Impact of referee on game easy call

[azirish]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6464969

Impact of referee on game easy call
Putting star in foul trouble one way to affect result
By Marc Narducci

The Philadelphia Inquirer
Article Last Updated: 07/26/2007 01:32:33 AM MDT

Philadelphia - The allegations against former NBA referee Tim Donaghy - that he bet on games, including some he officiated - highlight a question: Can a referee affect the outcome of a game?

In a sampling from both the officiating and sports-betting community, the answer was a resounding yes.

Even though there are three officials on the court, two local high school referees, both of whom requested anonymity, and R.J. Bell, the founder of the betting website Pregame.com, said one person could alter a game.

It's not only local officials who don't want to speak on the record. An NBA official and a college referee said Wednesday that they had been prohibited from discussing the issue in any manner. Even a number of high school officials declined to speak.

The high school referees who did speak said the easiest way to affect a game was to take a star player out by calling fouls.

"You give the top player two quick early fouls and he has to sit down a considerable amount of time," one official said.

Both officials said there was an even easier way to have the player exit.
"You can get rid of the player by giving him two technical fouls," both referees said.

The referees said it didn't always take much to get under a player's skin.
But even if an official is trying to alter just the point spread and not the outcome, the plan can backfire.

"Say a team that is favored by 10 and is up by 12, and then the ref makes some calls that get it down to six," Bell said. "Then that underdog team could get hot and win the game, so it can affect the result."

Bell has published data that say the first 15 games of the 2006-07 season that were officiated by Donaghy and that had enough betting to move the point spread at least 1.5 points were perfect against the Las Vegas spread. That means the big- money gamblers won 15 of 15 times on those games.

"The odds of that happening are 32,768-1," Bell said Wednesday in a telephone interview. "Typically, the money that moves the line wins only 50 percent of the time."

And it's not always the calls the official makes that can affect a game.
"If a player who is a 90 percent foul shooter is hit driving to the basket and an official doesn't make the call, then you are keeping him off the foul line," one of the officials said. "That's two potential foul shots that he can make that he isn't going to attempt."

One thing nearly everybody agrees on is that referees on any level won't be looked at in the same light.

One of the referees said that during a Philadelphia men's summer league game the other night, a player was dismayed because of a foul called against him.

"What do you have, a bet on the game, ref?" the player said. The player was hit with a technical foul.

 

[nowagimp]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6464969

1)"You give the top player two quick early fouls and he has to sit down a considerable amount of time," one official said.


2) "If a player who is a 90 percent foul shooter is hit driving to the basket and an official doesn't make the call, then you are keeping him off the foul line," one of the officials said. "That's two potential foul shots that he can make that he isn't going to attempt."


Now we all know that these things never happen in the NBA(sarcasm). I think Im gonna be sick ...

 

[AZ Shocker]

Now we all know that these things never happen in the NBA(sarcasm). I think Im gonna be sick ...

lol - Yeah and the sad thing is that it has been going on for years. It's just that the FBI stepped in and finally busted somebody to bring attention to it. The league has been "fixed"...to a point...for eons.

 

[Mainstreet]

I remember in earlier years when referees made up for a bad call on one end of the court by making a borderline (but technically correct) call on a player at the other end of the court to even things out. Usually this player did not have any foul problems or was just a role player. Perhaps it was not always the politically correct thing to do but the fans and players seemed to understand. It was a make up call by the referee not to give a team an advantage for making a bad call. I don't see much of it anymore.

I guess the referees today just do not make mistakes.

 

[nowagimp]

I remember in earlier years when referees made up for a bad call on one end of the court by making a borderline (but technically correct) call on a player at the other end of the court to even things out. Usually this player did not have any foul problems or was just a role player. Perhaps it was not always the politically correct thing to do but the fans and players seemed to understand. It was a make up call by the referee not to give a team an advantage for making a bad call. I don't see much of it anymore.

I guess the referees today just do not make mistakes.

I remember a sequence in the utah/warriors series this year where Deron Williams grabbed jason richardson at mid court to prevent a fastbreak. Richardson had just passed the ball towards baron davis who was alone going in to convert. Well the ref blew his whistle, and it was williams 5th foul, very dumb deron. Initially it looked like the ref did the jazz a favor in stopping a sure bucket in a very close game. Upon reflection, it was very bad for the jazz, since without williams they were dead in the water so to speak. Well the refs "made it up" on the next play down the floor by calling Baron Davis for HIS 5th, on a very questionable foul call. Well that hurt the warriors more than the Jazz, as Baron was easily the MVP of the playoffs at that point. Well the jazz pulled away from that point while Davis, and williams sat. One heck of a makeup call, I'll say. Any warrior fan must have been livid.

