GSH
05-09-2008, 03:47 AM
I made a post a couple of days ago about a developing issue with the refs, and another potential scandal. For those of you who are open-minded enough to at least consider that it's not a wild conspiracy theory, I put together a few stories and links from respectable sources to give some idea how things work. Some of you might even be pursuaded to change your minds.
This was a reference from a USA Today article:
However, several NBA officials, talking anonymously to protect against league retribution, have expressed frustration with the system and supervisors used to judge them.
There is a history in the league of focusing on "who told" much more closely than "is it true?" And there is also a history of firing and/or smearing anyone who breaks ranks. But you can be sure that there are more than a few people who don't approve, and who look for ways of quietly leaking the truth.
_________
This is from an ESPN article about NBA refs. Note how they prepare for each game. If a crew is told to expect a scrum, do you think they are more likely to see one? So how about if they are repeatedly told, "This player flops constantly", or "This player is dirty"? Read it before you decide.
In the normal midday meeting at the hotel, Crawford cautioned the crew that Riley might turn the game into an ugly scrum, knowing that his young road-weary team had no chance of winning and had been pummeled the night before in Portland. These elements, incidentally, are mandatory for every ref to know -- the disruptive personalities on every team, how long a team has been on the road, how their previous games have gone, what changes they've had to make to their personnel, their favorite plays, what other controversies that might affect a team's or player's demeanor. http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/bucher_ric/1513723.html
_________
This is the "normal", low-profile method of influencing the refs to call a certain way against certain teams/players:
"Being familiar with the NBA referees' Web site, I have a sense of what led Van Gundy to make his remarks about Yao's being targeted. Video clips of infractions that the league believes are becoming prevalent are routinely put on the site, and officials are required to review them. The league goes to great pains to make the examples generic, using a neutral voiceover that describes the players as 'Offensive Player No. 1' or 'The Second Defender,' but there's no disguising the visual identities of the players in the clip.http://beggingthequestion.com/2005_05_01_archive.html
Think Stu Jackson doesn't target the Spurs with that tactic? Think again. This was from an article on NBA.com about the rule change to cut down on player complaints. Jackson says, "The goal here is to significantly reduce the amount of player complaining that takes place in our games. The reason we’re doing is because excessive complaining by the players interferes with game play..." So whose picture did Stuey's article use as an example? Guess... http://www.nba.com/features/stu_jackson_rules_20061107.html
The difference is, this time it went beyond the subtle use of a particular player's picture as an example of "problem behavior" on the court. This time they were specifically told that certain calls should not be made, and it was clearly targeted at the Spurs. And at least some of the refs don't like it.
_______
Finally, didn't you ever wonder how a corrupt ref like Donoghy could have been considered one of the league's best, worthy of calling playoff games? Especially in light of their claim that all NBA refs are reviewed and "graded" for performance after every game. These links describe a little bit about that process - which, incidentally, was created and implemented by none other than Stu Jackson.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2007-07-25-Referees-reviews_N.htm
Stern tried to isolate the criticisms of his staff, including vice president Stu Jackson and supervisor of officials Ronnie Nunn, as coming only from Mathis and Hollins. However, several NBA officials, talking anonymously to protect against league retribution, have expressed frustration with the system and supervisors used to judge them.
Hue Hollins, who retired two years ago after officiating 27 years in the NBA, says the problem with the evaluation process begins with the observers. He says the observers don't have NBA backgrounds, that some are high school referees and some are college referees. Mike Mathis, another retired NBA referee, told ESPN one observer is a football trainer from Boston College.
The observer logs the information into the league's computerized review system. It is compiled into a database, which can only be accessed by Stu Jackson, the league's executive vice president of operations; Ronnie Nunn, supervisor of officials, and the group supervisors. (Here's an extra link with more.) http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-stern083007&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
________
Stuey has a hard-on for several members of the Spurs' organization. He was in charge of referees when Joey Crawford embarassed himself on national TV. Stuey blames Tim for that. He also called Bowen in for an "official" warning about his supposed tactics on the floor. Pop made a public statement that he had told Bruce "not to change a thing" about the way he plays defense. Stuey took that as an intentional slap in the face - which was exactly how it was intended. Those aren't the only two examples, but they are enough to understand the problem if you are open-minded enough to even consider it.
There are some old-guard refs that need to go away, right along with Stu Jackson. When you see certain games that don't make sense, you are probably right. Yes, it's a tough job. And yes, it is subjective. But even that doesn't explain some of the crap that we see in games. I don't think it's about gambling or television revenues. I have been told enough to be convinced that some of it is about Stuey's personal ego problems.
