An Idea How To Improve Officiating

[Padrino]

I think it is wrong to encourage the refs to study tendancies and look for fault. I can see them now studying Darius, for instance, and then calling him for something when they think they see it. The guys is stuck forever with the "Pollard syndrome"...he moves and they call a foul. They should only call what they see (not what they thought they saw based on a few film sessions) and in a consistant manner. A foul in the first quarter should be called the same way in the fourth. All players will tell you they don't particularly care if they call them tight or loose, just be consistant.

this is a very good point. if referees make calls based on player tendencies, then the whistle is gonna blow more often then it should. sometimes players who are prone to certain kinds of mistakes are targeted by refs, and they blow the whistle every time they think they see the player making said mistake. kinda like against dallas last playoffs, when mark cuban complained to the refs about webb moving his pivot foot. the refs blew the whistle on webb for traveling calls 3 or 4 times in the same game. it may be that he traveled 3 or 4 times, but if the refs are entirely focused on one aspect of one players game, then theyre gonna miss the bigger picture. they should call them as they see them, unprejudiced, unbiased, and w/o pattern.

 

[gat]

By the way I havn't heard anyone refer to the conversation shown right after the Kings/Mavs game between the Maloofs and Mark Cuban. Let's not forget Cuban's one man tilting at windmills re: the officiating in the league. The owners need to get together and demand more efficient jobs be done.

It looked to me like Cuban was saying tough break, you guys got robbed.... but, I'll take the win.

 

[Rowdyone]

But the bigger point is that Star players are not called for their tendancies...such as Shaq using his elbows to clear out and jumping over the FT line after shooting but before the ball hits iron or doing a jump step to the key, upfaking and then going up for a shot...the upfake negates his legal step and that, my friend, is traveling. Or, how about Malone taking at least two minutes to make two FT's...no call. Yet, Songaila, Evans, Martin are all under the microscope. Just watch a game where there's a scramble among Stars and regular guys...the Stars never get called for a foul, it goes to the player with lesser "stature".

 

[Folsom Al]

Then It Would Be 5 vs 9

So what I propose is using 2 sets of officials. One set for each side of the half court line. When the play goes to one side of the half court, one set of officials takes over the call of the game and when it shifts to the other side of the half court line, the other set takes over.

It would look like a Referee Convention out there ... (heh-heh)

Instant Replay is THE ONLY SOLUTION. Find a way to make it work for ALL 3-SIDES !!!

 

[gocmen]

Money talks.

The refs should have a base salary and they should be reviewed like end of every week on how they performed in the games. The good ones should get some more money as a bonus while the others watch others get that money. At least, when you get robbed, you are going to know that the refs will also pay for it by getting less money.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

Not a tenis fan, but wasn't there some controversy with that too, with one of the Williams sisters?

Line calling machines have been used since the days of Macenroe, and he loved to complain about them, he also liked to complain about the chair officials, and the line judges... Macenroe being Macenroe.

The point of the linecalling machine is that it is impartial, it will call the same thing everytime. If that means that refs are able to spend more time on the other parts of the game, it'd be great.

But I really think there must be some technical limitation to the machines, because line calling machines on the sidelines seems too obvious to me.

 

[El Paljasso]

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=8502

show this to the referees and i'm sure they'll make the right call
or at least they'll try to make sure this never happens to them

 

[Folsom Al]

Wow !!!

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=8502

show this to the referees and i'm sure they'll make the right call
or at least they'll try to make sure this never happens to them

Like the man says .... UNBELIEVABLE !!!

As horrific as that incident was ..... the way those guys were fanning the ref at the end was a site to see, as well.

Thanx, El P

 

[Bricklayer]

Without checking it out is that the guy down in Argentina or wherever?

 

[JB_kings]

The problem with instant replay like the NFL uses is that the NBA game and the NFL game flow much differently. The deadball time in the NFL is after every play even though the clock may continue running. There is enough time between plays for the coaches upstairs to catch a quick replay and let the head coach know that he should challenge a play. In the Stoudamire case, the end of the quarter cooincided and it could have been challenged and replayed without affecting the game. But the call in the Mavs game shouldn't be reviewed because play continued after the block. Can you imagine if you gave the coach the ability to stop a fast break opportunity late in the game just because he wants to challenge a call? It could and would be misused to gain advantage.

