Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Explaining Jeremy Lin's Early, Surprising Success

The conundrum between the NBA, its players, its officials and the fans


Given the recent post by High Tops entitled, "Refs & the Integrity of the Game" --a solid swag btw--at this highly topical issue, I felt compelled to delve beyond the "Refs Suck!" and "Sacramento and its players always get screwed" diatribes which do little to further the validity behind those impassioned albeit sophomoric sentiments.

This matter cannot be analyzed and remedied in one setting so let me preface by saying this post has no ambition to comprehensively cover all its myriad complexities or nuances, nor bring this matter to any logical conclusion. However, there is a fair amount of misunderstanding and maligned angst that needs to be addressed so that the real issues that persist can be discussed and perhaps a valid and tangible outcome is feasible. I endeavor without being facetious nor didactic to add credence to the conundrum that plagues this great game we are so vested in, while dispelling dispersions that unfairly classify our men and woman who officiate the game.

Star-divide

Background:  I am no expert. I was never in the NBA's employ, nor played basketball beyond the high school level. Although I garnered national acclaim collegiately in a different sport, I cannot claim any inside relevance beyond my few meager friendships and acquaintances that either played in the NBA, work in the NBA or officiate in the NBA.

Qualifications:  I lived in Sacramento over 24 years, have loved the Sacramento Kings since 10,333 fans filled Arco, and officiated multiple sports including basketball for over 17 years. I have officiated the game of basketball at the elementary school level, all the way up to Pro Summer League and have attended dozens of camps led by NBA Officials, College Assignors, Pro/College Scouts and Observers. With all due respect to those that have lived in Sacramento longer or know which side of the river the Kansas City Kings used to play or played the game professionally, there is much to learn.

Thesis:  The NBA is an entertainment juggernaut predicated on showcasing its stars and pandering to its corporate and copious clientele and should not be construed to be bound to a democratic oath that lauds fairness and in deference to the minority to maintain equality and balance. It is greater than the sum of its parts, whose ends justify its means and therefore cannot be held accountable for any apparent deviation from its own rules, policies or standards.

The NBA Rights and Privileges: The NBA reserves the right to modify, alter, ignore, exploit, deviate, subjugate, embellish, trivialize, create, etc., anything or anyone, so long as it is in the best financial interest of its brand: The NBA. Therefore they are indemnified and above reproach from any person, player, place or thing that suggests or claims any rights or privileges that have not already been or continue to be bestowed by the NBA, its affiliates and its assigns.

NBA Definitions:

1. Prospects - Individuals that aspire to be employed by the NBA.

2. Players - Individuals that are currently employed by the NBA.

3. Retired Players - Individuals that were formerly employed by the NBA.

4. Stars - Players that are considered part of the NBA Brand. They are entitled to the Rights and Privileges held by the NBA and therefore not subject to the confines and rigidity of the rules and regulations otherwise required of other employees of the NBA.

5. Employees - Any person that works for the NBA with varying levels of Rights and Privileges.

6. Officials/Game Management - A sub-class of workers contracted by the NBA. They include:  score keepers, clock operators, timers, referees, etc. They are not empowered, entitled or eligible for any of the Rights and Privileges held by the NBA and are duly subject to the confines and rigidity of the rules and regulations otherwise required of and evaluated by the NBA to ensure the longevity of the NBA Brand.

7. Fans - Sponsors, Corporations, Networks, Team Owners and Season Ticket Holders or better known as The Money. If you are not a visible consumer of their product you are not classified as a fan and therefore your opinion does not count.

The Brand, followed by The Money, followed by its Stars, followed by everyone else completes the hierarchy. You must acknowledge this premise in order to move forward and further dissect our quandary. Although a substantial amount of people on StR didn't need the primer, I had to digress and define what many already know to be obvious because a few continue to rant about officiating in the NBA without realizing that their cries for vigilance are akin to the neighborhood demanding the beat cop incarcerate the street pusher when the supplier devilishly continues unabated.

The NBA establishes the rules of the game, they control the product--not the Officials. The Officials merely administrate the game in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of the rules while protecting the integrity of the NBA Brand. It is a conflict of interest unseen in high school and college basketball. Your angst that officials screw you is mostly unfounded. Ask any player who played in the NBA when Jordan played and they will tell you that yes they played in the JBA (Jordan Basketball Association). The NBA protects its Stars. They want their Stars on the floor at the end of the game.

That will is imposed on the Officials. When Michael Jordan made an athletic move to the basket in the form of a turn-around jump stop, while dragging his pivot, he was seldom called for the travel. When John Stockton released a potential three-pointer and his defender made contact with his shooting arm even after the shot was released, he usually went to the line. We have all seen Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Iverson (insert Star here) blatantly benefit from discretion bestowed on them by the Brand. All this time you have been blaming the Officials when the League is mandating this. A league filled without their Stars, cannot sustain their Brand.

They fear their Fans will not drive the value of their product if officials called the game without obeisance to Stars which represent the Brand. Shaq would have spent half his career on the bench in foul trouble if the Officials were allowed to call the game correctly. I think we should all exclaim bull crap on this and protest. I promise you, if the NBA wanted the game called correctly, the Officials would call it correctly. You cannot claim to be an NBA follower and expect anything different in the same way you cannot claim to be Catholic without accepting the Divinity of Christ.

Now that the white elephant has been properly acknowledged, there is some level of recourse. Since the Owners of NBA franchises are regarded by the league, they can submit video for the NBA to review highlighting where their players are being held to a different standard. There is no need to involve Congress, and the league will manage that. Promoting their own stars will help the cause. If you watched Tim Donaghy's interview with 60 minutes, he references how the Laker organization pushed for Kobe to get more calls.

In another post I may divulge more fully the day in the life of a Basketball Offical in the NBA, but suffice it to say that there is an email message on their blackberry after their game that supplements the post game review they have with their fellow officials that night, the game evaluation and grade that is filed by the Observer, and the league's video review of their game, calls, mechanics and positioning.

They morning after, they must login and review video clips of the night's previous games where a controversal play happened and submit what they believe the ruling should be and pass daily pop quizzes on the Rules and Mechanics of the NBA. They must also acknowledge and follow NBA communications and memos that come down instructing them on how to handle certain situations that arise throughout the season that the NBA deems important. In a nutshell, they are micro-managed by The NBA to conform. When the don't know a rule in a game they are suspended. If they flunk a test, they are suspended. If they lose their cool and respond back to a coach or player in a less than professional manner--even when they were disrespected or shown up--then they are suspended. Suspensions cost them money. Those that finish graded in the bottom of their group do not have their contract renewed. They are gagged to protect the NBA Brand. Trust me, if they could speak, you would lose a whole lot of respect for the Stars in the league and/or the league itself.

