'Myths' and the Media

[white men can't jump]

I don't think there are any refs uses a thought precess such as 'It looked like Kobe fouled him but Kobe is a superstar and the other guy's a scrub. Better give the foul to the scrub.' It's more like they have doubt about what happened and they give the benefit of the doubt to the perceived better player and that is why you have to earn the refs' respect so that you win calls that they didn't get a good look at.
I think they should get rid of fouling people out, just increase the penalty if that player fouls (extra foul shots, foul shots and ball out of bounds) and the coach can decide if the risk is warranted. That way a player won't necessarily be benched after two quick fouls.
Kicking a player out after two technicals seems fair though because the refs need to be able to maintain control.

This is pretty much spot on. Now, Im' not going to pretend that no refs have personal bias of any kind. But it becomes a sort of reflex to favor the more talented player, one you sometimes have to fight. And it doesn't have to be name recognition. If i'm reffing a high school game, and one kid is clearly head and shoulders above the rest, it's hard not to give him the benefit of the doubt on a call you might not be 100% sure on. It's flawed sure, but also somewhat fair. Good players are generally targeted more and you'd be amazed at what defences try to get away with if they think you can't see the angle well.

[AlienOverlord]

How often do you hear reference to superstar calls, young players having to 'earn the respect of the refs' or make-up calls? There's no denying that they all exist in the NBA officiating landscape now, and from a logistical standpoint, it doesn't make any sense. Since when did the rules become up for interpretation based on the amount of time a player has been in the league or their number of all star appearances?

I don't think there are any refs uses a thought precess such as 'It looked like Kobe fouled him but Kobe is a superstar and the other guy's a scrub. Better give the foul to the scrub.' It's more like they have doubt about what happened and they give the benefit of the doubt to the perceived better player and that is why you have to earn the refs' respect so that you win calls that they didn't get a good look at.
I think they should get rid of fouling people out, just increase the penalty if that player fouls (extra foul shots, foul shots and ball out of bounds) and the coach can decide if the risk is warranted. That way a player won't necessarily be benched after two quick fouls.
Kicking a player out after two technicals seems fair though because the refs need to be able to maintain control.

[white men can't jump]

Reffing basketball is hard. It is a fast sport with lots of different situations and you can probably make some kind of call every time down the court. But because of all that I am constantly alarmed by how poor the reffing is in the NBA. I used to ref in Montreal awhile back(not exactly a bball city), and the better refs I knew there...I can't imagine they'd be worse than a lot of guys I see in the NBA. I constantly wonder how the NBA trains their refs, because something's not right. I mean, obviously some of the refs are good, or at least adequate, but I can't believe how bad the bad ones are, because I can't even imagine them being top rated in the type of association I used to be a ref in.

[white men can't jump]

I wasn't arguing the merit of the tech.

Rather Jones and Smith immediately framed any non-Raptors friendly result (ie. Dwight being excused from the game) as abuse by the refs.

The bolded statement more or less shows what I'm getting at. The assumption that discussing the call was based on the importance to the player - rather than whether it was the right call or not.

Your statement makes me want to raise another question though - Given what you've said, should refs therefore allow their calls to stand regardless of whether they believe they were wrong or mistakes?

Sometimes it is ok to defer/discuss, but really it should only be when you have no angle on the action, or you're positive the other ref(s) had a better one. Discussing on a technical cannot be said to be for either of those reasons, and so it makes no sense to me that they would talk about it at all. For the life of me the only reason I can think to discuss a T is if he was actually simply explaining his reason for the tech to the crew, which he also doesn't need to disrupt the game for (can do it at next time out). So T's should always stand.

So it's a no, but also the more refs let calls stand, the higher likelihood the crew is doing a good job. Again, it should be situational and based a lot on angles. I'm going to contradict myself a bit, because it basically means that out-of-bounds plays are the plays you discuss and overturn the most, but that a good crew still doesn't do it a lot, and that you can tell when a crew is doing a crap job. If you need to discuss about even a normal foul, you shouldn't have blown your whistle in the first place. And discussing's generally something you would probably do more in a slow or set situation. If you're the lead ref on a fast break, and you look to your partner to reassure you on a play, that's a bad sign, and usually a worse sign if your partner overturns you. Either, somehow, some dude 30 or 40 feet behind the play saw better than you, or the guy's just saying whatever the hell he feels like. But if you're on the baseline in the halfcourt, and it goes off someone's leg on the far low-post, it might not be bad to ask the ref on that sideline if he saw the same as you, or ask his view if you didn't see it well at all.

