Can They Fix The Officiating Crisis?

[azirish]

This has all the signs of becoming the biggest scandle in the history of the NBA, perhaps in the history of basketball in the USA. All professional sprots have had to deal with drugs and the famed college point shaving scandal of the 50's involved a small number of players.

But once you begin questioning the integrity of the officiating, it rips up the entire basis of the sport. Basketball is easily the hardest major team sport to officiate to begin with, but the NBA's inability to improve their officiating made this betting scandale all but inevitable. In another thread I made suggestions. Can anyone suggest others:

My suggestions include:

1. CONSISTENCY: Set standards for what is a foul and what isn't independent of who it made by, who it is against, where the game is being played, and whether it is during the regular season or the playoffs. Fine officials who deviate from these standards.

2. CHANGE THE RULES TO DEFINE THE DEGREE OF CONTACT: One guy gets mugged without a call while a "ticky tack" call gets called at the other end. One of the reasons flopping is such a big deal is that it is a way players can draw foul calls on incidental contact.

3 BE PREPARED TO KEEP CALLING FOULS: Almost every basketball brawl has been due to players getting upset when they are clearly being fouled and it is not being called. As games get intense, it seems like the refs stop trying to control the physical contact. This is not only causing the on court problems but also give the refs a huge opportunity to cheat.

4. CONSIDER ADDING A FOURTH OFFICIAL: The pace of the game is such that officials are constantly out of position and making calls from 40 feet away or more. A fourth official would reduce the number of "blind spots" and thus the excuses for missing calls.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I came up with a few more:

A. PAY MORE: On reason no one figures that NBA players are likely to be vulnerable to gambling is that the guys who could make a difference make too much money. At the same time, it would be easier to recruit better refs if the money was better.

B. VIDEO TRAINING: I'd like to see the creation of a kind of floor level view of actual games. They can then be asked to call or not call infractions. They should get to the point where every ref calls the games the same way. (I could see something like this turned into a marketable video game).

C. EXPAND THE NUMBER OF CAMERAS FOR REFEREE EVALUATION: Post game officials evaluation should be analyzed better and their salaries docked for missed or erronious calls. The referee video evaluation team should be independent of the referee heirarchy.

Removing the subjectivity and ambiguity of the rules and how they are called must be the starting point for the process. Otherwise, all other reforms are likely to fail.

 

[jbeecham]

Have a referee up in a video booth watching the game with access to replays that can override calls made on the floor and make calls that were missed.

 

[SpokaneCardfan]

Have a referee up in a video booth watching the game with access to replays that can override calls made on the floor and make calls that were missed.

I like that idea but it would probably add another 30 minutes to the game.I could live with that. Seems to me that the referees need to let the players decide the game and not the refs. Over the past few years it has gotten worse. It seems that the officals think the game is about them and not the players. If it continues like this I will not be watching the NBA anymore. I don't see this problem in College B. Ball.

 

[azirish]

Have a referee up in a video booth watching the game with access to replays that can override calls made on the floor and make calls that were missed.

I doubt that could work due to the speed of the game, but there are some things that could be subject to review such as who last touched the ball before it went out of bounds. Unfortunately, the real problems such as phantom fouls, inconsistent treatment of contact, etc. happen too fast for during the game calls.

 

[jbeecham]

Not if you give the coaches the ability to challenge a limited number of calls that go under review, say 2-3 calls per half and you lose a 20 second timeout if you're wrong. The video reviewing ref could also inform the refs on blown calls that aren't challenged so they are aware of when they are wrong and can give out appropriate make-up calls.

 

[F-Dog]

Whether they can is kind of irrelevant, I suspect.

 

[Chaplin]

They HAVE to fix it and they will. They aren't going to disband the league, obviously, there really is only one option: To fix it.

As for having the 4th official, I think there are a lot of problems inherent in that idea, mainly that the 4th official will be like God up there, with the ability to overrule calls with impunity.

 

[Griffin]

I would always like to see more video replay used in sports, but leagues (not just NBA) seem very reluctant to use technology in that area. I don't buy the excuse that it would take too long. It doesn't have to be like NFL where you have to go to the sideline and watch a replay over and over; just look up at the giant monitor above if ever in doubt. At the very least that should be allowed.

But a bigger problem is the lack of public review. The league supposedly evaluates referees after each game. Once they released a transcript of a game breakdown, showing all the good and bad calls/no-calls. I think they should release that information to the public for each game, and also release information on any disciplinary action taken against any officials due to poor officiating. Evaluation itself is not enough, if you are not going to do anything about it.

 

[F-Dog]

Or, they can just stonewall and pretend that this is an isolated problem that will go away if it's ignored assiduously enough.

I can guess which tack David Stern will choose here.

 

[azirish]

As for having the 4th official, I think there are a lot of problems inherent in that idea, mainly that the 4th official will be like God up there, with the ability to overrule calls with impunity.

