As my friend who works as a ref (for girls basketball, high school level) says, if you think it's easy to make the calls, go be a ref.
It's a thankless job. Some people are always going to be unhappy, even if you are perfectly consistent. And different refs have slightly different interpretations of rules, not to mention things that they tend to "see" versus other things.
He's been urging me to become a ref, because I often complain about ref calls. In general, fouls are determined by how much contact, where the contact occurred, and who seemed to initiate it. But it's easy for me to see how any one of those areas could become gray, and usually all three.
It's true. Things are moving so freaking fast. It's gotta be tough. Sometimes I think they should add some type of instant replay to fouls. Obviously not on every play, but perhaps on game changing fouls at the end of games that could possibly affect the outcome. I keep thinking about Dirk hacking the out of Duncan on that last play of regulation in Game 7 last year.
I know consistency, in terms of officiating, means calling one thing a foul over and over again and choosing not to call a foul for another over and over again. The NBA refs do not do that. It depends on who the foul is on and where the game is being played at. I understand the job is hard, and they have to make split-second decisions, but there is no consistency in the league. Last night's game proves it. They started calling everything in the fourth after calling nothing the first three quarters. I'm not saying officiating wins/loses games either. To suggest that the NBA refs call things consistency is utter bull . Superstars and location of the game shatter your argument.
The NBA is the toughest league to officiate because of the sheer number of possible calls that could be made on every posession, and the effect calls can have on the game. It's hard to compare NBA Officials to MLB Umpires because umpires' calls rarely affect the flow or outcome of a baseball game (with the arguable exception of an Eric Gregg strike zone.)
I don't expect officials to make every call, and I don't even want them to. What I look for in an NBA Officiating crew is that they don't carry themselves as though they are above the game (like having a quick whistle when it comes to giving out technicals), and that they make calls consistently without favoring star players or the home crowd. This can be a problem at times in the NBA but it's not as bad as it's made out to be.
And regarding the Boozer play, frankly I'm embarrassed that any Spurs fans think that should have been called a foul.
This is the kind of thread I'd expect to see in a Mavs forum... picking apart a play for any semblance of contact to suggest that there should have been a foul called.
Obviously it wasn't the dumbest take ever, but I'm annoyed with the criticism of NBA officiating. If the olympics weren't proof of what an incompetent or politically motivated officiating crew can do then it should at very least proven how good the NBA is. The MLB might be improving, but I can think of two calls in the last week that changed the outcome of games, one of which was the Rangers/Twins game last Wednesday. I was 20 feet from first base at the time and have no idea how the ump missed such a simple call. The NFL officiating is typically pretty horrible and I remember the Stars winning the Stanley Cup on a goal that should have been disallowed. Most of the characterizations by folks on this message board about the officiating in last night's game are just incorrect. The Jazz didn't get penalized for their crowd, or for all the whining they did. The Spurs weren't given any calls that they didn't deserve at any point.
Don't you ever wonder why most of the time both teams' fans are unhappy with the officiating? The fans are the last people anyone should expect to be unbiased when it comes to officiating, and most of the folks that complain about the refs are the same ones who think the league fixes the games, so it's kind of a slippery slope. If there were a single scintilla of evidence that an official was making a call based on personal reasons, he'd be suspended. See Crawford, Joey.
You got rules that are suppossed to be clear, but some of them let to the refs the interpretation, NBA's refs trend to consider the flow of the game which is good in some sense and b...l sh...t in another one.
At the end of the day a foul is what the refs calls, pure, plane and simple.
I thought it was a great call by the refs. Boozer made a career highlight last night in stuffing Timmy hardcore.
So let's expand upon your statement, since, in addition to being completely overstated, it's also in ignorance of the nuances of basketball that caused the calls to happen.
The Jazz took a ton of jumpers throughout the game. They weren't going to get any more calls in the fourth than they did through the first three. The Spurs played better defense and were in position the entire quarter, which is going to cut down on fouls.
The Spurs started putting Manu and Duncan in a two man game in the fourth quarter, which they hadn't been doing. They ran high/low, they ran pick and roll and they ran 4 down, all with Manu and Duncan as the ball handlers. From the first play of the fourth quarter they had the Jazz completely on their heels and drew fouls by keeping the defenders out of position. The Jazz helped by committing stupid fouls, like Harpring pushing Finley right in front of the official and Fisher's two frustration fouls. Manu got a loose ball and threw himself into Okur, drawing another foul. Okur fouled Oberto at the end of the shot clock on a fadeaway jumper and Fisher fouled Manu on a three pointer. There wasn't anything "extra" that the officials were calling, the Jazz were making bad plays and the Spurs were taking advantage of their position. They didn't get anyone for hand checking or for pushing in the post. They didn't even call a number of offensive fouls on both ends of the floor. The only two I recall are the one on Horry when he jumped into the defender and caught him on the chin, which made it kind of difficult to ignore, and the one on Harpring, which as I said, was right in front of the ref.
To my understanding, if it's ball-first, body-second, it's alright.
It wasn't even a tough call. No foul. If you think otherwise you're a homer.
I thought the block by Boozer was very good. He did his job and it's not like Timmy has not been stuffed before.
Well, I think that if Derek Fisher hurling himself into Duncan is a foul, than Boozer bodying up on TD is a foul. Actually, I think neither should be a foul, but what I am looking for is some logical consistency.
it has to be ALL BALL in order to be a block,ANY CONTACT will be a foul when a player y jump shooting,dunking or laying up.So 99% of the times its a fauls(acording to BB rules)but the refs call what they want.
I thought it was great block.
in the medical world: no blood, no foul.
It was a great block but timmay doubled even tripled boozers blocks and got no love.....
and about the replays
give the coach a red flag to challenge the call ........who knows....
The officiating in this year's playoffs has been much better imo than in the past. That said, I wouldn't call the NBA refs excellent due to the fact that the NBA no longer releases the names of officials prior to games, and referees stay in hotels under assumed names and follow no prescribed travel schedule to maintain league integrity. Big gambling syndicates know very well how excellent an NBA referee can be to their bottomlines, which is why the NBA adopted the above changes. Why would they make those changes, if there wasn't a problem of refs being influenced by non-league groups or individuals?
I would say this is true most of the time, but not always. The officials prevented the Kings from closing out the Lakers in Game 6 of the WCF in 2002 by awarding the Lakers 27 free throws in the 4th quarter including 20 in the last 6:21. Since it was a close-out game, they were the difference in that series imo.Good teams figure out a way to win no matter how the game is being called, and the officials have never been the difference in a seven game series. Ever. The better team always wins.
The body contact was because both players were up in the air and momentum carried them into each other.
If you want a foul called on that, then every play is gonna have a foul....some plays would have multiple fouls and everyone would foul out before the first quarter and the coaches would have to play.
Maybe true...so maybe it's time to get rid of fouling out. I'm not sure exactly why that rule is still in place. No one wants to see Duncan or Amare or whoever riding the pine.
Betting the over or the under has nothing to do with the outcome of the game. Your contention is usually that the officials are crooked, not that they call games differently. The officials let the teams play last night and the Spurs still ended up taking 25 free throws in the fourth quarter simply by being aggressive. None of the above means anything to the quality of the officiating. This isn't Bavetta coming into a game after a big fight to keep everyone in line. Since the predictions you've been making about the officiating aren't even close to accurate I'd use that to further prove my point. Some of you focus way too much on who's out there. There's not an official in the league that would have been able to swallow his whistle on most of the fouls called in the fourth quarter.
Just FYI, the Kings shot 2-20 from three point range and 16-30 from the free throw line in a game they lost in overtime on their home floor. Shaq hit 11 of 15 free throws. Bibby tied the game with 8 seconds to go in regulation on an off the ball foul call on Kobe. If the officials were going to give the game to the Lakers, they could easily have not made that call.
Most consider that a great block, as do I.
Still, under the "rules", that would be a foul. If the refs woulda called it a foul, they coulda gotten away with it.
The power refs have over deciding games, cannot be overstated.
There's no NBA rule that says that was a foul. Body contact that impedes the offensive player's progress is a foul. Duncan was no longer the offensive player once Boozer got his hand on the ball. I'd hope that no NBA official would ever call that a foul.
If you want to keep ignoring the fact that big gambling syndicates have in the past corrupted officials to fix games, and actively look for new ones to corrupt, I don't know what to say. If you think this is false, then answer these two questions:
* Why is there no NBA team in Las Vegas, a city that is literally begging for an NBA team?
* Why does the NBA no longer publicly release who is officiating the games until the day of the game, and why do they have them stay and travel under assumed names?
Here are my contentions so that we are clear on them.Your contention is usually that the officials are crooked, not that they call games differently.
* The NBA front office can manipulate games without a conspiracy simply by assigning officials to games whose styles benefit a particular team.
* Big gambling syndicates have bribed officials to fix games and continue to look for such opportunities.
* The NBA wants as many seven game series as possible and officials know this.
Here is what I believe the NBA has done:
* Assigned officials to games knowing that it would favor the NBA's preferred team to win the series.
* Let it be known to officials what teams they would prefer to see in the Finals.
Agreed. A team taking 25 free throws in a quarter doesn't mean that the officiating is bad since the context of how they took those free throws is required before making any such judgments.The officials let the teams play last night and the Spurs still ended up taking 25 free throws in the fourth quarter simply by being aggressive. None of the above means anything to the quality of the officiating. This isn't Bavetta coming into a game after a big fight to keep everyone in line.
Saying it, doesn't make it so. In the Suns series, I said I wouldn't be surprised if Bavetta showed up to officiate Game 6. He did. I also said, if the game wasn't a blow out, which it was, I wouldn't be surprised if the Spurs got hosed on calls based on Bavetta's track record in such games.Since the predictions you've been making about the officiating aren't even close to accurate I'd use that to further prove my point.
Like I said before, the Kings lost Game 7 straight up by shooting themselves out of the game. The NBA was rightfully facing a public relations disaster at that time because of what happened in Game 6, so a repeat of that in Game 7 would have damaged the NBA's reputation perhaps permanently in a lot of folks' minds. , it might not have been the NBA at all that was behind the Game 6 disaster rather it could have easily been a big gambling syndicate.Just FYI, the Kings shot 2-20 from three point range and 16-30 from the free throw line in a game they lost in overtime on their home floor. Shaq hit 11 of 15 free throws. Bibby tied the game with 8 seconds to go in regulation on an off the ball foul call on Kobe. If the officials were going to give the game to the Lakers, they could easily have not made that call.
After the Game 6 fiasco, a lot of people imo were turned off by the NBA and stopped watching like I and some others I know did. I honestly believe that one of the reasons the NBA has been on the decline in terms of tv ratings is because of the perception that the officials have too much influence on the games to put it mildly.
After the Game 6 fiasco, a lot of people imo were turned off by the NBA and stopped watching like I and some others I know did.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
