http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2005/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2053877 Let's do the very last thing I want to do as an NBA observer. As an NBA lover, really. Let's assume for a moment, much as I wish we could all finally drop this conspiracy fixation, that there really is a sinister plot in the league office favoring one team over the other in the Dallas-Houston series. Now ... Do you really think it would favor Dallas? Seriously now. Do you really think the commissioner, or anyone who works for him, wants to make it tougher for Yao Ming to advance as deep in the playoffs as he possibly can? Do you really think the commissioner wants to keep one of the most treasured marketing properties in the history of the sport from competing on the grand stage of the NBA Finals? Do you really think the commissioner is telling his referees to call more fouls on Yao because the owner who has challenged and annoyed him more than any other owner has asked for special treatment? The answer, sadly, is affirmative for some of you. Judging by the e-mails that have been flooding in since Jeff Van Gundy was fined $100,000 on Monday, there are lots of folks out there who believe Van Gundy was punished so harshly by Stern because he is the first guy who has the proof to back up years and years of conspiracy theories. Sorry. He doesn't. So if any of the above describes you or your thinking, I feel for you. Because I can't help you and probably no one can. If you really believe the Rockets are one loss away from sending their coach to Investigation Season because the league wants Yao in foul trouble every night, chances are you're not going to listen to reason. For those of you interested in the answers to 10 legit questions surrounding Van Gundy Gate, read on. Q: What is any different about the criticisms Van Gundy levied and the usual public protests lodged by coaches in the playoffs? A: Van Gundy didn't merely complain about the treatment of his player from referees. Intentionally or not, Van Gundy questioned the integrity of the league by suggesting referees are cracking down on Yao because Mavs owner Mark Cuban specifically requested a crackdown. That inevitably rankled Stern far more than the (also expensive) norm of coaches' blaming a loss on the refs or naming specific refs they don't like. Van Gundy likewise introduced the notion his secret source – a referee he has "known forever" and who's not working in these playoffs – called him to tell him the league office has given playoff referees a directive to be "looking at Yao harder because of Mark's complaints." Make an allegation that strong and you better be able to prove it, and Van Gundy declined when the league asked him to prove it. Stern says Van Gundy can't prove it because there is no proof, and he's determined to keep applying pressure until Van Gundy recants. Stern obviously sees this as an opportunity to send the trend of players and coaches' raising conspiracy theories – which has reached "a new low," in Stern's words – in the other direction, so it starts happening less rather than more. Q: How can we be so sure Van Gundy doesn't have proof? A: If Van Gundy – or anyone else – could corroborate his claim Yao is being specifically targeted, lots of us would owe him an engraved apology ... and, of far greater importance, the NBA's credibility would suffer immeasurably from one of its biggest scandals ever. But it's not going to come to that, and here's why. The pregame "Points of Emphasis" memos from referee supervisors to officiating crews – which were the initial source of Van Gundy's exasperation here – are not player specific, according to sources familiar with the content of such memos. These memos never include instructions in the following form: "Watch Yao for moving screens." An e-mailed directive, sources say, would put referees on alert to watch for moving screens from both teams. The closest link to individual players are the video clips referees are asked to watch from previous games that spotlight missed calls. Besides, it's far more important to note that what the Mavericks have complained about (moving screens) and what Van Gundy is upset about (the amount of punishment his big man takes) really have nothing to do with each other. The Mavericks have been open about the fact they've called the league to complain about moving screens by Yao and Dikembe Mutombo. Such calls are a standard practice for every team in the league. But moving screens are not why Yao has been in foul trouble in this series. Trying to take charges against smaller drivers has been a much bigger problem for Yao. Of his 24 fouls in this series through five games, I can remember Yao being whistled for two moving screens, one each in Game 4 and Game 5. Q: So why, then, would Van Gundy make such a controversial claim? A: I do have a theory. Van Gundy admitted Monday, after getting hit with the six-figure fine, it's not one or two games in this series that sent him over the edge. He plainly says, "This is how I feel," after coaching Yao for two seasons, just as his brother Stan – and every other coach Shaquille O'Neal has had – feels Shaq absorbs more physical abuse than he deserves because he's so much bigger than everyone else. The Van Gundys, in essence, feel their centers are victims of their own size, are expected to take extra punishment because they're so huge, and are punished too harshly, conversely, for the contact