Bad officiating

[bajaden]

I remember many years ago, during the dark ages of Kings basketball, watching Karl Malone near the sideline swing around with his elbow and smash it into the nose of the Kings 2 guard ( Whose name eludes at the moment but he's a current NBA coach ) and sent him reeling out of bounds. The blood almost landed on me and I was in the fourth row. I'll give you one guess who they called the foul on.

I don't have an answer for the problems of ref's in the NBA, or even in college for that matter. For one thing, they don't even inforce the rules as they were written. Here's one from the rule book as well as I can remember it.

Any movement on the part of the offensive player that dislodges the established position of the defensive player is a foul. I realize that inforcing that rule would have fouled Barkley out of every game he played, but it is a rule. Their finally starting to call carrying the ball this year. If they were consistant with it, they would take the cross over dribble away from half the pt guards in the league. When Stern took over he went away from team promotion and started star promotion. I think as a result the refs had to be influenced by that. They have created thier own monster of sorts and now have no idea how to fix it.

 

[Mozart]

Instant replay is a must, because:

1)Bad calls/non-calls have a material effect on the outcome of the game.


2)Bad calls/non-calls can destroy the trust in the game for not only the players and coaches, but the fans as well.


3)Bad calls/non-calls can fall under unwarranted game-throwing influences.


Granted, 9% to 13% of the calls in any given game are "bad" calls, (thanks, Glenn, for this stat) so, assuming an even distribution of the bad calls on both sides of the game, both teams should theoretically suffer the bad calls/non-calls evenly, but, AND A BIG BUT, when a close game comes down to the wire, any bad call/non-call could steer the game towards a distorted, undeserved direction. Any unwarranted ref influence in the game is a very dangerous thing to have happen, so having a limited challenge system in place could limit the damage that bad refs can make.


I've seen it happen FAR TOO MANY TIMES blatant fouls committed that never did get called, so the "bad call" category must include non-calls, since such calls/non-calls directly change the outcome of the game in manifest unfair ways.


So having a limited challenge system can limit the damage that is done by bad calls/non-calls and reduce the possibility of a ref throwing a game by blatant non-calls.


A limited challenge system can be limited to, say, the last 2 to 4 minutes of the game and not be applied to the entire game. It's a must-have.

 

[Lexluthor400]

I could not agree with Bajaden and Mozart more. Something has to be done. The refs have to much power and the players and coaches are not allowed to express their point of views without getting hit with a technical that is BS. I think Stern thought that if he cracks down on players arguing with the refs that these "bad call incidents" would not look so bad and go away. He also said that it makes it more of a family game without arguments, lets be real, about less than 10% of people that watch basketball are young kids, the rest of us are adults and would dispute many of the calls ourselves. Besides we are supposed to teach kids to be fair and equal. Telling them when are treated injustly they need to shut up and sit down is stupid!

 

[Kingzrool]

Garcia wasn't fouled.

So what is the deal with this? I do not know the rules all that well. It was clear to me that Garcia was hit AFTER the ball left his hand. Why is that a foul?

 

[Lexluthor400]

I dont think it was Garcia so much as it was Artest who got hacked and grabbed with 52 seconds left and down by two, and got no whistle.

 

[Kingzrool]

Besides we are supposed to teach kids to be fair and equal. Telling them when are treated injustly they need to shut up and sit down is stupid!

Haven't you heard the expressoin "life's not fair". It is true that you should teach them to stand up for themselves. It is not nice to teach them to have the expectation that everything is always going to fair. I can guarantee you that it will not be.

 

[Lexluthor400]

I did not say life was not going to be fair i said when you get treated INJUSTLY you need to stand up for yourself.

 

[Bricklayer]

So what is the deal with this? I do not know the rules all that well. It was clear to me that Garcia was hit AFTER the ball left his hand. Why is that a foul?

I've always hated that interpretation as well.

Thoguht Cisco may have hurt his case as well doing his little Reggie Mileresque cheat attempted leg kick cheat -- was what distracted me from the closer issue up top.

Now I believe the after the shot is away call is made so as to prevent intimidation of the I'll just run right through you variety forcing a shooter to have to choose between focusing on the shot or protecting himself. Of course my solution to most ref problems is just to quit the garbage little ninny calls and get the refs out of the game by resorting to something one step above no blood no fouol. And certainly not a post shot elbow tick.

 

[Kingzrool]

I dont think it was Garcia so much as it was Artest who got hacked and grabbed with 52 seconds left and down by two, and got no whistle.

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!

I am wondering about the Garcia play. Anyone?

 

[Bricklayer]

I did not say life was not going to be fair i said when you get treated INJUSTLY you need to stand up for yourself.

And sometimes when a mistake has been made, its just a mistake, and the mature thing is just to go on. In the NBA there is always a tommorow where maybe the call goes for you.

And one more time, this is all a homer discussion. It always is no when "bad" calls are discussed. Teh Nuggets fans had plenty to complain about as well. Taht the Cisco question came late was no more singularly determinative of the outcome than all the other shaky calls that had come before, against both sides.

