NBA will whistle more techs for 'overt' gestures
- Thread starter mac
- Start date
Superman:
You make a lot of really good points here. I don't have a lot of time to shoot them all down.
But I am curious, if you were in charge of the NBA referees, what would you do to improve the staff?
You make a lot of really good points here. I don't have a lot of time to shoot them all down.
But I am curious, if you were in charge of the NBA referees, what would you do to improve the staff?
1) Review questionable calls publicly. I've mentioned this several times here, but the NFL sends a representative on TV every week, usually on Wednesday, to explain questionable calls and why they were made. They defend the calls that are correct according to the letter of the law (like Calvin Johnson's non-touchdown in Week 1, etc.), but they also admit when a mistake is made. Sometimes, they do both. The NFL recognizes the fact that fans are smart; the NBA still thinks you can pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Case in point, two years ago in the playoffs, Rondo smacks Brad Miller across the face late in overtime of a close game. If the refs had called a flagrant, it's two shots and the ball, and the call could have actually decided the game. It was clearly a flagrant foul, but they didn't call it that way. Then Stu Jackson comes out the next day and actually defends the horrible call. Had that been Mike Pereira of the NFL (recently retired), he would have acknowledged that the refs made a mistake, and while that doesn't undo the mistake, it does help fans to see that the league cares about getting calls right. They don't coddle their officials and pretend that they're perfect. Another NFL example is the Ed Hochuli mess from 2008, when one of the NFL's best referees made a call that definitely cost the Chargers a win. Hochuli himself acknowledged the mistake, and apologized to the Chargers and their fans. This never happens in the NBA. Even MLB took steps in the right direction by admitting that Jim Joyce robbed Armando Gallaraga of a perfect game, even though they didn't change the outcome in the record books. Joyce went in front of the cameras, contrite, and apologized for his mistake. Never has any NBA offical gone in front of the camera, period, much less to apologize.
Just to drive the point home further, when the NBA suspended Amare Stoudemire in the playoffs a few years ago, Stern went on the Dan Patrick show and mocked Patrick, the fans, and everyone else who dared question the decision, as if there were no possible way he could understand the argument that was being made. I definitely understood why the suspension was handed down, and actually defended it. I would have acknowledged the contrary viewpoints, and then made it clear that the player(s) broke the rules, plain and simple, and we're not going to start objectively determining when rules are going to be enforced. Don't leave the bench, and you won't get suspended. Intent doesn't matter, as Rudy T. and Kermit Washington can tell you. I wouldn't have mocked the fans that support my league.
So, simple answer, have your VP of Officiating go on NBATV once a week and review five questionable calls. Explain why a call was made. Even offer the referee's specific rationale (which means you have to actually question the ref on the call). Make it clear that you know your officiating is not above reproach. Just a simple "I'm sorry, I know, I'm working on it" goes a long way.
2) Hire new refs. Dick Bavetta will be 71 this season. There are other guys who have been passed up by the game. Is it really that hard to find qualified refs who can relieve the 60 and 70 year olds who have been doing it for 25 years? Not to mention the fact that Bavetta has officiated practically every questionable playoff game in the NBA over the last 15 years. Joey Crawford has been suspended twice by the NBA. Why is he still being used? He got into a ridiculous altercation with a Spurs player, and a year later, missed a foul call in a playoff game that possibly decided the game. Why put yourself in that position? Use different refs.
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with players talking to the ref's. I don't think the league does either. What they don't want is the player showing up the ref on the court in front of god and television. Personally I think this new rule goes a little too far, and I hope the ref's are intelligent enough to decern between outrageous behavior and immediate frustration by a player. A lot of players throw their hands up in the air in frustration after a foul, and I don't think its always directed at the ref, but more of just frustration of getting another foul. I'd hate to see a player get a technical over that. The rules that are open to interuption are subjective, and in the past the ref's have usually leaned to the side of the players. Lets hope they do again..
I could take you back 50 years and show you that players complained just as much then as they do now. The difference is that they didn't have a TV camera stuck in their face. So I guess we can just blame television for this whole problem. Personally I don't even notice a player complaining until he gets Tee'd up. Its become so much a part of the game that it doesn't bother me. I think the people that are bothered by it are the one's with the problem, but thats just me.
Players are human beings, and they're all different. Some wear their emotions on their sleeve and others are more laid back. To try and cookie cutter all of them into the same mold is ridiculous, and nearly impossible. The league has to be flexable enough to allow every player the freedom to express themselves in their own fashion, as long as its done in a respectful way.
You say that the new rules don't penalize players acting out of frustration. You tell that to Joey Crawford, and a few others that are noted for having a short fuse. All these new rules do is make it easier for those ref's, like Crawford, to show their emotions, and to some extent, show up the player on the court. Where's the recourse for the player in that situation? The league likes to have everything wrapped up in a nice little package with a bow on it. It simply doesn't work. They say its a star driven league. Well if so, then you have to take the whole package, because what makes a star has more to do with things other than just 25 pt's and 10 boards a game. Its what makes Kobe different from LeBron. And if comes with a scowl now and then at a ref, so what? Just my opinion...
Players are human beings, and they're all different. Some wear their emotions on their sleeve and others are more laid back. To try and cookie cutter all of them into the same mold is ridiculous, and nearly impossible. The league has to be flexable enough to allow every player the freedom to express themselves in their own fashion, as long as its done in a respectful way.
You say that the new rules don't penalize players acting out of frustration. You tell that to Joey Crawford, and a few others that are noted for having a short fuse. All these new rules do is make it easier for those ref's, like Crawford, to show their emotions, and to some extent, show up the player on the court. Where's the recourse for the player in that situation? The league likes to have everything wrapped up in a nice little package with a bow on it. It simply doesn't work. They say its a star driven league. Well if so, then you have to take the whole package, because what makes a star has more to do with things other than just 25 pt's and 10 boards a game. Its what makes Kobe different from LeBron. And if comes with a scowl now and then at a ref, so what? Just my opinion...
I agree with most of what you said, not all, but most. I don't want to give you a big head. You touched on something at the end when you mentioned traveling, that cuts to the core of the problem in my opinion. How can the league put in new rules that are totally subjective on the part of the ref, when they don't inforce rules that for the most part aren't subjective, like traveling, or carrying the ball. How about calling a moving pick on Tim Duncan the same way you call it on Jason Thompson. Why is it that a star player can throw his butt into the body of the defensive player moving him backwards and not be called for a foul.
What we have here are ref's that can't, or won't inforce clearly written rules, but are now capable of reading the mind of a player, and knowing what his intentions were when he threw his arms into the air. Pure BS!!
What we have here are ref's that can't, or won't inforce clearly written rules, but are now capable of reading the mind of a player, and knowing what his intentions were when he threw his arms into the air. Pure BS!!
L
So the general consensus here is the NBA needs new refs. The ironic part is when they used replacement refs (who are all the guys who are next in line to be hired) everybody hated them too and wanted the regular guys back. Maybe the NBA should look at local junior highs and high schools and find refs there. Bottom line is, most people don't really understand basketball refereeing anyway. They don't understand the rules, the guidelines, the accountability, etc. In a game like basketball where referees have to be very subjective it's impossible to ever be perceived that they are doing a good job.
I don't necessarily think that all the ref's are imcompetent or incapable of doing a good job. For the most part, I think they do what they're instructed to do. Lets face it, if they started to call players for palming, or carrying the ball, half the players in the NBA would lose thier crossover dribble. It makes for better TV to have the crossover dribble. Certainly, there are ref's that are borderline NBA ref's. And they have a very difficult job. And in my opinion the league just made that job more difficult.
I remember an interview with a retired ref from my early days. Back when dinosours roamed the earth. He had gone on to be in charge of operations for the ref's. Now retired and quite a few years later, he didn't like the new policys that had been put in place by Stern and the league. He thought it isolated the ref's from the players, and essentially built a wall that discouraged communication between the ref's and the players. He said that back when he was a ref there was more mutual respect between both parties. It was not uncommon for a ref to go up to player and apologize for making a bad call. Just a simple admission that the ref's are human as well. He said the players back then knew that the ref's were doing the best job they could, but being human, they were going to make mistakes.
