Wizards hosed again on a non-traveling call
Wizards fans are particularly sensitive when it comes to end of game plays. We've seen what seems like an inordinate number of calls go against our team for the last six years; and traveling seems to be the one non-call that is prevalent in our history.
Most recent is the non-call in Portland, as Brandon Roy hit the game winning shot. Dave, of BlazersEdge ( an excellent SB Nation blog), said it "may have been a travel". Others have speculated that the Referees just didn't see it, perhaps paying attention to the clock, or something else. And of course, the Referees could, if necessary, check instant replay to see if Roy's feet were behind the 3-point line, or if he got the shot off before the buzzer - but they cannot check the replay for a travel.
Why the big deal? After the break, we can look at the last play, step by step, and then in real time. I'll discuss why I think the League's rules on instant replay are too narrow.
So we all saw the game, and the winning shot. Alonzo Gee played very good defense against Roy in the last seconds. But Roy used a veteran step back to try to gain some space, Gee was right there.... Roy had no choice but to either wait for Gee to go by, or step inside him. Trouble is, he had already picked up his dribble.
Here we see Brandon Roy making his initial move against the Rookie Gee. Note that there are only 4.5 seconds left.
In this picture, you can see Roy has picked up his dribble, and is making a jab step in preparation for a step back jumper. The referee is in excellent position to see the play, Alonzo Gee's defense AND Roy's feet.
In this shot, you can see Brandon Roy gives a pump fake. Alonzo Gee bites, and goes up to defend. Notice that both Roy's feet are clearly either behind, or right on the 3-point line - and that the Referee seems to be looking directly at Roy's feet; presumably to make the call whether it's a 3-point shot or not.
In this picture, you can see that Brandon Roy has taken two more steps - as both feet are now clearly inside the 3-point line. The extra steps have allowed Brandon Roy to let Alonzo Gee fly by, and he now has an open shot. Notice that the Referee is still looking directly at the play. He's not looking at the clock... he's looking EXACTLY where he's supposed to..
Roy takes the open shot. The Referee swallows his whistle. The Wizards lose again.
By the way, I've circled Flip Saunders here in this picture. Keep an eye on him during the video... He is positioned directly behind Roy on the sidelines; and he saw the travel, because he made the travel signal after the shot goes up.
On replay, it's clear that Brandon Roy traveled. You cannot make the excuse that it wasn't clear, or that "he may have traveled". There's no doubt the Referee saw the travel. There's no maybe about it. Flip Saunders saw it. Throw the red flag Flip. Throw it.
I'm a strong believer that referees and umpires can change the outcome of a game. I’m not saying calls are being blown on purpose, or that the League has some hidden agenda. I understand that sometimes, not in this case, but sometimes, a Referee might have a bad angle on a play. I understand that it's a fast game, and things happen quickly. But there's no excuse for not even attempting to correct a call that can affect the outcome of a game.
Instant replay can be used to correct a Referee's mistake on an out-of-bounds call. It can be used to verify a 3-point shot, even minutes AFTER the play occurred. It can be used to ensure a shot was taken before the end of the quarter, half or game. It can be used on plays where the Referees are unclear as to who should get the ball: out-of-bounds plays, to see who was the last player to touch the ball, or to see if the ball or player's foot touched the end line.
But instant replay cannot be used to help with one of the easiest calls in Basketball. The travel.Or with the hardest. The Charge/Block.
ESPN and the other major sports networks are as much to blame as the NBA. In that replay, you hear the ESPN announcer calling the play, heaping praise on Brandon Roy - but failing to even mention that he traveled. And you KNOW that those guys at ESPN saw that travel. Where is the objective sports reporting that the fans expect when they tune in to ESPN? Why is ESPN acting like the NBA's lackey? That travel was obvious, and ESPN should have called it out on the air. If every time an egregious non-foul, non-charge, non-block or non-travel call were shown on ESPN's Sports Center; and the announcers started railing on the poorly officiated games or calls - you KNOW David Stern and the League would do something to fix the problem.