I just dont believe in makeup calls, as the toll of the makeup call can become different as the game goes along if it leads to a player disqualification later. When a foul is not called, points are lost, but when it is, the player can be lost at a later point in the game. If that player is amare, or Baron Davis, its an overcompensation that rears its head again later in the game.

 

[nowagimp]

lol - Yeah and the sad thing is that it has been going on for years. It's just that the FBI stepped in and finally busted somebody to bring attention to it. The league has been "fixed"...to a point...for eons.

I actually dont believe that things are fixed, they are broken. The officiating system is broken. The current no call system favors teams with one-on-one talent, punishes ball movement teams by allowing noncalls to eat up the clock when the offense must reset. This favors plodding teams, and its also a big reason that the US gets it butt kicked in international play, along with the lack of "superstar treatment". The spurs (among others) use this strategy, and the expected no-calls to slow down the offense, force the offense into shots when the clock is winding down. It doesnt work in international competition. They(intl refs) dont let 6'10" PF's hip check the PG on the perimeter to break up or delay the play without a foul call like they do in the NBA.

I think the donaghy thing is certainly corrupt, and there may be more refs on the take, but they dont try to manipulate games or outcomes. This doesnt mean that outcomes are not altered, but its not intentional. The NBA must learn the lesson of boxing and gymnastics: when officiating becomes judging, there will be corruption and the perception that things are rigged.

In the NBA showtime era they didnt allow this either: 6'10" big guys who tried to body up a 6'1" PG were called for body contact fouls as they almost always can get their feet into position quick enough to block the progress of a smaller faster player.

 

[Maligzar]

I think the donaghy thing is certainly corrupt, and there may be more refs on the take, but they dont try to manipulate games or outcomes. This doesnt mean that outcomes are not altered, but its not intentional. The NBA must learn the lesson of boxing and gymnastics: when officiating becomes judging, there will be corruption and the perception that things are rigged.

Could you expand on this a bit more? I don't understand how you think some refs are "on the take" but they don't manipulate the outcome of games. What's the point of the mob paying off refs if they don't help change the outcome of games?

 

[azirish]

Could you expand on this a bit more? I don't understand how you think some refs are "on the take" but they don't manipulate the outcome of games. What's the point of the mob paying off refs if they don't help change the outcome of games?

The theory is that all they do is manipulate is the "over/under" which is the total number of points being scored. The rationale is that this is too hard to catch so it is likely to go unnoticed.

The counter argument is that it is all but impossible to control the over/under without at least potentially effecting the outcome. For example, let's say you took the "under" in a Suns - Spurs game of 200. The problem is that the only way to keep the under that low is to allow the Spurs to foul with impunity which would effect the outcome.

 

[F-Dog]

The theory is that all they do is manipulate is the "over/under" which is the total number of points being scored. The rationale is that this is too hard to catch so it is likely to go unnoticed.

The counter argument is that it is all but impossible to control the over/under without at least potentially effecting the outcome. For example, let's say you took the "under" in a Suns - Spurs game of 200. The problem is that the only way to keep the under that low is to allow the Spurs to foul with impunity which would effect the outcome.

Or if you take the "over", then you have to call a bunch of cheap fouls, potentially putting a star player on the bench with undeserved foul trouble.

 

[azirish]

Or if you take the "over", then you have to call a bunch of cheap fouls, potentially putting a star player on the bench with undeserved foul trouble.

Fouling out a star can cut either way. Foul out Duncan and the over is a lock. Foul out Amare and the under is a lock.

 

[F-Dog]

Foul out Amare and the under is a lock.

Actually, Amare played 20 minutes in game 3, and the "over" came through rather comfortably.

 

[nowagimp]

Could you expand on this a bit more? I don't understand how you think some refs are "on the take" but they don't manipulate the outcome of games. What's the point of the mob paying off refs if they don't help change the outcome of games?

Manipulate the outcome with respect to wins and losses, not point spreads. I am assuming that the "outcome" is the W/L, as I am a fan not a gambler, dont care about the over/under outcome. What I mean is that their goal is not to effect the W/L outcome, just the spread or over/under. What I also said is that the outcome could be changed, but its not the goal. Perhaps its better to say they manipulate the over/under or the pointspread, but not the outcome in wins and losses. It would be too easy to detect by the gaming community and FBI if they manipulated the W/L, and I'm pretty sure that they dont want their activities to be detected.

 

[azirish]

Actually, Amare played 20 minutes in game 3, and the "over" came through rather comfortably.

Yes, but they made up for it by calling an incredible number of fouls: 36 shots by the Spurs and 27 by the Suns. Giving teams lots of foul shots is a great way to increase the points scored.

