Reply With Quote
Oh come on, parts of it are still fun.
Sorry to burst your bubble though.
On having an opinion, yes, and I did already say what my opinion was. My point is that all we have are opinions and no one, at least on this board, has facts and without facts, none of us who voice our opinions are right or wrong.
You are wasting your time, friend. You are trying to convince me that you are right and I am wrong and that is just not going to happen. I will state this again...I do not believe that NBA referees or the NBA league office get together and decides before games or before playoff series that they are going to call or not call certain teams a certain way to ensure the outcome of said game or series. Can I tell you that has never happened? No, it may have happened...it may be happening now. I don't know that for sure and neither do you, unless you are in a position of authority in the NBA and if you are...can you score me some tickets?The thing alot of people confuse on this board is opinion and fact...one is not neccessarily the other. Because you or someone thinks that the refs decide before a game "well, lets draw this out to a game 7 and call everything on Duncan and nothing on West" doesn't mean that is actually happening. It could be...but it also could not be.
Oh come on, parts of it are still fun.
Sorry to burst your bubble though.
I believe inconsistent officiating exists.....and the Donaghy thing proves that an official can be corrupt...but I don't think that one case means that there is more than one. It is possible though and the NBA should be doing all it can to fix that.
You posted this as I was finishing my post.
That was my point all along. Players can and should overcome bad officiating.
I do think that there is a difference between corrupt and bad. Corrupt implies pre-meditation. Bad is just mistakes.
If both teams pull their starters before the end of the game, it wasn't a close game. I had no idea the definition of whooping = being up by 20 in first half and staying there. Who knew?
BTW, speaking of moron, I never said anything about a blowout, you did. Since the Spurs got beat by about 20 in the third quarter alone, is it fair to say they took a whooping in the third quarter?
Does anyone in this thread complaining about the refs actually dispute the 6 or 7 blatant calls I brought up that went in the Spurs favor? This is so laughable.
It's not, man, the refs missed call XYZ. Instead, it's, well, we were losing and since more fouls were called on the Spurs, they must have been cheating.
Bowen had two fouls on him the whole game. Anyone think he only bumped Peja etc. twice? Remeber when he trips Peja and the ball goes out of bounds, no call? He's basically fouling Peja every trip down the floor. Which I have no problem with if he's getting away with it. That's good basketball.
The calls were close on the Spurs because they were intent on phyically hurting CP3, West and Chandler. No conspiracy. Pop got angry because because his players were caught. It's not the refs; the Spurs are desperate
Go to NBA.com and download a copy of last night's game. You will see Spurs players setting up Hornet players to hurt them.
Crack is bad for you. Stop doing it.The calls were close on the Spurs because they were intent on phyically hurting CP3, West and Chandler. No conspiracy. Pop got angry because because his players were caught. It's not the refs; the Spurs are desperate
Go to NBA.com and download a copy of last night's game. You will see Spurs players setting up Hornet players to hurt them.
You haven't burst my bubble.
I'd hazard a guess that I watch NBA officiating more closely than you do, primarily because I once had concerns that the league's officials were corrupt and were tilting games. I made it a point, though, to watch the officials closely and to know who they are and how they call games. Having studied the officials like that for years, I'm absolutely convinced that there is no conspiracy or corruption. I am convinced that officials are humans, not robots; I am convinced that no two officials call a game the same way; and I am convinced that officials have tendencies that are fairly easy to track. Knowing all of those things and applying them to any particular game, I'm also quite certain that the calls in any given game are simply a combination of idiosyncracies and tendencies that are borne out during the course of the game.
And honestly, there are too many "bad for the league" outcomes for me to believe that the league is directing officials to create particular results.
[QUOTE=samikeyp;2495547]the Donaghy thing proves that an official can be corrupt. QUOTE]
The Donaghy case PROVES that an official WAS corrupt.
What are the odds he was the only corrupt NBA official that ever existed? Ever?
What are the odds he will be the only corrupt NBA official that will ever exist?
So you have proof that officials can be corrupted. And you have proof of at least one corrupt official. Now the question becomes do you think the NBA is more concerned with fair play or profit? One guess...
I know this is all hard to accept because everyone has a vested interest in continuing the fairytale. As fans, we want to believe it is fair, the networks want to keep their income stream, the teams want to keep playing, the owners want to keep making more money...
[QUOTE=zepn;2495581]Ok, my turn.....do you believe that corrupt officiating is the reason why the Spurs are down 2-3?
stop washing your crack with swamp waterThe calls were close on the Spurs because they were intent on phyically hurting CP3, West and Chandler. No conspiracy. Pop got angry because because his players were caught. It's not the refs; the Spurs are desperate
Go to NBA.com and download a copy of last night's game. You will see Spurs players setting up Hornet players to hurt them.
Corruption in the Donaghy case and the sort of ins utional corruption that you're talking about are two entirely different things. Donaghy wasn't corrupt as a result of anything the league did. You aren't -- as far as I can tell -- suggesting that officials are being corrputed by influences outside of the league; you're saying that officials are being directed by the league to produce particular results if possible. Those are two entirely different things.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 05-14-2008 at 02:13 PM.
My personal opinion is that the NBA really doesn't care who wins this series as long as it goes to seven games.
I'm glad.
