Don't Hate the Refs, Hate the Game
by asdqqq on Dec 8, 2009 10:25 PM MST
Email
PrintSo I posted the beginning of this idea in a comment on the "Are NBA games fixed" article by Andrew Feinstein, and after 5 whole hours, no one has responded to it! :) Thankfully, the internet provides endless opportunity for me to continue to present my ideas to the entire world, no matter how valueless they may be.
I propose that the Donaghy accusations highlight two problems in the NBA:
1. Referees can't help their unconscious biases (for example, see the report on racial discrimination by NBA referees here).
2. There is at least a perception by many NBA fans that the refs are consciously affecting the outcome of the games.
I think both of these problems are rooted in the same underlying problem: the NBA rules themselves.
There are too many opportunities for judgment calls by NBA refs. I see at least two problems.
1. Plays that are so vaguely defined that they are hard to call. This is probably best exemplified by the charge/blocking calls.
Check out this rule:
a. A dribbler shall not (1) charge into an opponent who has established a legal guarding position, or (2) attempt to dribble between two opponents, or (3) attempt to dribble between an opponent and a boundary, where sufficient space is not avail-able for illegal contact to be avoided.
b. If a defender is able to establish a legal position in the straight line path of the dribbler, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his dribble.
c. The dribbler must be in control of his body at all times. If illegal contact occurs, the responsibility is on the dribbler.
PENALTY: The offender is assessed an offensive foul. There is no team foul. The ball is awarded to the offended team on the sideline nearest the spot where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline than the free throw line extended.
EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section I--a.
d. If a dribbler has sufficient space to have his head and shoulders in advance of his defender, the responsibility for illegal contact is on the defender.
e. If a dribbler has established a straight line path, a defender may not crowd him out of that path.
PENALTY: The defender shall be assessed a personal foul and a team foul. If the penalty is not in effect, the offended team is awarded the ball on the sideline nearest the spot where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline than the free throw line extended. If the penalty is in effect, one free throw attempt plus a penalty free throw attempt is awarded.
In my opinion, and I don't think I am alone, on a lot of charge/blocking calls the referee's decision could be considered at least arguably correct no matter which way the call is decided.
2. Fouls that could be called so often that when they are actually called becomes highly selective. A couple examples, the current hand check rules and moving screens as they are currently called.
Check out this rule:
b. Contact initiated by the defensive player guarding a player with the ball is not legal. This contact includes, but is not limited to, forearm, hands, or body check.
EXCEPTIONS:
...[exceptions relating to contact in the post]...
(5) Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm.
My dad and I summarize this as, it's a foul to touch a player on the perimeter if the referee calls it. If he or she doesn't, it's not.
These judgment calls create an opportunity for unconscious biases to come into play, and, because so many calls and noncalls are arguable, give the average NBA fan at least an argument that their team is being screwed by the refs on an every game basis.
Here's a little exercise to illustrate my point.
Game 6 of the 2002 playoff series between Sacramento and Los Angeles has been the subject of intense scrutiny for its questionable refereeing. (I'm using this game because there is already a lot of data out there about it. If I was going to do my own evaluation, I would obviously try to show how the Mavericks got screwed in some game because Mark Cuban seems like the kind of guy who might stumble across my article on the internet, recognize the pure genius of my ideas, and hire me to a lucrative contract to further develop them. Mark, I am willing to listen to your offer if you read this.)
The Pedowitz report, commissioned by the NBA, and (perhaps more convincingly), a fairly repectable website, 82games.com, reviewed every call in the game and concluded that conscious manipulation by the referees was unlikely. So what was it that made all of those people watching the game thought otherwise?
The Pedowitz report concluded that there were 15 incorrect calls, 8 favoring the Lakers and 7 favoring the Kings. Thus, the refs were 15 calls from a perfect game. I suspect that this is always how the NBA evaluates its refs, by classifying calls as either correct or incorrect.
But let's take a closer look at how Roland Beech over at 82games.com decided to look at the issue. He evaluated each call and non-call on the basis of how convinced he was that the call was right or wrong, and came up with the following chart:
Official -- ALL Bavetta Delaney Bernhardt Right Call Calls Favor
LALFavor
SACCalls Favor
LALFavor
SACCalls Favor
LALFavor
SACCalls Favor
LALFavor
SACYes 45 18 27 18 7 11 15 8 7 12 3 9 Probably 35 20 15 8 7 1 13 6 7 12 7 5 Maybe 20 10 10 5 2 3 7 3 4 7 4 3 Dubious 8 7 1 4 4 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 V.Dubious 1 0 1 1 0 1 Totals 109 55 54 35 20 15 38 18 20 33 16 17
Taking out the 15 calls that the NBA classifies as wrong, there are still 14 calls that Mr. Beech could have seen going either way, and a further 35 that he would not have been willing to say were absolutely wrong if they were called the other way. So unless you think that the NBA would have found 49 additional wrong calls if each of those had come out the other way, some of those calls were purely judgment calls, subject to no guidance by the NBA (who, I suspect, like the Pedowitz report, looks at things as black and white, right or wrong), victims of the ambiguity in the rules.
What this means, is that a Sacremento fan, giving his team the benefit of the doubt on every call, legitimately saw 29 calls (plus the 8 that were clearly wrong) that, under the rules, could have gone in Sacramento's favor, instead go to the Lakers. Even the objective fan may have unconsiously picked up on the 29 to 20 ratio of judgment calls in favor of the Lakers. And that same ratio could have been the result of unconscious (or conscious, if you so believe) referee bias.
