I hate the NBA.

[SackAttack]

Raja Bell runs over his defender, gets to shoot free throws.

Steve Nash flops on his ass, and Sam Cassell gets whistled for the foul.

Give me baseball over basketball any day of the week, because at least that has rules that officials can't pull out of their goddamn ass.

Most of the time, at least.

[DaddyTorgo]

i agree. the inconsistencies in foul calls have really made the NBA unwatchable for me, even if i was attracted to the game. but that is certainly a major part in turning me off to it, above and beyond my dislike for the general style of play these days

[RendeR]

Basketball sucks ass. Why are we still discussing this fact?

[JS19]

Basketball sucks ass. Why are we still discussing this fact?

That pretty much sums it up.

[Groundhog]

I respectfully disagree.

[Neuqua]

Render's just bitter that Nascar sucks, don't mind him :)

[Schmidty]

The NBA hates you.

[Neon_Chaos]

The NBA hates you.

Apparently, that's what I heard as well.

[stevew]

Hating the NBA is so trendy.

[Butter]

Give me baseball over basketball any day of the week, because at least that has rules that officials can't pull out of their goddamn ass.

Did you ever see the strike zone that Greg Maddux got in his prime?

[stevew]

The reffing in all sports has always been consistantly mediocre. We're just generally more educated as a population now. And with the internet as a vehicle to get more people's opinions quicker, it's a lot easier to feel justified about complaining about calls. Plus sportscenter will have questionable calls playing for 2-3 days after the fact.

Can you imagine the fallout for something like the Immaculate Reception, if it were to happen today. All the illegal block in the backs, etc, would be blogged about for weeks, not to mention the illegal contact with the ball an the Steelers receiver which should have blown the play dead.

[SackAttack]

Did you ever see the strike zone that Greg Maddux got in his prime?

Rule 2: Definition of Terms

STRIKE: A strike is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which---

(b) --is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone.

--

The issue wasn't the strike zone Maddux got. The issue, if there is an issue, is whether other pitchers got the same strike zone. Consistency is important in any sport.

You know the difference, though? Umpires can't say "Okay, that's it, I just called a strike, so the offensive team has to give up its entire time at-bat," or "That's a ball, the offense gets two free chances to score points."

I know you're reaching for a comparison here, but it's not at all the same thing.

[TroyF]

Rule 2: Definition of Terms

STRIKE: A strike is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which---

(b) --is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone.

--

The issue wasn't the strike zone Maddux got. The issue, if there is an issue, is whether other pitchers got the same strike zone. Consistency is important in any sport.

You know the difference, though? Umpires can't say "Okay, that's it, I just called a strike, so the offensive team has to give up its entire time at-bat," or "That's a ball, the offense gets two free chances to score points."

I know you're reaching for a comparison here, but it's not at all the same thing.


Actually it is. Because Maddux, Glavine and others got a strike zone that wasn't consistent and sometimes got calls where the ball didn't go anywhere near the plate. I remember a Glavine/Sosa encounter where Glavine went more and more outside with each pitch and kept getting the strike call. The last pitch started 1/2 foot off the plate and tailed away.

Sosa struck out that at bat. The next time up, Glavine threw the ball well over 6" off the plate again and Sosa moved in and crushed a steroid aided opposite field blast.

Hitters in baseball also get the superstar treatment. A borderline pitch that Casey Candaele would be called differently for Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn.

All of that said, the NBA reffing leaves a lot to be desired and has for about 20 years. The refs seem to "manage" the games. I'm such a huge basketball fan that I still watch and get pissed at it.

If it makes you feel better, in the Nuggets/Clipper series, Radmonovic got a call at the end of game 1 he didn't come close to deserving and Cassell jumped into Andre Miller on back to back possessions in game 2, getting to the line both times and putting the starting PG for Denver on the bench for a majority of the first quarter. (both calls weren't borderline, they were horrible)

Sadly, it's what the NBA is. Clippers won anyway. Should be a fun game 7.