[white men can't jump]

After Sundays game verse the Lakers another big problem with the rules was brought to our attention. The Lakers were gaining steam and bringing the score closer. Kobe Bryant has the ball and makes a costly turnover and the Raptors are left with a 2 on zero fast break ( fields and lowry vs. no body) and Kobe flails his arms and complains, resulting in a technical. Normally this would be fine but on this particular play the raptors 2 on zero was stopped before they could score and Kobe was T'd up resulting in a foul shot and possession for the raptors. Now I cant read Kobe's mind butwe are smart enough to know kobe is a really smart player and he can recognize when he "should" take a Tech to stop a fast break.

IMO this play is total BS and makes no sense. Theplay should carry on, let the raptors finish the fast break, then the technical should be issued to Bryant immediately after the play (made basket or not).

This is something that's easily fixed, and hopefully the weird-ass competition committee can make a suggestion like this: any tech that disrupts an uncontested fast break opportunity may be treated as a clear path foul, resulting in not one, but two technical free throws, as well as the ball. This seems like something that should have been put in with the clear path foul.

[Nilanka]

After Sundays game verse the Lakers another big problem with the rules was brought to our attention. The Lakers were gaining steam and bringing the score closer. Kobe Bryant has the ball and makes a costly turnover and the Raptors are left with a 2 on zero fast break ( fields and lowry vs. no body) and Kobe flails his arms and complains, resulting in a technical. Normally this would be fine but on this particular play the raptors 2 on zero was stopped before they could score and Kobe was T'd up resulting in a foul shot and possession for the raptors. Now I cant read Kobe's mind butwe are smart enough to know kobe is a really smart player and he can recognize when he "should" take a Tech to stop a fast break.

IMO this play is total BS and makes no sense. Theplay should carry on, let the raptors finish the fast break, then the technical should be issued to Bryant immediately after the play (made basket or not).

I totally agree that the play should carry on, and Casey was complaining about this very same issue.

But I highly doubt Kobe did it intentionally to stop the play.

[pesterm1]

Jones and Smith are pretty much right on. Whether you believe the play merited a tech or not.

You can argue the merit of the call all you want, but once it's made, especially a tech or foul, it has to carry through. IMO, the big problem is that "lesser" calls seem to be at the refs whim. You can't decide that techs/fouls have to stand because of importance (mostly because of how they directly affect a player by adding fouls), and then randomly overturn things like out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds can be just as crucial to an outcome. Such plays get overturned way too frequently, and just through refs talking on the court, without any real evidence because they can only use replay in the last 2 minutes or whatever. That shit needs to get cleaned up badly.

After Sundays game verse the Lakers another big problem with the rules was brought to our attention. The Lakers were gaining steam and bringing the score closer. Kobe Bryant has the ball and makes a costly turnover and the Raptors are left with a 2 on zero fast break ( fields and lowry vs. no body) and Kobe flails his arms and complains, resulting in a technical. Normally this would be fine but on this particular play the raptors 2 on zero was stopped before they could score and Kobe was T'd up resulting in a foul shot and possession for the raptors. Now I cant read Kobe's mind butwe are smart enough to know kobe is a really smart player and he can recognize when he "should" take a Tech to stop a fast break.

IMO this play is total BS and makes no sense. Theplay should carry on, let the raptors finish the fast break, then the technical should be issued to Bryant immediately after the play (made basket or not).

[Fully]

We've gotten to a point where every team has their own biased announcing crew now. Put the situation that happened with Howard on Sunday afternoon in front of the Hornets, Rockets, or Celtics announcing team and they are going to call it the same way. It's over the top, and it's almost as if the broadcast teams are trying to one-up one another with just how one-sided they can be in their view of the game. You just have to take it with a grain of salt, or laugh at it, since it's the ridiculousness of some of their commentary is actually pretty entertaining at times.