 

[Kingsgurl]

Good point, JB, but what about something like this- Each Coach is given ONE challenge. As in the case in the NFL, if the call is upheld upon review, the team is charged a time-out. In a close game, time-outs are like Gold, so it would negate the 'use it just because you can' factor. Also, using the mavs game as an example, Adelman could have challenged at the time the goaltend occured, play would have continued as the ball was in play, the players on the court wouldn't even neccesarily realize the challenge had occured. The next time the challenging team has possession, play is stopped and the challenge reviewed. In the case of the Mavs game this would have been after the Mavs scored on the fast break and the Kings were taking the ball out on the sideline, but if they had missed it could occur after the rebound. Two scenarios would then occur-

Scenario A- The refs review the play, see that it WAS indeed a goaltend, the Mavs basket is wiped off, the Kings get the original basket and the Mavs get the ball out of bounds, as should have happened in the first place. They aren't being penalized as the fast break basket never should have occured in the first place.

Scenario B- The refs review the play, uphold the call, (which clearly wouldn't have happened in this case, but bear with me here) the Mavs fast break basket stands, Kings are charged a time out and play resumes.

 

[uolj]

The problem with instant replay like the NFL uses is that the NBA game and the NFL game flow much differently. The deadball time in the NFL is after every play even though the clock may continue running. There is enough time between plays for the coaches upstairs to catch a quick replay and let the head coach know that he should challenge a play. In the Stoudamire case, the end of the quarter cooincided and it could have been challenged and replayed without affecting the game. But the call in the Mavs game shouldn't be reviewed because play continued after the block. Can you imagine if you gave the coach the ability to stop a fast break opportunity late in the game just because he wants to challenge a call? It could and would be misused to gain advantage.

Kingsgurl explained it well. See this thread for discussion of the instant replay rule, especially VF21's post #8... I kind of like the idea - if replay were ever to be expanded.

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3057

 

[Bricklayer]

Don't like the idea of stopping the game for ANY reason. Just not worth it.


Best you could possibly sell me on would be a timeout type challenge when YOU had the ball, and limited to a challenge of something happening in the current possession or the other team's immediately preceding possession. But never EVER being able to stop the other team, or timewarp back 4 possessions to challenge something. That's just not worth it. Bad calls suck, but they do more or less balance out over time. The cure is not worth it if it means fundamentally mucking around with the flow of the game or having all sorts of "oh sorry, the last minute of play did not count" silliness. That's icky and confusing to players and fans alike.

 

[uolj]

C'mon Bricklayer, read it again... the game wouldn't be stopped until an official timeout or the challenging team has the ball. I think almost everyone would agree with you that replay that stopped the action in the middle of play would be bad. But it doesn't have to be like that.

Best you could possibly sell me on would be a timeout type challenge when YOU had the ball, and limited to a challenge of something happening in the current possession or the other team's immediately preceding possession.

That is exactly the proposal that is being made.

 

[Bricklayer]

C'mon Bricklayer, read it again... the game wouldn't be stopped until an official timeout or the challenging team has the ball. I think almost everyone would agree with you that replay that stopped the action in the middle of play would be bad. But it doesn't have to be like that. That is exactly the proposal that is being made.

Well for instance, that does not cover the Dallas situation, nor should it IMHO. That's a lump you have to take. They had the ball off of the "block", and by the time we get it back, there's no way to go back and correct that call without altering Dallas' entire possession.

 

[Kingsgurl]

Altering Dallas pssesion, you mean the one they shouldn't have had in the first place?

 

[JB_kings]

You could give the coaches one challenge per a half. If they want to stop the ball and review a play, then they have 1 opportunity. If they lose the challenge, then the other team should shoot a technical and be awarded possession of the ball after the technical shot. That could cut down the incentive to abuse the challenge and still could have worked correctly in the Mavs game.

 

[uolj]

Well for instance, that does not cover the Dallas situation, nor should it IMHO. That's a lump you have to take. They had the ball off of the "block", and by the time we get it back, there's no way to go back and correct that call without altering Dallas' entire possession.

Yes it does. You have until the end of your first possession following the play to make the challenge. Adelman says "no Whammies, no Whammies, no Whammies, CHALLENGE!!" as the Mavs bring the ball downcourt after the "block". Play doesn't stop until Webber fouls Terry a few seconds later and it's a dead ball. At that point, you have the replay, you can see how much time was on the clock, and the Mavs possession doesn't count. If you think that's bad because they scored on their possession, then tough noogies, they shouldn't have had the ball after the rebound anyway.

 

[VF21]

No "fix" is going to be perfect. I think the whole "challenge" idea is at least worth the league considering.

