If the Dick Bavetta stories are true, how many more officials could be crooked?

[Lefty]

I think Stern should be forced to resign immediately if these allegations of the officials throwing games is true. Stern should of been gone a long time ago. I just don't understand how he still has a job.

This from Bill Simmons' article in 2002.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020606

Question: What was the most disturbing subplot of the playoffs?
Answer: The officiating, also the most disturbing subplot of the past four playoffs. If you examine the last four NBA playoff campaigns, during every situation where the league definitively "needed" one of the two teams involved to win -- either to A) change the momentum of a series so it didn't end prematurely, B) keep an attractive, big-market team alive in a series, or C) advance an attractive, big-market team to another round -- the officiating appeared to be slanted towards the team that needed that game. I use the phrase "appeared to be," because reviewing an official's performance is purely subjective. Maybe I'm dead-wrong.

These were just the games that jump out in my mind (again, I could be wrong):


1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 3 ... LJ sinks a game-winning four-pointer (called a continuation foul by referee Jess Kersey even though LJ was fouled a full second before he released the ball).


1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 6 ... Knicks last chance to close out Indy before the series shifts back to Indiana for Game 7 ... they get every call.


1999, Spurs-Knicks, Game 3 ... down 2-0, the Knicks get every call in their first home game and win their only game of the series.


2000, Knicks-Heat, Game 7 ... Knicks advance to the conference finals ... falling out of bounds, Latrell Sprewell awarded a timeout by referee Bennett Salvatore with 2.1 seconds left even though none of the Knicks called for one ... Sprewell admits after the game that he hadn't called a timeout ... the Miami players chase the referees off the court after the game, yelling that they had been robbed ... after the game, Jamal Mashburn tells reporters, "They had three officials in their pocket" and Tim Hardaway refers to referee Dick Bavetta as "Knick Bavetta."


2000, Lakers-Blazers, Game 7 ... LA shoots 21 more free throws and rallies back from a 17-point deficit in the final seven minutes ... Shaq plays an illegal defense down the stretch, undaunted ... Rasheed Wallace absolutely gets manhandled down the stretch, yet doesn't get a single call ... up by four with 25 seconds left, Shaq body-blocks Steve Smith out of bounds and the refs don't make the call (the most egregious non-call in recent memory).


2002, Celtics-Nets, Game 4 ... Celts up 2-1 ... the Nets are inexplicably allowed to push and shove Kenny Anderson and Pierce while they dribble the ball ... a number of head-scratchers go against Boston, including three offensive charges down the stretch ... four different "bull-(bleep)" chants during the game.


2002, Lakers-Kings, Game 6 ... LA needs a win to stay alive ... from an officiating standpoint, the most one-sided game of the past decade ... at least six dubious calls against the Kings in the fourth quarter alone ... LA averaged 22 free throws a game during the first five games of the series, then attempted 27 freebies in the fourth quarter alone of Game 6 ... rumors that David Stern wanted to pull a Vince McMahon and declare himself "The special guest referee" for this game prove unfounded.

(By the way, I would feel remiss if I didn't share this information: Dick Bavetta was assigned to every one of the above games. That's an absolute fact. You can look it up. Doesn't mean anything ... I just felt the need to pass that along. It sure looks bad, doesn't it? Maybe the league could do a favor for Bavetta and not assign him to Game 3 of the Finals, especially if the Lakers jump to a 2-0 lead over New Jersey. You wouldn't want to rile up those conspiracy theorists or anything. Ummmm ...)

 

[Covert Rain]

I think it's important to differentiate here. If Dick and other Refs were told to officiate games differently based on rules (watch this player because he is getting away with this) then I wouldn't call that throwing games. I would call that legit.

On the other hand if the Refs were told by league office I want team "X" to win then that says the league is "fixed". However, you still cannot compare that to what TD has done and I wouldn't call Dick crooked or any other Ref trying to keep their job by listening to the front office "crooked".

There is no comparison to what TD did IMO. What he did was for self gain. What the other Refs did (if ever proven) would be to keep their jobs by listening to their boss. I am still not convinced based on TD word that this ever happened. The guy is trying to get a lighter sentence and when people get faced with the prospect of prison time they get desperate and will say anything.

I will wait to see how this all turns out before deciding if the league is Fixed. Either way you cannot throw Dick or any other Ref in his situation into the TD category.

 

[nowagimp]

If the league is instructing officials to watch "certain players" for certain foul or behavior the already subjective nature of officiating will take on an extra bias. The league grades officials and if you dont think the officials' bias can be manipulated by these instructions ON INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS you are truly lost. Whats a good call on Yao must be a good call on Tim Duncan, eg, a moving screen. If Tim Duncan can push a player taking a shot or rebounding in the back, then amare stoudemire must also be able to do the same thing without a foul call. Double standards dont work and instructed double standards are tantamount to "rigging" play by the league. No I dont blame the ref who is pressured(perhaps under threat of discipline) to make that biased call, I blame the league.

 

[DeAnna]

Well, he did place a bet with Barkley during the All Star game

 

[Ryanwb]

My wife is a true crime fan and she had me read "Wise Guy" by Nicholas Pileggi, which "Goodfellas" was based on.

In reading you realize not only are is organized crime better at running business than any corporation known to man (Yes because they can break the law to make money), but they practice business so their failure rate is very small. Case in point, they nearly always send 2 guys to take care of business, doing hits, sending "messages" or anything else. If they had an inside guy, they always got to others as well. They never left anything to chance.

This is why I would find it very hard to believe that they would invest in a referee if they only had control over one, they would have multiple guys.

This is all conjecture but Donahey isn't seeming so unique to me

 

[Mainstreet]

If fouls are not going to be called equitably, then IMO the game is fixed. I liked it much better many years ago when referees, if they realized if they made a bad foul call on one of the court, they made up for it at the other end of the court. Everyone knew what they were doing back then... they were trying to call a fair game. Now the referees seldom admit they make a bad call. As a matter of fact they seem to relish in making bad calls to frequently effect the outcome.

 

[Irish]

David Stern is oblivious to the core of the problem: the refs don't really know what they are trying to do. The league office reviews all the games, but never tells them why they were dinged on one play and not on another play.

I'd like to see groups of players, coaches, and refs review videos of games they weren't involved with to try to develop a consensus as to how certain plays should be called with an explanation of "why". I cannot imagine any other business evaluate people based on a secredt criteria with no means of challenging the reviewrs findings. The result is inherently flawed which generates a lot of credibility problems.