For many, the game of basketball as we know it is such a departure from the NBA game that it may as well be a foreign language. Yet everyone waxes expertise. News flash:  Just because you played organized basketball, coached basketball or blog about basketball doesn't mean your homework assignment is over. If you have the pleasure to meet and talk to an NBA Player, they will confess to you that they were shocked when they came into the league and knew so little about the rules of the game and how the NBA operates its Brand. Coaches confess that they struggle with that as well.

If you haven't ever done so, I highly recommend reading the NBA Rules as it will surprise you on how complex the game actually is. You would never give an editorial about a book you haven't read and the same should apply to the NBA game. If you don't know the rules of the game, there is a good chance your assessment on what was called, not called or when it is called is wrong.

Mechanics of Officiating: Anyone who has been volunteered for their kid's AYSO game can attest is not easy to translate what you think you saw into a whistle, a command and a signal all while running with a jerky gate for a couple of hours at a time. On top of that, where you position yourself is as much art as science and requires years of experience to know based on the players, the play and the possible outcomes where to be on the field or court.

I cringe when I hear people say "these are the worst officials I have ever seen" when at a professional game. It is insulting to everyone who has ever blown a whistle to hear that from someone who couldn't do it themselves. Officials must learn and master how to communicate the game through their presence, voice, whistle and their signals. NBA officials carry an additional burden of balancing the Rules versus perpetuating the Brand.

Officiating Philosophy: Fouls occur on every play. They cannot call them all. They must use discretion to determine which ones to call and which ones to pass on. Every play has a beginning, a middle and an end. For example:  An official who calls a foul too quickly when they see an infraction at the top of the key, may miss the the fact that a player in the post is wide open. If they wait, a quick pass may result in an easy lay-in. A coach might prefer their post player score than have to run an out-of-bounds play.

Every possession has multiple competitive match-ups (both on ball and off ball) and a window that give you a visual angle on the player with the ball and the player(s) defending the play. Every play or sequence involves advantage and disadvantage. A good official reconciles all of this before choosing to pass or make a call on a given play, timing is critical and in basketball, you don't have the luxury to throw a flag and come together and talk about what you thought you saw.

Without getting into specific games recently, I doubt any of you take all those factors into consideration when concluding your team's player didn't get the call. Furthermore, most people watch the ball. Few focus off ball. Based on some of the deft observations by our own StR crew I know that some of you do evaluate the post play off ball and observe which guys move well without the ball, but most followers of the game typically watch the guy with the ball even when their team is on defense.

The big mistake with this is you cannot fairly judge a play if you don't see both the offensive player and the defensive player simultaneously. You might see the offensive player push off, but you may have missed the defensive player not in a legal guarding position. Camera angels are not usually good windows into a play. Hence several camera angles are needed in instant replay in order to help determine the right call. How many times have you thought something was missed only to be beguiled by a different camera angle?

Official Control: This could be a whole separate post given all the nuances that go on during a game. Coaches and Players have certain expectations out of their fellow Officials. They want all the calls to go their way. Players and Coaches are always trying to gain an advantage and expect that is is up to the officials to catch them and police this. They don't care how many they got away with but bemoan when the other team does so. Officials do have some latitude here as they cannot call every infraction. Coaches and Players try to exploit this. As a result sometimes a call preempts a shenanigan and sometimes it is delayed until a later play.

For example: During the pre-game meeting the Officials discuss a game situation where a particular player routinely trips or holds a cutter and the team they are playing has an alley-oop play designed for a back-side cutter. When they go on the court they meet with the captains and tell them that they are watching for the trip and the hold off ball. At the same time the captain replies back that the other team's cutters are getting away with pushing off. They are both right.

So when the play occurs and the defender holds and the cutter pushes off, who do you penalize? In some cases you have to call it on one and look to call it on the other team when the chance permits regardless of how ticky tack it seems to the observer.

Another example of control can be explained when things occur on the court only the Player/Coach and the Official are privy to. Lots of times an Official's integrity is questioned, or the banter crosses a line. It may not be in the best interest of the game to stop, administer the technical and show up the player/coach, but understand the next questionable call that could go either way is not going that player/team's way. 

In the end, the officials that leverage that control but don't abuse it and can be deemed to be approachable like in the scenarios above are respected by the Coaches and the Players. Tim Donaghy alluded to it in reference to Allen Iverson. Jason Thompson would save himself at least one foul per game by owning most of the fouls he commits or ask what the Official saw versus yell that the Official missed it in disgust. While I agree with most on StR that Shock gets few calls that could go either way, he hurts his own cause.

While the NBA will post to the public the Rules, the public is not privy to the Official Manual for NBA Officials which encompasses, Mechanics, philosophy or control. Just trust that there is not a lot that the Officials can affect and there is valid reasons why Vegas, Coaches and Players are not notified of who their officials are well in advance of the games.

In conclusion:   While NBA Officials have egos and sometimes screw up a play the rarely screw up a game and should not be considered the bane of our frustration with The Brand. Furthermore with a little broader perspective and a more objective analysis of the game as a whole there should be a general sense of calm and peace that the whole world is stacked against us--just merely the NBA.

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

Comment 56 comments  |  8 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I’ll admit that the refs are one of my favorite whipping boys during crucial parts of the game, but this piece almost made me feel sorry for the position they are put in. Almost. I still wouldn’t be opposed to a closeted Kings fan becoming a ref, and throwing some close calls our way.

by jasonrp on Dec 13, 2009 10:34 AM PST reply actions  

Very thoughtful

I must say that you provide a lot of insight. It really is interesting and an insightful reading.

I definitely understand your points about how there may be conflicting and multiple fouls occurring with the need to discriminate and selectively decide what is the most important foul to call. I can also see your point about multiple fouls causing no calls and have seen the ticky tack fouls called the next play…

I just don’t know that I agree with you about the refs rarely screwing up a game. In close games getting more calls against you can make or break the game. Maybe this is not true for a majority of games and usually the refs don’t determine outcomes, but I have seen too many times when it did matter..

