Listening to comments from the media and many fans about Mark Cuban's war over NBA officiating the obvious problem with all the negative comments about Cuban is that detractors never have alternate solutions. Even most of Cubans detractors note that NBA officiating is somewhere between bad and atrocious with a big dose of inconsistency thrown in for flavor, but no one suggests any solutions. Yes calling an NBA game has to be the toughest sport to officiate and the refs often do a good job but the idea that theres no point in trying to improve Refs is pathetic.
Cuban states that he has worked both publicly and behind the scenes to get the NBA to formulate some plan or system for improving the quality of the officiating. Any fan or media person that attacks Cubans methods should come up with alternate solutions to the issue of impoving officiating.
Anyone have ideas on improving the NBA officiating?
How about something like the challenge replay system of the NFL where a coach could use his timeout to have the ref look the replay (w/o adding any more time to the games since a normal timeout would have to be used anyway).
What about a system where refs are rewarded with bonuses for a high percentage of accuaracy in calls? Accuracy could be measured in periodic Audits of gametapes to determine what percentage of calls were definitely missed. A system that pays bonuses and rewards to good refs could go over better than a "punishment" type system. Cuban has even said he would be willing to pay or help pay to bring people in to evaluate calls.
MH wrote: > Yes calling an NBA game has to be the toughest sport to > officiate and the refs often do a good job but the idea that theres no > point in trying to improve Refs is pathetic.
It ma be tough but I'm not sure it is any tougher than any sport. Worse, the refs make the MLB umps looks like models of consistency. It isn't just a matter of consistency between crews but within crews within games. Watch an NBA games and try and figure out what touch foul X is called but not Y and Z. Charging and blocking appear to be random thoughts to most refs. Then you have the well known no travelling on the way to a dunk rule and the Superstar addedum to the rule book that the rest of us aren't privy to.
The most basic things to do are: Add another ref to the floor Have some training in call responsibility- for example the refs on the backside of the play calls a foul when player X slaps the ball away from player Y. Player X did not hit the arm but go all ball but from behind it looks like a foul. That backside refs needs to know when to not assume the game and that is what call responsibility is about.
> > Yes calling an NBA game has to be the toughest sport to > > officiate and the refs often do a good job but the idea that theres no > > point in trying to improve Refs is pathetic.
> It ma be tough but I'm not sure it is any tougher than any sport. Worse, > the refs make the MLB umps looks like models of consistency.
Have you ever refereed a basketball game at any level? I thought pretty much the same until I got out there and worked games (I never went beyond JC ball). Unlike baseball, where over 90% of the calls occur at a known point, or football, that has a crew to cover the entire field, basketball has a limited number of officials, and a call may be needed anywhere on the court where more than one player (or one player with the ball) is located. It is a near physical impossibility to have the entire court and the ball in sight continuously. This is one reason why the second foul (we have all seen it, one player shoves, the ref catches movement out of the corner of his/her eye and calls the player shoving back) is often called. And trying to see too much leads to the occasional blunder where no official is actually watching the action around a ball, and something obvious gets missed. I disagree with any owner publicly embarrassing his employees (and let's face it the refs are Mark Cuban's employees as much as any owner), but I do agree with his thrust of bring the level of officiating up to the level of the players.
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:51:18 GMT, mhun...@airmail.net (MH) wrote: > Listening to comments from the media and many fans about Mark >Cuban's war over NBA officiating the obvious problem with all the >negative comments about Cuban is that detractors never have alternate >solutions. > Even most of Cubans detractors note that NBA officiating is >somewhere between bad and atrocious with a big dose of inconsistency >thrown in for flavor, but no one suggests any solutions. > Yes calling an NBA game has to be the toughest sport to >officiate and the refs often do a good job but the idea that theres no >point in trying to improve Refs is pathetic.
A football official is trying to cover a 100 yard area with more than twice as many players as a basketball ref. A football ref is trying to keep up with players that can run 4.3/40 and tell if their is pass interference going on. IMO the football ref has a lot more to be looking for than a basketball ref does. I also think football officials get calls right more often than their nba counterparts.
> Cuban states that he has worked both publicly and behind the >scenes to get the NBA to formulate some plan or system for improving >the quality of the officiating. Any fan or media person that attacks >Cubans methods should come up with alternate solutions to the issue of >impoving officiating.
> Anyone have ideas on improving the NBA officiating?