[QUOTE=samikeyp;2495583]
I want to play this game. There was a basketball player who took steroids. Therefor, I think all of the Spurs take steroids, and none of their championships were earned.
You think no player takes steroids?
There was a player who took crack. Therefor I think all of the Spurs take crack as well.
You think no players take crack?
Fair enough. Honestly, if that is the case, it would not surprise me in the least.
As was said, the real question is do you really think the refs have cost the Spurs a game?
Last edited by Jon1798; 05-14-2008 at 02:44 PM.
[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown;2495590]
In a previous post I qualified that by saying that the Donaghy case was probably not a top-down case of corruption. I used it as an example that officials have absolutely been proven to be corruptable. And that there is at least on official who has been proven to be corrupt.
I don't think many people here would doubt that the NBA, given the choice of let's say (hypothetically), bending a few rules vs. going bankrupt, wouldn't bend those rules. So the NBA is not above bending rules to make money, and officials have proven to be corruptable, so...
The argument can be made at both ends, but you will have to connect the dots yourself. If they were connected for you this would already be in the courts, and I don't mean hardwood.
So, in essence then, you're taking your supposition and adding to that a completely irrelevant fact to conclude unequivocally that your supposition + a completely irrelevant fact = corruption.
Trust me, if the league wants to stay out of bankruptcy, the most significant thing it can do is assure that it's officials aren't corrupt. The NBA would not remain financially solvent if it was sued for defrauding its customers. And the league would surely be risking just such a suit if it instructed its officials to tilt outcomes. There are simply too many people who would have to be a part of such a conspiracy to think that they all would keep quiet -- particularly given the relatively low salaries paid to on-court officials.
The fact that at least one official has been PROVEN to be corrupt is absolutely relevant. It proves that officials can in fact be corrupted, and have in fact been corrupted.
The NBA has broken rules to increase their marketing/income. One of the most recent examples would be KG not getting suspended for pushing a ref. So we have also proven that the NBA will, and already has in fact broken rules for their own financial gain.
These are called "supporting arguments".
So, the NBA currently breaks rules for their own financial gain, and they have at their disposal officials who have proven in the past to be corruptible. It is not much of a stretch to say that the NBA might use corrupt officials to break rules for their own financial gain, now is it?
Also, it would require very few people to achieve the desired outcomes and I doubt Stern would publish color brochures on "How to Throw an NBA Game for Fun and Profit".
Last edited by zepn; 05-14-2008 at 03:01 PM.
Zepn has alot of good points! Any fan that says officiating has nothing to do with the outcome of a game is not watching the games being played.
Would it make you feel better if I think that Stern talked to the officials about giving the home team the benefit of the doubt in playoff games this year?
*edit* For the record, a friend of mine who's a Bulls fan says he's disgusted with the officiating overall in the playoffs this year.
Think about it.
The most hyped playoffs since Jordan.
The deepest West EVER.
Round 1 completely dominated by the top 4 seeds, against what some analysts said would contain at least 3 or 4 game 7's between the two conferences.
And then all of a sudden, we have home teams in the 2nd round go 17-1.
Do you really think it's a coincidence?
I'll be the first to admit the Spurs get favorable officiating at home, which is even more exacerbated in these playoffs.
Officials are swallowing their whistles when the home team has the ball, and calling ticky tack fouls on the other end.
This is happening in EVERY GAME.
17-1.
Spurs just went from a 20 point blowout to a 23 point spanking in the opposite direction.
Now, obviously some of it is the players.
And some of it says that 17-1 is just too handy of a coincidence for the League. Just too much money to be made out there for this to work so conveniently in the NBAs favor.
Does this mean that the Spurs couldnt have beaten the Hornets last night if their intensity had been about 47 notches higher? No. It was a very winnable game.
Does it also mean that a ref can very easily handcuff a team into playing a much less physical style of defense with just a couple of calls? Absolutely.
These teams are relatively evenly matched. A couple of calls can build momentum.
And there is no way you can convince me that 17-1 is just "chance". There aren't even odds to support the home team winning that often.
And not just winning, but destroying the visiting team. And then the very next game they themselves are dismantled. So we either have a situation where the home court has in the course of a single playoffs (between rounds, no less!) become so much of a factor that it completely controls every game except one, or there is something else at work here.
Myself? I believe it's a combination. I think the home teams are bringing more intensity to the game, and by the same token I think the refs are allowing the home teams in EVERY series to be more physical, get away with touch fouls, and generally look the other way to please the crowd. It makes sense in a business strategy. Push the games to at least 6 and THEN tell the refs to back off.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 05-14-2008 at 02:58 PM.
I have watched basketball since the 70's and still do not believe the NBA pre-determines outcomes of those games. I may be wrong, but have not seen actual proof that they do...just theories and speculation.
I respect Mikey's opinion...however, of all the big four sports, the NBA is the only league that gives preferencial treatment to stars and hometeams. I think it isn't really fair, but as long as you have an commish like Stern, who lets things go without giving it a glance is just horrible.
if they called the game straight up...stars like MJ, Magic, Bird, Robinson, Duncan would foul out nearly every night. Yes I know that Shaq does...and a majority of the time, the big men get called for fouls, and that's a gimmie. of course they would say, well you pay good money to see the stars play, you should see them on the court for a lengthly period...however, it should be played right down the middle, they foul out...they foul out. They have no one to blame but themselves, you know?
But just in even years, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