 

[Kingzrool]

I've always hated that interpretation as well.

Thoguht Cisco may have hurt his case as well doing his little Reggie Mileresque cheat attempted leg kick cheat -- was what distracted me from the closer issue up top.

Now I believe the after the shot is away call is made so as to prevent intimidation of the I'll just run right through you variety forcing a shooter to have to choose between focusing on the shot or protecting himself. Of course my solution to most ref problems is just to quit the garbage little ninny calls and get the refs out of the game by resorting to something one step above no blood no fouol. And certainly not a post shot elbow tick.

I agree. If a player is hit after the ball is gone, that is fair play in my book, intimidation is part of the game and Garcia should have held the ball a second longer if he wanted the foul call.

 

[Lexluthor400]

Yes, but these "Mistakes" happen to often and are always untimely and in history have cost the Kings alot. I watch alot of other NBA games and for the ost part they are called consistently. But every time i watch a Kings game something is just not right.

 

[Lexluthor400]

He could not hold the ball another second there was only one second left one clock.

 

[Kingzrool]

He could not hold the ball another second there was only one second left one clock.

Nice play by AI then, IMO.

 

[Oscar]

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.

Exactly right, Mike. You nailed it. A team should never be put into that position. The refs don't determine the outcome of a game - the players do - no matter how a game is called. I also don't believe in disrupting the flow of a game by stopping it for 5 minutes to watch a video of a previous play to determine the outcome of a call. The call is the call - live with it.

 

[thelonegunman]

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.

And someone who refuses to understand that all the players, coaches, and FANS really want is for the referees to officiate the games consistently (not to "bail them out" as was ridiculously suggested) has an - ignorant mentality.

As you were.

 

[Packt]

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.

I' m surprised you didn't just say i was blind or needed better reception. Then again I'm not the one who claims Garcia got whacked on the arm.

Iverson whacked Garcia's hand, but Garcia had already released the shot. There was no other contact, and Iverson didn't jump into him. No body contact, no harm, no foul. Garcia had a good look, he just bricked it.

I knew Jerry's deflated "he clearly got fouled" line would rile fans up. Jerry was wrong, just like he was wrong in calling Udrih "Nash like" after he made some of his penetration drives.

 

[Lexluthor400]

Nice play by AI then, IMO.[/quote]

That would have never happen had they called a foul for Artest, Garcia would not have had to shoot at the last second and I dont think he was fouled but by the rulebook he was.

 

[uolj]

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

My setup is this:

• Coaches can challenge most plays. This can be restricted to only non-subjective plays if desired.
• A challenge will cause the game to be stopped either: A. At the next available situation when the officials would be allowed to call an official's timeout. or B. At the next available situation in which the challenging team would be allowed to call timeout. I'd probably prefer option A.
• A challenge must be made within a certain time period of the call (perhaps a possession or a number of game seconds).
• Successful challenges revert the game to the state it was at the time of the changed call.
• Failed challenges cost a timeout. You must have a timeout to challenge.
• A small number of challenges allowed per game. Perhaps one or two with an extra one if the original challenge(s) succeed.

I think this idea addresses the problems with game stoppages (they are like officials timeouts). It won't make a major impact on the game since the number of challenges are so few. It will be available to overturn egregious calls that impact the game near the end.

It doesn't help on subjective stuff, but replay shouldn't be instituted for that. The first thread I ever started on Kinsgfans (lost in the DB failure) was on how to fix the problems with subjective calls, and I think the NBA has actually started to implement that in the last year or two.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Salmons 7 turnovers, Beno 4 turnovers - HORRIBLE for starting back court. 22 turnovers for the game. EXECUTION is the reason this game was lost - not the refs! To repeat over and over - to blame the zebras is a losers mentality. Thankfully, the Kings players quickly forgot this game and moved their focus to next game. Coach Theus complained some about the officiating in Denver, but clearly knew it was NOT THE REASON for the loss. He said down the stretch execution and 10 turnovers in the 4th quarter was the reason - period! Theus' is way too smart not to see that Denver also got repeatedly screwed by the same crew and he's the last to adopt a cop out blame the refs loser mentality.

 

[hardware_failure]

When you see bad calls for a team you root for, its easy to wish for some sort of a challenge.

Heres the irony that would likely happen if it was implimited -

Look at the NFL challenge system. There is the infamous 2:00 mark. This would likely be the case with any new major sports challenge system.

Questionable calls at the end of NBA games is a large excitement/drama factor for NBA fans, and the the NBA likes this. No one rants hardcore about a questionable call early in the game, but they sure do about those made in the last 2:00.

 

[Merdiesel]

As a Kings fan, I have been waiting for change since game 6 in 2002.

We were flat out cheated out of our rings, and our team has been struggling ever since.

 

[chrisnu]

Horrible officiating during the Suns/Mavs game on ESPN tonight. Jeff Van Gundy had the sense to call it out. Stop giving floppers the benefit of the doubt. Players on both teams were being rewarded for not playing actual defense, through being bailed out by flopping.