[st.cronin]

I watch all major sports, and it's pretty clear to me that the NBA has far and away the worst officiating. The NHL is a distant second. MLB used to be pretty bad, but now, like the NFL, their officials are actually pretty good.

[SFL Cat]

Don't watch the NBA anymore...only watch college basketball, and it seems to be quickly deteriorating to the NBA's level.

[SackAttack]

Troy, it's really not the same at all. The umpires make bad calls, yes. I'm not saying that they're perfect.

But look - bad calls by an official in basketball can not only directly and immediately impact the score, but take a player out of the game OR, on a less severe level, out of his ability to play the game. If a bad foul is called, and now you've got five fouls, are you going to defend with the same tenacity, knowing that one more foul and you're gone?

Baseball players can get ejected, but nearly always it's because of either a rules violation - arguing balls and strikes - or because of their behavior.

Basketball, on the other hand, a defender can get mauled by his man and removed from the game because he was whistled for the foul. And I'm sorry, but if you think that's the same thing as a lenient strike zone, then that makes it difficult for me to take your argument seriously.

[Butter]

Your argument was baseball doesn't have rules "that officials can pull out of their goddamn ass".

If you don't think widening the strike zone arbitrarily is an official pulling a rule out of nowhere for no discernible reason, then it makes it hard for ME to take YOUR argument seriously.

[stevew]

The ump can take the bat out of a players hand with poor strike calls. And he can affect the way the hitter approaches his at bat, in part, because of the ump's interpretation of the rules(specifically the strike zone).

The ref can take a player out of the game with poor foul calls. And he can affect the way a defender approaches his game, in part, because of the ref's interpretation of the rules(specifically what is a foul).

I think the comparision is actually quite valid. Some of those pitchers got unfair zones.

[lcjjdnh]

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/114706752382970.xml?starledger?colgra&coll=1#continue

I can't find the news story about this, but the column gets the point across. An umpire openly admitting he was favoring Smoltz, because he was Smoltz.

[SackAttack]

Your argument was baseball doesn't have rules "that officials can pull out of their goddamn ass".

If you don't think widening the strike zone arbitrarily is an official pulling a rule out of nowhere for no discernible reason, then it makes it hard for ME to take YOUR argument seriously.

Two things.

1) You're conveniently leaving out "most of the time." They fuck up. They're not perfect. I've never argued otherwise.

However, with regards to the strike zone.

1) The rules say that any part of the ball may pass through any part of the strike zone. How the home plate umpire enforces that is really up to the home plate umpire. Some are very strict and tight with the strike zone. Some enforce the strike zone more liberally.

2) The best comparison between an umpire and a referee would be between the size of the strike zone and the severity of the contact which merits a foul. Some referees blow the whistle on incidental contact, some officials swallow it until the guy being fouled is practically bull-rushed.

For an umpire to be making a call I consider on the same level of egregiousness as what I witness practically anytime I turn on a basketball game...remember when A-Rod did that little pansy slap at the first baseman trying to knock the ball loose?

Pretend the umpire ruled that fielder's obstruction and called A-Rod safe.

THAT'S the sort of thing I'm talking about.

The consistency of the strike zone, while important, is not remotely comparable to improper application of the rules. An umpire's strike zone can be inconsistent and still be perfectly legal.

You need to learn the difference between apples and oranges before you start attacking other people's arguments.

[Arles]

Baseball officiating is very similar to the NBA, IMO. While maybe not quite as noticeable, there is definately favoritism. Greg Maddux and Curt Schilling don't get the same strikezone as a rookie - even in the same game. And there is no way a borderline pitch to Bonds or Pujols gets treated the same as it does to some no-name utility guy.

All major sports cater to their stars and baseball is no different in that regard.

[stevew]

definately apples and apples here.

[rkmsuf]

Baseball officiating is very similar to the NBA, IMO. While maybe not quite as noticeable, there is definately favoritism. Greg Maddux and Curt Schilling don't get the same strikezone as a rookie - even in the same game. And there is no way a borderline pitch to Bonds or Pujols gets treated the same as it does to some no-name utility guy.