I propose an instant replay system similar to what is used in the NFL. Give each Head Coach one instant replay request per half. Expand the instant replay parameters to include traveling and the Block/Charge calls .; and review EVERY play that ends the game. If the Referees know that a Coach can "throw the flag", they will be less inclined to swallow their whistles at the end of games.
Until the NBA does something to improve the quality of the Refereeing, and the visibility into how Referees are graded and educated, there will always be the underlying thought that the Referees ARE changing the outcome of games and that the League IS manipulating things behind the scenes.
49 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i agree completely with this post
i think its ridiculous they cant check replay for travels and such, at least in the last two minutes of the game… im not a conspiracy theorist, however i do think officials have a tendency to make calls that go against the wizards, particularly now, because the wizards are a young team without a veteran captain that can earn respect from the refs… i mean lets face it the refs know who the wizards are, they know we’re not making the playoffs, they know the blazers will, they know the games in portland… subconsciously or consciously all these things play in to their decisions… I once heard a ref say that they respect players and tend to give their team the call if the players have experience and are polite to the refs (calling them mr. this instead of by their first name)
Be careful, you my get what you ask for...
replay calls MAY improve decisions but thay will also drag out the game…. Do you really want the fast flowing NBA game to start looking like the tedious NFL?
Replays in the last two minutes? That may be a good compromise… But only if requested immediately after the questionable play, by the opposing coach and with a one-point or 3 second penalty if the referees reject the challenge based on video evidence.
And yep, that was a pacific northwest king crab dribble…
Yeah - I don't want to slow down the game....
Certainly, giving each Coach ONE replay request per half wouldn’t slow down the game that much…. Especially considering how many TV time outs they have anyways. SO, the TV time out comes 43 seconds earlier than it’s supposed to because a Coach calls for a replay…… I don’t see how that will slow down the game appreciably.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Anyway - I'd take a bit of slowness
It’s much preferable to have a well refereed game, with Referees actually CALLING traveling, Charging and Blocking calls – and having the games decided on player’s skill, rather than a blown call.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Too many tv timeouts have ruined the game anyways
it would be nice to have one used to make sure certain players don’t get away with a travel at a key spot. And because coaches would only have 1 replay per half until say the last 2 minutes or last minute of each half they would be encouraged to be judicious with it.
"I say he does have to shoot me now! So shoot me now!" --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Mar 22, 2010 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Unacceptable calls. On a random this awesome line was in a new hip hop song.
http://2dopeboyz.okayplayer.com/2010/03/21/marco-polo-ruste-juxx-fuckin-wit-a-gangster-f-sean-price/
NBA Officials
As a 45 year veteran of watching NBA officiating, I have only one question in my mind whenever I see a game: what’s the point spread? Watching the officials struggle to cover it—as well as keep viewers locked into nationally televised games—is often as entertaining as watching the actual games themselves. Ask anyone in the NBA, and they’ll tell you honestly that they’re entertainers; Saunders himself said it publicly at the start of the season. That puts the officially referred product somewhere between the WWF at its worst and the Harlem Globetrotters at its best.
That being said, sometimes true sportsmanship really does creep into games. Even lousy and corrupt officiating (and we now know it’s corrupt, despite the hushing up of Donaghy by the league and the FBI) can’t quite shut it out. The Wizards’ story right now is the most compelling in the game; never has any team in any sport gone through a season of soap opera like this one. Watching the Replacements come out every night (literally—even the NBA schedulers have it in for this team) is just plain old inspiring, and even if the officials are sometimes lax about putting it to them (though not often—just check out the disparity in free throws night after night), even if Saunders and Grunfeld are always there to put an unlikely 4th-quarter tandem on the court to insure that lottery number, it’s still more of a thrill to see Blatche and Livingston and Thornton and Singleton and the amazing Alonzo Gee than the entire Lakers team put together.
Out of nowhere, adversity has bred a band of warriors. Never been prouder to be a Bullets fan. But the officiating has never been worse—and never was much better.
I agree with
and since I believe David Stern is invested in the star system I think he told the real refs to get it sorted so they could come back and keep the system in place before the fans started to enjoy the replacement refs and maybe demand that they stay in the NBA.