At this point, You might be saying: so what? Everyone knows that the NBA has a lot of judgment calls. That's the nature of the game. The nature of any
game really, like the strike zone in Baseball or all those replays in football. There is nothing we can do about that.
And that is where I disagree. I think the NBA would be best served by evaluating its rules and writing them so as to minimize the number of judgment calls. And I believe that it can be done. But it won't come without some cost to the current state of the game, so it is only if you recognize judgment calls as a real evil in the NBA that it will be worth doing.
I think that the MLB and NFL have recognized this evil and already work to minimize it in their sports, but the NBA is lagging behind. For example, in baseball, there has been Quesdec and now Zone Evaluation to evaluate strike zones according to objective criteria. And the NFL recently eliminated the force-out rule.
As a potential basketball example, the charge/blocking call is particularly troubling because it has such a severe dichotomy of results: there is a foul on one side or the other. One solution would be to eliminate one of the calls, probably charging, so that it would always be a blocking foul, like how it is inside that little circle right now.
Less extreme, clearly defining the calls and placing a larger buffer in the middle where there is no foul called could minimize the amount of judgment
involved and the consequences of a miscall. A blocking fould could be limited to where the defender moves into the path of the dribbler after the dribbler has left the ground with both feet. And a charge could require a defender to have both feet firmly planted on the ground for a full second before the dribbler initiates contact. Anything in between would be incidental contact subject to no foul call.
I think these kind of rules would be much easier to evaluate for whether the call made is right or wrong, reducing the judgment call aspect. I'm not saying these are perfect solutions, I'm just saying that there are options to be considered.
So what do you think?
Write respectfully of your SB Nation community and yourself.
39 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
what i do know
is that in games turning into a blowout say 20 point lead in the 3rd on the road, all of a sudden the road team no longer gets calls, and the home team starts getting all the calls. Objectively you might say… Now this happens on a regular basis, to keep good teams from destroying more bad teams at home.
I get your point on the rules
I actually own an NBA rule book circa 2000 edition. It is more confusing than the law texts I had to study in school. A lot of the rules are vague, and require a human interpretation. Or the rule is contradicted by a bylaw or aan amendment to the rule. Charging I think is the perfect example of a rule that should be tossed out. The should instead have a clear out foul i.e. if you clear the defender out with an arm or shoulder.
I think it’s absurd to call an offensive foul on a player while in mid flight with absolutely no control of anything but the ball. Offensive fouls are the result of defenders being either too slow or too weak to guard their opponent. In effect the rules are limiting a players potential, making them “play down” at their opponents level.
You are correct in saying the rules need to be changed though. It is unfair to place all of the blame on officials, which is why I think Andrew mentioned eliminating player, coach, owner and GM relationships with referees. That’s like having a member of the jury as a personal aquaintance or friend. That’s not a guarantee that you’re off the hook, but it sure as hell won’t hurt your chances either.
Wrong again
Are we gonna just treat refs like the jury now and just close them off from all personal contact? You can argue the call in every sport as long as its respectable. Games are not cases in a court room. The majority of the time players are talkin to refs they’re speaking on clarification of the call. you act like you have tape of a player being like “okay I’m gonna elbow dude in the face the next time I go down the court, you aint gone call it right.” Besides when refs know they make a mistake they usually do make-up calls for blatant mess-ups even without player/coach interaction sometimes.
As for mid-flight fouls, half the time a player gets a foul for those is when help side defense gets there on time and gets in the way. I don’t know what games you watch, but there aren’t nearly as many questionable calls on that especially since they established the circle under the rim rule. It comes into question every now and then, but the problem with the charge rule stems from the initial part of the drive more than the end of it. and I don’t know how you’ve ever played, but you can have plenty of control of your body in the air. can you outwardly move left and right? No, but you can twist and turn in the air and control where your leg and arms are. Besides this makes it fair for the too weak players who stay in front, but can’t stop the person from just bulldozing them anyway.
At the end of the day, you need to have room for human error otherwise every missed call would end up with even posts about how refs never get it right. Plus you need to have judgment calls to stop flopping and other things from taking over the NBA. You can’t reward the biguns for running over the little guy by getting rid of charge calls, but you can’t punish the little guy and let him get run over for being in his way. I get angry at refs too, but I see fairly called games far more often than I see poorly reffed games.
I want favoritism to be a non-factor
Make-up calls is what irritate me, becaue since the ref missed one call they create a phantom call to make-up for their error. And sometimes it’s not even on the same player as the first missed call.
Mid-flight charge fouls take away from the game bottom line. Everyone in attendance and watching from home, wants to see big dunks, poster-ization, and highlight reel stuff at/in every game. I’m sorry but when a 6’10" -7’2" center pretends to fall over on what would be a fast break game changer I get peaved. I don’t think shouldering or clearout fouls should be allowed. i.e. bullying a smaller player for position or physically injuring a player for position. This is one of those gray areas that is subject to dispute. Flopping should result in a technical foul, IMO, but again it can be a gray area that is open for interpretation.
What game are you watching that payers just want ’clarification" on a call? They are pleading their case to the officials every time a whistle blows. The all make the Duncan Face at the same time, then nine of the players relax while the guilty party continues his whine-a-thon. These are grown ass men acting like a kid who had his lolly pop taken away. So yeah player, coach, GM, and owner/referee relations should be limited if not completely removed. Otherwise favoritism will be evident. Or the other side of the coin is refs “attacking” certain players. Have you already forgotten Crawford wanting to throw down with Timmy? That would have never happened if there were no previous communications, clarifications, challenging, or whining going on.
by Joelsopinion on Dec 10, 2009 10:45 AM MST up reply actions
Okay
You still went away from my point. You can ask for clarification and plead your case. Half the time both happen. And players do get Ts for talking too much. I’m just saying once you get to taking away players reactions you’re making bball more strict than any other sport. Even NFL lets the players react to an extent, it varies by ref. Its natural to be upset that you get a foul. Its not like you see a player chewing a ref out for very long before a T is given. So no I don’t think talking should be taken away. Every coach in every level of bball already tells you not to argue with the refs. Leave it to the teams to give out extra punishment for it if they want to, but what are you gonna do, throw the player out of a game the moment he says one word to the ref. Doesn’t seem to create anything but robots playin on the floor without emotion. Next your gonna want player interaction to be taken away because guys who are friends on the court won’t play as hard and guys who hate each other try to hurt each other.
As for big men flopping, I said let them flop with no calls. Doesn’t matter whether they get a T or not. In fact to call a T would be more of a stop to fast break than anything. So just don’t call it. There’s grey area there for a reason because different people will see it differently. Thats why when they see the replay and they realize the mistake, the only balancing factor is to have a make-up call on the other end, usually directly after if there is an opportunity to do so. you’re talking of fairness, well whats more fair. 2 bad calls equals the same opportunity for both teams. If you’re saying you want no missed calls, then I think you might wanna start working on those robots to run up and down the court with perfect vision of every angle.
Favoritism isn’t make-up calls. Thats more missing obvious calls, like when someone takes four steps or walks with the ball in their hand instead of dribbling and the ref just looks the other way.
As for mid-flight fouls where big men fall, either way if they have position according to the rules its a foul no matter how hard you touch them. Contact between you and a player who has position on you is a charge, and it is much easier for them to take the contact and fall then wait for the person to barrel into them and risk injury the way Oden, Bynum, and other big men have been hit with it. I’d rather them fall and get out of the way then stand up and risk injury from falling out of control. Besides you still see plenty of posterizations almost weekly.
Really, you’re nitpicking with grey area things here and its not something you can create concrete rules for as different people will call it differently anyway. So you get started on the robots that see everything as the rulebook states it and I’ll enjoy the game as it is.
Who shit in your wheaties this morning pal?
by Joelsopinion on Dec 10, 2009 12:14 PM MST up reply actions
Nothin man
Just trying to show you the illogical side of having too many restrictions on judgement. Take it as arguing words or not, but I’m just countering your points.
In high school ball, we were trained to time our technical fouls to greatest effect. For example there’s a play in front of the bench of the offense that results in a steal. The coach explodes wanting the foul call and is screaming in the ear of the nearest official who has become the trail for the offense going the other way. I say to the coach “just a sec” wait for the team that stole the ball to make the layup, then call the T on the coach. By HS rule the other team then gets a free throw AND the ball back. So what would have been a four point swing (the one they didn’t make and the score at the other end) becomes a potential seven point swing (the one they didn’t make, the layup they allowed, the free throw and the score on the ensuing possession). When that happens you can bet the coach is rethinking his behavior.
In the preseason, one of the replacement refs called a technical on the Pacers bench to stop a Nuggets sure thing, break away basket. I just about lost it then.
I do think something needs to be done about flopping. I think that the best you can do is video review after the game where you can be absolutely certain it was a flop (falling with no contact) and fine the offenders with increasing fines until they get the idea and they are actually losing some serious money. The increases need to accrue from season to season so you don’t start from the beginning each year on the fines. Flopping would soon be a thing of the past.
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
Idk
I see your point on fining them, but idk I just have a feeling it wouldn’t stop them anymore than the NFL’s no celebration rule stops Chad Johnson, I mean Chad Ochocinco.
Thanks for clarifying the T’s its what I was essentially trying to say, I just have no examples off hand to reference.
The fines wouldn’t be effective if they were as in the NFL, that’s why I’m saying that they go up every time. The first time: $10,000 (pocket change for an NBA player) the second time $20,000, $40,000 the next etc. Pretty soon the guy can’t buy that ivory handled backscratcher he had his eye on (Simpson’s joke) or that $4 million dollar ring to get back in his wife’s good graces. The flopping will stop then.
Yes, we’re on the same page with the T’s. My point was that they are not nearly as effective in the NBA, particularly when they are called on the defense which is where the flopping happens.
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
The rule you cited mentions “legal guarding position”. I had trouble negotiating the NBA site to find it, but I’m sure there is a definition elsewhere that explains legal guarding position.
I’ve written before about advantage/disadvantage in how referees make calls before. I hate to go into that again, but because of this concept there are a lot of fouls that refs don’t call because they don’t think it makes any difference in the game. A lot of times the call is technically a correct call, but not one that would ordinarily be called because it wouldn’t make a difference. One of the best examples is when there is an over-the-back rebounding foul comitted on a player whose teammate got the rebound. That’s almost always let go. It tends to be called only when the official feels that the players may escalate that into more violence.
When the principal of advantage/disadvantage is consistently applied, the officiating makes sense. When it isn’t it looks biased. I tend to see a lot of bias.