they make at the defensive end. Instinct, then, suggests Van Gundy used the very public knowledge about Cuban's protests as a means to make his case even more dramatic. Van Gundy has been admittedly frustrated by his attempts to lobby on Yao's behalf through the proper channels, such as sending tapes to the league for review or making his case to Ronnie Nunn, the league's referee chief. "Yao all year," Van Gundy insisted Sunday, "has had a target on his back for whatever reason." It was the Mavs, in fact, who volunteered the news they called in to protest the screens set by Yao and Mutombo, just as they never denied calling the league in previous years to argue that Chris Webber was shuffling his feet illegally, for instance, and that Shaq was crossing the line as he shot free throws. So Van Gundy went for the dramatic here and realizes now he went too far. The worst part? He probably would have escaped with just a hefty fine – while still bringing plenty of national attention to his cause – had he simply avoided mention of his secret source. "If I had one do-over," Van Gundy said Wednesday, "I would not have spoken with great emotion and brought [the referee] into it." Q: What is the "Article 24" that Van Gundy says he violated? A: Article 24 is a lengthy section in the league's constitution that details the powers of the commissioner, powers that are best summed up in one word: absolute. One element of Article 24 is a mandate stating any coach, player or team official must cooperate fully in a league investigation. Van Gundy himself conceded Wednesday he now faces the choice "between two rights – the right of helping the commissioner with his investigation, which I wasn't aware I was bound to do, and the right of being a man of my word." Q: So how will the investigation play out once the season ends? A: As laid out in this cyberspace Monday, sources indicate Van Gundy is facing one of three outcomes from here: 1. Van Gundy goes against his convictions and reveals the name of the referee who allegedly told him of a league directive to its playoff referees to be stricter when assessing Yao's movements. That's probably the only way Van Gundy can avoid further punishment, which would obviously get his source fired. 2. Van Gundy tells league officials he made up the story. There is considerable suspicion in NBA circles that's really what happened, but admitting it would still earn Van Gundy a suspension of some severity to start next season. Having long since exhausted his patience shooting down conspiracy theories, Stern is unsurprisingly fuming at the idea that one of his most high-profile coaches – who earns nearly $5 million annually working in this league – would claim to have detailed knowledge of a conspiracy. 3. Van Gundy maintains his refusal to tell Stern's investigators anything, which is his preference. He joked before Monday's tip-off he "felt like I was in Watergate or something" when pressed to reveal his sources, but you can be sure the penalty stemming from this scenario won't generate any laughter from the Rockets. Q: Why did Stern postpone the investigation until after the Rockets' season ends? A: By levying the $100,000 fine, Stern hoped to send the sternest possible message to make his statement ... but also to allow the focus to shift back to the actual playoffs. Problem is, the threat of additional serious punishment for Van Gundy once the season ends – and Stern's even stronger warnings when asked to explain his position – ensures the focus will remain squarely on Van Gundy Gate. At least for as long as the Dallas series lasts. Q: Yao and even Rockets super fan Jim McIngvale have offered to pay part or all of the fine. Can they? A: Not directly. League rules state that official payment of the fine has to come from Van Gundy, typically taken out of a standard paycheck. Outsiders can offer to help Van Gundy recoup his lost wages but, knowing Jeff, he'd never accept such offers anyway. Q: How does the league communicate with its officials? A: NBA referees have to file reports to their supervisors after every game and then read an online review of their performance (with video clips) from each game. The video clips obviously feature individual players, but directives from Nunn's office or Nunn's boss (NBA vice president Stu Jackson) are not player-specific. Q: Is Van Gundy an employee of the Rockets or an employee of the NBA? A: Both. Which means, just like a player, he's subject to any form of discipline the commissioner deems appropriate, with arbitration serving as Van Gundy's only likely recourse – if any – to appeal any further punishment. Q: Has Stern simply gotten carried away with power? A: Not in my view. As a fan, I'd rather have the strong commish who makes it clear he has the ability (and willingness) to police every team as opposed to the weak commish (Bud Selig) whose league seems to have just as many image problems, if not more. It's no secret Stern, starting with the penalties he assessed after the Indiana-Detroit melee in November, has been swinging his hammer harder than ever. But I'm fine with it. I've long believed two of my favorite sporting enterprises – England's soccer Premiership and the world of tennis – need a Stern type to keep order. Not that I expect the good folks of Clutch City to agree with me at the moment. Marc Stein is the senior NBA writer for ESPN.com. To e-mail him, click here. Also, click here to send a question for possible use on ESPNEWS.
