Reply With Quote
If the Spurs hadn't given up umpteen million offensive boards last night and had held the Blazers to 2 fewer second chance points, they win without any regard to the officiating, no?
There are billions of dollars at stake in the NBA. Every penny of it comes from the fans either directly or indirectly.
NBA referees have proven themselves to be criminal, biased, selfish, and incompetent on many occasions. Obviously no referee will ever be 100% perfect, but these guys, and this league, aren't even close.
Every NBA fan has the right, and possibly even the obligation, to hold the referees and the NBA as a whole accountable for their actions.
I myself am sick of the league's and some ignorant and lazy fans' casual acceptance of fouls/rules/interpetations being applied differently for star players, star teams, home teams, end of the game, playoff games, rookies, etc.
I am also sick of the much-loved ref-apologist theory "It's not the ref's fault - we should have played good enough to win (and beat the refs) and then bad calls don't matter". While this might be the frame of mind you want your players to have, it is complete bull as a logical argument, and there is absolutely no reason for anyone outside the team to wallow in that feces, or use it as some sort of false moral high-ground to "preach" to those who know better.
So if you don't want to hear fans about bad calls then crawl back in your hole and pretend it doesn't happen. And don't read threads with les such as "Late calls favoring Blazers". No one needs you to be their censor.
If the Spurs hadn't given up umpteen million offensive boards last night and had held the Blazers to 2 fewer second chance points, they win without any regard to the officiating, no?
So as long as the Spurs win, you are perfectly fine with poor officiating. Nice.
In my opinion the officiating was horribly in favor of the Spurs last night. Just thought I'd let you know...
Bad officiating is bad regardless of whom it helps.
I agree.
I thought the officiating in the Lakers-Blazers game was horribly in favor of the Blazers otherwise the Lakers would have won by 50.
Only one ref has been found guilty, so your argument sucks and so does this thread
As close as this league is, especially during the playoffs when it matters most, it is absurd beyond reason to require any team to overcome their opponent AND biased/poor refereeing.
No, I think poor officiating sucks. I just won't ever believe that poor officiating changes the outcome of games. I agree that there were bad calls last night -- and I'll agree that the bad calls probably went disproportionately in favor of the Blazers. But I don't think the fact of the bad calls changed the outcome of the game; I don't think missed calls ever change the outcome of a game because there are too many variables over the course of 48 minutes. In last night's example, the Spurs' inability to corrall offensive boards gave the Blazers a bunch of 2nd chance opportunities, many of which they converted. The Spurs also turned it over almost twice as much as the Blazers did last night, and the Blazers converted those into a +13 in points off of turnovers.
The officiating might have been bad, but I'd argue that the inability to grab boards and take care of the ball were what cost the Spurs.
If the refereeing is poor/biased isn't it that way for the entire league? So all teams have the same chance of having calls go for or against them?
So you attempt to refute my argument by stipulating to it? pwned.
Referees change the outcomes of games all the time. You can play woulda/coulda/shoulda with your favorite team's performance all you want, but one call is OFTEN the difference between a win and a loss.
But if your mind is so closed that you won't EVER believe that poor officiating changes the outcome of games, then there is no point in even discussing it with you.
Uh, no. "Biased" MEANS you are for one (team in this case) at the expense of another.
Not if you keep yourself out of position to allow one call to make the difference. Great teams do that and win.
Yeah, I'm not really open to the idea that officiating changes games; that won't stop me from expressing that view to those who disagree with me.
Why pick and choose "missed calls" out of that giant pile of "variables"?
You could have just as easily said "I don't think rebounds ever change the outcome of a game because there are too many variables over the course of 48 minutes."
Or even more stunningly stupid: "I don't think total points scored ever change the outcome of a game because there are too many variables over the course of 48 minutes."
It ALL matters.
So "great teams" can always control whether or not they get a bad call just by the way they play. I see...
No, you clearly used the plural to describe the refs and I destroyed your lengthy argument with one sentence.
If the refs are Biased, they are biased and imperfect, they are for everyone. So on any given night you will get calls or not. The chances are the same. So it evens out. Unless you are saying the refs are more biased against the Spurs than other teams, if so we have a Conspiracy Theory on our hands.
Sure, assuming that none of the other refs have ever been "biased, selfish," or "incompetent".
Try reading the ENTIRE sentence before commenting.
You must be a genius.
Bad calls in the 4th period
I have not said anything that was Spurs-specific.
If your team has a "Star" player that gets more calls than he should, your team will have an advantage. If your team starts a rookie that gets fewer calls than he should, your team will have a disadvantage. These advantages/disadvantages DO NOT "even out", they MULTIPLY by the number of games played.
Try not writing long-winded stupid paragraphs that use broad sweeping assumptions and associations that can be disproved with 10 words.
Every team has stars.
Here is my entire statement:
"NBA referees have proven themselves to be criminal, biased, selfish, and incompetent on many occasions. Obviously no referee will ever be 100% perfect, but these guys, and this league, aren't even close."
It is not 1) long-winded, 2) stupid, 3) a paragraph, 4) broad-sweeping, 5) an assumption.
The only thing you have "disproved" is your intelligence with your failure to understand that the plural "referees" relates to the plural "criminal, biased, selfish, and incompetent on many occasions".
Your faulty logic would also require that no other official had EVER committed ANY other criminal act.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
