Stern: Refs gamble like mad. So what?

[fnordius]

Stern says refs broke gambling policies, but will change rules rather than issue punishments
By BRIAN MAHONEY, AP Basketball Writer
October 25, 2007
NEW YORK (AP) -- David Stern acknowledged Thursday that more than half of his 56 referees had violated NBA policies about casino gambling, but said none will be punished because he felt the rules were outdated.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...1m8vLYF?slug=ap-sternspeaks&prov=ap&type=lgns




That is so pathetic I don't even know what to say.

 

[VF21]

Pretty selective editing there, fnordius.

Here's the article, including an integral SECOND paragraph...

Stern says refs broke gambling policies, but will change rules rather than issue punishments
By BRIAN MAHONEY, AP Basketball Writer
October 25, 2007

NEW YORK (AP) -- David Stern acknowledged Thursday that more than half of his 56 referees had violated NBA policies about casino gambling, but said none will be punished because he felt the rules were outdated.

Instead, Stern said he is altering the policies, leaning toward allowing referees to gamble in casinos during the offseason -- except for betting in sports books.

The league's strict gambling policies toward referees became public after the Tim Donaghy scandal. The NBA currently prevents its officials from entering the gaming area of a casino, or doing any betting at all except for going to race tracks during the offseason.

But Stern admitted he did a poor job of enforcing the policies, and with views toward gambling changing, decided he wouldn't "penalize people for behavior that I'm about to change."

"It's too easy to issue rules that are on their faith violated by $5 Nassau, sitting at a poker table, buying a lottery ticket and then we can move along," Stern said after wrapping up the league's Board of Governors meetings. "And by the time I got through and I determined going into a casino isn't a capital offense ... I'm the CEO of the NBA and I'll take responsibility."

Stern also said Stu Jackson and Ronnie Nunn, in charge of monitoring officiating, will both have their roles altered. But he stressed they were being "expanded" rather than demotions -- even though Jackson's job now will be divided between two people and the league will be "cutting down on some of (Nunn's) other responsibilities."

The commissioner stressed there is still no indication that any other officials were involved in illegal gambling activity, but practically all of them violated a league policy that Stern called "too harsh." That included anything from buying lottery tickets to taking part in poker games, betting on college football or taking part in NCAA tournament pools.

Stern ordered a review of the league's entire officiating program after Donaghy pleaded guilty to betting on games he worked and providing information to others to help them win bets. Though the investigation being conducted by former federal prosecutor Lawrence Pedowitz can't be completed until the federal investigation of Donaghy is wrapped up, it has already sparked some changes.

Stern said the league likely will begin listing the names of the crew of referees the morning of the game, and steps will be taken to admit when officiating mistakes were made.

Then there are the changes with Jackson and Nunn, who both came under fire after the scandal broke.

Jackson, the league's executive vice president of basketball operations, will remain in that area, but sometime this season the league will hire a full-time referee operations executive. Jackson will continue to hand out on-court discipline and deal with many of the league's international ventures, but will give up his referee responsibilities.

Nunn, the director of officials, will spend more time on the road training younger officials. The league already has hired Bernie Fryer, who retired last season, to deal with the crew chiefs. Stern said Nunn told him that "it's more valuable for him to be on the road than to do his television show."

"We are broadening and taking more responsibility and we are doing it with the people that we have and we're going to add to them," Stern said, "but certainly it's not a reduction of responsibility."

Stern also reiterated that he is not currently considering any action toward Knicks coach Isiah Thomas or Madison Square Garden chairman James Dolan in the aftermath of the ruling against them in a sexual harassment suit brought by former team executive Anucha Browne Sanders.

The trial did bring another change, however. All team personnel now will be required to set and meet minimum standards regarding sensitivity training and respect in the workplace.

The board heard what "wasn't a very uplifting report" about the situation in Seattle, where there has been no progress on funding for a new arena that would keep the SuperSonics in the city. Stern called himself an optimist but said his "optimism is waning" when it comes to the team's future there.

