Which referees screw us the most---please name names.

[LegendaryXD]

Yeah , I would say the NBA has the worst reffing in all pro sports

The nhl may be worse

Sent from my sexy electronic device,

[rapfan10]

Sacramento refs

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[psrs1]

Add mark ayotte Michael smith and Eric Lewis to the list. Shame on you all. Would love to hear league explanation for offensive call on Lowry during loss at Sacramento.

[stooley]

Come on.
Blame has nothing to do with it - in the NBA, refs steal games.
It's an observable reality, and a problem.
Nobody is talking about blame.

Yes, but i feel like bad calls usually even themselves out in the long run. Except for star players - there really is a bias there.

[Niagara Raptor]

this thread lit a fire under my ass to find the guy
Ed Malloy #14, I hate that guy and cringe whenever I see him, even when he is refereeing other games
he is horrible and dammit he calls us for everything while letting shit slide on the other end
all I ask is consistenty. if your going to call everything call it that way for both teams

[Shrub]

Only Losers blame the refs for their shortcomings

Sent from my C1904 using Tapatalk

Come on.
Blame has nothing to do with it - in the NBA, refs steal games.
It's an observable reality, and a problem.
Nobody is talking about blame.

[psrs1]

Only Losers blame the refs for their shortcomings

Sent from my C1904 using Tapatalk

Good teams do overcome bad calls. No other sport has so many calls on a nightly basis. There can be a significant impact on the outcome especially re free throws.

[MangoKid]

Only Losers blame the refs for their shortcomings

Sent from my C1904 using Tapatalk

[chch166]

Yes. Well reffing across the league is just awful.

Yeah , I would say the NBA has the worst reffing in all pro sports

[psrs1]

Who would be the judge?

I've watched all sorts of games (NBA and many other sports) with friends and family who were equally passionate about the same team, and still had arguments over calls made/missed.

Talking about the NBA specifically (and the play that caused this thread), lots of charge/block fouls are tough to call in slow motion replay, seen from multiple angles, let alone in real-time. It would be hard to come to a consensus over certain calls, as to whether they are right or wrong.

You could have 3 person panel review all games. One knowledgable fan, one former referee and one former NBA coach. You could have four categories per official 1.percent correct calls. 2. Percent incorrect calls 3. Number of missed calls 4. Percent of calls no consensus.


Refs that reach a certain threshold of percent correct calls could get pay bonus.

[psrs1]

I'll preface what I'm about to say with the admission that I've never reffed any sport on any level. Now that that's out of the way...I just don't see how regular training couldn't be massively beneficial. Basketball so fast and complex, and regularly practicing the snap-decisions you're faced with (using, i.e., some kind of in-game simulation) could only help IMO.



They do, they just don't make it public.

We need someone on the inside to leak it.

[JimiCliff]

That isn't really "training" though. I assume at the NBA level, they have access to that, or at least could, and it should be encouraged.

But it's still more important to have multiple perspectives and some kind of people at the top who can hold others accountable. A guy who makes a play once and rewatches it could easily justify his own call. That other to evaluate him is critical, as you need to force them to question their calls. A guy can rewatch plays 1000 times without ever changing his stance if he doesn't have someone to challenge him.

Ah, should have made that clear. I guess "practice" is the better word.

[white men can't jump]

I agree that it can't be simulated exactly as it would occur in in-game situations, but I disagree that with the notion that having someone regularly watching video or computer simulation of specific types of play (like travelling, block-charge plays, moving screens) wouldn't make them better at making calls. To a certain degree, it's just pattern recognition, and the more you've seen something, the easier it is to pick it out of a scrum, especially when you're under pressure - sometimes huge amounts of pressure.

That isn't really "training" though. I assume at the NBA level, they have access to that, or at least could, and it should be encouraged.

But it's still more important to have multiple perspectives and some kind of people at the top who can hold others accountable. A guy who makes a play once and rewatches it could easily justify his own call. That other to evaluate him is critical, as you need to force them to question their calls. A guy can rewatch plays 1000 times without ever changing his stance if he doesn't have someone to challenge him.

[KeonClark]

You guys have spent so much time thinking about training refs you could have made that website by now.

[JimiCliff]

Because there's no way to properly simulate that. Think about what you said ..."practicing snap-decisions". You can't force a play to happen that causes such a decision to be made. Regular reffing is the only "training" you can have that properly gives you access to such moments.

The way quality is improved/assured is by having strong supervision and evaluation, so that you are constantly reminded and being made aware of the questionable decisions you make, so that when faced with the same situation, you have not just your own perspective, but others to rely on as well when making a similar choice. And there needs to be real consequences. In non-pro reffing you get downgraded, and thus likely get to ref lower levels (which generally also pay less) and/or less games.

When you want to become a ref, there's really no "training" they can put you through. You learn the rules (and take written tests on them), and then you're thrown right into the water and you either sink or swim. You hopefully have a knack for it, and you try to improve by a combination of being self-aware of the calls you make, and being very receptive to input from your supervisors/evaluators as to what you can improve upon (ie. what calls you regularly miss, whether you're being too meddlesome, whether you have any bad habits like ball-watching instead of watching the action, etc).

I regularly see calls made in the NBA that if I made them when I reffed, I would be stuck in the lower ranks for a looong time. There just doesn't seem to be any real accountability or consequences to poor officiating.

I agree that it can't be simulated exactly as it would occur in in-game situations, but I disagree that with the notion that having someone regularly watching video or computer simulation of specific types of play (like travelling, block-charge plays, moving screens) wouldn't make them better at making calls. To a certain degree, it's just pattern recognition, and the more you've seen something, the easier it is to pick it out of a scrum, especially when you're under pressure - sometimes huge amounts of pressure.