The bigger problem has already been touched upon - NBA officiating has become something of a farce. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I think that refs are intentionally deciding the outcomes of games to try and screw over certain teams. However it's hard to watch the NBA over a 10 game stretch and argue that the referees are holding all players to the same standards. The status of the player has as much to do with the call being made as the actual play.
How often do you hear reference to superstar calls, young players having to 'earn the respect of the refs' or make-up calls? There's no denying that they all exist in the NBA officiating landscape now, and from a logistical standpoint, it doesn't make any sense. Since when did the rules become up for interpretation based on the amount of time a player has been in the league or their number of all star appearances?

[Nilanka]

IMO, there is no question that the name on the back of the jersey determines the level of calls made for or against a player. One of the factors which people don't look at is calls NOT MADE against certain players....for example Garnet, who never sets a legal screen, or Lebron, who somehow made it nearly 6 games without a call against him while he guards the best player on the other team most games.

there is no question that teams like Toronto are frequently picked on especially against other teams. The 5 second violation which we got called for last year still was one of the most ridiculous calls i've ever seen. And there's no question that if lebron was driving to the basket the other day against chicago, he would have got the call.

One of the reasons why I think it will be so difficult for us to win a championship is "we need to earn the respect" of the league (whatever that means) before we can receive solid and fair treatment in those competitive games

I don't think it's a matter of earning respect, but rather landing legit star players. The league doesn't want to see LeBrons, Kobes, Dwights, Durants, etc. in foul trouble sitting on the bench.

We don't have anyone who the league wants/cares to see.

[BallaBalla]

IMO, there is no question that the name on the back of the jersey determines the level of calls made for or against a player. One of the factors which people don't look at is calls NOT MADE against certain players....for example Garnet, who never sets a legal screen, or Lebron, who somehow made it nearly 6 games without a call against him while he guards the best player on the other team most games.

there is no question that teams like Toronto are frequently picked on especially against other teams. The 5 second violation which we got called for last year still was one of the most ridiculous calls i've ever seen. And there's no question that if lebron was driving to the basket the other day against chicago, he would have got the call.

One of the reasons why I think it will be so difficult for us to win a championship is "we need to earn the respect" of the league (whatever that means) before we can receive solid and fair treatment in those competitive games

[psrs1]

I wasn't arguing the merit of the tech.

Rather Jones and Smith immediately framed any non-Raptors friendly result (ie. Dwight being excused from the game) as abuse by the refs.

The bolded statement more or less shows what I'm getting at. The assumption that discussing the call was based on the importance to the player - rather than whether it was the right call or not.

Your statement makes me want to raise another question though - Given what you've said, should refs therefore allow their calls to stand regardless of whether they believe they were wrong or mistakes?

I would rather they discuss and review calls more frequently to get it right. Raps have frequently been screwed because questionable calls were not discussed nor reviewed.

[Craiger]

Jones and Smith are pretty much right on. Whether you believe the play merited a tech or not.

You can argue the merit of the call all you want, but once it's made, especially a tech or foul, it has to carry through. IMO, the big problem is that "lesser" calls seem to be at the refs whim. You can't decide that techs/fouls have to stand because of importance (mostly because of how they directly affect a player by adding fouls), and then randomly overturn things like out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds can be just as crucial to an outcome. Such plays get overturned way too frequently, and just through refs talking on the court, without any real evidence because they can only use replay in the last 2 minutes or whatever. That shit needs to get cleaned up badly.

I wasn't arguing the merit of the tech.

Rather Jones and Smith immediately framed any non-Raptors friendly result (ie. Dwight being excused from the game) as abuse by the refs.

The bolded statement more or less shows what I'm getting at. The assumption that discussing the call was based on the importance to the player - rather than whether it was the right call or not.

Your statement makes me want to raise another question though - Given what you've said, should refs therefore allow their calls to stand regardless of whether they believe they were wrong or mistakes?

[white men can't jump]

Jones and Smith are pretty much right on. Whether you believe the play merited a tech or not.

You can argue the merit of the call all you want, but once it's made, especially a tech or foul, it has to carry through. IMO, the big problem is that "lesser" calls seem to be at the refs whim. You can't decide that techs/fouls have to stand because of importance (mostly because of how they directly affect a player by adding fouls), and then randomly overturn things like out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds can be just as crucial to an outcome. Such plays get overturned way too frequently, and just through refs talking on the court, without any real evidence because they can only use replay in the last 2 minutes or whatever. That shit needs to get cleaned up badly.