"I say he does have to shoot me now! So shoot me now!" --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Mar 22, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks, Rook.
Anything you can do to encourage more professionalism in the SPORT is noble. That said, “nobility” in connection to a GAME as rich as this one is unlikely and probably not realistic in the world we live in. No mainstream, national, sports reporter or announcer that I know of points this out…it would mean the end of his/her job! Look, maybe I’m just jaded, as a Bullets fan, to have this perspective, it’s just that we’ve gotten walked on (pun intended) for too many years not to be resigned to the discouraging fact that the NBA is not as honest as it could be. Having Roy pull this off in a closely-fought game is just salt on the wound.
Also, I liked the fact that you implied Saunders could have made more out of the non-call than he did…for obvious reasons. MORE PONGS, David!!
He def shuffled his feet
But i can also see how it might be difficult for a official to catch in the heat of the moment, even tho thats what they are paid to notice.
Heard complaint but didn't see it until now
That was a BLATANT travel. Sucks but the Wiz had their chances
What irks me more than ESPN ignoring this stuff...
…is when fans of the team that benefited from the bad call suddenly turn agnostic. I just think it shows a lack of principle if you can’t see something like that objectively. The NBA could really use a refereeing ombudsman or something.
"the chevy chase bank deposit!"
by newmaniumreveler on Mar 21, 2010 3:56 PM EDT reply actions
I have a different make up than you....
Fans are supposed to be “fanatic” – in other words, rarely are fans “objective”….
ESPN on the other hand, is supposed to be objective. I pay (through advertising) for fair and impartial reporting. When I don’t get it, I feel all cheated, and stuff….. It just feels all greasy and slimy when the ESPN (or TNT, or CBS, or whomever) simply glosses over egregious rules violations and pimps out their announcers to be a shill for the NBA’s con game.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
The risk of this con game is that the NBA risks losing fans if it gets out of hand
but, as you point out, the home team’s fans will rarely complain if they benefit from the missed calls, and the away team’s fans really only know about the con if they are committed enough (fanatical enough) to watch the local game on cable (or the replay on the internets). That’s why the myth of the “star player” deserving the “star call” is so brilliant: over time, die-hard NBA fans will rationalize the con if it is only applied to the star player. We’ll get ours when WE’RE at home, they think. ESPN is a required co-conspirator, in a sense, because they are the main way that the casual fan has access to all the games.
This implies that the best way to propagate the con, with minimal risk, is to make sure that Nationally televised games are called straight. Non-aligned fans of the game will start to get really suspicious, and perhaps angry, if they see this foolishness going on in front of their eyes and they are not biased one way or another in favor of either team. I think this is where the NBA has gotten in trouble in the past, and we’ll see if they try to straighten it out now that the game-fixing has been in the news since last year. One example I remember clearly is Miami’s win over Dallas a few years ago…Wade got away with murder on the national TV…
by Tbonebullets on Mar 21, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
We know the NBA won't straighten it out
The same refs are still doing the games. Nothing has changed in terms of the star system. David Stern pulled an ostrich and stuck his head in the sand on this one or doesn’t care and thinks its fine. I am worried that when he finally steps down that the next NBA commissioner will be the same way.
"I say he does have to shoot me now! So shoot me now!" --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Mar 22, 2010 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
that's a fair point.
I guess I was coming at it more from a “ESPN is part of the machine, and fans aren’t” standpoint, but you’re 100% right in that fans have no obligation to be sober-minded.
I’m also with you in not buying the argument that a handful of additional video reviews would completely disrupt the flow of the game.
"the chevy chase bank deposit!"
by newmaniumreveler on Mar 21, 2010 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
No replay
The NBA likes for the refs to have control over the outcome of the game, not the actual events on the court. I don’t know if they want the Laker’s to be able to stay on the west coast for round 1, or if they want to throw Portland a bone for some reason, but you can’t say the outcome of that game was entirely decided by the players. sad.
There's another explanation here
And that is they just missed the call. As someone in this thread mentioned, it was not an easy one to see.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Mike, respectfully, did you watch the end of that game?