All major sports cater to their stars and baseball is no different in that regard.

you are wise

[SackAttack]

The ump can take the bat out of a players hand with poor strike calls. And he can affect the way the hitter approaches his at bat, in part, because of the ump's interpretation of the rules(specifically the strike zone).

The ref can take a player out of the game with poor foul calls. And he can affect the way a defender approaches his game, in part, because of the ref's interpretation of the rules(specifically what is a foul).

I think the comparision is actually quite valid. Some of those pitchers got unfair zones.

Steve, here's the difference.

In basketball, "taken out of the game" can be quite literal. Poor officiating can cause the removal of the player from the game, with the inability to continue playing.

In baseball, poor judgment can cause ejection (see: Eric Gagne getting tossed by Dan Iassogna for hitting a batter in the 9th inning of a 1 run game), but those poor strike calls are not going to get the player kicked out of the game unless he turns and starts arguing with the umpire (which is against the rules).

I'm not trying to defend poor officiating in baseball over poor officiating in basketball. I'm simply saying that poor basketball officiating has a much greater impact on the game, and detracts much more from my enjoyment of the sport.

Baseball, yes, they screw up. Umpires get things wrong. And sure, those calls can have a major impact on the game. The dropped third strike last season in the playoffs, the "home run" in the Yankees/Orioles postseason a number of years ago.

Those are obstacles to be overcome, no two ways about it.

But you don't see Joe West ringing Barry Bonds up three times on called third strikes (rules application based on a judgment call!) and then removing him from the game.

[st.cronin]

All this talk about baseball officiating vs. basketball officiating obscures what to me is the fact; that MLB has actually improved it's officiating a great deal in recent years, whereas in the NBA the trendline is down. In 1996 I would say they were probably about equally bad - since then they've been moving in different directions.

[Arles]

Steve, here's the difference.
In basketball, "taken out of the game" can be quite literal. Poor officiating can cause the removal of the player from the game, with the inability to continue playing.

In baseball, poor judgment can cause ejection (see: Eric Gagne getting tossed by Dan Iassogna for hitting a batter in the 9th inning of a 1 run game), but those poor strike calls are not going to get the player kicked out of the game unless he turns and starts arguing with the umpire (which is against the rules).
I disagree. Imagine you are a starter in the 5th inning. You face Pujols, Edmonds and Rolen and the ump squeezes you on third strike calls and instead of being out of the inning, you have 2 walks and one out. The next batter gets a generous 2-0 count on borderline pitches and goes yard as you have to throw a struke. The manager then decides to pull you for a reliever. Right there, the unpire essentially caused your removal from the game by the way he called balls and strikes.

It's even more pronounced for situational relievers and pinch hitters. An umpire can easily have someone removed from a game with just one or two calls if he so chooses. Atleast in the NBA, it takes 6 calls for someone to foul out.

[gstelmack]

My issue with basketball officiating is that some of the rules make NO sense. When a shooter can jump INTO a defender to draw a foul, that's ridiculous. When a defender can stand there under the basket with his arms raised and get called for a foul because the offensive post player jumped straight up into them, that's ridiculous. Let alone the favoritism bits that do exist in other sports as well.

The NHL comes a close second. Early in the Carolina / Montreal series, the officials were calling holding/hooking VERY closely, and interference VERY loosely. The end result was a lot of Carolina penalties and few Montreal penalties, because Carolina's style was more reaching out with sticks, while Montreal's style was more cutting off skaters. The refs were consistent, but in a manner which favored one team's style over another. Happens all the time and is a frustration with the NHL. Another example is goaltender interference, where a defender can push an offensive player into the goalie and get the offensive player whistled for goalie interference.

[stevew]

. When a defender can stand there under the basket with his arms raised and get called for a foul because the offensive post player jumped straight up into them, that's ridiculous.



It depends, if a guy is in the circle under the hoop, it can never be an offensive foul.

They also have this habit of showing calls made on split second positioning, in slow motion replay immediately afterwards.