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
Yes
I think over-the-back is a good example of a play that happens so often it can’t be called every time. And the advantage/disadvantage concept is a vaguely defined and inconsistently applied way that refs have developed to deal with the judgment calls the rules thus force them to make. I think the less the refs are in that position, the better. For example, (and I’m not saying this is necessarily the solution to the problem, I’m just trying to show my point), over-the-back could include the additional requirement that the offender’s team gets the rebound. Thus, it’s only a foul when it matters, which is what the refs have inconsistently been trying to do anyways, and “when it matters” is defined in a way that is easily evaluated and applied.
Whoops
I meant to post this as a reply to Thursty.
OK I got it. The problem with making your situation a “by rule” call is that what happens if a guy shoves the other in the back with both hands and the guy goes to the floor? Or the guy hits the guy in the back so hard that the offended player turns around in a fighting stance? Or maybe it’s not that bad but the official can tell that he needs to protect the rebounder a little bit to prevent a situation from escalating? The referees have to have a certain amount of judgement come in to play to evaluate the situation. Keep in mind that they also have fractions of a second to exercise that judgement. One thing that I used to do as an official was to react to what happened, blow the whistle and take a breath to think about what the call should be. Sometimes you see something goofy and you blow the whistle, think a second, and call travel and in hindsight you realize that it looked so goofy because it was both travel and double dribble; either call would have worked. I think a lot of officials do that. One classsic case was when I was being evaluated by some other officials. On a drive to the basket there was contact. I blew the whistle and realized that the defender had actually been displaced by the off arm of the shooter, meaning he had been hit pretty hard by the shooter. The evaluators thought I was going to call a foul on the defender while they were thinking it should be a no call. They were unhappy for that brief second it took me to think the call through and then pleased at the offensive foul call, particularly when the video showed I made the right call. You can imagine what the players bench went through, but I did make the right call.
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
Again, I’m not saying that this proposal is the solution. But just to defend it a little, I think the kind of situations you are talking about are a relatively small proportion of the times where the current rule is technically violated but it does not impact who gets the rebound. And I think those situations might be better handled by calling technical fouls, or a foul that was specifically tailored to those situations. Also, I want to emphasize that I don’t believe we can completely remove judgment calls. I’m saying that I think they are too prevalent in the current system. The NBA could have only a single foul rule, that it is a foul to play unfairly. This would give the refs complete discretion on when to call a foul, and allow them the best ability to control the type of situations you are talking about. But I think everyone would agree that gives the refs too much discretion and too little guidance. Now, obviously, what we currently have is much better than that. But to disagree with my overall point, you’d have to say that the current rules have struck the perfect balance, or so close to it that we don’t need to worry about this issue. If that is what you think, that is fine, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But I think the general disatisfaction with reffing supports my point of view.
OK, let’s get one thing clear about my experience. That is; a high school referee who toward the end of my time in it I was calling mostly varsity games, but doing some JV. I worked my way up from college intramurals, mens rec, and HS freshmen. Part of doing that meant that I spent a lot of time hanging around college refs at meetings and such, as well as reading trade magazines.
Your comment about “it is a foul to play unfairly” brought a laugh from me, but partly because in a way that is what the rule book says, but it goes on to define what playing unfairly means. As I posted earlier, one rule mentions “legal guarding position” but elsewhere the rules define “legal guarding position” in great detail. There are sections on penalty for a foul, but a very detailed definition of what constitues a foul elsewhere. There is also a section defining incidental contact. The HS officials also have a case book. This is a book that describes situations and what the call should be. The case book is revised every year (as is the rule book, which tends to contain a section called points of emphasis for the year. The points of emphasis are generally things that the national board thought the officials didn’t do so well on the previous year.), but the case book can not cover every situation that could possibly arise. Also no official can memorize the case book and you can’t stop to think what case from the book might apply to what you just saw during a game. What you can do is learn from what you did and look for an example of what you saw in the case book afterwards. I can’t address what happens to the NBA rule book every year, but I suspect something similar happens. It wasn’t very many years ago that there wasn’t a weird little semi-circle immediately below the basket and I remember when there wasn’t a three point line in the NBA.
I think the dissatisfaction with the officiating stems more from the discretion that officials have than the state of the rules. It’s just been an accepted fact that they are human and they are going to make mistakezs. The hope is that they will not make mistakes that can cost a team the game and that the officiating will be fair. The allegations that it hasn’t been fair; which coincides with public perception is the biggest issue. The NBA needs to take steps to remove the basis for the lack of confidence in the impartiality of officials, such as the ones Andrew and I as well as others (you) have discussed. I just don’t see the rules in and of themselves as being a part of the problem. I don’t see putting more officials at a game as a solution. I see having more officials so that the players don’t see the same ones so often as a solution. The league is against that because it would cost more money and the refs are against that becuase they would make less money. They need to bite the bullet and take the steps or there won’t be an NBA down the road.
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
I’m struggling to understand the points you are trying to make here. Maybe there is just some failure of communication. I’d like to try to understand. In your first paragraph, are you trying to say that refereeing is hard and that refs are working really hard to do the best they can? Because if so, I agree, and what I am arguing for here is to try and make the refs job easier. But if the point of your first paragraph is that you think there are sufficient rules (many of them, it appears, not disclosed to the public, which could be a whole other source of dissatisfaction by the fans) so that the right and wrong call can generally be reliably identified after the fact, I think I’d disagree. That would mean that if those 49 calls had all gone the other way in game discussed above, you think that later evaluation would have revealed very close to 49 additional wrong calls.
