Bad officiating

[Mozart]

Man, ending a game which we could have won with a ####ing-clear foul on Garcia shooting for the win JUST SUCKS!


Props to the Kings for making an excellent effort to try to win the game.


If the call was made--as it should have--Garcia would have had a chance to tie or win the game with three FTs.


The NFL has it's challenge rule and it's successfully used fairly frequently; occasionally, on-field calls are reversed, thus correcting mis-calls made by the damn zebras in the game.


Why on Earth, Mars and Jupiter can't the same damn challenge thing exist in the NBA? Each coach ought to be able to use ONE challenge for each half; win a challenge, then the call gets reversed and a challenge is still available in the half; lose a challenge, then the challenge-losing team loses a time-out with the challenged call standing and no more challenges available to use in the half. What's so difficult about that? We have instant replay available in every damn game, so implementing a challenge rule ain't so difficult, ya know.


WTF isn't this kind of challenge thing happen'n in the NBA? Why? WTF is wrong with Stern et. al.? It seems that Sterns et. al. have brains that are as solid as the insides of basketballs.

NOTE: I'm adding a poll but please read the question as it's not about the Kings-Nuggets game but about all games in general. -- VF21

 

[VF21]

It's an argument that has been around here for a long time, but I think it's worth revisiting after tonight.

The real point in my mind, however, is what Reggie was saying. I don't care if they're right or wrong so much as I care if they're consistent. Officiating is subjective but you cannot allow officials to make egregious errors like that which occured in the final minute of tonight's game. It's simply inexcuseable. And it's pretty pathetic when their non-call is displayed in glorious living color on the jumbotron for all to see numerous times. There should be a procedure in place for calls like that to be reviewed.

The ongoing argument is that it would stop the flow of the game. My opinion is that it would IMPROVE the game and that's the main thing. Officials who blow their cute little whistles for invisible fouls and then swallow them for real ones do a lot more to destroy the flow of the game...

And it's up to the owners to implement something like this, I believe, by introducing it at one of their franchise meetings.

 

[Mike0476]

Garcia was fouled. No doubt about it.

Here's the key though. The Kings should have never gotten themselves into a situation where the game could be decided by the referee.

Yeah, it sucks the Kings lost the game at Denver but like I said the Kings need to put themselves in a position to win without a referee making a determination on the outcome of the game such as what happened tonight.

 

[VF21]

That's well and good, Mike, but the point is the officiating was so inconsistent that it became about the officials and not the good or bad play of the teams on the court. No, the Kings shouldn't have gotten to that position BUT they did. And had the official made the same call in Garcia's favor that he made against him on the other end of the court, we might still have lost BUT there would have been some consistency in the officiating. That's one of the main benefits of challenges, IMHO. It forces the officials to be more consistent in their calls.

 

[rhythmless]

im all in favor of a review rule. with a cap (ala tennis), and a timeout penalty if you are wrong, i believe it basically impossible to hurt the flow of the game. timeouts are important, and if you have only a couple, or few reviews, then of course you wont go around throwing a flag on every play.

i think it can only happne when a timeout happens, such as your own possession, or a deadball. so if you want to do something about it, you have to foul. these limits create a self policing rule. is it worth a foul? are you THAT sure about the call? is it worth it to sacrifice this review right here, right now? is this game changing?

with so many cameras, so many people watching, and even that hdtv commercial that shows that you can make the review (forget which brand that is), its just pure bullheadedness from the higher ups. if a sport such as tennis, known for their adherence to a code, can put in a challenge rule, it should be no problem for the nba.

it will also cut down on the whole blaming of refs, because im sure there would be mis calls on both sides. therefore, every coach will be put in the refs shoes. it is hard, and they all miss calls, but with a challenge, the playing field will be a lot more level. if they frame the challenge correctly, with the appropriate constraints, it would be wonderful for the league, ESPECIALLY with the whole ref scandal still fresh in the minds of fans.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Blaming the officials for this loss is sure sign of a loser mentality - no offense my friend Mozart. For years and years and years all I ever heard was how lousy the officials were as the Kings were losing game after game after game. Then Sactown finally got a team that was winning well over 50 games every year and I never heard anyone blaming the officials - or crediting them. It was comical listening to Gary Gerrold on the radio call from 1985 up until about 1999 - when I thought he was the worse NBA radio play-by-play announcer I had ever heard (he got a lot better with age). But that was nearly 15 fricking years of hearing him whine over and over and over nearly every game about "terrible officiating!," terrible call!," etc., etc. I don't want to go back to those days because they are a loser mentality black hole leading to nowhere and nothing. Back to tonights game against the Denver Nuggets.

