Pedowitz Report

Hayesfan · Oct 8, 2008

I don't know if this is somewhere in the past threads that I missed while I was on vacation but I wanted to copy this so that everyone could read what the report said about the Rockets/Dallas series in 05.

A. Houston Rockets vs. Dallas Mavericks 2005 Playoff Series
Donaghy’s attorney claims that “manipulative events” occurred in a 2005 playoff series between “Team 3” and “Team 4.” According to the June 10, 2008 letter:

Team 3’s Owner alleged that referees were letting a Team 4 player
get away with illegal screens. NBA Executive Y told Referee
Supervisor Z that the referees for that game were to enforce the
screening rules strictly against that Team 4 player. Referee
Supervisor Z informed the referees about his instructions. As an
alternate referee for that game, Tim also received these
instructions. The referees followed the league’s instructions and
Team 3 came back from behind to win the series. The NBA
benefited from this because it prolonged the series, resulting in
more tickets sold and more televised games.
Referee Supervisor Z told Tim that he had contacted the Team 4
coach about the NBA’s instructions. The NBA launched a secret
investigation, except that the investigation did not relate to the
team that received preferential treatment. Rather, the NBA fined
the Team 4 coach $100,000 for not disclosing the name of the
official who had informed him of the behind-the-scenes
instructions. The NBA was concerned only with keeping secret
the leaks of behind-the-scenes instructions.

These allegations clearly refer to the Round 1 Western Conference playoff series between the Dallas Mavericks (“Team 3”) and the Houston Rockets (“Team 4”) and the well-known controversy over whether referees were told to “target” Yao Ming of Houston (“Team 4 player”).

The thrust of Donaghy’s allegations seems to be that the NBA sought to extend the playoff series by instructing referees to call more fouls on one of Houston’s star players. As we explain below, we have found no evidence that anyone in NBA management or any referees who officiated the series sought to do anything other than get the calls in this series right. Nor have we discovered any evidence that the NBA instructed referees to call illegal screens more “strictly,” or differently, on Yao Ming than on other players, or to make erroneous calls. On the other hand, our inspection of this incident reveals that focus should be given to two areas that arise frequently, particularly during playoff series: (i) how the League handles team complaints
about referees’ calls, and (ii) how supervisors and referees review erroneous calls made in earlier games when preparing for upcoming games.

We have been able to determine the following based on interviews, a review of the League’s investigative files from the time and a review of press and other public materials:

The Dallas Mavericks lost the first two games of its 2005 playoff series with the Houston Rockets. Both games were played in Dallas. Following each game, Dallas owner Mark Cuban (“Team 3’s Owner”) contacted the League and flagged a substantial number of calls that he believed were incorrect. In particular, following Game 2, Cuban sent two emails to the League complaining about twenty-nine alleged “moving screens” he claimed had been set by Houston’s Yao Ming during the first two games. This type of complaint was not unusual, but for the large number of plays that were questioned.

Coaches, general managers and owners will often contact the League to complain about particular calls or plays ― even when their team has won the
game, although not as frequently as when they lose. For many years, the League has believed it appropriate to take such complaints from teams and to respond. To the extent that errors are identified during this process, the information is then communicated back to the complaining team, and often also back to the referees to prevent them from making similar errors in the
future, without advising the referees that a team made a complaint. During this time period, Stu Jackson, Executive Vice President for Basketball Operations, Ronnie Nunn, Director of Officials, or someone else from Basketball Operations would review complained-of plays; Jackson or Nunn would then respond by either email or phone to the coach, general manager or owner.

Nunn reviewed the plays that Mark Cuban forwarded to the League and
determined that nine of the twenty-nine challenged screens were in fact illegal. In response, Nunn sent an email to the Dallas Mavericks with the League’s response, explaining which calls were correctly called and which ones were incorrectly called.

The general issue raised by Cuban’s complaint ― moving screens ― was
included in an April 29, 2005 email that Nunn sent to all playoff referees. Nunn’s email did not mention Yao Ming, the Houston Rockets or any other player or team. Indeed, the email noted several points of emphasis. (As noted above, POEs are learning tools sent to the referees. They are not player- or team-specific; rather they are call- or movement-specific.) Among a number of other POEs discussed in Nunn’s email were illegal screens ― the issue that Cuban had flagged. Of note, Nunn sent a similar email on April 25, 2005 ― before Game 2 ― to all playoff referees in which he also emphasized a number of POEs, including illegal picks. That email also did not mention any team or player. Nunn also spoke with Donnie Vaden, the series supervisor (“Referee Supervisor Z”), about various issues that arose during the first two games.