On a related note, I am curious if, in your experience, during refing evaluations, the evaluators will generally look at a play where there was a clear over-the-back violation (but without any likelihood of escalating violence or injury to the player) and the ref called a foul and say that was the wrong call because it didn’t effect who got the rebound and treat it on the evaluation as a wrong call. And correspondingly grade it as a correctly refed play if the ref didn’t call a foul, even though there was clearly an over the back.
The part that really confuses me though, is the sentence
I think the dissatisfaction with the officiating stems more from the discretion that officials have than the state of the rules.I think the confusion is that we are talking about two different kinds of discretion. As I see it, the discretion you are talking about is the “discretion” to make clearly wrong calls due to human error. And the discretion I am talking about is the ability to make calls that are not right or wrong either way because the current system provides arguments on both sides. I think that it is these calls, more than clearly wrong calls, that are causing the dissatisfaction with NBA refing.
So I guess, if your point is that the rules and systems in place are such that there always is a right call or wrong call on every play, and everything that can be done to make those decisions as easy as possible for the refs, rules wise, is already in place, than I understand your point. And, again, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I say
The league needs contracted referees from a private contractor so there wouldn’t even be as many questions. And use multiple vendors for these refs so that no one ref travels everywhere. But I do still think the most seasoned refs should call the playoffs with or pair a relatively new ref with a seasoned ref. Just because seasoned refs know how to keep the flow to the game, something that comes to u and can’t necessarily be taught. This would solve the problem of seeing the same ref too often. It would get people to stop calling Stern the puppeteer, and it would create an equal playing field. Problem is Stern probably isn’t willing to do that and the refs most definitely are not going to give up their current contracts. But I see that as the only solution to stopping these types of threads and posts coming up. Otherwise, you will always have NBA refs using their judgement which is apparently tainted.
That’s one way and pretty consistent with what I’ve been advocating. I think Andrew might support that idea too. In HS and college officials are private contractors, but they have to be members of certain associations depending on where they officiate. Colorado HS officials have to be members of both the National Federation and IAABO (other states may require only one or the other). Maintaining membership is not as easy as just paying the dues every year.
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
My first paragraph was intended to clarify my background. I’ve never been an NBA official and they are like aliens from another planet to the refs I’ve been around. You might be surprised to learn that most college refs don’t want to be NBA refs the same way college wrestling officials don’t want to ref the WWF (is it still the WWF?).
The NBA rules are on their web site but I can’t seem to navigate their web site well enough to get to them and read them. The HS and college refs receive a new rule book by mail every year as part of their association membership benefits (they pay dues to the association). The HS and college rule books are something that they want money for to support the non-profit organization; so you’re not going to find many of those laying around. You can buy them though.
But if the point of your first paragraph is that you think there are sufficient rules (many of them, it appears, not disclosed to the public, which could be a whole other source of dissatisfaction by the fans) so that the right and wrong call can generally be reliably identified after the fact, I think I’d disagree.Having seen the rules, I have to disagree. You’ve probably heard announcers viewing replays saying “That call could have gone either way”, but that’s just announcers. If officials were viewing the replay they’d be able to tell you what the correct call should have been based on what the rules say. Those officials would base their conclusions on the rule book. Part of the process they would use would involve things like the aformentioned “legal guarding position”. In replay you can determine a lot better if a player has legal guarding position than in real game time. Do you know what the definition of legal guarding position is? I can’t tell you off hand what the exact definition of it is, but I know it when I see it. For example a player does not have to have his feet planted on the floor to have legal guarding position so a player doesn’t have to have his feet planted to take a charge. Many announcers talk as if they don’t know that. Dissatisfaction with block/charge calls comes from the fact that in the speed of the game it’s hard to tell when the defender has legal guarding position. We’ve come to expect errors in that call but we get dissatisfied when those calls favor or disdain particular players; showing a distinct bias
.On a related note, I am curious if, in your experience, during refing evaluations
Evaluators tend to be a lot more focused on your appearance, your mechanics (mechanics being where you are on the floor so you’re in position to make the right call, clear signals, getting the ball back in play quickly on a dead ball etc.) and your overall game management. Appearance is a lot more important than you might think. I noted once at an officials meeting that we were a remarkably diverse bunch in terms of looks, but that once we get in uniform and on the court we all look pretty much the same and that is the goal. We don’t want to attract attention by having our own look. Evaluators tend to not question your judgement calls unless it was just blatantly wrong. They will point out places where you missed a call, especially if that has anything to do with player safety (there’s quite an emphasis on player safety at the HS level) and especially if you missed a call because you were out of position or watching the ball when it isn’t in your coverage area. If that happens you’re really going to hear about it. Those remonstrations can last quite a while and you’re feeling like a spanked little kid. Fortunately I didn’t have to endure very many of those, but I’ve known of some that were ready to quit over that sort of thing.
I think the confusion is that we are talking about two different kinds of discretion.
Well yeah there are different kinds of discretion, more than two even. When do you call a technical? That’s pretty much entirely at the ref’s discretion.When do you let contact that doesn’t affect the play go by and when do you call it? Just how far do you let a player’s hand go to the side of the ball before you call palming? How much movement of the pivot foot is normal pivot and how much is dragging the pivot foot? There’s a lot of discretion involved. The important thing is that the officials are consistent so that if it is a call on Petro it is a call on Kobe. If it is a call on a Net then it is a call on a Laker. That’s where the dissatisfaction comes in.
So I guess, if your point is that the rules and systems in place are such that there always is a right call or wrong call on every play, and everything that can be done to make those decisions as easy as possible for the refs, rules wise, is already in place, than I understand your point.