> How about something like the challenge replay system of the >NFL where a coach could use his timeout to have the ref look the >replay (w/o adding any more time to the games since a normal timeout >would have to be used anyway).
I'd be ok with this, but I'd like to have someone in a booth with all the camera angles telling the refs if something happens like in the last 2:00 of the half. The nba won't do it because it won't want to hire another person to work games, and the refs union probably wouldn't go for it either because it would make them look bad.
> What about a system where refs are rewarded with bonuses for a >high percentage of accuaracy in calls? Accuracy could be measured in >periodic Audits of gametapes to determine what percentage of calls >were definitely missed. A system that pays bonuses and rewards to >good refs could go over better than a "punishment" type system. Cuban >has even said he would be willing to pay or help pay to bring people >in to evaluate calls.
I personally agree with cuban's system. A system where you reward refs for making the right calls is crazy. Why are you paying them now? Its like a perfect attendance award; "Way to do what you were supposed to do!". Refs shouldn't need anything extra to make the right call; its their job, and if they can't do their job they shouldn't have it.
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:51:18 GMT, mhun...@airmail.net (MH) wrote: > > Listening to comments from the media and many fans about Mark > >Cuban's war over NBA officiating the obvious problem with all the > >negative comments about Cuban is that detractors never have alternate > >solutions. > > Even most of Cubans detractors note that NBA officiating is > >somewhere between bad and atrocious with a big dose of inconsistency > >thrown in for flavor, but no one suggests any solutions. > > Yes calling an NBA game has to be the toughest sport to > >officiate and the refs often do a good job but the idea that theres no > >point in trying to improve Refs is pathetic.
> A football official is trying to cover a 100 yard area with more than > twice as many players as a basketball ref. A football ref is trying > to keep up with players that can run 4.3/40 and tell if their is pass > interference going on. IMO the football ref has a lot more to be > looking for than a basketball ref does. I also think football > officials get calls right more often than their nba counterparts.
Do you have any experience as either a football or basketball official? It is easy to make statements like above, but they do not stand in the face of empirical data (nothing shows that football players are faster or quicker than basketball players). Nor is the comparison accurate -- one football official does not watch 100 yards, nor 22 players, and the size and responsibility of a football officiating crew are very different from a basketball officiating crew.
One could argue that football officiating MUST be easier, as the NFL is able to make do with an entire officiating staff that referee as a part time job.
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:51:18 GMT, mhun...@airmail.net (MH) wrote: > Listening to comments from the media and many fans about Mark >Cuban's war over NBA officiating the obvious problem with all the >negative comments about Cuban is that detractors never have alternate >solutions. > Even most of Cubans detractors note that NBA officiating is >somewhere between bad and atrocious with a big dose of inconsistency >thrown in for flavor, but no one suggests any solutions. > Yes calling an NBA game has to be the toughest sport to >officiate and the refs often do a good job but the idea that theres no >point in trying to improve Refs is pathetic.
> Cuban states that he has worked both publicly and behind the >scenes to get the NBA to formulate some plan or system for improving >the quality of the officiating. Any fan or media person that attacks >Cubans methods should come up with alternate solutions to the issue of >impoving officiating.
> Anyone have ideas on improving the NBA officiating?
> How about something like the challenge replay system of the >NFL where a coach could use his timeout to have the ref look the >replay (w/o adding any more time to the games since a normal timeout >would have to be used anyway).
> What about a system where refs are rewarded with bonuses for a >high percentage of accuaracy in calls? Accuracy could be measured in >periodic Audits of gametapes to determine what percentage of calls >were definitely missed. A system that pays bonuses and rewards to >good refs could go over better than a "punishment" type system. Cuban >has even said he would be willing to pay or help pay to bring people >in to evaluate calls.
> A football official is trying to cover a 100 yard area with more than > twice as many players as a basketball ref. A football ref is trying > to keep up with players that can run 4.3/40 and tell if their is pass > interference going on. IMO the football ref has a lot more to be > looking for than a basketball ref does. I also think football > officials get calls right more often than their nba counterparts.
The responsibilities of the various officials and the nature of the games seems to make calling a football game a lot easier. For one thing, the longest period of actual action in a football game is what, ten seconds? For another, the game is incredibly structured, i.e. everything pretty much starts from the same place and is going in the same direction. Having called organized basketball and disorganized basketball, i.e. city/church leagues, the more disorganized something is the more difficult it is to call. A game between teams that are well coached and run disciplined offenses is the easiest. All that said, there are tow comments left to make: hockey refs have the toughest job and the degree to which any professional refs get things right is amazing.