 

[HOU CuttinoFan]

How 'bout if your players just stopped whining so much? You guys are almost as bad as the Rockets were the last couple years before shipping out Mobes and Stevie.

Seriously, the officials call games differently if your players have a bad reputation of complaining to the refs. We saw that in Houston for five years.

 

[slugking50]

How 'bout if your players just stopped whining so much? You guys are almost as bad as the Rockets were the last couple years before shipping out Mobes and Stevie.

Seriously, the officials call games differently if your players have a bad reputation of complaining to the refs. We saw that in Houston for five years.

And we've seen it here for 7. They don't listen though.

 

[VF21]

How 'bout if your players just stopped whining so much? You guys are almost as bad as the Rockets were the last couple years before shipping out Mobes and Stevie.

Seriously, the officials call games differently if your players have a bad reputation of complaining to the refs. We saw that in Houston for five years.

We're having a pretty good discussion about what we think could be done to make it better for all teams, their players and the fans. It's not about the KINGS or any other players whining. It's about bad officiating. Poor calls, non-calls, grudge calls, etc.

 

[albeitrue]

How 'bout if your players just stopped whining so much? You guys are almost as bad as the Rockets were the last couple years before shipping out Mobes and Stevie.

Seriously, the officials call games differently if your players have a bad reputation of complaining to the refs. We saw that in Houston for five years.

Hmmmmm....a Mobes fan (check username) complaining about Mobes' whining. On a King's forum. "We saw that in Houston for five years" constitutes whining in most people's book, too. Are you also a Rockets fan? If so, (and this isn't looking too good for you if you are a Rockets fan) more whining: "almost as bad as the Rockets were the last couple years...".

 

[Bricklayer]

Yes it does. You have until the end of your first possession following the play to make the challenge. Adelman says "no Whammies, no Whammies, no Whammies, CHALLENGE!!" as the Mavs bring the ball downcourt after the "block". Play doesn't stop until Webber fouls Terry a few seconds later and it's a dead ball. At that point, you have the replay, you can see how much time was on the clock, and the Mavs possession doesn't count. If you think that's bad because they scored on their possession, then tough noogies, they shouldn't have had the ball after the rebound anyway.

If you want to key it to an intentional foul used by one of the Kings -- maybe. That's still a basketball play and could have happened with or without a challenge -- a dead ball through normal play. And with basketball consequences (a foul + FTs) if you're wrong. What can NOT happen is for the coach to throw a hanky out on the floor or whatever and play just gets stopped, as often as not because he does not like the three on one developing against his team as because he is really upset about the last play.

But the problem with all of this is we're looking at this from a purely petty and selfish perspective based on the blown calls last week. Oh sure, Dallas should not have had that possession, but the fact of the matter is that in at least half of the cases under any such rule they WILL have deserved it and just be playing ball. Can't have opposing coaches fundamantally altering the game when the call was correct on the off chance its not. And can't EVER have the game played on, time run off, points scored, stats racked up, and then go back several possessions and say "oh that didn't happen". No professional sports league does that, and for good reason. Its ridiculous. "Oh fans, just ignore that last minute of play, never happened." Yeah, right.

 

[uolj]

What can NOT happen is for the coach to throw a hanky out on the floor or whatever and play just gets stopped, as often as not because he does not like the three on one developing against his team as because he is really upset about the last play.

I don't think anybody, especially me, thinks this is a good idea. That is not and has never been part of a proposed solution that I've been talking about. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it.

But the problem with all of this is we're looking at this from a purely petty and selfish perspective based on the blown calls last week. Oh sure, Dallas should not have had that possession, but the fact of the matter is that in at least half of the cases under any such rule they WILL have deserved it and just be playing ball. Can't have opposing coaches fundamantally altering the game when the call was correct on the off chance its not. And can't EVER have the game played on, time run off, points scored, stats racked up, and then go back several possessions and say "oh that didn't happen". No professional sports league does that, and for good reason. Its ridiculous. "Oh fans, just ignore that last minute of play, never happened." Yeah, right.

Again, I don't know why you keep mentioning this. We aren't discussing stopping play in the middle of the opponents possession. We aren't discussing going back several possessions and pretending it never happened. I'm only using the Kings/Mavs game because it's the perfect example to illustrate how the replay idea would work, it's not a Kings thing from my perspective. I don't see where any of your arguments apply. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are misunderstanding the proposal that we've been referring to.