A team can clearly get a loss just from bad calls and Sacramento has had a history of bad calls and it seems like there has been even worse… According to the interview it seems that it is clear that the NBA has some integrity problems of their own.

by MustangMBS on Dec 13, 2009 10:38 AM PST reply actions  

I am not trying to hide the fact that an apparent or actual missed call doesn't impact the game...
A team can clearly get a loss just from bad calls and Sacramento has had a history of bad calls

is a truthful statement, especially given the NBA’s agenda as detailed above. I just color that comment in two ways:

1. If there are (rounding) 100 posessions a game, and on each possession multiple infractions are occurring during each possession, at a minimum, the are a few hundred decisions that have to be made by the officiating crew that all impact the outcome of the game. The culmination of which is highly visible at the end of the game. So is a bad call in the first two minutes of the game that went in favor of the Kings any different than a bad call that went against the Kings at the end of the game? If you add up objectively at the end of each game what was called for and against each team versus what should have been called for or against each team, the analysis proves out that the Officials didn’t factor into the winner or loser of the game.

2. The visible (alleged) missed call comes without the benefit of additional information that might render the call correct or inconclusive. For example: There could have been an equal infraction that occured outside of the purview of the viewer or a different angle the Official had that was different from the vantage point of the Camera. I have officiated games where all of thought we kicked a call because we didn’t have the best angle only to feel vindicated by video later. Conversely, A block/charge call can many times be argued both ways, etc.

Another example is If an offensive player kinda dips his shoulder and gains a little bit of an advantage as he makes his move perhaps you let a little more of the contact by the defender go. You might not believe the shoulder was much of a dip and thought the defender just fouled him. I have seen players give way to the spot to draw a travel or an offensive foul on the offensive player. You may only see the travel or may assume the defensive player was displaced and therefore it has to be an offensive foul but that is not always the case.

While I agree that fouls at the end of the game hurt us fans a lot, when the game is on the line, we tend to be biased and ignore some of these other factors. With that said, I do concur that games are not always consistently officiated between games, between periods and even between officials and that only exacerbates the debate.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 13, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Here is the thing

When there is a consistent pattern of calling fouls that benefit another team over the other then you have a situation in which a clearly discernible advantage exists. Whether this is a large market, superstar or other issue the end result is the same.

This kind of analysis can be very subjective, especially for fans. I think what you propose in #1 is interesting, but I see no link to your analysis. Is there a reference to where this has been done and if so how consistently? What games? Has somebody gone back and reviewed all the film from games that were supposed thrown? I know of no such analysis, but would love to see it.

So, if you can back this up with a link then fine, but if not then your statement “the analysis proves out that the Officials didn’t factor into the winner or loser of the game” has no support and is just an opinion.

by MustangMBS on Dec 13, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions  

So you want me to forward you a link?

There is no Easy button here Mustang. I can’t simply connect you with the abyss of video players, coaches, owners, NBA league office and officials review every game. I personally have hundreds of games on tape. I record the kings games and review controversal plays.

The FBI and the NBA both concluded after separate exhaustive investigations where they analyzed all calls in every game by every official, that even Tim Donaghy never threw a Single game. you have to look up that stuff on your own as I am not sure those files are public yet. On the flip side what link do you have that supports the notion that Officials lose games? For every kings fan that knows they got screwed In 2002, there are twice as many l$&ker fans who claim the same injustice in game 6. I am not sure you are being objective in your assessment nor have the same analysis to validate your assertions.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 13, 2009 3:55 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Nice try there...

Nice try there, to turn that around on me and thus you don’t have to support your point. I am not the one saying that

the analysis proves out that the Officials didn’t factor into the winner or loser of the game.

That is a pretty strong statement and you are referring to some kind of analysis… Neither the FBI or NBA have stated that Donaghy did not fix games. They don’t make that statement. In fact the FBI did not even investigate that because according to what I have read it isn’t a crime for the NBA to do that. Now if Donaghy does it for betting purposes then that probably qualifies.

Donaghy was supposed to be able to win 70% of the games he bet on, but his techniques don’t wash. Research has been done and he can’t make it work unless he actually fixed the games.

I am stating the obvious here. If a ref wants to be favorable to one team over another they can easily do that. To say that Donaghy did not fix games and that there is analysis which supports that is something else. To say that biased officiating has not determined that outcome of a game and that there is analysis of it is just plain bogus in my book unless you can produce it. I don’t believe it exists and won’t until shown it.

Analysis of this has been done. Let’s look at the Laker game that is supposed to have been thrown was BLATANT. They shot 18 more foul shots than the Kings in the fourth quarter of the sixth game. If that isn’t affecting the outcome of a game then I don’t know what else it could be. Donaghy says that game was thrown which only supports every other analysis of it that I have read.

While I appreciate your insight and experience as a ref and can understand wanting to defend other refs, I call crap on the assertion that refs have been proven to to not affect the outcomes of games. You don’t know what the plea deal was and whether or not it involved pleading to just the sports betting charge.

by MustangMBS on Dec 13, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Following the train of thought regarding game 6,

The Kings fixed game 7 when they missed 14 of 30 free throws.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Dec 13, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions  

I love it. I expand on your logic below on some other stats from that game.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions  

You missed my whole point.

For every bad call you witness there are probably a dozen situations you didn’t see that could have gone the other way. That is what my point. So unless you evaluate the game holistically you can’t conclude a bias or that refs are throwing the game.

To hear me out do this:
Record a game where you don’t care about either NBA team. Watch every possession of that game and replay each possession until you see every competitive match-up on the floor—low post, high post, cutters, offense movement with and without the ball, defense movement on and away from the ball, three seconds, illegal defense, etc. If you watched every aspect of the game which the officials have to do you, you should conclude that there are several decisions or no-decisions made every possession. Make a note on every call/no call for each team and note if it was correct in your mind and tally this up. If This will take you a few hours. Was there a decide advantage the officials gave one team over the other?

Every game is different but if the average possession takes 20 seconds for example then you would have 120 possessions in a game. If there were 8-10 decisions per possession (and that is conservative given how grabby, sneaky, strong and quick the players are) then you have between 960 and 1200 opportunities to make a call.

Conclusion: Officials don’t call most of what they see. They can’t or the games would take 6 hours. They make calls that impact the game which put one team at an illegal advantage over the other team and/or is a point of emphasis within the Rules (like palming). They call about 45 fouls per game and pretty evenly between the home team and the away team. Go to www.nbastaffer.com if you want to track for yourself.

When they do make a call they are right between 95-99 percent of the time. I have been to dozens of basketball camps where they present to us all of this analysis. That percentage is higher when they are in the right position on the court when the call is made and lower of course when they had a bad angle on the play. Presenters have included, Bob Delaney, Ken Mauer, Greg Willard, Bill Spooner, Violet Palmer. They don’t show the public all of their analysis tools but I did email the ask the NBA league office to provide me that information. I will share it if/when it is made available.