See, I can only address that as far as the HS system is concerned and I extrapolate that to the NBA. I think that the rules and the system are in a lot better shape than you seem to think they are. I think that in the NBA the system is in place for fair play and in many cases NBA games a fairly officiated and in fact it has gotten better since Donaghy was indicted. I also think that Stern does manipulate the system to extend playoff series in subtle ways that may not always be successful. I think the NBA officials exercise subtle bias in areas of discretion that I mentioned above. That’s why we’re having this discussion.
Is there a prize for the longest posts?
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
I think that the rules and the system are in a lot better shape than you seem to think they are.
It’s funny, because after reading your post, it makes me think that things are a lot worse than I thought. You say that you think each call can be determined to be right or wrong in your second paragraph. But then later you mention a whole bunch of things that you admit are pretty much solely at the ref’s descretion, like technicals, contact that doesn’t affect the play, palming, dragging the pivot foot. And then, you say that the refs aren’t really evaluated on how they call those plays. Pardon my language, but in my opinion that is a crazy, messed-up, stupid way to evaluate things. That would be like grading a multiple choice exam based solely on whether only one circle was filled in and how well the pencil marks stayed within the lines, without caring whether it was the right circle. While those things are important, they are far less important than getting the answer right, in my opinion. If I were evaluating a ref, I would start with those things you mentioned, but then I would go on to address every call and especially every play that did not result in a call in the entire game, labeling each as correctly or incorrectly called. Anything less to me just seems lazy. Sure a ref can call the game fairly without such an evaluation and under the current rules, and I’m sure they often do, but there is no way to really know or for a ref to even know if he is doing a good job of that if each call and non-call is not being evaluated and labeled as right or wrong.
But as the title of this post says, I’m not in this to hate on the refs. Take this statement:
I can’t tell you off hand what the exact definition of it is, but I know it when I see it. For example a player does not have to have his feet planted on the floor to have legal guarding position so a player doesn’t have to have his feet planted to take a charge. Many announcers talk as if they don’t know that. Dissatisfaction with block/charge calls comes from the fact that in the speed of the game it’s hard to tell when the defender has legal guarding position.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. I haven’t found a definition of legal guarding position in the rules either, but my understanding of what it is seems the same as yours. But as you note, it is the fact that it is really hard to tell in the speed of the game that leads to dissatisfaction. It’s hard because the rules have made something important that is really hard to see and evaluate in the speed of the game. I want it to be easier. Why not require the defender to have two feet on the ground? Is there something that I’m missing that would cause the entire game of basketball to fall apart if that was a requirement? It seems like that would make it easier to call. But instead we use some vague concept that is hard to call in the speed of the game.
I’m curious what your opinion is about the relatively new no-charge circle under the basket. To me, this is exactly the kind of rule change I would like to see more of. It took a common call that was very hard to make and made it a whole lot easier. Since they made that, I’ve not once heard a fan complain about the refs calling a blocking foul when the defender was inside the circle. And it doesn’t seem like the whole game has collapsed or the refs have lost control over the game.
As a final note, I think ideally it would be great if there was no discretion in the rules at all, so that everyone who had a perfect view of the same play would come to the same conclusion when applying the rules. And I wouldn’t mind at all if it was done by computers rather than human refs. But I understand that other people think otherwise, that they feel like the interaction with the refs and the mistakes and discretion they exercise is an enjoyable part of the game. Where do you stand on that issue? Maybe that is the root of our disagreement.
I’m sorry I took so long to respond to this, I got wrapped up in other things.
What I wrote about evaluations applies to the HS level where there is neither the time nor resources to do the sort of evaluation you would like to see. Maybe they can do that in the NBA, but I doubt that they do.
Let me address technical fouls. There are some “by rule” technical fouls such as those concerning the coaches box (which doesn’t exist in the NBA). If you don’t call those technicals you made an incorrect call, but maybe it might be better to just give a warning on the first infraction early in the season. On the other hand a ref can call a technical on a coach for absolutely no reason at all. I mean the ref will justify it somehow (he scowled at me, he was defiant etc.), but no one can say it was the right or wrong call. An evaluator may question your game management skills in that case but it is not up to anyone to tell you it was the right or wrong call. Actually refs are generally reluctant to call technicals because it reflects poorly on their game management skills. One game management skill is when coaches are getting volatile during a dead ball is to get the ball back in play quickly. Coaches quickly lose focus on what happened in favor of what is happening now. When that happens you can avoid the unpleasantness of confrontations and technicals. Sometimes no matter what you do you’re in a bad situation. I once had a very respected girls league coach in a summer game. I knew this guy from playing pick up ball at the rec center and I knew he was a dirty player. I didn’t know his name, though I knew his reputation for developing top level HS girls that went on to be top college players. This coach came running out on to the floor after a call. I told him to get back to the bench, which he refused to do. So I called a technical on him, which any official would do. Did I need to give him that warning to get back to the bench? No, but you don’t want to be known as a quick trigger either. He immediately said “Oh a technical, huh? Fuck you.”. Well that is a by rule technical (any profanity is by HS rule a technical foul and refs are prohibited from using profanity, but not much can be done if they use it). So I immediately called the second technical which is an ejection. So you can see that there was discretion there, but both the techs were by rule. One of the rules about ejection is that the coach has to leave the facility. This coach kept hanging around at the door to watch. I had to tell the replacement coach that the game was going to be forfeited if the coach didn’t leave. Forfeiting a game like that is really the last thing an official wants to do because it takes the game away from the kids, but at any time an official can just stop the game and say it’s over without declaring either team winner or loser, that’s for the league to decide however they want to handle it (it might go down as a loss for both teams). It took the threat of a forfeit to get that coach out of there. He thought he was God’s gift to girls basketball. That coach was dead just about two years later; hanged himself in jail while up on charges of sexually abusing the girls.
