint they've got yet!), it seems to me jackson and nunn got off easy. i dont have a problem with them "forgiving" certain gambling- a ref should be able to play poker, the lottery, go to the race track. but why didnt they know about all this before if they supposedly had background checks and rules against gambling?? no one is going to be held responsible for this gross incompetence? i can't believe more people arent calling for blood!

Jackson was a mediocre player, a terrible coach, and has been one of the worst EVP of Operations in league history. The fact he still has a job amazes me. I actually thought fairly highly of Ronnie Nunn based on his TV show where he would objectively assess fan questions, but he obviously had no control over his officials.

On a side note, this Suns/Nugs game has been terribly officiated against both teams. They'll let Raja hack the shit out of 'Melo, then call AI for a touch foul and then let Nash get pushed in the back by Diawara... I see the fact that they've received leeway on gambling hasn't improved their judgment.

[RonMexico]

Another side note, Reggie Miller or Fratello (after AI was called for a tech tonight) said something to the effect of "the officials have stated that they will not tolerate constant whining and complaining by the players." I'm still of the opinion that if they did a good job out there, then no one could complain. I continue to find Stern's assessment last year that the "officials get 95% of calls right" to be ludicrous. I'm assumming his comments were based on poorly-obtained quality reviews by the recently demoted Stu Jackson and Ronnie Nunn.

[Shred]

Because, as I said, one is the law and the other is a matter of contract.

Here's a real world example of the difference. Let's say that I contract with you JMark; you're going to pay me $100 to haul something in my truck. As part of that contract, we agree that if I get caught speeding, I've violated our deal. I deliver the goods, but have to admit that I got caught speeding along the way. You, being a good guy, decide that the speeding deal wasn't really that important because you were actually too worried about safety; as a result, you decide to pay me anyway, even though I technically violated the contract by speeding. That's your prerogative -- nothing makes you enforce that agreement.

Now, suppose that the cop who stopped me for speeding agrees with me that it was a pretty silly violation, but still writes me a ticket. When it comes time for me to go to court on the ticket I got for speeding while hauling your stuff, I argue to the judge that I shouldn't be fined because the cop thought it was a silly violation and because you didn't think it was a very big deal. The judge looks at the governing statute and it says that a person caught speeding shall be fined $100. He says he agrees with me that the cop and you were right, but ultimately says the law doesn't permit him to make an exception for anyone and that according to the law (the rules that he has to apply to everyone who gets a ticket for that violation) he's required to impose a $100 fine, regardless of whether the ticket was silly or not.

Here, the anti-gambling issue is purely contractual and is terminable at the will of the parties to the contract; the suspension for leaving the bench, on the other hand, is the law and Stern is the judge saying "I have no choice but to enforce it."

You've done a pretty good job of down-playing the importance of that supposedly mere contractual provision, as if it were just an afterthought they threw into the agreement, but you've ignored the fact that it goes to the very heart of the game--whether or not the refs are on the take (or engaging in behaviors that put them at risk of contact with sports gamblers, or racking up large debts to gamblers). Speeding was pretty poor analogy, unless you're trying to gloss over the fact that refs aren't supposed to gamble for the very same reason debtors can't get security clearances. Why this isn't bigger news around here, I don't know. At this point, I'm not sure I can even watch the NBA anymore....

[FromWayDowntown]

You've done a pretty good job of down-playing the importance of that supposedly mere contractual provision, as if it were just an afterthought they threw into the agreement, but you've ignored the fact that it goes to the very heart of the game--whether or not the refs are on the take (or engaging in behaviors that put them at risk of contact with sports gamblers, or racking up large debts to gamblers). Speeding was pretty poor analogy, unless you're trying to gloss over the fact that refs aren't supposed to gamble for the very same reason debtors can't get security clearances. Why this isn't bigger news around here, I don't know. At this point, I'm not sure I can even watch the NBA anymore....

My point isn't to say that the contractual provision is important or not. In the analogy, JMark's contractual term could prohibit me from murdering someone; that he chooses to ignore the contractual provision won't get me off the hook in terms of the consequences to me (a minimum sentence in most states) if I'm convicted of murder in court.