Not only did the Kings not execute down the stretch which is the #1 reason for the loss, but there were numerous little faux pas where the Kings shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. How about the lane violation on a missed free throw by Mikki Moore which may or may not have been one - still cost the Kings a point. Most of all, the Kings slew of turnovers most notably on three of their last four possessions of the game was far worse than the zebras running around, bad as that was at times. Only the fact that Denver was turning the ball over at a likewise crazy clip got the Kings back in the game with a chance to win. Perhaps a Kings win going away with any decent crunch time EXECUTION.

Lastly, that was "A.I." raising up and raking Garcia's arm after the shot - indeed a foul. In a hostile gym on the road, with a superstar involved, the Kings should NOT BE COUNTING ON THE REFS TO BAIL THEM OUT. Tough loss but I blame only one person - well 5 of them who were on the court for the Kings the last 2 minutes of the game.

 

[swisshh]

I come to expect this from NBA refs, so the poor officiating and often suspect biased officiating doesn't upset me so much. Not to say that I'm fine with it, but to say that I don't get angry when I buy a car made out of clay and it breaks down. I just know what I am getting with NBA officials, the extended arm of Stern's financial strategy.

What does upset me is the media's total cowardice in regards to discussing the subject. I check the espn highlights for the game and there is of course no video of that shot, they skip right past it and do not discuss it. NBA refs are this big white elephant and the people who should be discussing it and pushing the issue sit back and ignore it, because they are afraid of what it may cost them.

So it just comes down to fans complaining about it and when we do, it is dismissed as 'fanatical', 'conspiracy based' and typical irrational fan behavior. The problem with this is that it takes more denial and faith to ignore the issue than to believe the problem is there. It takes more denial for me to say there is no trend, more faith on my part that the obvious things I see are pure coincidence.

 

[Bricklayer]

I come to expect this from NBA refs, so the poor officiating and often suspect biased officiating doesn't upset me so much. Not to say that I'm fine with it, but to say that I don't get angry when I buy a car made out of clay and it breaks down. I just know what I am getting with NBA officials, the extended arm of Stern's financial strategy.

What does upset me is the media's total cowardice in regards to discussing the subject. I check the espn highlights for the game and there is of course no video of that shot, they skip right past it and do not discuss it. NBA refs are this big white elephant and the people who should be discussing it and pushing the issue sit back and ignore it, because they are afraid of what it may cost them.

So it just comes down to fans complaining about it and when we do, it is dismissed as 'fanatical', 'conspiracy based' and typical irrational fan behavior. The problem with this is that it takes more denial and faith to ignore the issue than to believe the problem is there. It takes more denial for me to say there is no trend, more faith on my part that the obvious things I see are pure coincidence.

Um...what exactly was the "trend" here?

I know you will not want to hear this, but BOTH teams got a lot of bad calls (just for example I can remember an obvious goaltend call not made on Brad earlier in the game when he grabbed the rim while the ball was in the cylinder that should have had the Nuggets up by 2 more points). It was certainly a badly officiated game, but the conspiracy stuff always stems largely from the naturally biased nature of the fans watching it. You got to various boards after a game and will normally find that BOTH sets of fans think they got screwed, and the refs are out to get them. The NBA would have to be pretty damn sneaky to work out a conspiracy against both sides at once. The reason the media is "cowardly" about reporting on the "conspiracy"/"conspriacies" apparently being inflicted on every fanbase is that said conspiracies are only obvious to each set of fans.

 

[Bricklayer]

with so many cameras, so many people watching, and even that hdtv commercial that shows that you can make the review (forget which brand that is), its just pure bullheadedness from the higher ups. if a sport such as tennis, known for their adherence to a code, can put in a challenge rule, it should be no problem for the nba.