With that said, When a ref calls a charge on Donte late in a game that gives the ball back to the other team when the Kings are down by two, the whole gym goes crazy and says the refs cost them the game, but if you are truly objective about it you would conclude two things: A) there were hundreds of other calls/no calls that impacted the game just as much B) Even when they do seem to call against one team a lot in the game the refs didn’t make one team win or lose.

Let’s review my second point and apply it to the 2002 Western Finals Series:

Popular opinion is the refs gave the series to the L&*ers because they went to the line 40 times and the Kings only 25 times in game 6. Well let me share with you some analysis that puts that conspiracy to bed.

1. The Kings shot 19 more free-throws in that series 134 out of 204 (65.6%) to 135 out of 185 (72.9%) for the L&*ers.
2. The Kings went the line 35 times v. 15 in game 3; 38 times v. 25 in game 2
3. The Kings were out rebounded 347-315 or 4.5 rebounds per game
4. The Kings launched 20 three pointers in game 7 and made only 2…10%
5. Kings played without Peja for the first 4 games.

Now, before your try to counter, Kings gave up 5 fewer TOs, were 30.6% v. 27% from behind the 3 and incurred 4 more Technicals with Vlade leading the charge with 4. Everything else statistically was pretty even.
 
The Kings lost that series plain and simple. They got some extra calls that went their way early in the series and didn’t later in the series but in the end, if they make a few threes and don’t miss every free throw or had Peja for the first 4 games they win that series.

As for Donaghy there is a lot of public information regarding his felony conviction. You cannot claim because he wasn’t convicted of fixing games that he did fix games because his book’s assertions don’t work. Your non-sequitur logic does not prove your conspiracy. He knew several factors about the game that factored into his betting, and didnt’ bet on every game. So your site’s conclusion about Donaghy betting on Bavetta is impossible to track because Donaghy never states what his winning percentages were on games Bavetta reffed nor disclosed if/when he bet at different point spreads or what the other factors were that contributed to the bet.

What was proven the year he was busted through analysis is “When the home team was favored by 0-4½ points, it went 5-12 against the spread in games officiated by Donaghy this season,” according to Covers.com, a website that tracks referee trends. Home underdogs were 1-7 against the spread when it was 5-9.5 points. That is 58% on low spreads and 86% on high spreads. If you average that out, it is over 70%.

His testimony that he was paid $2K per right pick and accumulated about $100K in winnings from gambling was not refuted by anyone as the FBI’s stated that Donaghy was completely truthful about his statements in the 60 minutes interview. The FBI had phone and bank records that corroborated when these picks were made.

And you want proof that there was an investigation by the FBI…CBS reported July 20,2007, "The NBA acknowledged Friday that the FBI is investigating Tim Donaghy for betting on games, including ones in which he officiated.

CBS SportsLine’s Tony Mejia first reported that Donaghy is the referee under scrutiny.

According to a law enforcement official, authorities are examining whether the referee made calls to affect the point spread in games on which he or associates had wagered over the past two seasons."

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/10263114

As for the NBA investigating the matter…“David Stern reported that Donaghy was ranked in top 3rd of officials, Stern said there was nothing suspicious about the frequency of Donaghy’s foul calls, the size of his bank account or anything else that would have tipped off the league.”

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2947237

So you are alleging that Mr. Stern made those statements up without his staff reviewing all Donaghy’s game reports, number of fouls and techs he called versus his peers, or the Game Observer’s reports and fellow officials reports and Coach/NBA Team complaints first? Just because those reports aren’t publically available doesn’t mean they don’t exist. You clearly no little about how officials are evaluated. They don’t receive playoff games without some means to be evaluated and the dude was considered a top official in the league. If he was throwing games he would have been kicked out of the league! Coaches would have all complained, players would have complained, his partners would have complained, the observers would have mentioned it watching him ref.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions  

There really is not point with all this..

There is no communication happening here, just people posting without listening. For example, I didn’t say there was no investigation. I was talking about fixing games, but whatever. I don’t need to read anymore books of misinterpretation.

I get what you and Section are referring to and saying about the 2002 games, but will always believe that Game 6 was robbery. Would we have won it despite that if other things had been better, yes, but we wouldn’t have needed to do that if the playing field had been level that one quarter of one game.

I can agree to disagree with you and on some things that is just the best place to leave it.

by MustangMBS on Dec 14, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions  

/bows (as low as Obama did in Japan)

respect and rec’d.

Wonderful read. Thanks for spending the time.

The NBA is a brand. Integrity is one of the mission statements (or should be) of any professional league. Once the fan believes the product has a pre-determined outcome there is little incentive to buy the product. Every game is a game of chance or should be.

Once the NBA brand crosses that line, with whatever method employed, officiating, player acquisition (the NBA draft, free agent signings, trades) and they lose credibility they then lose customers.

I don’t doubt the skill of NBA referees. I contend that they have one of the most difficult jobs in sports. But again, that word. Credibility. By placing a different set of rules to different players at all times, or worse, to teams on a per game or per portion of game basis – the League loses credibility.

How many boxing matches would you watch if you saw a fighter punish his opponent and watch the wrong hand raised in victory after the last bell? If it happened once in a while, you tolerate, if it happened often (enough) you wouldn’t. Culturally, this will continue to be a bigger and bigger challenge as society has faced so many lies and disappointments (i.e. Tiger/Elin Woods. IMO, for this reason, the BCS is going down), and honor and self respect are either a thing of the past or it is just harder to hide faults).

And as far as influence: if a referee calls poorly in the beginning of a game, it influences the whole of the game forward – set precedent – and once that is established and then embellished – frustration ensues. Again, credibility. This is Sacramento so let’s use the most obvious of examples; Game 6 2002 – credibility fail. It almost made me, a fan since age 12 leave the game.

The importance of sport to the fan: emotional investment. If we don’t care, we don’t watch. We don’t watch, we don’t pay. We share the joy of victory, we place ourselves as winners. Losing just makes the taste of winning sweeter. So if you tell me that the referees are artificial sweetner or purposefully sour due to the whims of the commercial market I understand it, but I don’t like it. It is a quality issue. I can go out to an expensive restaurant and spend $150/person (the price for my tickets for last night’s game) – if I get a bad appetizer or poor service – I am not going back. Now that is in degrees; an oversalted side dish is not a cold entrée, great service and presentation covers some of the less than good (whatever). If I leave satisfied I go back – if I don’t I won’t. Simple.
The game is the meal. If it is served poorly or presented without flair but the players delight it is worth returning – if the service is so poor that it spoils the entire meal, then again, a customer is lost.