I mean, it just jumped out at me when I was watching the game…but of course the Wizards announcers helped me see it, too, when they were immedately like, yikes, that was a blatant travel.
Also, the point you’re making here kind of dodges the arc of the thread’s conversation, which is that the NBA has a “neutrality” problem when it comes to making calls. But you wouldn’t be alone in missing this, as just about every national level commentator out there does the same thing (i.e., missing the elephant in the room).
by Tbonebullets on Mar 21, 2010 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course I watched the end of the game
It’s a tough call to make.
As for the arc of the conversation – please. You’re honestly telling me that a mid-March game between the Wizards and the freakin Trail Blazers (come on) is an example of some large NBA conspiracy?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Only one I could see
would be if Stern was trying to give his old pal a final gift of more ping pong balls for his team, though a banged up envelope would be more efficient.
by Mike Uhrich on Mar 22, 2010 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Conspiracy Theories
Mike, I love your work here. I’ve been reading this site loyally for two years without ever commenting. You’re my favorite “Wizards” blogger. But when it comes to NBA officiating and the rest of its circus, you’re like the kid in 4th grade who still believes in Santa Claus.
Obviously, you have to sign on to the myths to get locker-room access. But there’s a reason why there are all those banners hanging at Staples Center and none in Memphis—it’s about marketing. By comparison, the NFL and NHL are squeaky-clean models of parity where any team really can win a title. You know this. We know this. One of the things that makes you a top-notch blog reporter is that you don’t insult the intelligence of your readers.
So please don’t start now.
That may be true, but there's no way a midseason game between Portland and Washington proves it
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Iwitness-
You seem like a reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful person so I thought I’d let you know that from an outside perspective that is about as condescending a first post as you could have constructed after lurking for two years.
I do look forward to your insights now that you’re posting.
As to the content of you post, I’d point to all the banners in San Antonio as counterpoint to the marketing-wins-titles theory.
While I’m a conspiracy theorist myself, I agree with Mike that a mid season game between two irrelevant-ish teams does not prove the point.
Rather, I tend to think that the refs get caught up in the emotion of the game just like fans do. That’s why the home team and the star player get’s the majority of those kinds of calls.
The truth usually hurts
You’d rather I’d wasted the past two years commenting about how great the “Big Three” were and guessing how many wins they’d have this year? And yes, most of you here are on record on that one. When it’s been obvious to anyone for years to anyone who knows anything about basketball (and I’m an ignoramus compared to most people who post here; I can’t diagram the Hawk set) that, as constructed, that team could never amount to anything? Or how about those of you who clung to the belief that Eddie Jordan was actually a competent coach—when, as his flameout in Philly proves once again, he’s quite obviously not?
Believe me, I’ve had to bite the digital equivalent of my tongue about a hundred times not to come up with a first post that would have sounded a lot more condescending…
Now the franchise is at low ebb, it needs all the fans it can get. Which is why I’ve come forward. I don’t have any magical remedies or suggestions. I chose the name ’Iwitness" because I just tell it like I see it.
The hosing in Portland (Mike’s word, not mine) was a consistent part of a pattern of league “tailoring”, for want of a better word, and hardly the first time this season the Wiz were robbed at the buzzer or on an instant replay of a win by the referees. The officials probably thought they were doing the franchise a favor keeping them in the lottery hunt.
Again, I must disagree
It was condescending, even arrogant, for a first post. You were quite right to call me out on it—and you did it in a totally classy way.
All I can say in my defense is that the franchise needs shaking up even further; I think most of us are agreed on that. So our thinking here needs to be shaken up, too. And that means we all need to stop pretending that the refs will ever let a minor-league franchise come out and win games just by playing well and within the rules. That’s what we are in the eyes of the league now—a minor-league franchise. The new team will need a lot of Detroit attitude to ever shake the league up and break into the VIP lounge someday.
And that starts with being realistic.
Wrong
The hosing in Portland (Mike’s word, not mine)
Rook wrote the article, not Mike…maybe you should check the byline before you start throwing accusations around.
Yeah, big deal
Rook’s word then, not mine. Or Mike’s. If there were an edit function, I’d have fixed it.