What is contractual is not the law, so it can be ignored if the benefitted party (the NBA or JMark in my example) chooses to do so. You say it goes to the heart of the game, but stopping a referee from pushing the button on a slot machine does not, inherently, add to the integrity of the game. Letting an official put down chips at a craps table does not detract from the integrity of the game. If that were the case, isn't a concern for players engaging in that sort of activity equally a matter that goes to the very heart of the game -- if players are on the take, the game is just as flawed as if officials are on the take. But the players have refused to agree to any contractual prohibition against engaging in otherwise-legal gambling activities. In this sense, the league's policy has been adjusted to reflect that player gambling hasn't wrought havoc on the integrity of the game.

My analogy wasn't intended to suggest that the NBA's choice is rational or even particularly understandable here; the point, instead, is that as long as that is a rule that exists entirely as part of a contract, it is subject to being ignored. The same would be true if the officials, for example, suddenly decided that they could live without being paid money by the NBA for their services.

The analysis would change if the NBA's rulebook (rather than a collectively-bargained for contract) contained a rule that expressly said that no official shall gamble in any form or fashion and that any official caught gambling shall be given a one game suspension. If that were the case, the "well Stern enforced the rule against the Suns" lament would be a reasonable concern because he would, in that instance, be ignoring the law that governs the game. That's not what's happened here.

The difference is the while parties can exercise some discretion in enforcing their contract, the league has no discretion with a mandatory rule (the law). You can ignore the terms of your own contract; you cannot ignore the law.

I don't see any of that as being particularly controversial to anyone who just stops to think about it.

[phx_13]

he suspends two Phoenix players because they broke the rule saying "they knew the rules". The refs also knew the rules and their punishment called for termination...at least according to the policies and procedures of the NBA. This information is absolutely flooring--not only does the guy now tell us that ALL officials violated the gambling clauses in their contracts, he says that its no nig deal since they all broke the rule we have to change the rule

[FromWayDowntown]

he suspends two Phoenix players because they broke the rule saying "they knew the rules". The refs also knew the rules and their punishment called for termination...at least according to the policies and procedures of the NBA. This information is absolutely flooring--not only does the guy now tell us that ALL officials violated the gambling clauses in their contracts, he says that its no nig deal since they all broke the rule we have to change the rule

The anti-gambling agreement isn't a policy or procedure of the NBA. It's part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the league and the officials.

There's a GIGANTIC difference.

I guess if you're inclined to scapegoat for what happened in the playoffs, there's nothing that I (or anyone else for that matter) can say to convince you that there isn't some gigantic conspiracy to push the boring Spurs and to put down the ratings-friendly Suns. It's quite a sensible point you make. :rolleyes

[IceColdBrewski]

This information is absolutely flooring

No, it's not. I'd be willing to bet that over 75% of officials in all the major sports have participated in some form of illegal gambling. Probably more like 95%. Did you honestly expect these guys to go their whole careers without stepping into a casino or buying a lottery ticket from time to time? I'm going to assume that it's just the anti-Stern chip on your shoulder talking, and that you're not that naive.

[phx_13]

UMM I am not blaming anyone for the suspensions because nobody told Stoudemire and Diaw get get their stupid asses of the bench...It is just the Hypocrisy of the nba that makes me mad not all us suns fans make excuses for why the team lost I was the first one call amare out on his stupidity when it happend.

[thispego]

You've done a pretty good job of down-playing the importance of that supposedly mere contractual provision, as if it were just an afterthought they threw into the agreement, but you've ignored the fact that it goes to the very heart of the game--whether or not the refs are on the take (or engaging in behaviors that put them at risk of contact with sports gamblers, or racking up large debts to gamblers). Speeding was pretty poor analogy, unless you're trying to gloss over the fact that refs aren't supposed to gamble for the very same reason debtors can't get security clearances. Why this isn't bigger news around here, I don't know. At this point, I'm not sure I can even watch the NBA anymore....
hahahahaha :lmao that's fine, peace out! more ratings for the spurs :clap :lol