I expect this product to be served well, it is after all, what they are representing. When I go for that meal, I don’t know about the additives in the food, the method of prepartion to the detail, but I am still paying for it and either it is worth it and I go back or I don’t. So if the perception is that the referees are not calling a fair game, hey it is a tough job, we are all overworked and underpaid then credibility fail. If the NBA is to blame, so be it. Again, I am a long time fan, I demand a fair game within reasonable expectation given history. If that product cannot be supplied they lose me, a long time core fan, and I won’t be alone.

by betweentheeyes on Dec 13, 2009 2:33 PM PST reply actions  

NBA panders to its stars, boxing is fixed and there is no Santa Claus.

You are going to get an entertaining product because the NBA doesn’t allow it’s stars to be treated as rookies. This ensures you aren’t watching a game between a bunch of no names at the end of the game. Feel cheated?

You know shock and hawes aren’t getting the calls against Duncan, so what do you do boycott the game? We are stuck unless our ownership leans in the league to recognize we have stars too.

I may get slammed for saying this but the fact Kevin Martin gets to the line more than anyone is in part due to his being a Star for us. We don’t pay attention when we benefit from the bias, only when it works against us.

If you really want a fairly officiated contest, college basketball is the product that delivers.

While I don’t think the contests are pre-determined in basketball like in the WWF, it isn’t a completely poor analogy.

I wish the owners would rally and call BS on the league and modify its practice because the world’s best athletes can adjust if they aren’t being given preferential treatment.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 13, 2009 8:55 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I am not comparing the NBA to the WWF

but, I will repeat:

Again, I am a long time fan, I demand a fair game within reasonable expectation given history

As a long time fan, I expect the games to be officiated a certain way – the star way I guess – but there are boundaries. People can wear tight clothes, revealing clothes, but they can’t be naked in public. The game of life has never been fair – blondes have more fun (jk!), taller people get more respect, etc. But that is not always the case – what a revolting place the world would be if it were so.

I concede the point that the NBA referee has to conform to the NBA corporate desires and such desires mandate thtat the system be adhered to. Accountability is not fully on their shoulders (just following orders). But to maximinze profits and provide customer satisfaction and loyalty they have to let the games be both entertaining AND contestable. Not perfect, not even – but held to an accountable standard. I believe that standard is in place, so we are not arguing, I am revealing the displeasure of my comprehension; sport is ideally a pure meritocracy (the true stories of Hoosiers, Rudy, Cinderella) not a manipulated script (the movies Hoosiers, Rudy and Cinderella). Professional sports are pretend sports entertainment not real sports and should not be expected to be so. I get it.

I am hopeful that someday soon, Tyreke Evans will be a star and garner the advantages bestowed upon the NBA Elite and the Kings will benefit. But wrong is still wrong, and I may accept it (to a point) but I don’t have to like it. If I don’t like it enough, I will take my fandom elsewhere.

Oh, and thanks for ruining Santa for me, in the middle of December no less. Geez, you could have waited three weeks.

by betweentheeyes on Dec 13, 2009 11:13 PM PST up reply actions  

LOL. Well put BTE!

I don’t like it either. Keep in mind, everyone in the league to this day claims Vlade was the biggest flopper of all time. I remember having this discussion with an NBA official where officials during their pre-game talked specifically about this.

Here was their logic. If he is obviously flopping he is not going to get the call, but if it looks like a charge they are going to call it. They all knew he was going to flop, yet he and more importantly we as King’s fans got to take advantage of the Kings popularity and get those calls. Conversely I don’t think Pollard got the same benefit of the doubt. Agree? Mitch Richmond used to dip his shoulder almost every time he tried to drive from the elbow with very limited protest.

The big picture is the game is not going to be decided by the league taking care of its stars. Although I think at best it is gratuitous to pander to them and worst case it takes some of the appeal away for me as a fan. The best athletes in the world will adjust if they have to earn each and every call. Until then the stars will continue to to take 2 1/2 steps and drag their pivot when they make a move to the hoop and the officials won’t call it and all we can do is sigh.

When Tyreke is an All-Star, yeah I said it, I don’t think Kings fans will protest his carrying, pivot dragging, shoulder dipping or off arm pushing as he continues to make his own shot.

Oh by the way, the Easter bunny isn’t real either!

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions  

I disagree with this statement
The big picture is the game is not going to be decided by the league taking care of its stars.

So, then, Bibby’s face fouling Kobe’s flailing elbow didn’t decide a game?

You think getting a key player into foul trouble early in a game doesn’t decide the outcome?

You think consistent non-calls for star players don’t affect the outcome of a game?

In a perfect world, every play and every posession would be called correctly.

I’d settle for every player being treated equally. Star calls erode the credibility of the officials, and undermine the integrity of the league.

StR Token Female

by LeaguePassAddict on Dec 14, 2009 4:31 PM PST up reply actions  

The refs missed that call for sure...are you saying that call decided the game????

Read my stats on the 2002 series below to dispute your claim.
Yes getting a key player impacts the game, decides it no.
Yes consistent non-calls or Star favored calls have an effect on the outcome of the game as do turnovers and bad shooting. You cannot just consider one without the other is all.
In a perfect world we would be Tiger without the drama.
I want to every player to be treated equally too. Tell the NBA that, don’t blame the officials they are doing what they are paid to do.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions  

You can't say this with certainty.
Yes getting a key player impacts the game, decides it no

Because it could, very well, be the deciding factor. But even if it’s not, even if it just has an impact, that’s still wrong.

When the officials start impacting the outcome of games, that makes them bad officials. If star calls are impacting the outcome of games, they shouldn’t make them, and you can say all you want that they’re being paid to do so, but I’d like to see your source material on that assertion.

The number one thing wrong with the league is star calls. And it’s the officials who make them.

And as for 2002, who’s to say that if Bibby hadn’t been bloodied and bruised, if our team wasn’t playing with a chip on their collective shoulder, that the outcome of the game would have gone the other way? I don’t care if the points resulting from that foul weren’t enough to decide that game. The flow was interrupted. The game was impacted. The officials were to blame. So, yeah, that one call by that one official could have cost us the game.

Not everything is so easily quantified by points and stats.

StR Token Female

by LeaguePassAddict on Dec 14, 2009 5:11 PM PST up reply actions  

But neither can you. That was a horrible play that went against us. Shaq cried in the media that they weren't getting any calls that game so it just depends on your perspective.

So are you saying the 2 for 20 we shot from 3 point range in game 7 didn’t impact the series for us? or missing 14 free throws didn’t impact the game?

I agree no official should impact the game with a bad call nor calls that favor the stars. The Bad Calls are few so lets focus on the real problem—The Star treatment.