This remains problematic and an inopposite comparison -- tennis is a deadball sport. Like football, like baseball. The challenges happen immediately after each "play". In basketball that cannot/could not happen. Its like soccer or hockey in which you get the replay on goals, which involve a dead ball/puck, but they don't stop the game action to all of a sudden run off for a replay when the ball or puck is moving around in midfield/ice. Ditto in basketball. It would be like in tennis, all of a sudden stopping action right in the middle of a long ralley to check if that last hit actually was out or not. Furthermore of course there are no discretionary rules in tennis or football -- something is either in or out. That's really not true in the fuzzier world of basketball. Why officiating is always going to be a problem in that sport -- its discretioanry, its about degrees and grey areas, and there are far far more judgement calls made in a game there there are in any other major sport (unless oyu count each pitch in baseball).

 

[VF21]

Forget about winning or losing. Look at the overall performance of the officials tonight. IT STUNK on both ends of the court, and with DVRs, instant replay, etc. it's patently obvious to anyone with eyes that it stunk.

The bigger question isn't whether or not the Kings should have won. It's whether or not the public and fans of all teams are going to finally get to the point where they simply shake their heads and turn away because the officiating has sucked all the excitement out of the game.

Consistency and fairness is or should be paramount in officiating. If it takes reviewing a questionable play then so be it. The theory that it would stop too many plays could easily be overcome. Coaches have a limited number of challenges. It wouldn't make the game any longer than a lot of these ridiculous breathing fouls we now have to put up with and - in actuality - just might keep the officials paying a little better attention.

In football, only certain plays are reviewable. In basketball, certain calls or non-calls could also be reviewed OR even overturned by an off-court official if it is clearcut that it's obviously wrong.

No system of review would be foolproof or without the occasional problem but it would certainly be better than what we have now - which is the anger and frustration of seeing mistakes made by the officials played over and over again on the jumbotron.

 

[VF21]

How about the lane violation on a missed free throw by Mikki Moore which may or may not have been one - still cost the Kings a point.

If it wasn't a violation, then saying it cost the Kings a point and blaming Moore is ridiculous. If he didn't commit the violation, then he shouldn't have been called for it.

Lastly, that was "A.I." raising up and raking Garcia's arm after the shot - indeed a foul. In a hostile gym on the road, with a superstar involved, the Kings should NOT BE COUNTING ON THE REFS TO BAIL THEM OUT.

Again, this makes no sense whatsoever. It's not about the Kings expecting the officials to bail them out. It's about the players of each team knowing the officials will call the game the same on both ends of the court. GARCIA WAS FOULED. AI shouldn't get away with it just because he's Allen freaking Iverson.

 

[Glenn]

I think it was a few years ago that a little research was done on the accuracy of calls and it was determined that the best referees were correct in their calls about 91% of the time. I'll try to find the reference.



Addendum: Can't find it but I don't think it was a hallucination.

 

[PurpleHaze]

On radio after the game Grant Napear said this is the first game of the season (out of 19 played by the Kings so far) that he felt was "poorly officiated." Still would not "blame the refs" he said for the Kings getting beat by Denver.

So, if this terrible officiating tonight is a trend then odds are the Kings can expect about 3-4 more games this season of 63 left where they can if they so desire shout and whine again some more about how they got screwed by those big bad, biased, conspiratorial, nasty, incompetent NBA officials. To repeat - a loser mentality, IMO.

 

[Packt]

Garcia wasn't fouled.

 

[swisshh]

lol this is not the first poorly officiated game of the season for the Kings

That statement saves me the trouble of going deep into it, since it shows dishonesty amongst the media in regards to the issue. I would count the Utah game as an iffy officiated game that benefited the Kings. There has also been horribly officiated games involving *gasp* other teams.

The fact Brick thinks this is an issue that stems from fanatacism, that I think it only hurts the Kings shows people aren't thinking the issue out enough. I've taken issue with NBA officials for a long time, and when I see a problem, I follow it and analyze it. To ignore the trends, the Pacer-Knicks fiascos, the history of Dick Bavetta, the Lakers fiascos, the way rookies are officiated differently, the way stars are officiated differently, the obvious glaring flaw of our olympic players being all dependent on superstar calls to bail them out costing us in international play, the Heat-Dallas championship series, the whole issue of an actual NBA ref being caught this offseason, the...