They discussed, among other things, the missed calls against Yao and the need to avoid similar mistakes in the upcoming games. Before each game of the series, Vaden, as series supervisor, met with the referee crew. We spoke with Vaden and each of the referees for the remaining games of the series.
While none recalled any specific discussion or review of clips of Yao Ming, they said they almost certainly discussed Yao and other players and reviewed video clips that involved him as well as other players. Moreover, given Nunn’s conversation with Vaden, it is likely that Vaden mentioned the errors in the prior games regarding Yao’s screens because one of Vaden’s goals was to prevent similar errors from occurring in the upcoming games. In addition, referees normally discuss the tendencies of key players when preparing for a game ― and it was well known among referees at the time that Yao had a tendency to set illegal screens.

While it is thus clear to us that Yao’s tendency to set illegal screens and the
missed calls in prior games were discussed, none of the referees recalled receiving any special direction from Vaden or anyone else to enforce the screen rules in some special or “strict” or “preferential” way against Yao. The referees explained that had such a specific direction about Yao been given, it would have been unlike any instruction they could ever recall receiving or hearing from any supervisor or member of NBA management. None of them believed he was being asked to “target” Yao. And more fundamentally, none of the referees believed that the League issued any instruction to favor Dallas or otherwise make calls that would help extend the playoff series. As the referees described to us, they believed that the League and Vaden were simply trying to improve the quality of the refereeing in the upcoming games. They did not see it as an effort to skew calls or “target” Yao and had no intent to give “preferential treatment” to any team or player.

Two important issues are raised by this sequence of events: how the League
handles team complaints and how the League informs the referees about past errors and instructs the referees to correct them. Houston’s coach, Jeff Van Gundy, disagreed at the time ― and continues to disagree ― with how he believes the League handled both of these issues. His public airing of his views is the likely source for the second part of Donaghy’s allegations regarding this playoff series. Specifically, Donaghy’s letter alleges that “Referee Supervisor Z” (Vaden) contacted “Team 4 coach” (Van Gundy) about the NBA’s purported instructions to call more illegal screens on Yao and that a “secret investigation” followed that resulted in Van Gundy’s being fined $100,000.

According to Stu Jackson ― who was interviewed both by us and by the League’s General Counsel in May 2005 ― sometime after Game 2 of the series (on either April 26 or April 27), Jackson called Van Gundy. At the time, the two were friends and neighbors, and spoke from time to time. After discussing a variety of matters about their respective families, Jackson mentioned that he had reviewed video of Yao’s screens and that Yao’s foot often moved on screens, particularly during high pick and rolls. Jackson told Van Gundy that Van Gundy needed to get Yao into a legal position. Jackson does not now and did not in May 2005 recall mentioning Cuban’s name during this conversation, but Van Gundy might well have inferred that Jackson was reviewing video of Yao because of a complaint from the Mavericks. Jackson recalled clearly that he did not say or imply that the referees were directed to “target” Yao.

According to Vaden, and confirmed by his contemporaneous notes, two days after Game 3, Van Gundy called Vaden. Van Gundy indicated that he had received information from someone at the League that the League was “targeting” Yao. Van Gundy did not mention moving screens or Cuban’s complaints during this call. Vaden recalls responding simply that the referees were not targeting Yao and were not biased against Yao, but were simply doing their best to get the calls right.

Van Gundy’s recollection of these two conversations is slightly different. Of
most significance, he recalls that Jackson, and later Vaden, left him with the impression that, as a result of Cuban’s complaints, the referees were being focused on Yao Ming’s illegal screens, rather than being focused on illegal screens in general. While Van Gundy finds no fault at all with the League’s or the referees’ intentions to improve calls, his concern is and was that a referee, after being focused on erroneous calls involving a particular player, would be more likely, subconsciously, to call fouls on that player. To support the position that referees might be Jackson told us that it was fairly commonplace for him to call a general manager or coach regarding particular players’ tendencies and officiating issues. For example, if a player were prone to flagrant fouls, Jackson might have called the coach and told him that the player needed to be kept in control; other examples of instances in which Jackson called a team were if a player was stepping over the free throw line during free throws or if a team was playing too physically. subconsciously focused on Yao, Van Gundy recalls a foul call against Yao in the fourth quarter of Game 4 ― a call that Van Gundy believes hurt his team’s chances for victory in that game.

What is not in dispute is that Van Gundy was upset at the turn of events. The day after his call with Vaden, Van Gundy gave a media interview in which he alleged (i) that the NBA was biased against and had “targeted” Yao; (ii) that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban had been calling the NBA about Yao; and (iii) that Van Gundy had received a call before Game 3 from a non-playoff “official” “that I’ve known forever” who said that the NBA was looking harder at Yao because of Cuban’s complaints.

Van Gundy told us that his use of the word “targeted” was regrettable. He never meant to be understood as in any way impugning the integrity of the referees and told us that Donaghy’s suggestion that the referees intentionally made incorrect calls was “laughable.” His real concern at the time, which he stands by today, is that he did not know about Cuban’s complaints until moments before Game 4, and thus did not have a chance to respond by, for instance, pointing out Dallas players who were likewise setting illegal screens. He therefore believes that the referees were focused on Yao’s screens rather than illegal screens in general.

Many commentators jumped to the conclusion that the “official” Van Gundy
mentioned in this interview was a referee (when he was in fact referring to Stu Jackson). Others incorrectly believed that Van Gundy was referring to Vaden. (Vaden was so troubled by Van Gundy’s comments and the perception that Van Gundy was referring to Vaden that Vaden called Van Gundy to discuss this issue. Van Gundy confirmed in that call that he was not referring to Vaden when he referenced an “official.”)

Immediately after learning of Van Gundy’s public comments suggesting that the League was “targeting” Yao, the League’s General Counsel and Security Department began an investigation into Van Gundy’s allegations. During the investigation, the head of Security interviewed Van Gundy, but Van Gundy refused to disclose the identity of the NBA “official” (later learned to be Stu Jackson) to whom he had spoken prior to Game 3. Because of Van
Gundy’s comments about NBA officiating and his failure to cooperate with the League investigation, the League fined him $100,000. The Commissioner explained publicly that Van Gundy had been assessed the fine because his allegations “go to the integrity of the game” and because Van Gundy refused to cooperate with the League in its investigation in violation of the NBA Constitution.

* * * * * *

We have found no evidence of any inappropriate conduct in this playoff series.
There is no evidence that anyone in the League office or any of the referees were intending to
favor one team over another. Based at least in part on the Mavericks’ complaints, the League
identified a type of erroneous non-call that referees had made in prior games and sought to
correct it for future games. While Van Gundy continues to take issue with how he believes the
message to correct the erroneous non-calls was delivered to the referees, he does not believe the
referees or anyone else intentionally sought to manipulate a game or injure his team.
This incident has caused us to focus on the process by which team complaints about officiating are received and resolved. As we discuss in our Recommendations, we believe that all team complaints about officiating during the playoffs and the League’s response to those
complaints should be posted for both teams to see.

Donaghy alleges that, after Games 1 and 2, “[t]he referees followed the league’s instructions” and Dallas received “preferential treatment.” However, the facts indicate otherwise: In the first two games (before Cuban’s complaint was reviewed), Yao Ming was called for a total of one illegal screen. In Game 3, no illegal screens were called on Yao; in Game 4, one illegal screen was called on Yao. In Game 5, he was called for one. In Game 6, he was called for none. And in Game 7, he was called for one. All of these illegal screen calls have been reviewed by the NBA and have been found to be correct.

Interestingly, although Dallas won four of the five games after Game 2, it was whistled for more fouls than Houston in three of those games. More fouls had been called against Houston than Dallas in Games 1 and 2, which Houston won.
Click to expand...

here's the link to the whole report. http://www.nba.com/media/PedowitzReport.pdf

OrangeRowdy95 · Oct 8, 2008

JVG for President

yobod · Oct 8, 2008

I still have to believe that when someone who not only believes in the system to its core, but has as much integrity as JVG feels compelled to bring the media into it, there is much more to the story than is being exposed. I still feel like refs were giving the Rockets the screw-job for one reason or another in that series, because illegal screens aside, the calls that the refs were mucking up were OBVIOUS calls that even a JV ref would get correct. JVG is an incredibly intelligent man, and he had to have known the consequences he was facing when he came public with his comments, yet he still did it. That alone gives me reason to believe that he knew that there was something shady going on.

ico4498 · Oct 8, 2008

yobod said:

I still have to believe that when someone who not only believes in the system to its core, but has as much integrity as JVG feels compelled to bring the media into it, there is much more to the story than is being exposed.
Click to expand...

that's in direct opposition to JVG's position.

i do agree with JVG that the complaints and POE should be officially communicated to both teams and not depend on an casual head's up from a longtime friend.

EssTooKayTD · Oct 8, 2008

As jacked up as that is, and as much as I was in disbelief of the officiating of that series...we had a game 7 in which we lost by 40. At that point, there is no extending the series for profitable reasons.

We will always wonder "what if" though, that's for sure. That series was so freaking entertaining to watch until game 7.

Forums

Pedowitz Report

Hayesfan Member

OrangeRowdy95 Member

yobod Member

ico4498 Member

EssTooKayTD Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!