Lucky thing you’ve never had a typo.
Okay, look, let's chill out
Mike U’s just saying you’re calling out the wrong guy with that line, therefore, it’s a fairly significant mistake. There’s no need to get defensive about it, just say it was a typo and you meant Rook and move on.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
It was a typo, I meant Rook,
And it should be obvious I was in no way “calling you out”.
As I said, I’d have edited that if I could.
I have no arguments with anyone here, you least of all. I expressed my admiration for the fine job you do here several times—your columns (that’s how I view them, not as mere blog posts) are a major reason I come here. All I ever said is that you’re idealistic about the officiating. And that you have to be to keep doing your in-depth reporting.
Your hostility, therefore, baffles me. If you don’t want me to comment here in future, I won’t. No way I can accuse any of you people of doing any marketing!
I also agree it’s no fun to watch the NBA the way I do, that is to say, cynically. Get to be my age, however, and you may find you do, too.
Have a nice day, y’all.
I never said stop commenting
Please don’t stop commenting. I and everyone else (yes, even MR) would love you to stay because it seems like you have a lot to offer to the community. I’m just trying to make sure that two community members (you and Mike U) don’t get snippy with each other and take the conversation away from hoops. If everything’s cool and both of you are cool, then I apologize for jumping in. I tend to jump into too many of those convos anyway.
That said, you did tell me I had to “sign onto the myths” to get locker room access, which could not be further from the truth. To me, that’s you saying I’m compromising my objectivity just to get a little closer to the players, which is one of the more damming accusations one can make against a blogger. I can’t help but be a bit taken aback by that.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
My apologies
Totally didn’t mean that the way it sounded. What I meant was that you can’t be a serious locker-room reporter with the mindset that the season was fixed from the start, that half the team was aching to be traded to contenders, or that Arenas was a loaded gun waiting to go off. You had to go in there with no preconceptions and just listen to what they told you. And you did and reported it. I read every single one of your pre-season reports, for example—and they were great. My mistake was using the word “sign onto”— maybe “buy into” sounds better, I dunno.
But hey, how could you be objective? You’re not a disinterested journalist—you’re a fan. So are we. What disinterested journalists were saying about the Wiz at the start of the season was all too horrifyingly accurate, as things turned out. Right? Remember how guys like Hollinger had them rated way lower than anyone on this site wanted to face up to? Several outsiders predicted this meltdown—one blogger in LA even claimed that Arenas was going to get tossed out of the league for threatening Shaq. With a gun. Seriously. He was pretty close, wasn’t he?
Integrity is quite another matter. You’ve got plenty of that—and have consistently looked really good compared to a few guys who draw salaries at local papers for doing this. So, please don’t see any accusations where the reverse is intended.
As for MR, I have no problem with him at all—thought I made it plain that he was in the right. Even called him classy. But really this thread has gone on way too long—all I ever wanted to do was make a statement supporting how hard the guys were playing—and how much I’m enjoying what should be the miserable dregs of a terrible season. Instead I treasure every minute of effort and hard work and am hoping to see most (not all) of them back next year. Including, to my amazement, Josh Howard.
Appreciate the kind words
Thanks. I think we’re back on the same page now.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Announcers missed it in real time
And so did I. I didn’t notice it until the replay. Of course, I’m just one fan watching the game, while three referees are in there with different responsibilities. Still, that one wasn’t obvious (like many, many, many other travels that go uncalled in NBA games).
There’s certainly a neutrality issue, but it’s about reputation — popular teams and popular players get a little bit better calls than bad teams and less-popular players. It helps promote the stars and storyline the league needs, so we should probably all get used to it. If we can get some stars and wins, those calls will start going our way.