I dug out an old (97-98) rule book and found the definition of legal guarding position. It’s rule 4 section 23 and contains 5 articles. I won’t transcribe it here, but it settles questions about legal guarding position which is referenced in rule 4 section 7 which defines blocking and charging. These rules make it fairly clear and simple. One of the issues that comes into play in the course of officiating is the order that things happen. An official has to rely on what he sees and determine the sequence of events. He may be mistaken in what the sequence was and that results in a bad call. There isn’t a whole lot you can do about calls like that. You can review them on video in slow motion and determine what the sequence was and the official can say “Yes I made a mistake and the call was wrong” but chances are that he is going to make a similar mistake again down the line. The evaluators know this and tend not to belabor the point to the ref that made the call. One of the things that has to be instilled in refs and that evaluators have to cultivate is trusting your partner. You don’t want to be questioning his calls, he gets enough of that from everybody else.
You don’t require a defender to have both feet on the floor because that would take away too much from the defense and violate the principal of verticality, which is that a defender with legal guarding position has a right to the space above him. So yes there does seem to be something you’re missing, that maybe wouldn’t cause the game to collapse, but it would radically change the game.
What do I think of the little semi-circle? When it first came out I was against it but it seems to have worked out OK and the players seem to have adjusted to it quickly so I’m OK with it now.
I hope what I wrote above about game management shows why you don’t want to have machines reffing the game. The officials do a lot of things that control the game that have nothing to do with blowing whistles. Have you ever seen a team get a technical called for having 6 players on the floor? I’ll bet not. This is because the officials learn very early and quickly not to put the ball in play while there are the wrong number of players on the floor. The officials do lots of things like that to control the game that generally go unnoticed because it rarely goes wrong. The players have played under such things that it is automatic for them and so nobody notices. Another example would be that the official does not put a ball in play directly under the basket, they direct the thrower to a spot outside the lane lines, and players beyond 8th grade level tend to go to the right spot as a habit. This is so the throw in is less likely to hit the backboard. This is actually a written exception to the rule that the ball is put in play at the spot where it went out of bounds (it looks like the NBA has different rules on that too).
I think one of your key phrases in your last paragraph is “perfect view”. The problem is that there is no one perfect viewing angle and speed. I hope I’ve given you a little more to think about. There’s a difference between what my experience has been and the stories that Donaghy tells. Reffing in the NBA is different from anywhere else, but hopefully I’ve given some insight into the process in general.
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
Great & important post!
This is a great post. Reading the title I sort of assumed it was more defense of the referees by a Lakers fan or something. Instead, its a well written and thoughtfully researched post. I don’t absolutely agree with all of it but it’s a compelling argument. I wouldn’t know where to begin but I think it needs to get into the right hands at the league office. If somebody knows somebody they should email this fanpost. I also wonder if someone out there knows any specifics on why some of these rules are written the way that they are. Links would be great…
While we are at it, I think we – as CUSTOMERS of David Stern’s – should demand that flopping be addressed plainly and swiftly in the rule book. There are an enormous number of rules that could be cleaned up but not having flopping specifically addressed is of particular importance because it is the antithesis of why there is a rule book in the first place:
“The restrictions placed upon the player by the rules are intended to create a balance of play, equal opportunity for the defense and the offense, provide reasonable safety and protection for all players and emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of player or team.”
As well (and obviously) flopping undermines the referees. I don’t think that anyone would disagree that it is in the best interest of the NBA to make the referee’s jobs easier. After all, a perfect world in any sporting event would be to have no fouls or penalties, only gameplay at a high level and within the rules of the game. On that note, I have been saying for years that the NBA needs more referees to shoulder the workload. My idea would be to add six referees to each game; one on each corner and two on either side of the court at the midcourt line. Think volleyball or tennis. These referees (and you could call them something else to separate them from the crew chief and two on-court referees) would be discreetly seated so as to not detract from the action. Basically, these officials would make 100% of the Out-of-bounds calls and would aid in determining some other, select calls. The more eyes the better, right? Also, if these six new officials were on-court officials in training, you put instant pressure on the three on-court referees to set a good example and make good calls. Truthfully, it almost never hurts performance to regularly perform in front of guys that want your job.
While I think that there will be valid arguments against this idea, either in how it could be administered or how it could potentially slow the game down, ultimately it is a very discreet way to get more eyes on the game and to give the referees a better way to stay focused on the calls that already require such intense judgement and discretion (thanks again asdqqq for the thoughtful and well re-searched post.)
Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.
So
you want cameras all over the floor to provide replay in case of a disputed out of bounds call and other select calls, like the ones they already have. Except you want them to be human, and therefore even more objective.
Yes and no
I want the on-court officials to have less that they have to watch and the immediacy of a “human replay” is well worth the negligible objectivity lost. There is just far too much that the officials have to monitor in any given moment under the status quo. asdqqq’s post concludes that we need to simplify things to increase accuracy. I agree. Giving the three officials less to watch and giving them support and immediate 2nd opinions on certain, select calls (like 2 pointer versus 3 pointer – nothing too subjective) will only simplify things further.
Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.
by Big Mickey D on Dec 10, 2009 9:19 AM MST up reply actions
I like it but
The only issue I see is the only thing David Stern seems to focus on, and that is the money. We experienced a lock out threat for the regular season already, because of money. Adding six more officials seem to me to be highly unlikely. Unless of course there were people willuing to sit court side for free at every home team game. (hint hint)
by Joelsopinion on Dec 10, 2009 11:01 AM MST up reply actions
Yeah
asking fans of a team to sit on the line and watch when it went out sounds like a good idea. Lets just create another way for bias to enter here. I mean maybe its a Denver thing, but I watch games all the time, regardless of the team, and the biggest problem recently hasn’t even been out of bounds plays or fouls. The number of games decided by a missed foul or call hasn’t even happened that often this year. There hasn’t been a game horrendously officiated since the Eastern Conference Finals, in my eyes. I think the bigger problem here isn’t the refs, its that all people see bias against their team even when the foul and free throw discrepancy shows differently. You’re never going to find a way to control that, so can we stop nitpicking please.
No sense of humor I see
You only read the last line of my comment and reacted. Re-read the first part please. Unless you know who here is joking and who is nuts please don’t react so quickly.
I also think you completely missed what Big Mickey D was saying. If the three on court officials did not have to watch players feet, then maybe they wouldn’t have to make split second decisions when they only see part of a play at the rim. It would be beneficial to everyone. On court refs have less to watch out for so they can better focus on the action of the game and not the “little” nondisputable issues. Coaches and players will have less of an arguing chip saying the ref wasn’t watching. And fans wouldn’t waste part of our lunch break responding to comments like yours.
I also like how you say people’s bias towards their team is the main problem. For this post having nothing to do with a Laker issue you sure seem to have a lot to say McFly.
by Joelsopinion on Dec 10, 2009 12:27 PM MST up reply actions
Thanks
I always considered Marty McFly, but I figured it would be lame to use since its already been done. Anyway, as Thursty below me said, these things your pointing out are the least of the problems, which was the last part of my post. I saw your hint hint, I took it as a joke, but felt like saying it anyway. And the fact you point out I’m a Lakers fan and I haven’t even mentioned the Lakers is your prerogative. I just call it how I see it. Officiating issues are brought up by both sides all the time. Just saying you’re nitpicking at rules that aren’t even the biggest on the issues list. Nothing to do with the Lakers.
Oh
and I actually like Melo and the Nuggets. Obviously, I root for the Lakers when they play, but I’ved watched the Nuggets too. Startin when Melo showed up and then actually watching when Iverson was there. The only player I absolutely root against is Lebron, but we don’t even need to get into that.
Yeah sorry about Thursday
It was about 2 degrees in Denver for about a week at that point and I was all kinds of pissed off at everything. I went back and read some of the comments left, and I was kinda out of line. I’ll try and keep it clean.
by Joelsopinion on Dec 14, 2009 12:30 PM MST up reply actions
Ignoring the cost issue, out-of-bounds plays are the least of an officials worries since they’re very easy to call, even though some officials occasionally get confused and call out the color of the team who knocked it out as if they meant to do that or vice versa. I’ll let you in on a little referee’s secret: when the ball goes out and you’re not sure about whose ball it is watch the players. If they start going to the other end you give it to the team going that way. If they all just stand there you give it to the team going to that basket. In other words you let the players make the call without letting them know that they did it. This is because they will. Just watch how often they are moving one way or the other before the call has been made because they know what the call is going to be. Failing that your partner tends to know and failing that the rules call for an alternate possession/jump ball to determine it. The out-of-bounds play is the least of an officials concerns.
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
Having been a basketball referee
You (Thursty) definitely know more about which calls are more (or less) difficult and taxxing on the officials. I appreciate your insight and your posts here and elsewhere. I think that my idea needs refining but that there is still something to the idea of discreetly adding officials and spreading out the responsibilities no matter how easy or mundane they might be.
Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.
by Big Mickey D on Dec 10, 2009 1:23 PM MST up reply actions
Part of the reason that out-of-bounds calls are easy is that the responsibilities ARE spread out and well defined. Each official knows which lines he’s responsible for, the trail (outside) official is responsible for things like goal tending and basket interference while the lead (baseline) official doesn’t even look to see if the ball went in the basket or not. These things are spelled out in the officials manuals and are dicussed before each game. That’s also one of the hard things about learning to be an official; you can’t be watching the ball all of the time, you have to trust that when you are covering away from the ball, your partner IS watching the ball.
In refining your idea, it might work to have a sideline official that monitors replays and if the game officials have a doubt or question they could consult him instead of having to see the replay themselves, but I wouldn’t go in for coach’s challenges like in the NFL. I also wouldn’t go in for that sideline official being able to stop play or try to correct officials.
"Woohoo Denver, Yeah... All right Denver justify my love!" ...Homer Simpson
Why don't we all hate...The Stern Button!
l
From Basketbawful
"Left hand, right hand, it doesn't matter. I'm amphibious." - Charles Shackleford
"If the NBA were on channel 5 and a bunch of frogs making love were on channel 4, I'd watch the frogs, even if they were coming in fuzzy." - Bobby Knight
"We have a great bunch of outside shooters. Unfortunately, all our games are played indoors." - Weldon Drew
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Andrew Feinstein
(denverstiffs@gmail.com)
Nate Timmons
(ntimmons73@yahoo.com)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
DENVER STIFFS T-SHIRTS!
Enter your email for updates
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