When you see a star get protected and a rookie not get the same night after night then you have to know that it is not just a bad official or a an official having a bad night but the way they are being told to officiate the game. If your boss says to do something you do it.

Every official in the league protects LBJ just like they did Karl Malone. Every official protects Kobe like they DId Michael Jordan.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions  

When you see a star get protected and a rookie not get the same night after night then you have to know that it is not just a bad official or a an official having a bad night but the way they are being told to officiate the game. If your boss says to do something you do it.

That’s a load of crap.

A man I know works for a federal agency that oversees humane treatment for livestock. Occasionally he runs across a place that is being cruel to the animals. When he interviews the employees and asks them why they’re mistreating the animals, they say that one person started, then another, and pretty soon they were all doing it. They weren’t being paid to. It didn’t come down as a directive from above. They were just doing it.

So, see, I can make my point anecdotally, too.

And this little beauty:

So are you saying the 2 for 20 we shot from 3 point range in game 7 didn’t impact the series for us? or missing 14 free throws didn’t impact the game?

When did I say that?

Stick to the argument without the hyperbole.

StR Token Female

by LeaguePassAddict on Dec 14, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions  

No way to kill this one's hyperbole

A game 7 that should not have occurred that is then used to refute the case that game 6 was thrown and ignore the points made by others. Lovely hyperbole indeed and it seems to have 9 lives.

There is no killing it LPA or communicating with somebody who decides not to listen. The resulting offensive is an assault of paragraphs and large words meant to confound, confuse, and mislead one into arguing some other point.

Great job though at rebutting and dodging the hyperbole offensive.

by MustangMBS on Dec 15, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Good call on my Hyperbole LPA, bad form. Thanks for dog-piling Mustang.

Mustang, sorry for my long-winded responses I really thought I was listening to you as you requested analysis to support my claims and I was trying to oblige. So we can agree to disagree no problem. Captain Hyperbole would make a good Avatar. Good get.

The following is informational and is not intended to continue the debate. :)

My post and stated opinion are based on first hand encounters of what goes on behind the scenes. I have listened to many NBA Officials present what the league is doing and how they evaluate the Officials and have spent one on one time talking to these officials personally. I have sat in Arco in the Official’s room before the game and listened to the Pre-Game meeting while the officials get ready. I have sat with the Observers at games, I have listened to the critiques after games. I have heard Coaches talk in the off-season about the rules and Officiating and I have been out to dinner with several NBA Players over the years and used to be friends with a couple of ex-players.

I don’t care if you think what I have to say is full of crap, I am not blogging to impress anyone here. I was merely hoping to give some insight to StR and dispel some popular opinions on officiating—which I failed.

Since I know longer ref, where my gear while drinking my beer and giving a cheer, I could care less if anyone this I carry a bias towards the Officials. I do carry a healthy respect for them—it is a fcuking thankless job. I concluded a long time ago that there were much easier ways to make money than having fans, players, coaches, the league constantly criticizing your every call. It is funny that some think officiating is worse now since the NBA for a decade now has been promoting former players and minorities into the ranks to dispel the good ole boy reputation that used to be the reason all officials were horrible. They put an emphasis on your look. If you look like you used to play basketball, then you have a leg up on the other prospects wanting to officiate in the league. Sorry Steve Nash types, they didn’t mean you.

Back to the discussion – there is validity to what Donaghy says in his interview about the League wanting longer series and having bigger markets represented. I never heard him use the words that said the Officials “Threw a game, or Fixed a game” even though game six was the worse game officiated that we all have ever seen.

There is also truth in my opinion that if you have inside information about the game and match up, you could increase your odds of winning a bet. If you know Kevin Martin has the flu and one official doesn’t like Jason Thompson and know that the opposing team is going to try to slow the game down, making a bet factoring those things might give you an advantage.

In conclusion if either of you are planning on going to the game on the 28th. I bought an extra ticket just to show I have no hard feelings and give us a chance to see a game from the same perspective.

Any takers?

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 16, 2009 10:13 AM PST up reply actions  

No failure

You presented your experience in a compelling way and provide insights into refereeing games that is very much appreciated. You don’t fail when you get as many rec’s as you garnered and I did not dismiss what you said.

I took issue with a few small pieces, but overall your post was one of the most interesting I have read. In that it provided insight into stuff I don’t have first hand knowledge about. That is much appreciated.

I think that your post was an overall success. Sure there were some disagreements. I think that part of your post came across as defending referees and that is a touchy and sore subject given the history of this team.

Sometimes you presented what seemed to be your opinion or media spin as substantiated fact when it is really arguable at best. At least that is the way it came across and it did touch a raw nerve on the whole refereeing and past games.

Overall, I think the referees do a pretty good job, but there have been severe lapses, as discussed, and many take some of those incidence quite seriously, myself included.

It isn’t that I think refs are all schmucks or anything so don’t take the criticism personal. I did not mean to attack refs in general or you. I think that some of the discussion could have had that tone about refs and can understand some defensive reflex which is just a natural response.

Thanks for the offer of the ticket. I have mine already and look forward to seeing you there.

by MustangMBS on Dec 16, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Thanks for the kind words. I was half way down the CH Avatar path :)

League Pass, Otis, either of you still need a ticket?

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 16, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Man!

I am coming up from Orange County. Next time I guess…

Happy Holidays anyway dude!

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 16, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Thanks

But you might take a look at the sig line before calling me dude.

Just sayin’.

StR Token Female

by LeaguePassAddict on Dec 16, 2009 4:19 PM PST up reply actions  

Dude!

Stop being such a hater!

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

Oh, hes in the laegue two and Jayson Thomson and that Boggins dude on Milwokee, and Occur for the Jizz. Its a talented laegue.--Kfan in Korea

by pookeyguru on Dec 16, 2009 5:15 PM PST up reply actions  

LPA, very sorry for the blatant disregard for both your intellect and second your gender.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 21, 2009 9:18 AM PST up reply actions  

Thank you for taking the time to write such an interesting and informative explaination

Now that I understand that the NBA is really only the WWE with a basket ball, I’m now able to enjoy the games. ;)

Seriously, your insight was very interesting. But, it did take me a while to get through it, with having to read a few word, got to the dictionary, read a few words , & go back to the dictionary. Kidding. ;) The first part was very funny. And, for the most part made a lot of sense.

But, going back to my WWE analogy. If the wrestlers stopped and pulled out a bottle of ketschup, just before blood starting pouring down the face of someone who was just hit by a folding chair, the action would look phoney and most people would be turned off. So, while I might be able to live with some star favoritism, there needs to be some effort not be so blantantly obvious.

