Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

[bakan723]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

OSU fan 88 and 23, i totally agree with you guys. The grey areas concerning all these fouls really annoys me about b-ball. ( even though i do love the sport )

Although to cut the refs some slack also, i do think it is an extremely hard game to officiate compared to other sports.

Especially coming from a baseball fan also, where it is so much more clear as to what the rules and calls should be.

[wwharton]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

Did you see the Dallas video?

Was it human error?

Was the 5 techs in 10 seconds human error?

Was the multiple one sided calls in Boston human error?

I could site multiple playoff scenarios like all of the phantom fouls on Minnesota against the Lakers as well... was that also human error?

Im not here being some kind of a team bias personality or being PC

Was it human error to bring in the army general? Why is he even there if everything is okay?

What does he do anyway?

How do you calculate human error vs. blatant non calls vs calls that shouldnt have been?

Is it human error to have Dick Bavetta reffing every single NBA finals?

Its a bunch of bull..


If they're consistently that bad at their jobs they need to be replaced, plain and simple

I think Dice is just wondering where you stand (or at least that's what I was agreeing with). I think we can all say the officials aren't the best but for different reasons. My thing is that most of the problem comes from the nature of the game itself. Some think there is a full on conspiracy by Stern. Some think the refs just power trip or are cheating and Sterns letting them get away with it. Some think they are just horrible and need to be fired and replaced. Some think the rules are so vague that they're creating the problem.

Different arguments for and against each of them.

I also would like to add. That we wouldn't have some plays happen if refs weren't the way they are. I mean think about how often the refs would blow their whistle if they called everything. In my opinion most games wouldn't score more than 60 in some games.

Good point, but I don't necessarily think of it like this...

^^ Exact my thinking ^^

If they called everything they saw it would take away from the entertainment value.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the bad calls. Could you imagine the refs calling a offensive foul on Michael Jordan last shot with the Bulls? When he sort of pushed off Russell. Or when a player breaks on a fast break and does 3 step instead of 2 steps to get a dunk. I have never seen a ref dare make that call. I've seen the call made consistently overseas and in FIBA. It is the right call. But is it the right call when you paid $1000 for court side seat tickets to see LeBron James/Blake Griffin.

I personally wouldn't have cared if they called those that you mention. Personally, I think they don't see them bc these players are so great that they do some things that may look strange but are so fluent with them, you'd err on the side of caution so that you wouldn't influence the game (better to assume the superstar only took 2 steps or didn't push off to get open). But I think the FIBA way is better because it's all inclusive. I'm sure they'd be calling walks on Lebron that a replay would show really was just two really big steps, but I think the superstars can live with not getting a call go their way more than the less talented majority so, hell, say they do it for competitive balance at least.

The grey area is related to the effect of calling EVERYTHING though. They say you can call holding on every play in the NFL. Well that's true for ALOT of things in basketball so calling everything would just destroy the game for the players and the fans. But that leaves it up to individual refs to decide what to be strict on. Might as well save the rest of this for a reply to King below.

I feel like we're going around in circles here and some of you are missing the point. We're not saying 'be perfect,' or 'call every single thing.' That's not what people are looking for here. Like said above, the problem is things being multiple ways over the course of a game. Hell it would be fine if in the first half it was called tight, but in the second half they let them play. But one or two plays it's called tight, the following play is let them play only for the following play to be back to being tight. That's a problem, period. If you are going to call it tight, stick with that, if you're going to let them play, do that. People are going to bitch about officiating regardless, you guys are right about that. But that's not a friggin excuse to do nothing about the steaming pile of crap officiating that goes on night after night. 'Someone is gonna bitch no matter what, so may as well suck as much *** as we can.' That don't make any sense.

They do it based on the flow of the game, and it actually does work for the most part. If physical play starts escalating they'll call the game tighter. If every shot feels like it will determine the game (at the end) or the game itself is important (playoffs) then they'll do whatever they can to not make a call unless it's obvious. If someone just got a tech... tighter calls, etc. I feel like it's a catch 22 between individuals having a lot of power over what they'll call and how insane a game would be if every single thing was called by the book.

OSU, I don't think the rules are as confusing as many think. I think people assume some things without knowing how a rule is enforced, and don't know that some rules are different than every other level (HS, college, AAU, etc). There are some very creative ways to take 2 and a half steps... things you don't think of in street ball. I think they call traveling a lot more than they used to. I think the problem is they assume that guys won't travel and they really don't that much. Then when it happens like Big Baby the other day, they don't want to blow a late whistle (not that it's a good excuse but I think that's what happens).