But if any of these refs goes public, especially if they have any documentation, it's going to look like a vendetta. And it will be at least the equal of the Donoghy scandal, but worse because that is still so fresh.
This was a reference from a USA Today article:
However, several NBA officials, talking anonymously to protect against league retribution, have expressed frustration with the system and supervisors used to judge them.
There is a history in the league of focusing on "who told" much more closely than "is it true?" And there is also a history of firing and/or smearing anyone who breaks ranks. But you can be sure that there are more than a few people who don't approve, and who look for ways of quietly leaking the truth.
_________
This is from an ESPN article about NBA refs. Note how they prepare for each game. If a crew is told to expect a scrum, do you think they are more likely to see one? So how about if they are repeatedly told, "This player flops constantly", or "This player is dirty"? Read it before you decide.
In the normal midday meeting at the hotel, Crawford cautioned the crew that Riley might turn the game into an ugly scrum, knowing that his young road-weary team had no chance of winning and had been pummeled the night before in Portland. These elements, incidentally, are mandatory for every ref to know -- the disruptive personalities on every team, how long a team has been on the road, how their previous games have gone, what changes they've had to make to their personnel, their favorite plays, what other controversies that might affect a team's or player's demeanor. http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/bucher_ric/1513723.html
_________
This is the "normal", low-profile method of influencing the refs to call a certain way against certain teams/players:
"Being familiar with the NBA referees' Web site, I have a sense of what led Van Gundy to make his remarks about Yao's being targeted. Video clips of infractions that the league believes are becoming prevalent are routinely put on the site, and officials are required to review them. The league goes to great pains to make the examples generic, using a neutral voiceover that describes the players as 'Offensive Player No. 1' or 'The Second Defender,' but there's no disguising the visual identities of the players in the clip.http://beggingthequestion.com/2005_05_01_archive.html
Think Stu Jackson doesn't target the Spurs with that tactic? Think again. This was from an article on NBA.com about the rule change to cut down on player complaints. Jackson says, "The goal here is to significantly reduce the amount of player complaining that takes place in our games. The reason we’re doing is because excessive complaining by the players interferes with game play..." So whose picture did Stuey's article use as an example? Guess... http://www.nba.com/features/stu_jackson_rules_20061107.html
The difference is, this time it went beyond the subtle use of a particular player's picture as an example of "problem behavior" on the court. This time they were specifically told that certain calls should not be made, and it was clearly targeted at the Spurs. And at least some of the refs don't like it.
_______
Finally, didn't you ever wonder how a corrupt ref like Donoghy could have been considered one of the league's best, worthy of calling playoff games? Especially in light of their claim that all NBA refs are reviewed and "graded" for performance after every game. These links describe a little bit about that process - which, incidentally, was created and implemented by none other than Stu Jackson.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2007-07-25-Referees-reviews_N.htm
Stern tried to isolate the criticisms of his staff, including vice president Stu Jackson and supervisor of officials Ronnie Nunn, as coming only from Mathis and Hollins. However, several NBA officials, talking anonymously to protect against league retribution, have expressed frustration with the system and supervisors used to judge them.
Hue Hollins, who retired two years ago after officiating 27 years in the NBA, says the problem with the evaluation process begins with the observers. He says the observers don't have NBA backgrounds, that some are high school referees and some are college referees. Mike Mathis, another retired NBA referee, told ESPN one observer is a football trainer from Boston College.
The observer logs the information into the league's computerized review system. It is compiled into a database, which can only be accessed by Stu Jackson, the league's executive vice president of operations; Ronnie Nunn, supervisor of officials, and the group supervisors. (Here's an extra link with more.) http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-stern083007&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
________
Stuey has a hard-on for several members of the Spurs' organization. He was in charge of referees when Joey Crawford embarassed himself on national TV. Stuey blames Tim for that. He also called Bowen in for an "official" warning about his supposed tactics on the floor. Pop made a public statement that he had told Bruce "not to change a thing" about the way he plays defense. Stuey took that as an intentional slap in the face - which was exactly how it was intended. Those aren't the only two examples, but they are enough to understand the problem if you are open-minded enough to even consider it.
There are some old-guard refs that need to go away, right along with Stu Jackson. When you see certain games that don't make sense, you are probably right. Yes, it's a tough job. And yes, it is subjective. But even that doesn't explain some of the crap that we see in games. I don't think it's about gambling or television revenues. I have been told enough to be convinced that some of it is about Stuey's personal ego problems.
But if any of these refs goes public, especially if they have any documentation, it's going to look like a vendetta. And it will be at least the equal of the Donoghy scandal, but worse because that is still so fresh.