My thoughts on the fourth official is to have someone under both baskets at all time with the other two officians working the sidelines. The amount of running would be reduced and there would be fewer blind spots.

 

[Chaplin]

My thoughts on the fourth official is to have someone under both baskets at all time with the other two officians working the sidelines. The amount of running would be reduced and there would be fewer blind spots.

That seems to be the intention with 3 officials, however that never stops an official away from the play calling a foul under the hoop that the official who was 3 feet away didn't call, which is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in the NBA, bar none.

 

[jbeecham]

My thoughts on the fourth official is to have someone under both baskets at all time with the other two officians working the sidelines. The amount of running would be reduced and there would be fewer blind spots.

Right, and the refs switch position each qtr so the guys under the basket then run the sidelines in qtrs 2 & 4. This would help with fatigue, but I guess they could switch every 6 minutes so that the officiating doesn't drop off at the end of every qtr.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

1. Pay them more, NBA refs have been underpaid for years.

2. Suspensions for flopping. Get it out of the game, I imagine it makes officiating a game that much tougher.

3. Let them play. The players will adjust, cheap shots and dirty play will be self-enforced.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

How about devising a system that puts the refs on call til the day before, so they dont know which games they will be officiating ahead of time?

 

[azirish]

3. Let them play. The players will adjust, cheap shots and dirty play will be self-enforced.

That will bring back thuggery so fast it will make your head spin.

What is needed is to call the same things all the time the same way.

 

[HooverDam]

NBA refs (all officials really) should have to answer questions from the media like coaches and players do. If they had to answer for their ******** actions, I think it would go a long way.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

That will bring back thuggery so fast it will make your head spin.

That's fine with me, the NBA was a much better product than it is today when dirty play was taken care of by the players and not the league office. Do you really think players worth 10 figures care about unpaid suspensions or fines? They will care about their face getting bounced off the ground next time they take it to the hole if they're flopping or taking cheap shots on the other end.

 

[Nasser22]

They don't deserve more money. An average of $200K per year is great money and add in you also get to meet the players, get the best view of the game and you get on TV. Just because players are overpaid doesn't mean the refs should be too.

I agree with your top 4 points. I think they can fix it, but it's just too late to fix what happened to the Suns. Now that's two games in the biggest series of the season taken out of the players hands and both those games came after big wins by us.

 

[Errntknght]

There's not much doubt that Stern will worry about the NBA's and his own images first. Still, I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to make whatever Tim Donaghy claims public. After all he may spew out all sorts of garbage speculations just to make himself less of goat or to enjoy the limelight - he's already said to be considering a lawyer who specializes in 'whistle blowers'. That certainly sounds like he fantasizes about himself in that role, while the known facts don't point in that direction.

The FBI is going to have walk a fine line so it doesn't look like a whitewash and yet doesn't give Donaghy a forum for making baseless accusations. I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of 'citizens' panel which makes decisions on what should be made public and when all the accusations have been thoroughly investigated.

 

[nowagimp]

That's fine with me, the NBA was a much better product than it is today when dirty play was taken care of by the players and not the league office. Do you really think players worth 10 figures care about unpaid suspensions or fines? They will care about their face getting bounced off the ground next time they take it to the hole if they're flopping or taking cheap shots on the other end.

Yeah, and who will take care of the bowen types, he never goes to the hole. The opportunity for balancing cheapshots requires that all players are vulnerable, they're not. Guys like bowen hide on offense, arent vulnerable. The use of so many low skill role players makes that strategy nonfunctional. Self administrated thuggery was ugly in the 90's, its not the answer. And because of the suspensions/disciplinary actions for fighting, just beating a guys ass for subbing you doesnt work out for your team, its a loser. It works on the playground, and when I played If you subbed someone, you will have to defend yourself in a fight, period. In the NBA they pay guys millions of dollars to be role cheap shot artists. And the injuries mount, guys going down more and more with bum knees, ankles. If you wonder why guys dont go to the hole strong as much anymore, you have your answer, its not better defense!

 

[RedStorm]

The only way to fix this crisis is to award the championship to the Suns. We were ripped..

 

[mathbzh]

Can They Fix The Officiating Crisis?

Can we bet on that?
The odds should be very high

 

[SunsFanVegas]

Line is 200 to 1 here )

 

[Mainstreet]

I think perhaps a better question is, does the NBA league office want the referees to call the game the same year round including the playoffs? It all starts at the top so I think most of the problems can be placed at the feet of the league office through their action... but more likely their inaction.

If those in the NBA league office cannot control the game, then they need to be replaced. I think Stern and company is more about the problem and less about the solution.