[Craiger]

There is a long standing debate as to whether media influences our culture, or whether media simply gives society/consumers what they want. Is FOX media or MSNBC a result of polarized politics or do they polarize politics through their partisan approach to news and information?

As it applies to the Raptors, there is a belief that NBA refs (and the NBA in general) don't give the Raptors a fair shake. Mistaken late game calls (which at times have led to apologizies from the league) or questions of free throws discrepincies etc. all help build on this belief. This has led to both questions and the belief that the NBA 'has it in' for the Raptors. They are not given 'equal' treatment because they lack a star or lack the desirable market place or exciting team. The end result is a belief by some that the team should have won more games, is better than their record, or even so far as believing the team will never be able to reach into the upper echelons of the NBA.

This isn't a new thing. Its existed in some fashion since the Alvin 'pedophile' Roberston made the Raptors first field goal. This year however seems different. Louder, more persistent, and much more rampant. And not just with the fans. Raptors related media (whether TV, radio or print) haven't questioned jumping onto this wagon, something they've historically avoided.


Matt Devlin is perhaps a great example with the repetition of what should be his new catch phrase, "Contact no call". A claim that can be heard numerous times every game. While this doesn't explicitly indicate a missed call, it does allow a fan to question whether a call was missed or whether NBA rules are being applied appropriately.

Listening to the Raptors - Lakers game yesterday an even more interesting event happened. Late in the 2nd quarter Dwight Howard received his 2nd technical when Alan Anderson and himself had, what we'll call, an altercation. A double technical was called which resulted in Dwight Howards 2nd technical and he would therefore be ejected from the game. The refs came together, I imagine, to make sure the right call was made. Eric Smith and Paul Jones however seemed to think this was different. They never bothered to question whether the call was right. Rather they immediately and directly accused the refs of colluding in order to (paraphrasing) "try and figure out a way to keep Dwight Howard in the game", and then supported that accusation by claiming it was because "fans came to see Dwight Howard" It was a very direct and open accusation of not only NBA refs, but also the league in general.

Ofcourse no one actually knows what the refs were actually discussing. Were they ensuring they made the right call? Were they trying to figure out a way to keep a superstar in the game? Were they talking about the hottie in the 2nd row? That didn't matter to Jones and Smith - what mattered is if this call didn't stand as is, it was going to be a clear indictment of the league.

In the end the call was upheld. Dwight Howard was ejected. And no recantation of their claims or accusations were made by the radio hosts. Basketball life continued and that not so subtle hint that the Raps will continue to fight an uphill battle against the league remains in background.

It was unquestionably a rather important call in the game. One of the best centers, if not a clear superstar, in the league being ejected on what was thought to be a power house team who is in desperate need of wins. So ofcourse it doesn't go unnoticed:

Dwight Howard Ejected On Perhaps The Flimsiest Double Technical Foul Ever

Dwight Howard ejected on questionable 2nd technical

Dwight Howard Ejection vs. Raptors Proves NBA Refs Have Technical Foul Issue

Quite the different views from the local radio hosts isn't it?

On one hand we have some who question the call being made at all and the result a disservice to the game of basketball. On the other we have the refs gathering together after the call as an indictment of the league and the way the rules are applied.


Its no wonder there is so much more venom towards the refs and the league when those who are covering games are doing their best FOX news/MSNBC approach to coverage. Contact no call vs contact don't change the call or this league is corrupt? By all means question a call. Find evidence of unequal or unfair treatment of players and teams and present it. Ask questions or raise concerns. But events like the above? By those who at the very least indirectly represent both the team and the league? I can't say for certain whether individuals such as Devlin or Jones/Smith are creating this sort of atmosphere in Toronto or whether they are simply serving up a dish of media consumerism to keep fans tuned in. I can't say for certain the league doesn't script games and seasons or that there isn't a cabal of owners with lackey refs deciding outcomes. I do know one thing though. Some in the Raptors media aren't helping to educate fans by t-ing up excuses and handing out rolls of verbal tin foil.