Just how far does it go (if it goes)? - split from Donaghy thread

[bozzwell]

Question: What was the most disturbing subplot of the playoffs?
Answer: The officiating, also the most disturbing subplot of the past four playoffs. If you examine the last four NBA playoff campaigns, during every situation where the league definitively "needed" one of the two teams involved to win -- either to A) change the momentum of a series so it didn't end prematurely, B) keep an attractive, big-market team alive in a series, or C) advance an attractive, big-market team to another round -- the officiating appeared to be slanted towards the team that needed that game. I use the phrase "appeared to be," because reviewing an official's performance is purely subjective. Maybe I'm dead-wrong.
These were just the games that jump out in my mind (again, I could be wrong):

1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 3 ... LJ sinks a game-winning four-pointer (called a continuation foul by referee Jess Kersey even though LJ was fouled a full second before he released the ball).
1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 6 ... Knicks last chance to close out Indy before the series shifts back to Indiana for Game 7 ... they get every call.
1999, Spurs-Knicks, Game 3 ... down 2-0, the Knicks get every call in their first home game and win their only game of the series.
2000, Knicks-Heat, Game 7 ... Knicks advance to the conference finals ... falling out of bounds, Latrell Sprewell awarded a timeout by referee Bennett Salvatore with 2.1 seconds left even though none of the Knicks called for one ... Sprewell admits after the game that he hadn't called a timeout ... the Miami players chase the referees off the court after the game, yelling that they had been robbed ... after the game, Jamal Mashburn tells reporters, "They had three officials in their pocket" and Tim Hardaway refers to referee Dick Bavetta as "Knick Bavetta."
2000, Lakers-Blazers, Game 7 ... LA shoots 21 more free throws and rallies back from a 17-point deficit in the final seven minutes ... Shaq plays an illegal defense down the stretch, undaunted ... Rasheed Wallace absolutely gets manhandled down the stretch, yet doesn't get a single call ... up by four with 25 seconds left, Shaq body-blocks Steve Smith out of bounds and the refs don't make the call (the most egregious non-call in recent memory).
2002, Celtics-Nets, Game 4 ... Celts up 2-1 ... the Nets are inexplicably allowed to push and shove Kenny Anderson and Pierce while they dribble the ball ... a number of head-scratchers go against Boston, including three offensive charges down the stretch ... four different "bull-(bleep)" chants during the game.
2002, Lakers-Kings, Game 6 ... LA needs a win to stay alive ... from an officiating standpoint, the most one-sided game of the past decade ... at least six dubious calls against the Kings in the fourth quarter alone ... LA averaged 22 free throws a game during the first five games of the series, then attempted 27 freebies in the fourth quarter alone of Game 6 ... rumors that David Stern wanted to pull a Vince McMahon and declare himself "The special guest referee" for this game prove unfounded. (By the way, I would feel remiss if I didn't share this information: Dick Bavetta was assigned to every one of the above games. That's an absolute fact. You can look it up. Doesn't mean anything ... I just felt the need to pass that along. It sure looks bad, doesn't it? Maybe the league could do a favor for Bavetta and not assign him to Game 3 of the Finals, especially if the Lakers jump to a 2-0 lead over New Jersey. You wouldn't want to rile up those conspiracy theorists or anything. Ummmm ...)


Link to the full article:

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020606

 

[VF21]

I split this off as it seems to look at a much bigger picture than what we've been discussing so far.

 

[bozzwell]

Something just dawned on me. Simmons wrote the above article in 2002, just after the playoffs (or conference finals). He tries to make case for fishy officiating in "last 4 years", i.e. 99-2002. Jordan retired in 98. NBA was at its peak popularity ever, and at the same time faced huge challenge in maintain that popularity with main event retired and no heir apparent.

For me this was also the darkest days of NBA except for the KIngs emergence. With so many wannabe MJ's running around the league acting complete jerks, hype and over-hype with less and less substance every year, most dominant player in the league a fat giant and complete and utter demise of basketball in Eastern Conference.

 

[uolj]

Something just dawned on me. Simmons wrote the above article in 2002, just after the playoffs (or conference finals). He tries to make case for fishy officiating in "last 4 years", i.e. 99-2002. Jordan retired in 98. NBA was at its peak popularity ever, and at the same time faced huge challenge in maintain that popularity with main event retired and no heir apparent.

For me this was also the darkest days of NBA except for the KIngs emergence. With so many wannabe MJ's running around the league acting complete jerks, hype and over-hype with less and less substance every year, most dominant player in the league a fat giant and complete and utter demise of basketball in Eastern Conference.

Yup. Stern has always acted in what he terms "the best interests of the NBA and the sport." But what that has meant is its best financial interest (or if you want to be less of a conspiracist you could say its popularity).

Promoting an atmosphere where bending the rules a little for the good of the game is encouraged is as good of an explanation as any, especially at that time in the league. I think it has died down some but the general atmosphere still exists, likely because that's how Stern himself thinks and does things.

 

[bozzwell]

Yup. Stern has always acted in what he terms "the best interests of the NBA and the sport." But what that has meant is its best financial interest (or if you want to be less of a conspiracist you could say its popularity).

Promoting an atmosphere where bending the rules a little for the good of the game is encouraged is as good of an explanation as any, especially at that time in the league. I think it has died down some but the general atmosphere still exists, likely because that's how Stern himself thinks and does things.

As far as I am concerned, whether games were fixed in the same way that Donaghy fixed them (or tried to) or game rules were bent/interpretation relaxed for the "greater good" the result is the same: game is corrupt and competition is flawed. In fact, I can understand degenerate gamblers acting as degenerate gamblers - I can't ever condone it, but I can understand it. Corrupting this beautiful game for the "greater good" which is nothing but _financial gain_ for the league and owners is the same ******* thing.

 

[GoSACtown]

the link no longer works, anybody have a separate link?

 

[bozzwell]

the link no longer works, anybody have a separate link?

Try here:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020606

 

[uolj]

As far as I am concerned, whether games were fixed in the same way that Donaghy fixed them (or tried to)

Actually, I don't remember where I read it but apparently Donaghy didn't try to fix the games he bet on (at least not consciously). At least they found no evidence that he did.

or game rules were bent/interpretation relaxed for the "greater good" the result is the same: game is corrupt and competition is flawed. In fact, I can understand degenerate gamblers acting as degenerate gamblers - I can't ever condone it, but I can understand it. Corrupting this beautiful game for the "greater good" which is nothing but _financial gain_ for the league and owners is the same ******* thing.

I think the league (and likely Stern in particular) did it with good intentions. It reminds me a lot of stuff that has happened in a topic that we don't discuss here. The ends justify the means as long as the means aren't overtly corrupt.

I strongly disagree with that line of thinking like you do, but I don't think the people who follow it are in any way evil or even bad.

 

[bozzwell]

Actually, I don't remember where I read it but apparently Donaghy didn't try to fix the games he bet on (at least not consciously). At least they found no evidence that he did.


I think the league (and likely Stern in particular) did it with good intentions. It reminds me a lot of stuff that has happened in a topic that we don't discuss here. The ends justify the means as long as the means aren't overtly corrupt.

I strongly disagree with that line of thinking like you do, but I don't think the people who follow it are in any way evil or even bad.

I'll agree on that. It does irk me to no end, though, that that general state of affairs is accepted/able as widely as it is.