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:14:33 -0500, John LaVoy <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote: >call. A game between teams that are well coached and run disciplined >offenses is the easiest. All that said, there are tow comments left to >make: hockey refs have the toughest job and the degree to which any >professional refs get things right is amazing.
I would agree that hockey is extremely difficult to call accurately, but hockey refs have incredible amounts of discretion, and are cut far more slack than are basketball or football refs. The NHL is notorious for having varying standards depending on game situations. I take such "discretion" as a lack of intestinal fortitude to make tough calls. Saying let the players decide things is just a cop out. Players might stop doing loser plays if the fouls were called. I see the same type thing from NBA refs, but the NHL refs do it on much more blatantly.
A lot of the fighting that goes on in the NHL happens because the refs cannot possible enforce the rules equitably, and everybody on the ice knows it. They can't see everything, and calling stuff consistently would probably ugly up the game and the refs and not the players would get the heat.
So, yeah hockey refs have the toughest job, but they aren't actually expected to really do it.
>I would agree that hockey is extremely difficult to call accurately, >but hockey refs have incredible amounts of discretion, and are cut >far more slack than are basketball or football refs. The NHL is >notorious for having varying standards depending on game situations.
The NHL has reviews and replays. They are also very strict on agressive behavior that has turned into fights such as elbowing and flagarants. NHL is very precise.
>A lot of the fighting that goes on in the NHL happens because the >refs cannot possible enforce the rules equitably, and everybody >on the ice knows it.
fighting goes on in the NHL and 5 min or ejections of intermissions are given and it is a very physical game
>They can't see everything, and calling >stuff consistently would probably ugly up the game and the refs and >not the players would get the heat.
this is why they have replays and three refs in each zone
>So, yeah hockey refs have the toughest job, but they aren't actually >expected to really do it.
thats b.s. nhl goalies deal with alot more rules then nba... and they do call them
maybe you should watch a hockey game before you jump to this conclusion ~~Austin~~
The biggest difference when it comes to NHL vs. NBA officiating, is that they don't have all the ticky-tack fouls in hockey that we have to put up with in basketball. I think they could eliminate a few fouls and actually call the rest, and it would take a lot of pressure off the officials:
Get rid of the 'hand check' foul. It should only be called if the contact alters the play. (This rule to protect offense, actually slows down the game and IMO reduces scoring.) Raise the lane violation from 3 seconds to 5 seconds. Get rid of, or pare down what constitutes, illegal defense (does anyone beside the refs really know anyway?). 2 Steps while carrying the ball to the hoop is not traveling (it rarely gets called anyway). I'm sure some people will have a problem with some or all of these, but I contend that if you made these changes, possibly some others I didn't think of, and ACTUALLY CALL ALL OF THE FOULS THAT ARE COMMITTED AND NONE THAT ARE NOT COMMITTED. The game would flow much better, and it would be a much more enjoyable experience for all involved.
My $.02 Matt
"Austin" <planotxgu...@cs.comOlllIllO> wrote in message
> >I would agree that hockey is extremely difficult to call accurately, > >but hockey refs have incredible amounts of discretion, and are cut > >far more slack than are basketball or football refs. The NHL is > >notorious for having varying standards depending on game situations.
> The NHL has reviews and replays. They are also very strict on agressive > behavior that has turned into fights such as elbowing and flagarants. NHL is > very precise.
> >A lot of the fighting that goes on in the NHL happens because the > >refs cannot possible enforce the rules equitably, and everybody > >on the ice knows it.
> fighting goes on in the NHL and 5 min or ejections of intermissions are given > and it is a very physical game
> >They can't see everything, and calling > >stuff consistently would probably ugly up the game and the refs and > >not the players would get the heat.
> this is why they have replays and three refs in each zone
> >So, yeah hockey refs have the toughest job, but they aren't actually > >expected to really do it.
> thats b.s. nhl goalies deal with alot more rules then nba... and they do > call them
> maybe you should watch a hockey game before you jump to this conclusion > ~~Austin~~
>comes to NHL vs. NBA officiating, is that >they don't have all the ticky-tack fouls in hockey that we have to put up >with in basketball. I think they could eliminate a few fouls and actually >call the rest, and it would take a lot of pressure off the officials:
You mean the SHAQ fould? The 2 min no foul period at the end of the game and the protected lay up zone? ~~Austin~~
|