Also with fouls, it's pretty clear what a foul is but this is what's like holding in football. Guys foul ALL THE TIME if we go by the letter of the book. Refs basically call it if they feel it influences the play. So if the game is getting chippy or someone just got a tech and they want to tighten things up, they'll start calling more, but pretty much putting an open hand on a ball handler is a foul.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

OSU, I don't think the rules are as confusing as many think. I think people assume some things without knowing how a rule is enforced, and don't know that some rules are different than every other level (HS, college, AAU, etc). There are some very creative ways to take 2 and a half steps... things you don't think of in street ball. I think they call traveling a lot more than they used to. I think the problem is they assume that guys won't travel and they really don't that much. Then when it happens like Big Baby the other day, they don't want to blow a late whistle (not that it's a good excuse but I think that's what happens).

Also with fouls, it's pretty clear what a foul is but this is what's like holding in football. Guys foul ALL THE TIME if we go by the letter of the book. Refs basically call it if they feel it influences the play. So if the game is getting chippy or someone just got a tech and they want to tighten things up, they'll start calling more, but pretty much putting an open hand on a ball handler is a foul.

I disagree 100% with the first point but don't have the data nor the video nor the willingness to fight or disprove what you said.

The second...well, I'm not saying that they should call more fouls or less fouls. I'm saying that they should decide if they want a physical game or a finesse game.

Right now, they have a sort of hybrid which is decided on by which official is calling the game and how he feels that night. And that's a stupid way of allowing your refs to to call games.

I'm saying that the NBA should either call it tight or call it physical, I'm just sick of seeing one game officiated one way with certain calls being called/not called then seeing another game and it's completely different. Take the variables out of the officials hands and give a league mandate to what you want.

[23]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

I think we can all say the officials aren't the best but for different reasons. My thing is that most of the problem comes from the nature of the game itself. Some think there is a full on conspiracy by Stern. Some think the refs just power trip or are cheating and Sterns letting them get away with it. Some think they are just horrible and need to be fired and replaced. Some think the rules are so vague that they're creating the problem.
Different arguments for and against each of them.

I think its a mixture of all of that... I have given specific examples, so honestly, there is no need to wonder where I stand

Its one thing to come in here and say they suck and have no basis for it, but again, I've stated my reasoning and that alone is where i detest the "oh you're just a conspiracy theorist" posts in here that I think is anti discussion

Also blaming everything on human error is a bunch of bull. My first and easiest example is that we all know that certain players will always get calls everyone else will not.

Knowing that alone you're admitting that there are some unfair practices that go on, that you've basically accepted because you cannot change it. The problem though is that it doesnt stop there.. and then there are the rule changes that the refs choose when and when not to enforce.

Case in point, its much easier for a perimeter player to get finger nailed for a foul, than it is for a guy like Dwight to get hammered with no call. Its like NBA Live 04 down in the paint for him.

The Portland Dallas game 1 was just pathetic. Too many examples to cite, and nope it wasnt that many human errors, and as I said if they're that bad at their jobs get rid of them, dont enable them to continue to work in crucial games and lay down ammo for people like Donaghy to give credence to his claims

You cannot have it both ways.

[wwharton]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

I disagree 100% with the first point but don't have the data nor the video nor the willingness to fight or disprove what you said.

The second...well, I'm not saying that they should call more fouls or less fouls. I'm saying that they should decide if they want a physical game or a finesse game.

Right now, they have a sort of hybrid which is decided on by which official is calling the game and how he feels that night. And that's a stupid way of allowing your refs to to call games.

I'm saying that the NBA should either call it tight or call it physical, I'm just sick of seeing one game officiated one way with certain calls being called/not called then seeing another game and it's completely different. Take the variables out of the officials hands and give a league mandate to what you want.

In my book up there I was trying to give examples of how that happens. Some refs are on a power trip and do their thing, I'm sure. But for the most part I think the way a game is called evolves as the game does. Not saying it's right but just that there is a method to it. It's impossible to take the variables out of the officials hands. The nature of the game won't allow it. There'd be no flow, teams would shoot 50 fts a game, it'd be a mess. And technically there is no "tight" or "physical" in the rule book. It's basically "we can't call every single thing that is a foul so we have to base it on other things (like whether it effects a play)". I'm not exaggerating when I say putting an open hand on a ball handler is a foul. That's just one example. These players are too strong and fast now to go by the letter of the book. Maybe the suggestion is to rewrite the book but I think we can agree that'd be a monumental task.