Well it goes on doesn't it?


I can't ignore all of that. I can't use the bull**** explanations for the bull**** I see. Rationally, something is wrong and has been so for decades, probably stemming back to the start of the Stern legacy. If it has been wrong for so long then there should be more turnover with such poor job performance, yet there isn't. So rationally, there must be a reason things continue in a flawed way.

The media ignores it because the NBA comes down hard on anyone who speaks up about it. You can speak your mind, but you will pay for it. That sort of practice is questionable in itself.

The media ignores it not because it is the cry of fanaticism. That is just a way of dismissing the issue. We are very *cough* use to dismissive verbage these days in America. I guess my refusal to ignore continued questionable officiating just means I love the terrorists or something, because that is the sort of pattern of thinking we're getting into here.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

lol this is not the first poorly officiated game of the season for the Kings

That statement saves me the trouble of going deep into it, since it shows dishonesty amongst the media in regards to the issue. I would count the Utah game as an iffy officiated game that benefited the Kings. There has also been horribly officiated games involving *gasp* other teams.

The fact Brick thinks this is an issue that stems from fanatacism, that I think it only hurts the Kings shows people aren't thinking the issue out enough. I've taken issue with NBA officials for a long time, and when I see a problem, I follow it and analyze it. To ignore the trends, the Pacer-Knicks fiascos, the history of Dick Bavetta, the Lakers fiascos, the way rookies are officiated differently, the way stars are officiated differently, the obvious glaring flaw of our olympic players being all dependent on superstar calls to bail them out costing us in international play, the Heat-Dallas championship series, the whole issue of an actual NBA ref being caught this offseason, the...

Well it goes on doesn't it?


I can't ignore all of that. I can't use the bull**** explanations for the bull**** I see. Rationally, something is wrong and has been so for decades, probably stemming back to the start of the Stern legacy. If it has been wrong for so long then there should be more turnover with such poor job performance, yet there isn't. So rationally, there must be a reason things continue in a flawed way.

The media ignores it because the NBA comes down hard on anyone who speaks up about it. You can speak your mind, but you will pay for it. That sort of practice is questionable in itself.

The media ignores it not because it is the cry of fanaticism. That is just a way of dismissing the issue. We are very *cough* use to dismissive verbage these days in America. I guess my refusal to ignore continued questionable officiating just means I love the terrorists or something, because that is the sort of pattern of thinking we're getting into here.

Bad officiating is all around, in every sport. Steve Nash was fouled pretty blatantly by our good friend Robert Horry during last year's playoffs, and that drew blood and layed him out on the scorer's table, and went uncalled. Phoenix fans had a legit beef...but could do nothing about it either. It happens everywhere, you just live with it.

 

[Semi]

Why on Earth, Mars and Jupiter can't the same damn challenge thing exist in the NBA? Each coach ought to be able to use ONE challenge for each half; win a challenge, then the call gets reversed and a challenge is still available in the half; lose a challenge, then the challenge-losing team loses a time-out with the challenged call standing and no more challenges available to use in the half. What's so difficult about that? We have instant replay available in every damn game, so implementing a challenge rule ain't so difficult, ya know.


WTF isn't this kind of challenge thing happen'n in the NBA? Why? WTF is wrong with Stern et. al.? It seems that Sterns et. al. have brains that are as solid as the insides of basketballs.

.

If they ever implemented a 'challenge' system the only difference you would see is people on these boards saying, "stupid challenge system, if we had just 1 more challenge we would have won. They need to look at changing the challenge system to 2 or 3 challenges per half."

 

[jdbraver]

It's bad enough having to watch all the players complain all game long about being fouled. It would be 10 times worse to watch with instant replay. Miller would probably whine for one every time down the court.

 

[VF21]

Bad officiating is all around, in every sport. Steve Nash was fouled pretty blatantly by our good friend Robert Horry during last year's playoffs, and that drew blood and layed him out on the scorer's table, and went uncalled. Phoenix fans had a legit beef...but could do nothing about it either. It happens everywhere, you just live with it.

That play, if nothing else, is a HUGE reason for the league to seriously consider some kind of challenge system. If something is fixable and would make your game better, you don't just look the other way.