Marc Stein lives in Dallas and is an open Mavericks fan. I question the impartiality of this article, but that doesn't impugn his logic in many instances. My problem with this whole deal is that, despite the surface level anonymity with the email, etc., the refs still watch plays that show in no mistakable detail the indentity of the players. It's video, for God's sake. And the coaches lobby the NBA and its refs because they believe it works. Just like in the law, sometimes the best defense is a good office. Carl Rove knows this, too. Why attack somebody's weakness when its already known what they are when you can attack somebody's strength and, is so doing, make the attacked explain himself? Stern knows this tactic and is applying it to Van Gundy. Van Gundy did overstep his bounds, but his actions may have paved the way to allow some much needed reforming of NBA officiating. -P1st, S2nd
Thanks for the shout-out, but you're right about that Sigmund..... Aside, back in 2002, Marc & ESPN ran this long special collection of articles on "the next great center" and mentioned every chump in the book - the article appeared a few days after the Yao "Kiss kenny's ass" breakout game and appeared the same afternoon as the Yao-destroys-Bradley game in Dallas - at halftime I (uncharacteristically) shot marc a very snide e-mail saying perhaps he should have, you know, mentioned Yao rather than chumps like Dampier as the 'next great center', he shot back a nasty response, saying I couldn't read - Well he was right, in the whole series of 4-5 articles he, had one, exactly one, passing mention of yao in one throwaway line. (instead focusing on such luminaries as Dampier et al.)
What else can you expect from a guy who makes his living covering the NBA? Actual criticism? Come on.
I don't know if Van Gundy lied, but someone was saying on the radio today that it should be easy to figure out who the referee is, considering Van Gundy claims its a long-time friend and its someone who isn't officiating playoff games. Other than that I agree with most of his points, especially that Yao and Shaq are difficult to officiate because of their sheer size and that the idea that the league doesn't want Yao to advance is ludicrous.
Its pretty sad that Mark Stein decided to write 3 articles over the last week, and none of them really added anything more to the situation except for the fact that he's probably a Mavs fan. I'm also pretty suprised that not one writer for ESPN took the stance of the Fox Sports guy and argued FOR the fact that NBA refereeing has got to find a better way of policing itself, of managing "superstar" treatment, and overall being more consistent from game to game. I don't really care about the "conspiracy" theory... but I do care that Dirk Nowitzski (a 7 footer) can recieve far less contact than a Yao Ming (a 7 footer), but still get put on the FT line. Additionally, I would like to know why Yao is mandated to absorb more contact than he can dish out. Finally, if the NBA doesn't want to abide by their own rules for different players (ie - don't call charges in favor of big men)... just come out with a different set of rules all-together for "big" men. Simply re-hashing all that has gone on with JVG and Stern over the last week, while pretending that no real underlying problem with the referees actually exists, is a view that is simply naive, unproductive, and just overall one big waste of time if you're actually coming out with a lengthy-ass article saying stuff that everybody already knew.
There was plenty of criticism- of Van Gundy. Unfortunately people in this thread decide to attack Marc Stein personally instead of his logic. I think the refereeing is horrible, but it's not biased against anyone. JVG was over the line in implying some sort of conspiracy against Yao. The refereeing has been horrible for a while, the Lakers- Kings series a few years ago was the worst I've seen.
Frankly, I think Yao should be easier to ref than a guy like Nowitzski... Yao moves slow, he's easy to see, and he never flops. If he backs a man down that's smaller than him... its probably because the guy trying to guard him is too small.... simple as that. Nowitzski, on the other hand, is a 7 footer who plays like he's 6'2. He can be dislodged and sent flying into the air (with his arms flapping) by just the slightest contact from a puny guard... but then when the time comes, he can 'attmept' to guard Yao by holding his ground down low, pushing and shoving with the fronting position, etc. He too can back down somebody who is smaller than him, but if there's contact... it normally gets called. For Yao, it doesn't. That's a discrepancy.
Which is why Stein, or somebody else, would be better served to write an article trying to find a better solution to the refs. The NBA is getting bigger, stronger, and faster... and thus, it makes the refs all the more likely to start missing calls. Its not like its not already pretty damn hard for them to keep up w/ these supreme athletes... but now, you factor in 7 footers who play like guards, 6'8 guys who are built like centers, and giants like Yao who has the type of agility for a giant that the game has never seen before. I don't see the referees getting "better" as the game is continuing to evolve... they're getting worse, and now its leading to all of this controversy of conspiracy theorists and secret sources.