I think everyone can respect that point of view. Now the ref's live in an automonous, untouchable world of proposed perfection. Pretty high ceiling for plain old human beings.
I remember an interview with a retired ref from my early days. Back when dinosours roamed the earth. He had gone on to be in charge of operations for the ref's. Now retired and quite a few years later, he didn't like the new policys that had been put in place by Stern and the league. He thought it isolated the ref's from the players, and essentially built a wall that discouraged communication between the ref's and the players. He said that back when he was a ref there was more mutual respect between both parties. It was not uncommon for a ref to go up to player and apologize for making a bad call. Just a simple admission that the ref's are human as well. He said the players back then knew that the ref's were doing the best job they could, but being human, they were going to make mistakes.
I think everyone can respect that point of view. Now the ref's live in an automonous, untouchable world of proposed perfection. Pretty high ceiling for plain old human beings.
First of all, I don't think we should toss out the baby with the bathwater, but I think it's clear that some of these old time refs have either been passed up by the game or are incapable of being subjective, or both.
Secondly, I disagree that fans don't understand the referee game. I think that's part of Stern's problem. Fans can understand anything they want to understand these days, due to the Internet. Fans know when the officials have decided to get control of a game, and why. They recognize make up calls. They also know that professional basketball is the hardest sport to officiate objectively; in fact, it's impossible. But let's not pretend that officials are above reproach. Instead of saying "fans just don't understand," educate them.
Thirdly, it's not that they need to be perceived as doing a good job. It's that they need to be held accountable, rather than shielded from criticism and made inaccessible. Put a different crew chief on TV every week, explaining disputable calls, and let them acknowledge that some calls are mistakes, but then explain why a certain call was made a certain way, whether right or wrong. That's all I'm saying. Don't tell me Rondo didn't commit a flagrant foul when I know he did. Say "the refs didn't call it a flagrant because XYZ, but it probably should have been called that way." And then Bulls fans will complain, but they won't have the additional insult of the NBA actually defending a ridiculously incorrect call.
Secondly, I disagree that fans don't understand the referee game. I think that's part of Stern's problem. Fans can understand anything they want to understand these days, due to the Internet. Fans know when the officials have decided to get control of a game, and why. They recognize make up calls. They also know that professional basketball is the hardest sport to officiate objectively; in fact, it's impossible. But let's not pretend that officials are above reproach. Instead of saying "fans just don't understand," educate them.
Thirdly, it's not that they need to be perceived as doing a good job. It's that they need to be held accountable, rather than shielded from criticism and made inaccessible. Put a different crew chief on TV every week, explaining disputable calls, and let them acknowledge that some calls are mistakes, but then explain why a certain call was made a certain way, whether right or wrong. That's all I'm saying. Don't tell me Rondo didn't commit a flagrant foul when I know he did. Say "the refs didn't call it a flagrant because XYZ, but it probably should have been called that way." And then Bulls fans will complain, but they won't have the additional insult of the NBA actually defending a ridiculously incorrect call.
I agree to some extent. When the NBA tried to crack down last time, it very quickly became a running joke. Note that it says "can be called for technical fouls" and not "will be called for technical fouls"... I think if the players are knocked down a few times early on, the standard will be set and we'll see fewer technicals and, in addition, fewer tantrums, etc. by prima dona players. And I agree with piksi - Duncan is toast.
Actually, I think you can enforce respect. And that's what they need to do. Just have about 5x the number of TOs at the beginnning of the season and you'll see respect go way, way up. That respect will be manifest in players shutting their traps and playing the game. And isn't it self evident that officials can do a better job reffing if they don't have players yapping to them about every single call, and yapping at them if there aren't calls on their opponent? How can officials possibly have focus when everything is a debate?
If officials continue to make bad calls, players will continue to complain about them. Coaches will continue to complain, and owners like Mark Cuban and the like will continue to complain. Perhaps players won't run down the court staring down an official, and maybe players will get back on defense after they feel like the ref missed a foul call or whatever. But as long as the officials don't do their job well, they won't be respected.