 

[F-Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/sports/basketball/25referee.html

Monitoring of Referees Comes Under Scrutiny

By ALAN SCHWARZ
Published: July 25, 2007

As David Stern concluded his news conference at a Manhattan hotel yesterday, discussing for 72 minutes what the N.B.A. knew about a suspected betting scheme involving one of its referees, he pledged to re-evaluate how referees are monitored on and off the court.

“What we do will be completely transparent,” he said.

Yet in the four years that the N.B.A.’s current referee-evaluation system has operated, it has been anything but transparent, several N.B.A. referees said this week. The N.B.A. records every call by its referees, from personal fouls to three-second violations to double dribbles, as well as the instances when a potential call is missed. The league assigns one person to each of its 30 arenas, many of them former referees, to monitor the games in real time and cross-check the information afterward on videotape.

The data is collected and analyzed by the Segal Company, an actuarial consulting firm based in New York, which identifies rates of made and missed calls by officials. The findings are reviewed with referees by the league’s executive vice president, Stu Jackson; its director of officials, Ronnie Nunn; four supervisors working under them; and the 30 game observers.

In an interview in April, Jackson cited three-second calls as an example of how the system works, saying the league could identify which referees were outside the norm in making that call.

“It may be because of his positioning on the floor that we identify by video,” Jackson said. “It may be because of a specific mechanic that he doesn’t employ that we can correct and improve his accuracy.”

Stern said yesterday that the system existed primarily for referee development and not to uncover patterns that might suggest point-shaving.

“That is not to say that if something unusual popped up, we wouldn’t pursue it,” he said. “But it was not predominantly developed as a screen for criminal activity.” He added that the system detected nothing suspicious about Tim Donaghy’s performance in recent seasons, and that in fact Donaghy was ranked “in the top tier of accuracy” when it came to blowing the whistle. Donaghy is being investigated for gambling on games and associating with organized crime figures.

Access to the evaluation system was clearly limited. Several N.B.A. referees said in interviews this week that they had been frustrated at not receiving data and other specific evidence to explain their tier ratings. They said that their repeated attempts to get hard numbers or see video of specific plays had been rebuffed by Jackson and those working under him.

“They came to me and said my call percentage was down, so I’m like, ‘O.K., which calls did I miss?’ ” said one veteran referee, who spoke on condition of anonymity because officials were prohibited to speak with the news media. “And Stu said, ‘We can’t tell you that.’ They won’t tell you anything. They just throw a bunch of numbers at you and say, ‘You need to get your percentages up or down.’ It’s just a big secret.”

N.B.A. referees are generally told whether they rate in the top third, middle third or bottom third of various categories, like missed traveling violations. These rankings are used for both hiring and firing decisions, regular-season game assignments and selection for playoff rounds, which are a considerable source of extra income for referees.

Another official said: “I’ve asked Stu, ‘For me to not know the stats, how can I improve? Show me the plays.’ He’ll say: ‘Your three seconds are low. We don’t know if you missed any, but you’re below average.’ Well then why do you say I missed them?

“By controlling the data, they control us.”

N.B.A. general managers and team owners are not allowed to see the league’s referee statistics, several people familiar with the rating system said. Three months ago, while disputing an academic study that said white and black referees called fouls at varying rates on players of different races, Joel Litvin, the N.B.A.’s president for basketball operations, defended keeping the information private.

“Even our teams don’t know the data we collect as to a particular referee’s call tendencies on certain types of calls,” Litvin said at the time. “There are good reasons for this. It’s proprietary. It’s personnel data at the end of the day.”

Litvin declined comment while leaving yesterday’s news conference.

The N.B.A.’s system of monitoring in-game officials contrasts with that of Major League Baseball.

According to one major league umpire, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to appear to be speaking about Donaghy or N.B.A. policy, umpires receive and review great amounts of information regarding their performance. Most of it, he said, involves percentages of correct ball and strike calls as determined by QuesTec, the computerized video system Major League Baseball has installed in more than 10 parks. QuesTec grades are used for grading but not evaluated for job retention.

The umpire said that he and his colleagues were routinely given computer disks from Major League Baseball that break down their percentages for any game that QuesTec cameras recorded. Umpires that fall below 90 percent accuracy do not meet the minimum standard. If an umpire falls below that level, the league office works with him to improve his calls. The umpire said that the disks also included video from several angles, as well as video replays for other decisions — like calls at bases — for the umpires to review.

“I think it’s now a good thing,” said the umpire, referring to how umpires originally objected to the system as imperfect and intrusive. “The staff has accepted it. We’re our own worst critics. We want to get the calls right.”

In the National Football League, calls are monitored every week. Mike Pereira, the league’s vice president for officiating, spends game days in the league’s officiating control center monitoring every game on high definition televisions. On Monday mornings, Pereira provides Commissioner Roger Goodell with a tape of critical or questionable plays. Later in the week, Pereira and other supervisors grade the officiating crews. Individual refs are then told of their mistakes, and those instances are discussed.