Solutions or Curse the Darkness?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

MH

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 1:51:18 AM1/6/01
to
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.

CCF

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 8:27:42 AM1/6/01
to
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.


BJ VanDewater

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 12:44:40 PM1/6/01
to

"CCF" <c...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A5720C3...@sprintmail.com...


> 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.

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.

Cheers
BJ VanDewater
bjv...@chello.at


chaz

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 5:08:58 AM1/7/01
to
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:51:18 GMT, mhu...@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.


BJ VanDewater

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 11:29:22 AM1/7/01
to


"chaz" <m...@here.com> wrote in message
news:lgfg5t849v04svtmr...@4ax.com...


> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:51:18 GMT, mhu...@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.

Cheers
--
BJ VanDewater
bjv...@chello.at

MH

unread,
Jan 8, 2001, 4:05:45 AM1/8/01
to
i would love to have audits and bonuses, i just wish the nba would
even list to give it a look !

MFFL

m

talk about the mavs in realtime at
www.mavtalk.com

Get your tickets now at 214-747-MAVS
or order season tickets online at www.mavtix.com and of course follow
the mavs at
Mavericks.nba.com

And check out www.dallasbasketball.com an d
http://sportsonly.com/boards/mavs/

Get New Logo Gear at
http://stores.yahoo.com/dallasmavericksstore/tshirts.html

MFFL = Mavs Fan for Life !

On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:51:18 GMT, mhu...@airmail.net (MH) wrote:

John LaVoy

unread,
Jan 8, 2001, 1:14:33 PM1/8/01
to

chaz wrote:

>
>
> 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.

>

Isaac

unread,
Jan 9, 2001, 12:51:14 AM1/9/01
to
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.

Isaac

Austin

unread,
Jan 9, 2001, 6:58:11 AM1/9/01
to
>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~~

Matt

unread,
Jan 9, 2001, 3:02:05 PM1/9/01
to
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" <planot...@cs.comOlllIllO> wrote in message
news:20010109065811...@ng-ff1.news.cs.com...

Austin

unread,
Jan 9, 2001, 3:20:53 PM1/9/01
to
>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~~

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages