This is how I feel about the NBA

I hadn't heard about that. Do you recall where this was pointed out?

 

Y’all do this every year

 

I heard it leading into the Foster game against OKC. I cannot look for it now as I am downtown. I did a quick search and could not find it. I will have to look again later.

Also consider that Paul gets the delay of game against the Wolves called.

The very next game two delay of games are called on Chris Paul.

Game 7 against the Rockets Foster reminds Paul that he was the referee when Paul lost to the Spurs in 2008 in the elimination game.

Foster then tells Paul he doesn't have to hurry up tying his shoes as they are cleaning the floor...... he then calls a delay of game on Paul anyway at a key part of the game.

 

still my favorite movie.

 

Aren't you mixing up the yearly "Points of Emphasis" and "Rules Changes" presented by the Competition Committee and President of League Operations to start each season, mixing that up with execution of them by the VP of Referee Operations? Sounds like @Nook is talking about micromanaging refereeing from above via League Operations and Commish, and you are saying that the they (Spruell and Silver) can (potentially should) have an active role from series to series, game to game under the auspices of telling their VP what to do.

The biggest complaint from Coaches and Players is inconsistency and especially any big changes/crack-downs from regular season to playoffs. What you're implying is tweaks to yearly Points of Emphasis being micromanaged throughout the year is OK as quality control. That's fine. But shouldn't that be finished come playoff time and only be done through established quality control protocols from within the Department of Referee Operations, rather than from Men in the High Castle?

Consider the Org Chart of the NBA and some history. Byron Spruell is President of League Operations and he works with the Competition Committee in gaining consensus on yearly "Points of Emphasis" and "Rules Changes". His role in this aspect of refereeing is supposed to be setting changes for the year, then stepping away. League Operations overseas Dept of Basketball Operations, Dept of Referee Operations and Dept of Stats/Analytics/Strategies. The NBA (after the Donaghy fiasco) hired a Major General to run the Dept of Referee Operations, as a move to establish department rules and accountability. When he retired, they hired another Major General. The last one just retired in Sept 2019, so Spruell and Monty McCutcheon filled in as interim, with Spruell stepping aside once Borgia agreed to run the dept with McCutcheon.​

Those two Major Generals and now an interim team of Borgia and McCutcheon are given the task (and fully capable) of executing orders passed down as annual "Points of Emphasis" and to execute quality control throughout the year.

Not relevant for history of this issue, but just fwiw, Borgia retired in June. So I assume Spruell is back to helping McCutcheon??

So question: Why would the "league office" need to step in during playoffs, as you're trying to find reason for? There is only two answers to your question imo, either the League Office wants to micromanage "quality" (as you put it) or the referees are incompetent so someone from outside the Dept of Referee Operations has to do it.​

Bottomline: Both answers are problems, with the latter implying some refs are not held accountable and favored, and the former looks like manipulation from above that shouldn't be necessary.​

 

I believe there is an understanding that the league office has some authority and influence over how refs officiate games and they will discuss cases where the refs are systematically missing certain types of calls. That's why I believe teams do, from time to time, complain to the league office (sometimes with video to help make their point). Does this, in itself, indicate a corrupt system? No, I don't think so. Perhaps you could argue that means refs must be incompetent. I don't think even that is necessarily the case.

 

For the purpose of executing "Points Of Emphasis" established pre-season, I think it is only supposed to be done from within the quality control protocols established in the Dept of Referee Operations. If that Department is what you mean by "The League Office" then I think Nook is saying something else.

 

OK. I don't really understand the particulars of the organizational structure like you and Nook.

I think teams will complain to "the league" (whoever that is) during the playoffs when they feel they they are being systematically disadvantaged somehow by the officiating. I assume they think such complaints can have some influence on how refs officiate future games in the series. How exactly that dialogue would take place behind the scenes, or how formalized the procedure is, I don't know.

 

Feeling like Scott Foster blew 37 dicks, none of which were the Rockets?

 

So you do not have a problem with the NBA league offices...... deciding who will officiate each playoff game, and not announcing it until the morning of the game....... the league office before the game meets with the top official in private.... and then that official meets with the other officials of the game in private? You do not see how that is incredible ripe for undue influence and pressure by the league office?

What possible reason does the league need to first hide referee assignments, meet with the referee and have multiple layers of insulation all in the post season? Are the referees not competent or does the league wish to have some degree of influence over the product on the floor.

You discussed teams complaining about the referees. How well has that worked? How often was Harden going to the line after the Rockets contested the Spurs game. How well did Paul pushing for a delay of game work out for him? How did it work out after he got two delay of games the next game and went to the media to complain. Was it coincidence that he got a delay of game in game 7? Did Paul lie about what Foster told him? Why exactly is Scott Foster calling game 7's? Is he a good official? What about Joey Crawford and Bob Delaney? What about the comments made that Crawford was chastised for kicking out a star player (Duncan) early?

The reality is that for as "progressive" as the league is, it is ruled by an iron fist and the league is passive aggressive at the top and will punish people that do not go along with the plan. That can be someone like Sam Hinke that was pushed out of Philadelphia by the league office. That can be someone like Chris Paul, James Harden, Rasheed Wallace or even Draymond Green. That can be Daryl Morey for questioning the officials and not doing and building teams the way the league wants.

It sure seems to me that the league has it set up so that they can influence the outcomes of games. No, I do not think that they are saying "Celtics by 5" but they sure can put their thumb on the scale and they know there are no consequences.

The league should have some input during the off season and possibly even general input during the regular season. The fact that they can just assign referees the day of games, meet with multiple levels of officials the day of or before games is absurd. It is just too big a temptation.

 

To further this...why aren't referee game reports released to the public as they are to the teams? What's the harm of making these reports publc, instead of just the reports that are the last 2 minutes of games within 5 points?

Morey released one of them a couple years ago along with numbers only to get shouted down by reporters close to the NBA and every other franchise...why did no one seem to take it seriously or ask why the league just doesn't release the reports? If nothing is wrong, transparency would do no harm.

 

Teams cannot lodge complaints directly to the Dept of Referee Operations. That kind of access would be wrong. All complaints (certainly official protests) must go to Silver/Spruell. Rockets indeed sent their complaint wrt Warriors to Spruell. (Cuban sending video of Yao's "illegal screens" was pre-Donaghy fall-out.) The point is, Teams can't have direct access to the referee department, but that doesn't mean the higher-ups actually decide game-by-game Points of Emphasis.

That protocol over access doesn't indicate to me that Spruell is supposed to then dictate to his VP of Referee Operations how to use that evidence/complaint, and especially not to go around his VP and call the refs himself. (Not saying he does...I certainly don't know.)

I'm not trying to influence what you think is right or wrong. I'm only trying to understand what you mean by it is common practice for the League to intervene during the playoffs.

Now that you know there is a Dept of Referee Operations that was run by two Major Generals in to order fix credibility issues, add transparency (L2Ms), establish new quality protocols (Replay Center), recruit and develop new refs, etc,etc, do you still feel like it is necessary for the higher ups to directly intervene on how their VPs handle complaints? Why would outside Department influencers be necessary for the playoffs?

Saying "It happens," isn't really an opinion. If you don't have an opinion, and just shrug it off as "that's the way it is, prove to me there's a problem," then that's fine. Is that all?

my opinion: I think Spruell/Silver should and do evolve rules via Competition Committees establishing yearly Points of Emphasis, but day-to-day operations, no.

 

Where can I learn more about these private meetings you are referring to? I wasn't aware that this happened.

I think there may be legitimate reasons for delaying referee assignment to day of. If it's known well in advance, can't that affect sports betting and also possibly motivate teams to prepare strategy based on the assigned referees?

How often does a rule challenge work out in-game? Sometimes, it works, sometimes not. But teams apparently still do it.

Regarding Paul, the refs know that he tries to gain an advantage by constantly pointing out violations, like delay of game, to the refs. Maybe the constant barking irritates them, and maybe that influences them to more pay more attention to similar violations when he commits them. I wouldn't be surprised by that, nor (frankly) am I particularly bothered by it. When players try to manipulate officiating in their favor, it can backfire and that's the risk they take.

 

If there are protocols in places preventing such top-down influence mid-playoffs, then OK. I didn't realize that. It's probably a good thing. So, when teams file complaints, they are doing so not with the expectation that it will make a difference in the current year but rather for future seasons?

 

I didn't say there were protocols. I'm just stating fact that teams don't have direct access to the Dept of Referee Operations. And where the complaints have to go doesn't mean top-down influence is protocol.

What's your opinion? Do you think Spruell/Silver should be day-to-day influencers over calling games, rather than letting their VPs of Referee Operations handle quality control themselves?

I'm not saying they do. I don't know. Just asking for opinion to clarify some of your remarks that make it sound natural for them to do it.

 

People who are in charge of the business side, like Silver, should not be day-to-day influencers. Not sure about Spruell. I think there needs to be some sort of channel for teams to formally complain, with backing evidence, about systematic problems in their officiating during the playoffs without having to wait until the offseason for those complaints to be addressed. Does this not exist?

 

Seems like a good topic, but anyone listening to the Whistleblower podcasts that just started a week or two ago:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/274-whistleblower-70239037/?keyid[0]=Whistleblower&pname=podcast_profile&sc=widget_share

 

Recap of the first few episodes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...spread-than-originally-reported/#6eeac3cd792f

‘Whistleblower’ Podcast Suggests NBA Betting Scandal Was Much More Widespread Than Originally Reported

 

Are there analytics studies of refereeing? If players and teams have tendencies and certain tendencies produce higher probabilities of certain results, then so is referee tendencies. Even if there is no conspiracy, that should have definite influences on the game.

The playoffs records of Foster on Rockets games and CP3 games is something people pointed out. It could be just coincidence but the chances of it are quite low. I am sure one can go deeper on the data and see patterns. For example, does a ref favor charging over blocking in those close call situations? Is a ref more stringent toward certain players than other refs?