Yeah - kinda hard to argue that point - since the Referee seemed to be in the correct position....
and was looking directly at the play – - – But, OK…. let’s assume that instead of looking at Brandon Roy’s feet, he was looking for a potential foul on the arm, or maybe he was perhaps watching a pretty sweater in the stands… I don’t know…
But let’s say it’s an honest mistake…. (and to be fair, it probably WAS) – The fact remains that Instant Replay could have fixed that error; and the Wizards would have at least had the chance to win the game in Overtime….. As it is, the outcome was decided on a faulty call.; or rather a faulty no-call.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
I like the pretty sweater explanation,
as I have fallen victim to the same on numerous occasions! So I suppose there is an innocent explanation, too. But you know what, if my job required me to pay attention to something important, and I got caught looking at the sweater, I would expect to be fired or suspended for the mistake.
by Tbonebullets on Mar 21, 2010 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
The theory behind Instant Replay is fine
Which is why I voted for the middle option.
But in practice, it’s really tough to nail down. What calls qualify? At what time do they qualify? Who makes the decision to go to Instant Replay? Do you give coaches challenge flags? How do you do it so it doesn’t mess with the rhythm of the game?
In other words, it’s got to be thought through.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I agree that the execution of enhanced and expanded Video review would be tricky...
But certainly, end of game plays should be reviewed for not just foot position (is it a 3-pointer?), and whether the shot left the hand before the buzzer – but also :
was the shooter fouled?
Did the player travel?
Was it a charge or block?
Plays during the game are important, but not as much as the final play of the game. Plays during the game, Coaches and Players can rightfully argue that the one play was not the difference between winning and losing – but end of game plays, like Friday’s game – those plays ARE the difference between winning and losing.
In my opinion, EVERY end of game play, that results in one team winning and another losing should be automatically reviewed.
I also think that Coaches could be given one video review request per half. Failed challenges would result in a Technical Free Throw for the opponent. I don’t think that it would disrupt the game more than the existing Television time outs disrupt the “rhythm” of the game, or things like “Hack-a-Shaq” or the incessant end of game fouls by the team that is behind.
The NBA is the only major sport where I consistently hear fans say that Referees are influencing the outcome of games… or that the League itself is scripting outcomes. Anything and everything from individual games, Playoff games and series, the Draft order, and player trades. The Donaghy situation didn’t help, and in many cases simply confirmed what many of the conspiracy theorists were thinking.
I just feel that if the League doesn’t do something about the Referees – there will be more and more people buying into the whole “the League is fixed” idea… and they’ll start losing fans.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
One challenge a half seems a bit much
I’d only implement it in end-game situations. Otherwise, it ruins the flow of the game.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Whether or not he traveled isn't going to matter in the grand scheme
The league isn’t ever going to consider rules changes based on games that make no real difference for the losing team (or screwed team, as the case may be). Whether or not the Wizards won that game, we weren’t going to be seeing them in the postseason, and certainly not hoisting up an NBA Finals trophy. The Lakers-Kings series in 2002 is always talked about in issues with refs because the Kings probably would have won the Finals that year had they gone. If we talked about every instance in every game in the entire league where the refs make bogus calls or non-calls that change the outcome of the game, we’d all realize how badly officiated games are in the NBA. But that’s not gonna happen. It’s not in the interest of the league, or of any of the major sports journalism producers (ESPN, Fox Sports, broadcast networks, various newspapers). That cheapens the product that they’re trying to sell on us. When it actual makes a difference in terms of champions, records, major streaks (a 10 game losing streak isn’t really that major in the end; it just stings a lot right now), etc, then it’s OK to talk about it. But if there was just the explicit acknowledgment that the NBA is by far the worst officiated league of the 4 majors, David Stern would be having fits with the network execs. Yeah, it’s too bad that the Wizards got screwed, but who really cares? The rest of the league/country sure doesn’t; and in a year, are any of us really going to care? Are we going to be saying, “Yeah, we only won 25 games last year, but we should have won 26.” This doesn’t exactly turn Brandon Roy into our new Lebron James or anything.
I HATE instant replay for officiating
Hate it in the NFL. Hate in baseball. Dislike (but not hate) it in the limited way they use it basketball. NBA refs are good. They could get better, of course, but they’re good refs. If you think they’re doing a bad job, get out on the floor and ref a game. Not a kiddie game with 8 year olds. Find a church league (I know of one that would happily take a volunteer ref) and see what it’s like to officiate grown men playing hard. It’s very tough. It’s that much more tough at the pro level.
by TheSecretWeapon on Mar 22, 2010 1:09 PM EDT reply actions
But I think that's what Rook is saying
Even the best refs miss key calls. Why not give them a tool to help them get it right?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Because I don't like it :)
Even the best players miss key shots. Why not give each team a certain number of do-overs per season?