Donaghy's sentencing has been delayed until January, and Stern said he expects to learn further details about what the former referee did or didn't do, such as making calls to affect games, if he cooperates with investigators. But Stern dismissed the notion that this season is more important than any other because of the scrutiny the league has been under since the summer.

"We evolve, we respond, we grow," he said.

 

[VF21]

The whole point was that almost without exception the ONLY violations (aside from Donaghy) were to the part noted below:

The NBA currently prevents its officials from entering the gaming area of a casino, or doing any betting at all except for going to race tracks during the offseason.

And...

The commissioner stressed there is still no indication that any other officials were involved in illegal gambling activity, but practically all of them violated a league policy that Stern called "too harsh." That included anything from buying lottery tickets to taking part in poker games, betting on college football or taking part in NCAA tournament pools.

I also thought this part pretty interesting:

Stern also said Stu Jackson and Ronnie Nunn, in charge of monitoring officiating, will both have their roles altered. But he stressed they were being "expanded" rather than demotions -- even though Jackson's job now will be divided between two people and the league will be "cutting down on some of (Nunn's) other responsibilities."

And finally...

Then there are the changes with Jackson and Nunn, who both came under fire after the scandal broke.

Jackson, the league's executive vice president of basketball operations, will remain in that area, but sometime this season the league will hire a full-time referee operations executive. Jackson will continue to hand out on-court discipline and deal with many of the league's international ventures, but will give up his referee responsibilities.

Nunn, the director of officials, will spend more time on the road training younger officials. The league already has hired Bernie Fryer, who retired last season, to deal with the crew chiefs. Stern said Nunn told him that "it's more valuable for him to be on the road than to do his television show."

It appears to me that both Jackson and Nunn received a pretty thinly vieled slap by Stern...

 

[SacKings384]

I find it hillarious that Stern finds that these rules were "outdated" and "too harsh" so he decided to change the rule and not punish them. Yet when it came to the little step over the line Stern pretended like his hands were tied, and that if they wanted to change the rule he'd be more than willing to, but as of that time "rules were rules".

 

[VF21]

What are you talking about?

Penalizing officials for things like "buying lottery tickets to taking part in poker games, betting on college football or taking part in NCAA tournament pools" IS outdated and pretty silly, IMHO. There's more there than the public slap on the wrist.

Just because people don't agree with officials a lot of the times doesn't mean they should all be pilloried for something. They have a very tough job and, for the most part, they do it pretty well. The scrunity of instant replay and multiple cameras exposes every single move they make to second-guessing and I honestly don't think many of us could stand up to that kind of microscopic analysis of every portion of our jobs.

Yes, there are things that need to be done in the realm of NBA officiating but flaying them for maybe playing a slot machine at the casino down the road certainly shouldn't be among them.

 

[SacKings384]

What are you talking about?

Penalizing officials for things like "buying lottery tickets to taking part in poker games, betting on college football or taking part in NCAA tournament pools" IS outdated and pretty silly, IMHO. There's more there than the public slap on the wrist.

Just because people don't agree with officials a lot of the times doesn't mean they should all be pilloried for something. They have a very tough job and, for the most part, they do it pretty well. The scrunity of instant replay and multiple cameras exposes every single move they make to second-guessing and I honestly don't think many of us could stand up to that kind of microscopic analysis of every portion of our jobs.

Yes, there are things that need to be done in the realm of NBA officiating but flaying them for maybe playing a slot machine at the casino down the road certainly shouldn't be among them.

I totally agree... But he claimed he was powerless during the Phoenix series, but not powerless here... Clearly the reason you can't go on the court is because it causes more fights. To penalize someone for a foot on the court is ridiculous. Clearly the reason you can't go buy a lottery ticket or go into a casino is because it could lead to gambling on professional sports. But to penalize them for something as petty as a poker game is ridiculous. Yet one was changed, and one was not.