One odd thing about that game was that while the Spurs took 9 more foul shots, the Suns were called for only 2 more personal fouls than the Spurs.

 

[F-Dog]

It would be too easy to detect by the gaming community and FBI if they manipulated the W/L, and I'm pretty sure that they dont want their activities to be detected.

I'll give you 3-1 odds that Donaghy manipulated the spread more than once.

There's more money bet on the spread, so from a gambler's perspective, it's easier to detect unusual betting patterns in the over/under line. And from all accounts, the gamblers were the ones calling the shots here, not Donaghy.

 

[F-Dog]

Yes, but they made up for it by calling an incredible number of fouls: 36 shots by the Spurs and 27 by the Suns. Giving teams lots of foul shots is a great way to increase the points scored.

One odd thing about that game was that while the Spurs took 9 more foul shots, the Suns were called for only 2 more personal fouls than the Spurs.

So Donaghy called a bunch of fouls, the over came through, and the Suns were screwed?

Hmm...

 

[scXfreakX]

Man, if the Suns playoffs were affected by this, that would be terrible. I'm starting to think we're cursed. I hope we're not but we always have an unfortunate event, such as the suspensions, Joe Johnson's injury, Amare not being able to play/Raja Bell hurting his calf.

 

[azirish]

Man, if the Suns playoffs were affected by this, that would be terrible. I'm starting to think we're cursed. I hope we're not but we always have an unfortunate event, such as the suspensions, Joe Johnson's injury, Amare not being able to play/Raja Bell hurting his calf.

Check http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=94044 if you want more on this theme.

 

[nowagimp]

Actually, Amare played 20 minutes in game 3, and the "over" came through rather comfortably.

Amares benching led to over using KT(36 mins against duncan). When KT fatigued, the middle was completely open for duncan to score 33 pts on 12-19 shooting. Funny how Amare's absence left the suns weak in the middle as a 35 year old 20 min a game player had to play 36 mins against Tim Duncan. When KT got tired, he was a sieve, defensively. Any game where KT played alot of minutes, Duncan had his way. Amare was also the best help defender on Duncan, as he blocked and changed shots as a help defender. Any game where the post defenders are saddled with fouls leads to lots of points in the paint.

 

[nowagimp]

I'll give you 3-1 odds that Donaghy manipulated the spread more than once.

There's more money bet on the spread, so from a gambler's perspective, it's easier to detect unusual betting patterns in the over/under line. And from all accounts, the gamblers were the ones calling the shots here, not Donaghy.

Generally agreed, gamblers gamble on the over/under and point spread. Manipulating the outcome (W/L) intentionally would still be harder to do without being detected. I also agree donaghy has done this alot(manipulated spreads/over unders), never said different. I just think "rigged" is the wrong word to describe the outcome of the series, but I do believe it could have cost the suns a win, but that was not the intention of the mob. If you combine the "donaghy effect" with the suspensions("stern effect"), the suns were possibly outright screwed.

 

[azirish]

Generally agreed, gamblers gamble on the over/under and point spread. Manipulating the outcome (W/L) intentionally would still be harder to do without being detected. I also agree donaghy has done this alot(manipulated spreads/over unders), never said different. I just think "rigged" is the wrong word to describe the outcome of the series, but I do believe it could have cost the suns a win, but that was not the intention of the mob. If you combine the "donaghy effect" with the suspensions("stern effect"), the suns were possibly outright screwed.

It's scary to think that if anyone seemed to be crooked in Game 3 it was Eddie Rush. Is it any wonder the NBA did not catch Donaghy when their supposedly "honest" refs appear even worse?

 

[nowagimp]

It's scary to think that if anyone seemed to be crooked in Game 3 it was Eddie Rush. Is it any wonder the NBA did not catch Donaghy when their supposedly "honest" refs appear even worse?

Yeah Rush made more bad calls than donaghy in that game, no doubt. But didnt donaghy call the #2 foul on amare, a flopper or was that rush? I also seem to recall donaghy calling the "manu flopper no contact drive", it was the very late call, only made after manu had a little tantrum after the play. And Donaghy made it from halfcourt!!! Another thing I didnt like was how the refs seem to adjust their calls to complaints by bowen and ginobli. Rasheed complains on the same plays, he not only doesnt get the call, he gets a tech! It is scary, but I am not sure Rush is an honest ref, we shall see I suppose.

 

[nashman]

I thought you were supposed to get T'ed up for arguing calls yet thats all the Spurs do and I NEVER seen any of them receive T's. Apparently if your the Spurs you can foul all you want and whine and complain all you want without any reprocussions EVER!!