Seriously though — bad calls, bad bounces, bad luck have long been part of the game. I don’t see why we need to take those aspects away. And (as my kids can attest) I say the same thing even when my favorite teams benefit from instant replay calls. I think it’s an artificial intrusion into the game. Decide things on the field.
by TheSecretWeapon on Mar 23, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
But, they are doing a bad job
They should be held to the same standards of their job as NBA players are held within their jobs. These are supposed to be the best of the best of the best referees in the world. These are not church league volunteers; they’re professional referees who have made careers of this.
The fact is that missed calls are expected in the NBA. Remember a couple of years ago when there was that missed call in the Chargers game? The whistle shouldn’t have been blown, but since it was, a fumble was negated? That was a big deal because NFL refs don’t miss many game-changing plays. Same in the MLB. It was a HUGE to-do when the umps were missing calls in the playoffs this past year. And heads rolled. Guys were being bumped from LCS games and WS games. In the NBA, though, it’s simply accepted as a necessary evil that missed calls are going to shape the end of a small, but noticeable percentage of games.
That shouldn’t be okay. When an NBA player isn’t doing his job, he gets benched, and eventually loses his job. There is a strong demand for better and better players, and when one falls by the wayside, another is called up. It seems like refs are just asked to be good but not great and to try to tone it down a little bit on the preferential treatment they give certain players.
I disagree
I don’t agree that NBA refs are doing a bad job. In fact, I think they do quite well considering how difficult the job actually is.
I didn’t think I needed to say this, but my suggestion that folks officiate church league games was NOT to suggest that NBA refs are in any way comparable to church league refs. My point was that it’s an EASY way for the complainers to get an understanding for what the job actually entails. These missed calls that are so painfully obvious to people watching on TV or from the sidelines (or even among on-court participants) aren’t so obvious when the whistle is in your mouth and you have to make the call.
The fact is that missed calls are expected in the NBA. Remember a couple of years ago when there was that missed call in the Chargers game? The whistle shouldn’t have been blown, but since it was, a fumble was negated? That was a big deal because NFL refs don’t miss many game-changing plays. Same in the MLB. It was a HUGE to-do when the umps were missing calls in the playoffs this past year. And heads rolled. Guys were being bumped from LCS games and WS games.[/blockquote]
Maybe we don’t watch the same NFL. I see TONS of missed calls in the NFL. Can’t think of how many times I’ve seen a touchdown get called back for holding, and then there’s nothing readily apparent on replay. Bad calls affect the outcome of lots of NFL games. And some of them are bad calls made after reviewing the replay.
Baseball is probably the easiest sport for the “refs” because most of the plays are in open space with only two or three moving parts.
In basketball, there are 10 players, plus the ball. Plus, the guys are big, crazy fast, crazy athletic and crazy aggressive. Stuff happens so quickly that it’s inevitable that a ref is going to have his sight-line obscured, that he’s going to end up with a bad angle, that he’s going to blink at the wrong moment, or that he’ll be looking at the two guys rasslin’ in the post at the moment when the ballhandler shuffles his feet and travels.
In the NBA, though, it’s simply accepted as a necessary evil that missed calls are going to shape the end of a small, but noticeable percentage of games.
That shouldn’t be okay. When an NBA player isn’t doing his job, he gets benched, and eventually loses his job. There is a strong demand for better and better players, and when one falls by the wayside, another is called up. It seems like refs are just asked to be good but not great and to try to tone it down a little bit on the preferential treatment they give certain players.It’d be an interesting tracking project (which I don’t have time to do) to analyze the correctness of referee calls/non-calls. My feeling is that NBA refs actually do a pretty good job. Not perfect. But seriously — try reffing yourself and I think you’ll end up agreeing with me.
by TheSecretWeapon on Mar 23, 2010 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions

by 
