 

[uolj]

I believe the difference is that the penalty for the gambling was not set in stone, it was discretionary. The penalty for stepping on the court was not discretionary.

It would have been unfair to the Spurs to selectively enforce (or choose not to enforce) the rule on the Suns. There is nobody cheated by the gambling decision.

 

[vladetomiller]

Huh...

He decided to change the rules aftermath cos he felt they were outdated, ok then why not apply that rule to the suns and say that the rule was outdated as well.

Importantly the problem with stern is that he is not being open about it. Why not clearly tell the names of the referees and the infractions, and then say that he is pardoning them and changing the rules. We are left to assume that it was just some silly poker game and slot machines, he has the data about all the infractions and letting out in the open wouldnt cause this doubt.

By the way, latest from Rasheed Wallace is going to be interesting times for Stern I am sure he will suspend him or at the least fine him.

 

[uolj]

Huh...

He decided to change the rules aftermath cos he felt they were outdated, ok then why not apply that rule to the suns and say that the rule was outdated as well.

I believe the difference is that the penalty for the gambling was not set in stone, it was discretionary. The penalty for stepping on the court was not discretionary. That means that Stern has the right to determine an appropriate penalty given the circumstances of the gambling offense. If he determines that the circumstances include an unnecessary rule, then he can use his discretion to give little or no punishment.

It would have been unfair to the Spurs to selectively enforce (or choose not to enforce) the rule on the Suns. There is nobody cheated by the gambling decision, so there's no reason for him not to use his discretion.

And I think he said that every single referee had some sort of infraction. You don't have to assume that the infractions were all minor, either, because he actually said the infractions were all minor.

So what's the big deal again?

 

[vladetomiller]

It was not discretionary, it was part of the ref rules of employment. You can choose to ignore that or determine that he can wave that rule off, but it still shows a double standard. Either you stick to the rules or dont. He gave the stupid reason of it was not being fair to the suns etc but had to stick to the rules.

I think he is afraid the refs have something that might hurt him and wants to keep them in good humour. Otherwise atleast a slap in the wrist with a small fine should have been imposed.

 

[uolj]

The punishment was discretionary. They broke the rules, he acknowledged this. He used his discretion to hand out the punishment. In this case, he fined them approximately $0 and suspended each offender for an average of 0 games.

I think he's making the best decision he can make for each given situation.

I think he is afraid the refs have something that might hurt him and wants to keep them in good humour.

I think this is silly. His decision makes sense on its face. Even if it didn't you would be hard-pressed to find a conspiracy in these actions. (Well, maybe not you, but you in a general sense.)

 

[Bricklayer]

It was not discretionary, it was part of the ref rules of employment. You can choose to ignore that or determine that he can wave that rule off, but it still shows a double standard. Either you stick to the rules or dont. He gave the stupid reason of it was not being fair to the suns etc but had to stick to the rules.

I think he is afraid the refs have something that might hurt him and wants to keep them in good humour. Otherwise atleast a slap in the wrist with a small fine should have been imposed.

The Suns case was based on a rule that had been repeatedly enforced in EXACTLY the same way it was enforced in the Suns series for the last 10 years. Regular season, post season, whenever. And by continuing to enforce the rule absolutely, just as they had always done, the NBA actually avoided any charges of favoritism. May have been unjust. But it was unjust in exactly the same way its been unjust for every other team in evey other game since the mid-90s.

The refs though, you wouldn't hear about it anyway, but I get the feeling this is the first large scale enforcement of this rule. And there is no second side to feel as it it was slighted or discriminated against. Here you're just trying to get the rules right versus one unique set of employees. Fining them or whatever serves no particular purpose for that level of gambling activity. And after what happened, you should probably just go ahead and shoot one if they were actually stupid enough to get involved in the same stuff.