As in my prior post, about the guy cheating at golf so much that he didn’t even bother to take a clup with him into the woods. And, threw the ball on to the green, as if he had shot it. There comes a point where your cheating so much that you don’t care who knows about it. And, the refs aren’t protecting the Brand, by letting stars get away with fouls that people who haven’t read the rule book, know it is a foul.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Dec 13, 2009 2:35 PM PST reply actions  

The officials are right 95% of the time. Alot of times when we dispute the call it could go either way.

If you read my response to Mustang and evaluate a game that you don’t care about either team you will be surprised how many times you agree with the officials. The times you don’t are because from the TV angle it is a bad call but from their angle it may not be. How many times have you seen instant replay in football or baseball for example where from one angle it is the wrong call and from the next angle it is the right call.

If officials make a 1-3 bad calls each a game then potentially one team got screwed 9 times. A team shooting 45% from the line or whatever means that in those 9 possessions maybe 4.5 of them resulted in 9 points. That would suck. Most of the time however, it is maybe 5 bad calls from our tv or seat and maybe only 2-3 are really bad calls if you saw the other angle and only 1-2 went against us and the other team was able to capitalize 50% of the time. That is about 3 points.

If the refs cost you 3 points a game but you average 16 turnovers a game and the other team converts 45% of their shots then your own mistakes caused you 7 points. Is it still fair to say the refs cost you the game and not your own turnovers? Do you get my point?

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Hmmmm, food for thought

To paraphrase a movie:
  ‘that argument was articulate, coherant and well stated’

On the other hand
 ‘OVERRULED’
The refs just suck – AND hate the Kings.
:)

So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Dec 13, 2009 5:08 PM PST reply actions  

You are such a Homer!

Are you sure you don’t play for the warriors?

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Look at the big brain on Brad!

"When you look at him, you say: 'Holy God.'" - Pete Carril on Tyreke Evans

by otis29 on Dec 13, 2009 10:06 PM PST reply actions  

P.S.

I don’t think NBA officials are corrupt (well, except for one Mr. Donaghy). But I do think their performance the last five years has been abysmal. It is simply painful for me to watch the NBA product right now outside of the Kings, and that’s a rough go for a guy that’s been watching the league voraciously for over 30 years.

My eyes and brain have plenty of experience in judging NBA officials – and I have no more of a vested interest in disliking the officials now than I did in 1985, in 1995…or hell, especially in 2002. So I can honestly say without bias – this is simply the worst officiated professional sports product I’ve seen in my lifetime.

So while I don’t believe NBA officials are corrupt, I can understand why someone might.

Lastly, I must take exception with this:

I cringe when I hear people say “these are the worst officials I have ever seen” when at a professional game.

Sports fans uttering that phrase is as American as Mom, apple pie, and every toy in your child’s playroom being made in China. Is your statement not an indictment of our entire American society? Well, the NBA can do what they want to us – but I am not going to stand here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!

"When you look at him, you say: 'Holy God.'" - Pete Carril on Tyreke Evans

by otis29 on Dec 13, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Otis you usually bring insight, but not this time. Do you blame me for trying to hold the StR to a higher standard?

And their performance the last five years is abysmal? Is that a coincidence that the Kings product has been off during that time? I applaud your alleged objectivity but will need a little more substance other than your argument from false authority. In other words just because you say refs suck and you say you are objective and your eyes and brain have experience doesn’t mean your opinion is right. Where did you learn to evaluate officials? Have you ever been to an NBA referee class? Just saying!

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions  

That's pretty unfair
Where did you learn to evaluate officials? Have you ever been to an NBA referee class? Just saying!

I guess we can just close up shop here…no point in talking any longer.

You want to criticize a move that Geoff Petrie made? Can’t do it, you aren’t/haven’t been/never will be an NBA General Manager or someone involved in the inner workings of an NBA franchise.

You want to criticize a player for a boneheaded play on the court? Can’t do it, you aren’t/haven’t been/never will be a basketball player playing at the highest levels of the game.

You wan’t to criticize Paul Westphal’s rotation in any particular game? Can’t do it, you aren’t/haven’t been/never will be a coach of an NBA team.

As stated, you have a background in officiating which either gives you insight into NBA refereeing that the rest of us mere mortals cannot claim…OR…makes you reflexively defensive of criticism leveled at your own peer group.

I’m guessing it’s the latter.

"When you look at him, you say: 'Holy God.'" - Pete Carril on Tyreke Evans

by otis29 on Dec 14, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Criticize the bad call, the bad move, the bad play, the bad rotation and be specific as to why that is the case that is what StR is all about. Just don't generalize with a blanket statement.

Like saying the GM sucks. Say why or when he sucked. Is that so wrong?

I cringe when officials make a horrible call, I just disagree that they are horrible all the time.

I also respect your contribution on StR, but I don’t think you can be objective unless you have ever evaluated referees. Join a high school group, ref for a couple years, get evaluated, evaluate others and if you still think the NBA refs suck, then I will buy you floor seats at any Kings game you want to go to. In the meantime can you give me the benefit of the doubt since I too used to think the refs sucked. I sat courtside at the UCSB games back when UNLV was all-world and used to Boo the Refs, make signs that called them idiots etc., but after I started reffing and read the rule books and listened to evaluators I learned I was wrong most of the time.

Are you saying it is impossible that you could be wrong on this one?

BTW – I don’t ref anymore and enjoy my fan’s perspective of the games and root for the Kings just as much as the next guy. But when the Kings lose, I am aware of all the reasons they lost and have yet to find a game that the Kings lost solely because of the refs.

I am a season ticket holder for the Chargers and saw Ed Hochuli’s inadvertent whistle give Denver another chance to score in a game. They won and the Chargers lost. It sucked and I was pissed. Still other mistakes the Chargers made also contributed to that loss.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 5:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Are you saying it's impossible that you could be wrong on this one?

You seem to be taking the criticism of the refereeing in the league rather personally. Which, in my opinion, enforces my conclusion that you’re inherently biased to the side of the referees.

And unless you’d like to come sit on my couch and watch a plethora of NBA games, I’m not sure how I’m supposed to list the bad calls I see in each and every NBA game. My opinion, after watching thousands of NBA games over the last 30+ years, is that the current crop of officials are a blight on the game itself. I have no more reason to be biased against the officials now than I would have at any other point in my NBA viewing history. They have, quite frankly, made the game somewhat unbearable to watch.