What I dont understand is Stein's point that if Van Ugs reveals his source then he would only be given the fine and the Ref would lose his job. But wouldn't that also validate that there is a conspiracy . I feel like this is the best bargaining tool Van Gundy has. If I was Van Gundy I would be like " you dont want to make me go public "
I agree they are getting worse, there's no doubt there hasn't been improvement. It is hard to tell what the heck the refs are going to call in the last 5 minutes. But it was JVG who brought up this conspiracy stuff, not Stein. Don't blame Stein for writing about this mess.
good point. But, you can tell from the article that Stein doesn't believe that JVG has a source... not for a second. He considers that he may have one "hypothetically", but he also spends more than a fair share of the article claiming that JVG very well could have "made it up." If Stein was truly unsure whether or not JVG has a source, he wouldn't waste an entire pararagph (and several other mentions) highlighting the probablility that JVG did make the whole thing up.
] I disagree - I think the reffing is biased against whoever is defending Dirk Nowitski. You-re right bout everything else. The reffing was absolutely horrible in that LA-Sac series.
I'm not blaming Stein for writing about the topic... i'm blaming him for writing 3 additional articles about it, all basically saying the exact same thing, and none of them ever addressing the percieved motivation of the entire fiasco with any validity. I guess ESPN would rather protect its relationship with the NBA, rather than write something that actually attempts to explore the problem at hand, and whether or not there could be a solution. Then again, this is the same company that continues to employ Steven A. Smith as a NBA analyst... so why am I expecting more.
Another kiss $tern a$$ writter. Just show us how many times Dirk Nowitzki's flops had been shown on that online video review. He is the best known in that department, right? That online video review things has became one of the power tool that NBA higher ranking officials are using to manipulate the game.
His lengthy article used correct logic, but based on a false claim - That Stern told the refs to single out Yao. Nobody is saying that, and I don't believe that for a second. "Consipracy" or not, it's not in Stern's interest. JVG never said it was Stern's idea, and he just pointed out that refs were influenced by Cuban, and those refs are biased. Now, Stern came out to spin it as the attack against the league, questioning integrity of NBA. That's just BS and spin. With all the cook media has and all the attention and Stern's harsh words. It all of a sudden, became the war between JVG and Stern, JVG and NBA, which he can not win. In reality, those guilty ones - those biased, unprofessional, gang-like refs are staying out of this, as if it was never about them. The public attention is led to Stern vs. JVG. But my belief is, we should keep ponding on the refs, questioning those bad calls or non-calls. We need ask those refs the question of why. Why it's a non-call in Finley's case? If he saw both of his feet were out of bounds, why didn't he blow the whistle, doesn't know the rule or ignore it? That leads question of professionalism and integrity. If he saw they were inbound, which is unlogic and impossible, given how war away was he outbound. That leads to question of professionalism and integrity again. If he didn't see or couldn't see, then why would he assume it's inbound not otherwise, given JB was practically at the baseline. That again, makes you ask the question about professionalism and integrity. Same three questions can be asked about the Padgett's foul, Yao's offensive foul (Dirk's flop) etc. The focus was, and still should be on those refs. The conclusion is they are unprofessional and biased. That, was JVG wanted to say. And, that was the source of problem.
great post real_egal. He's right... the media thinks that Stern is controlling the refs like a video game, when in reality, he's pretty uninvolved into how games are handled on a day to day basis. Also, you have a lot of refs out there who carry way too much in from past experiences on a game-to-game basis. Stern has no control over that. The NBA has dealt with these perpetrators in the past when it has become blatantly obvious that a ref had a vendetta against a player (Jake O'Donnel), but the majority of the time, Stern and the rest of the NBA would have no clue or hard evidence whether or not a ref would personally support or single out any given player. I guess that's why they have a 7 game series... so that in the end, all these bad calls, favorable/unfavorable treatment by certain refs, and "conspiracies" should basically even out.... which is why I'm definitely looking forward to these last 2 games to see if that's going to happen.
I think this is the point. What Fat-Face and the other writers have been focusing on is this idea that the NBA has picked Dallas to win. That's not what Van Gundy said--they're putting words in his mouth. What he said was that the league refs let Cuban's criticism change the way they called Yao. His point was that no owner should have the power to change the way individual players are reffed. He's not saying it's a c-o-n-spiracy. It's frustrating seeing these idiots get it wrong. But whatever, ESPN is going down the toilet anyway.