And again, it wouldn't be up to the players and it wouldn't be an "every play" situation. If players knew truly bad calls were going to be reviewed, they might actually whine less because they would feel there was some kind of justice possible. As it is now they have to live with knowing that some officials stink and there's nothing they can do about it.

 

[Bricklayer]

You're still missing the other point that there is nothing to review. You do not see reviews in the NFL of whether such or such an offensive lineman held the defensive end coming off the corner or not. The reason? Its a judgement call. And that is why there will ALWAYS be a large and problematic number of calls questioned in basketball -- they are judgement calls. Its a contact sprot where contact is tolerated to some degree, and not others. So you get Cisco being ticked on the arm, and mayeb that's a foul, maybe its not. It depends on the ref, on the view, on the judgement. And even if reveiwed you are just substituting in one judgement call for another. Its ntohign like the balck or white right or wrong challenge in tennis, or whetehr a guy got both feet inbounds or whatnot in football. Those type of things, whether the guy's foot was on the three point line for instance, are already reviewed. But fouls are what they are -- an art, not a science.

 

[PurpleHaze]

You're still missing the other point that there is nothing to review.

Exactly right. That's why you rarely see any kind of video reviews in basketball. The only ones I can think of are those rare moments that a shot at the buzzer is looked at to determine if a call made by an official at the time was correct. In this poll I voted NO.

 

[John Galt]

I'm just a stubborn purist and I feel the occasional bad call is "part of the game". I'm against any and all replay programs, any time, all the time. Hate them. I understand I am in a stubborn tiny minority to feel this way, but I think instant replay does about as much good as the BCS... newfangled bullcrap. Hate it.


maybe... maybe... only if initiated by the refs asking for help or a 4th ref in a TV booth. But that's it.

 

[Glenn]

I am basically against a review system. In my opinion, the problem is bigger than can be solved with a replay.

If my memory is correct from what I referenced above, the best officials are 91% correct and when I read those stats, I was shocked. The worst refs were like 88% correct and that surprised me also. The difference between best and worst was not as much as I thought. The problem is that if roughly 10% of the calls are wrong, what good can any review be? How many calls are wrong in a game? It's far more than one or two challenges can address in any meaningful way.

Let us not be confused by which calls decide the game because any call at any point in any game can be the game decider. It's not only the last call of the game that we remember that is the one to be reviewed.

I don't think most officials are bad. I think they are doing the best they can in a game that moves very rapidly. They have to find a balance between what contact is OK and what contact is a foul. (It might be easier for them if all contact was a foul but then that would significantly change the game.)

I think we all should get used to the idea that a referee's mistake is as part of the game as a player's mistake. It's unfortunate that referees can't be 100% correct but they can't. They simply can't.

Then we get into the BS nature of officiating and that is that certain players are given more leeway than others. The star gets away with something but a rookie would hear a whistle. That's absurd. The other BS call is the call at the end of the game. Perhaps I should say the non-call. It has been characteristic that the referees swallow their whistle on the last play of the game. Always! But why?

The answer is that "the official should not decide the game." That's BS 'cause officials are deciding the game from minute one to minute 48. Why change the standards just because of the time in the game?

Replay - no.

 

[Lexluthor400]

"Lastly, that was "A.I." raising up and raking Garcia's arm after the shot - indeed a foul. In a hostile gym on the road, with a superstar involved, the Kings should NOT BE COUNTING ON THE REFS TO BAIL THEM OUT. Tough loss but I blame only one person - well 5 of them who were on the court for the Kings the last 2 minutes of the game.[/QUOTE]"

Remember purple haze the only reason for the refs being there is to call a Fair game, by fair i mean consistent. If they screw up a call in the first quarter no one really sees it and the game moves on. But when, for example, last night there were 0:52 seconds left and Artest clearly gets grabbed/hacked when the Kings are down by 2 that is HUGE, and Garcia gets fouled on last shot that is huge. The game last night very close all night back and forth. So you cant say they need the refs to bail them out, they were playing good and looked like they could win it. But then you throw in two bad calls in the last minute what are they supposed to do. Reggie does not get mad on bad calls most of the time, but last night he was furious and i think he should feel that way! I am not saying they cant make mistakes because we all are human, but they are there to make the game fair so lets make the game fair BRING IN REPLAY!