Not much to say on the first point. I've seen jump step pivots and other things that look like travels but really aren't. For some reason they aren't taught much on a lower level (probably bc HS refs would call it a travel). I've also played with a ton of guys that really don't understand the slight differences between what is and isn't a foul from defending a shot to getting a rebound.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

It's impossible to take the variables out of the officials hands. The nature of the game won't allow it. There'd be no flow, teams would shoot 50 fts a game, it'd be a mess. And technically there is no "tight" or "physical" in the rule book. It's basically "we can't call every single thing that is a foul so we have to base it on other things (like whether it effects a play)". I'm not exaggerating when I say putting an open hand on a ball handler is a foul. That's just one example. These players are too strong and fast now to go by the letter of the book. Maybe the suggestion is to rewrite the book but I think we can agree that'd be a monumental task.

I expect nothing other than a monumental task to change the "nature" of the game.

The problem is this could have been fixed long ago when it was obvious that the rules were too outdated for the modern athlete. Instead, head was stuck in the sand and now we are stuck in a system that allows a ref on a power trip *or on direct orders from the NBA* to influence an entire game if he wants to.

My biggest thing, Wwharton, is that I DON'T want 50 FT games. I'm sick of them. Or yet, I don't want 50 FT games then 20 FT games the game after. Consistency and more flow to the game is what the NBA should be thriving for, instead of this boring, powertripping crap game that they have out there right now.

[wwharton]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

I think its a mixture of all of that... I have given specific examples, so honestly, there is no need to wonder where I stand

Its one thing to come in here and say they suck and have no basis for it, but again, I've stated my reasoning and that alone is where i detest the "oh you're just a conspiracy theorist" posts in here that I think is anti discussion

Also blaming everything on human error is a bunch of bull. My first and easiest example is that we all know that certain players will always get calls everyone else will not.

Knowing that alone you're admitting that there are some unfair practices that go on, that you've basically accepted because you cannot change it. The problem though is that it doesnt stop there.. and then there are the rule changes that the refs choose when and when not to enforce.

Case in point, its much easier for a perimeter player to get finger nailed for a foul, than it is for a guy like Dwight to get hammered with no call. Its like NBA Live 04 down in the paint for him.

The Portland Dallas game 1 was just pathetic. Too many examples to cite, and nope it wasnt that many human errors, and as I said if they're that bad at their jobs get rid of them, dont enable them to continue to work in crucial games and lay down ammo for people like Donaghy to give credence to his claims

You cannot have it both ways.

I don't think Dice was calling you a conspiracy theorist but I'll stop speaking for him (you're a grown *** man, dawg. lol). Anyway, I was wondering more about if you were putting it on Stern for letting them do whatever they want or that they just suck and should be replaced. Because I really don't disagree with you, but I don't know who's going to replace them. The game is HARD to officiate... even with the consistency things you're mentioning. That also makes it hard to really pinpoint who's working with an agenda and who's just trying to keep up. I would need to see an improvement on all levels to believe these guys can just be replaced.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

If the game is hard to officiate, why do officials feel the need to call a lot of fouls?

[wwharton]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

I expect nothing other than a monumental task to change the "nature" of the game.

The problem is this could have been fixed long ago when it was obvious that the rules were too outdated for the modern athlete. Instead, head was stuck in the sand and now we are stuck in a system that allows a ref on a power trip *or on direct orders from the NBA* to influence an entire game if he wants to.

My biggest thing, Wwharton, is that I DON'T want 50 FT games. I'm sick of them. Or yet, I don't want 50 FT games then 20 FT games the game after. Consistency and more flow to the game is what the NBA should be thriving for, instead of this boring, powertripping crap game that they have out there right now.

That's what I'm saying though. Enforcing the rules on a consistent level across the board would mean going by the letter of the law. That would force A LOT more calls, especially fouls. That would mean more stoppage of play and a ton more foul shots.

You say it could've been fixed a long time ago but fixed how? It's not baseball or football. You can't draw up a rule book, specifically for infractions, that don't leave things up to a ref's discretion. It's impossible. It was just easier before bc players just weren't very physical in general, and weren't as insanely athletic/skilled like they are now.