[MizzouRah]

Actually it is. Because Maddux, Glavine and others got a strike zone that wasn't consistent and sometimes got calls where the ball didn't go anywhere near the plate.

Did you watch the Cardinals - Mets game two nights ago? Glavine still gets his own strike zone.

[kcchief19]

It's not the officiating that makes the NBA suck. I think other than the NFL where the league has made a real effort to encourage good officiating, the officiating in baseball and basketball is too much based on perception -- and I think that extends to college at times as well. Too many officials give good players and teams calls in their favor because they are supposed to be good. If you watch a college basketball game, you'll oftentimes see an overmatched opponent get called for things you wouldn't see called in a different game. For example, if Prairie View A&M goes out and plays physical against Kansas, Kansas will get all the calls. But if Oklahoma comes out and plays physical against Kansas, there will be no calls for the same actions. Perception of who is good and who is supposed to commit fouls or throws strikes interferes with strict interpretation, IMHO.

Don't hate the NBA for officiating. Hate the NBA because they aren't playing basketball but some bastardized version of basketball that diminishes the team and glorifies the individual who makes poor decisions. Of course, witnessing the World Baseball Challenge or whatever it was called, baseball isn't far behind in that regard either.

[Deattribution]

Speaking of that fair MLB officiating Russ Springer was just suspended 4 games for hitting Barry Bonds with a pitch, Phil Garner was suspended too. I'm sure it had nothing to do with him being Barry Bonds.

[miami_fan]

It's not the officiating that makes the NBA suck. I think other than the NFL where the league has made a real effort to encourage good officiating, the officiating in baseball and basketball is too much based on perception -- and I think that extends to college at times as well. Too many officials give good players and teams calls in their favor because they are supposed to be good. If you watch a college basketball game, you'll oftentimes see an overmatched opponent get called for things you wouldn't see called in a different game. For example, if Prairie View A&M goes out and plays physical against Kansas, Kansas will get all the calls. But if Oklahoma comes out and plays physical against Kansas, there will be no calls for the same actions. Perception of who is good and who is supposed to commit fouls or throws strikes interferes with strict interpretation, IMHO.

Don't hate the NBA for officiating. Hate the NBA because they aren't playing basketball but some bastardized version of basketball that diminishes the team and glorifies the individual who makes poor decisions. Of course, witnessing the World Baseball Challenge or whatever it was called, baseball isn't far behind in that regard either.

Have you even watched any of the playoff games this year? Which player who is making the poor decisions is getting all the glory? So far this has been the best playoff season I have seen from the NBA in a decade.

[stevew]

Have you even watched any of the playoff games this year? Which player who is making the poor decisions is getting all the glory? So far this has been the best playoff season I have seen from the NBA in a decade.

Agreed.

[cthomer5000]

everything but football is a waste of time.

[Schmidty]

everything but football is a waste of time.

Even breathing?

[TroyF]

Sorry Josh, but I think you are in the wrong here.

Yeah, basketball officials do impact a player being in the game. And they also impact the score for a specific team. I get that. But I also get that in some MLB games, the two teams are playing with different strike zones.

You keep saying an umpires poor judgement causes things. . . no, not their judgement. Many times it's their DECISION to call the game differently. In some cases, the game is called different from batter to batter.

I agree, basketball refs are worse. But it isn't like an umpire can't control a game or make it ridiculously tough for the other team to win either. If anything, a single bad call in baseball can be much more damaging then a bad call in basketball.

The Rockies were playing the Cardinals last week. The Rockies pitcher fooled Great Albert. Should have been a punch out. Ump called a ball. Albert drilled the next pitch into the bleachers. Game over.

If that's Aaron Miles at the plate, it's likely a punch out. The other one I remember was the Padres/Yankees World Series. Strike three to Tino, end of the inning. . . errrrr, no. Somehow a ball. Tino hits the next pitch for a grand slam and the series was essentially over.

[Karlifornia]

The NBA- It Just Ain't White Enough!