 

[GoGoGadget]

I can't see any way that a challenge/review system could be implemented without COMPLETELY changing the way the game is played.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Again, you win some, you lose some with ref calls. It pretty much evens out at the end of a long 82 game season as far as which games the zebras gave you and which ones they stole from you - if any. And I still don't believe the officials stole the Denver game from the Kings. Video challenge is not only impractical in basketball because they're judgment calls, but the game is based on runs/momentum - something loved by most fans. Stopping the action for tedious reviews would detract from the free flowing beauty of the game - a game that has ugly/beautiful refs, players, coaches, owners, fans, etc.

 

[Smills91]

Garcia wasn't fouled.

Getting whacked on the arm in the act of shooting is a foul. It always has been, and always will be. Go watch the replay if you will, but if you don't think that's a foul, then you're 1 of 2 things. 1) Delusional and in denial or 2) Don't understand or can't comprehend what the rulebooks call for in blowing or not blowing the whistle during a basketball game.

What Iverson did to Garcia was a foul. How can a player 'decide' the game, when another player physically impedes that ability by hitting the shooter's arm?

Correct, call FOUL!

Garcia to the line for 3...he'd hit at least 2 of the 3 if not all 3 and IMO the Kings would have won outright or in OT.

And as far as replay goes, I think it's unrealistic. They should just fire the dumbasses that are masquerading around as officials.

 

[hammystyle]

Its unfortunate that foul calls have such a huge impact on basketball games. They are more or less free points and make a big difference. That said, you can't challenge them because it just doesn't fit in the games. Brick said it very well here.

This remains problematic and an inopposite comparison -- tennis is a deadball sport. Like football, like baseball. The challenges happen immediately after each "play". In basketball that cannot/could not happen. Its like soccer or hockey in which you get the replay on goals, which involve a dead ball/puck, but they don't stop the game action to all of a sudden run off for a replay when the ball or puck is moving around in midfield/ice. Ditto in basketball. It would be like in tennis, all of a sudden stopping action right in the middle of a long ralley to check if that last hit actually was out or not. Furthermore of course there are no discretionary rules in tennis or football -- something is either in or out. That's really not true in the fuzzier world of basketball. Why officiating is always going to be a problem in that sport -- its discretioanry, its about degrees and grey areas, and there are far far more judgement calls made in a game there there are in any other major sport (unless you count each pitch in baseball).

I'd also say that any possibility of conspiracy is outright ridiculous. If there was a conspiracy, we'd know. Some official would have sold this info years ago. What would stop them? Is Stern going to whack them if they talk?

The Donaghy situation shook things up even more, but I think the NBA really has done all they could to make sure the officiating is as good as it can be. Its the hardest sport to referee and whether its rec league, high schol, college or the NBA mistakes will be made.

 

[Lexluthor400]

There was a conspiracy last year where refs were throwing games. I now have "NO" respect for any of the refs they all knew what was going on but were to weak to say something.

Basketball is a sport that is almost always close and is not decided until the last few minutes of the game. I 'm so fed up with the bad timing on these bad calls now it makes me sick. I see them call a consistent most of the time but in the last minute it like the refs swallow the whistle and act like they are part of crowd and just stand by watching.

The NBA is a billion dollar business, the average player makes millions a year, it is literally a full time job for any team, every team puts forth great effort in achieving perfection. I just don't see Stern trying to fix any problems in the NBA (players palming the ball, players traveling on lay-ups, and bad calls that decide a game) The NBA is falling in popularity because these problems go back to when Jordan played, and nothing significant has been done to help fix it!

 

[fnordius]

A few years ago, when Bibby was fouling Kobe's elbow with his face, I was screaming for something to be done.

Now I don't care so much because we suck anyway, there's really nothing at stake. I don't think Stern cares, either. Let's face it, it's an entertainment business. The NBA has reason to care about the perception that the reffing is horrible, if it significantly hurts sales. But I don't know very many serious fans who've sworn off NBA ball because of the quality of the reffing, so they probably have "good reffing" as about 40th on their priority list. "Spin control regarding reffing" is probably much higher.