[23]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

I don't think Dice was calling you a conspiracy theorist but I'll stop speaking for him (you're a grown *** man, dawg. lol). Anyway, I was wondering more about if you were putting it on Stern for letting them do whatever they want or that they just suck and should be replaced. Because I really don't disagree with you, but I don't know who's going to replace them. The game is HARD to officiate... even with the consistency things you're mentioning. That also makes it hard to really pinpoint who's working with an agenda and who's just trying to keep up. I would need to see an improvement on all levels to believe these guys can just be replaced.

...i will say this

You know who shouldnt be there anymore, run their course

like the little stat about mr crawford yesterday...they wont even check into it. Bavetta is another... no way he should be reffing the finals anymore, especially even after another ref ranted on him about it in the media

Everybody cant be wrong from coaches to GMs to owners to players to fans..and the only ones who make out like bandits are the refs...

I just dont agree with that, and I wasnt saying Dice was calling me a conspiracy theorist personally, ive seen the term thrown around in here in general

[OSUFan_88]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

That's what I'm saying though. Enforcing the rules on a consistent level across the board would mean going by the letter of the law. That would force A LOT more calls, especially fouls. That would mean more stoppage of play and a ton more foul shots.

You say it could've been fixed a long time ago but fixed how? It's not baseball or football. You can't draw up a rule book, specifically for infractions, that don't leave things up to a ref's discretion. It's impossible. It was just easier before bc players just weren't very physical in general, and weren't as insanely athletic/skilled like they are now.

I believe they could make it more specific and make it more physical at the same time. Getting rid of a touch foul would be the one thing.

Perhaps I am speaking out of school when I say the variables should be completely taken out of the refs hands, but then we should get some new refs. For being professional referees, some of these dudes *and one woman...* really suck at their job.

However, to give up and say "this is the way things will be and you cannot change it" is admitting that the game of basketball is flawed, which I will not and cannot accept.

[bakan723]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

I think a foul should be a foul. And it should be called be the letter of the book. This way there's no inconsistency's ( or alot fewer )

Sure at first you would have a crapload of free throws, but the players would learn to adjust over time.

[wwharton]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

If the game is hard to officiate, why do officials feel the need to call a lot of fouls?

Going kind of in circles... they probably don't call 1/3 the fouls they could. They increase the calls based on things like a)chippy play, b)somebody gets a tech, c)guys abusing the leeway, d)ref has an agenda and is only going to do what he wants, etc.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

Going kind of in circles... they probably don't call 1/3 the fouls they could. They increase the calls based on things like a)chippy play, b)somebody gets a tech, c)guys abusing the leeway, d)ref has an agenda and is only going to do what he wants, etc.

A should be totally allowed.

D...pisses me off and why I don't think this will ever change under Stern's..."leadership".

B, eh, whatever.

C I guess...I don't know, I feel that's too subjective and the #1 reason why I would like to see a rewritten rule book. Lessen the amount that leeway can be given.

[Dice]

Re: Can the "nature" of the game be changed?

...i will say this

You know who shouldnt be there anymore, run their course

like the little stat about mr crawford yesterday...they wont even check into it. Bavetta is another... no way he should be reffing the finals anymore, especially even after another ref ranted on him about it in the media

Everybody cant be wrong from coaches to GMs to owners to players to fans..and the only ones who make out like bandits are the refs...

I just dont agree with that, and I wasnt saying Dice was calling me a conspiracy theorist personally, ive seen the term thrown around in here in general

OK. I was reading the post and saw my name being thrown as anti-discussion.

wwharton was right, I wasn't trying to say that your we're a conspiracy theorist. I just wanted you to clarify if the problem of the refs was just the refs being bad at their jobs or is it a result of some larger purpose. And I whole-heartily agree with you on getting rid of these bad refs who continue to plague the league year after year. Dick Bavetta has been officiating NBA games since the 70's. And he for all the years he's been an official has been at the bottom of performance evaluation since he started. Now Bavetta was around during the Larry O'Brien days. And O'Brien continued to keep him around despite the fact that he was always evaluated low. As when Stern got there in 84, the same mess carried on. So for some reason or another, the NBA itself has kept this practice for years.

Now I think we have a disconnect on what type of problem the NBA has. NOW from what I'm gathering, you believe that the NBA likes to keep the sacred cows of referees from harms way, despite how bad they are. And I agree. Where I disagree is the notion of the NBA telling the refs that we need 'Team A' and 'Team B' in the NBA Finals. That's where you loose me.

That's all. And if you feel it's anti-discussion then I'll back off.