My opinion is not based on some anger I’m holding towards the officials for game 6, and it’s not based on thinking the Kings are getting screwed game after game. It’s a tangible factor in most NBA games I’ve watched over the last few seasons. The best you can hope for is that the officials are close to equally inept on both ends of the court.

Maybe there’s no easy answer – maybe these guys are the best in the world, but they are working in an almost un-refable sport. Maybe the pay and demands of the job aren’t incentive enough to get extremely talented people into the system. Or maybe it’s just cyclical – a down streak of decent officials that’s going to get better in the next few years.

My final point – when you say this:

But when the Kings lose, I am aware of all the reasons they lost and have yet to find a game that the Kings lost solely because of the refs.

You are dispensing an argument that I have not made. It would be crazy to argue that the referees “solely” cost anyone a game. Teams have to adjust to all kinds of positive and negative factors during a game – the refereeing being one of those. But just as NBA players have deficiencies that affect the outcome of a game, it’s logical to assume that NBA officials may have deficiencies that affect the outcome as well.

I feel silly even talking about this here – we’ve had this discussion at StR many times in the past. So I will bow out of the discussion now, since I doubt either of us will be able to sway the other.

"When you look at him, you say: 'Holy God.'" - Pete Carril on Tyreke Evans

by otis29 on Dec 14, 2009 7:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, I think we can agree on at least three things.
It would be crazy to argue that the referees "solely" cost anyone a game. Teams have to adjust to all kinds of positive and negative factors during a game – the refereeing being one of those.

- There are several factors that impact why a team wins or loses and one of those shouldn’t be the officials. When it does, it sucks.
- The officiating in the 2002 series was the worst in a playoff series that you and I have ever seen.
- The NBA (with the 2002 series as an example) panders to the Stars.

My protracted response to all of the ref slamming (and not accusing you here) was merely to say regardless of what should be, the fact is the NBA needs to change the Brand such that everyone from the future hall of famers to the guys on a 10 day contract get the same call. I respect that you feel the quality of officiating has diminished but more likely it is a case that there is much better visibility and more camera angles that highlight when a mistake is made.

Now enjoy your Christmas and I hope to sit near you for the game on the 28th and compare notes on how well or how bad the game was called.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 15, 2009 8:33 AM PST up reply actions  

I think you might have missed some sarcasm there

But even then, I agree with otis. Star calls seem to have increased dramatically.

StR Token Female

by LeaguePassAddict on Dec 14, 2009 4:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Sarcasm??? Moi??

Looks around innocently…

"When you look at him, you say: 'Holy God.'" - Pete Carril on Tyreke Evans

by otis29 on Dec 14, 2009 4:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Maybe I did Otis. Sorry. I don't think Kobe gets any more calls than Air Jordan did.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 14, 2009 5:16 PM PST up reply actions  

And I'd bet you're wrong about that.

But there’s no way to know for sure.

It’s the perception. And it’s not just Sacramento fans. Everybody sees it, but ten, twelve years ago, not many people did.

So either the fans have gotten smarter, or the officials have gotten worse.

StR Token Female

by LeaguePassAddict on Dec 14, 2009 5:41 PM PST up reply actions  

I think the saturation of the NBA has finally sunk in

Which you’re going to get a group of fans who truly believe the officials are worse than they ever were.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

Oh, hes in the laegue two and Jayson Thomson and that Boggins dude on Milwokee, and Occur for the Jizz. Its a talented laegue.--Kfan in Korea

by pookeyguru on Dec 14, 2009 5:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Geez

Two term papers in one day posted here. Read them both, but found the followup lectures uninspiring.

"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."

by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 14, 2009 10:21 PM PST reply actions  

Good to see you posting here past the 20 game mark CCR

"When you look at him, you say: 'Holy God.'" - Pete Carril on Tyreke Evans

by otis29 on Dec 15, 2009 5:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Glad to see you add to your archive of snide postings.

"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."

by coolcatreportdotcom on Dec 15, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Just trying to finish up my 2009 quotas

"When you look at him, you say: 'Holy God.'" - Pete Carril on Tyreke Evans

by otis29 on Dec 15, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions  

You're way behind.

Frankly, I expected better.

StR Token Female

by LeaguePassAddict on Dec 15, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions  

I took a fair part of the summer off

The Giants were way better than expected, so I was getting my snide on at other websites.

"When you look at him, you say: 'Holy God.'" - Pete Carril on Tyreke Evans

by otis29 on Dec 15, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Nah

I consider that stuff practice for the real thing. My preseason, as it were. ;)

"When you look at him, you say: 'Holy God.'" - Pete Carril on Tyreke Evans

by otis29 on Dec 15, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Are you trying to say that the intellect of StR pales in compares to McC?

Fuck You. No Giants fan is smart. Well except for TZ, 214, Grant, and many others. Fuck. I’m so screwed.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

Oh, hes in the laegue two and Jayson Thomson and that Boggins dude on Milwokee, and Occur for the Jizz. Its a talented laegue.--Kfan in Korea

by pookeyguru on Dec 15, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Sorry, professor, I promise my next assignment will be better.

Perception is strong and sight weak. In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things.

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt — When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

by SactownheartOChouse on Dec 15, 2009 8:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Sactown Royalty, the best community of Sacramento Kings fans in the universe. That's not my opinion; it's scientific fact.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Webber_in_tuxedo_small
A Story Within the Enemy Camp
Webber_in_tuxedo_small
Blackout Contest: 15 Houses, One Team
Stock-illustration-177633-hand-holding-lightning-bolt_small
Lookin' UP!
Purpled_small
The Official #TNTNight Chant and Sign Extravaganza Thread

Recent FanPosts

Demarcus-cousins-cho_small
A Micromoment in Time
S113399682030553_3084_small
Fan from a Far
Demarcus-cousins-kentucky-university-gestures-after-being-selected-the-sacramento-kings-the-fifth-overall-pick-the-2010-nba-draft-new-york_small
Just rewatched the game on TNT after being there....
Small
This will not make Webber apologists happy
Small
TNT Telecast, ESC facts, and ... Peaches
Keon_clark_small
Do We Need a Pass-First PG?
Wallpaper-slamson_small
Sacramento Kings & National TV Audience
Small
My Appeal to City Council
Screen_shot_2010-05-23_at_10
Sacramento Kings Fans Stuck in So Cal? Watch the game tonight at 33 Degrees and win free dinner and drinks!
Small
My email to Councilwoman Pannell

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Editor

Loofie_small Tom Ziller

Joe_kleine_small section214

Demarcus_thornton_small Aykis16

Associate Editor

Coachie_small rbiegler

Banana2_small Exhibit G