Reply With Quote
If the Spurs play well and don't , it doesn't matter, so it.
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 iden ies 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_jack..._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/baske...-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?slu...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 do entation, 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.
If the Spurs play well and don't , it doesn't matter, so it.
Good post! I think some of the things you touched on are right on the money!
I think the Spurs are a better team than the refs 3+5 and I don't think the refs have some full blown conspiracy. I do think they favor longer series, and the more marketable team or player. But that isn't the same as saying they do it intentionally. Human bias works like that and given the nature of the game and the deeply emotional response being a fan entails, even a random selection of fouls can start to look like a sinister plot.
However the NBA needs be better at preventing bull conspiracy theories like this. They could change the way reffing works and add a few more layers of transparency and accountability. And I am whole heartedly behind any effort to bring reffering up to the 21st century in terms of technology and review.
But if the NBA were ever truly fixed, the Spurs would never beat teams like the Lakers or the Suns.
I'll be interested to hear your explanation for this.
Seriously, OFF! You're worse than Princess Pimp (if not the same person).
What's the question exactly?
One word...2006 playoffs.
Ok, that's 2...sue me.
And anyone who thinks this is not possible...if the ref's think they are capable of deciding a game ENOUGH TO BET ON IT...you better believe they can decide, and are CAPABLE enough to decide games. Has anyone actually checked, or reported on, the games they bet on and if they won their bets?
And was betting just a symptom of a larger problem that is inherent is the system? I mean, I can see a ref thinking..."well, if they want me to call it a certain way, screw 'em...I'll just make some money in the process."
Nah...it's all just a silly conspiracy theory, right?
SIG
2006 was without a doubt one of the worst officiated set of games in the NBA, but when you watch the Mavericks play. Dirk always gets the kind of treatment he got then. They still got some 50 free throws in one game against the Hornets this year, but the Hornets still beat them.
Without a doubt the Mavs had our number in 2006 and were the beneficiaries of more than their fair share of bad calls, but the Spurs still could have played better to have overcome it.
And don't get me wrong the Refs suck, Dirk should never be allowed to live at the free throw line. He has no business getting there any time he wants, when he draws about a 1/5th the contact of better players.
But again why would the refs let the Spurs win at all if there is a conspiracy theory to call the games for certain teams?
Nevermind. I thought by "fixed" you meant "repaired" and not "scripted".
I like it when the refs just let them play. Spurs seem to have a big advantage when this occurs
This guy gets it.
Those who are bashing this guy for posting this need to check themselves up in their brains. I would say to you OFF.
bull NON CALLS!!!!!! SPURS earned their stipes!!!!!!! giving em a freakin call once in a while is all we asking for!!!!!!! but I guess we gotta MAKE the call for them like cp3 do ehy?
the system of reviewing of refs is definitely in need of improvement...that's about what I got from your post. i still don't think there's a conspiracy or anything.
- Mars
The point is that systematic, unfair biases do occur. Calling such a phenomenon a "conspiracy" is simply an intellectually lazy way of ignoring the problem.
I think the Hornets are winning on the calls right now. I wonder how many steps Chris Paul is allowed? If this were the playground, I'd have been calling bull all day on that...But I also think we have benefited from the past, especially in Bowen vs. Nash.
Last night I was scratching my head at all the calls the Hornets were getting. The Spurs and the Hornets went to the line 21 times. However, the Spurs players had a total of 28 fouls while the Hornets players had a total of 21 fouls.
I am not saying there is a conspiracy, but last night made me wonder.
Amazing how some cannot read. Nothing is being "fixed" for the outcome, just adding a few obsticles for certain teams at certain times.
Think of it this way.
2 hills in front of you. Climb the hill, be a champion.
1 is 50' high.
1 is 80' high.
Which one is tougher?
The Seattle series a few years back shows how this happens.
That wasn't bball, that was rugby. The only shot Seattle had was having a rugby match. The Spurs would have rolled them in a standard contact bball game.
Watch the 1st 2 lakers/Jazz games this year. Who benefits more from rough play? Utah. No rough play is being allowed. These 2 series physicality is not even comparable, yet they are both NBA series. How can things be called so differenty in 2 nba games?
I can remember when most playoff series went the full cycle of games, even when there was a great disparity between the teams. There was rampant su ion among knowledgeable observers that the refs had something to do with it since they were paid by the GAME and more games meant more money.
The NBA was forced to change the way the refs are compensated because of this to keep the public's trust. They are now paid by each ROUND of the playoffs that they officiate.
There doesn't have to be a direct order and spoken directive for underlings to make a determination about where their bread is buttered.
Remember that Henry II didn't order his barons to kill Thomas A Becket, he merely said, ""Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
All this being said, I doubt the league and refs are in a explicit conspiracy to control the outcomes of the games.
But will young superstars get a pass on some rules violations and fouls compared to aging (and boring?) superstars who've been around a long time?
What will be the dream matchups in these playoffs? How does Detroit vs. Spurs rock the league's boat? What would the TV ratings look like?
Hmmm...where does the big money come from? Are playoffs an entertainment show? Are we feeling any pressure yet?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
