I disagree completely and so does Yao. Shaq was dominant bc he could push his way to the basket without fouling. Yao said himself that he can't use his full strength bc he gets called for a foul.
Refs do not like the giant. During that season Yao was being wistled far to much and for him to get a foul called it's evident as to all the scratches and bruises on his arms they simply did not blow the wistle for Yao and blowed far to often against him. I can't remember how many games that season he actually had to sit on the bench in the first half.
Yao thinks there's a conspiracy against him...remember he said something like, "My defender sits down to take a rest, it's my offensive foul"
I don't think the amount of times Yao gets away with calls is remotely comparable to the amount of non-called fouls against him. The bruises and scratches on his arms are perfect proof. I don't really believe it's a conspiracy towards a certain team, but I do believe that NBA refs can be bought and sold by their likes/dislikes for individual players/teams on a given night. As a die-hard hockey fan and part-time football fan, I believe NBA referees are some of the most subjective officials in any professional sport. The NBA game is far too influenced by the bad choices of referees, and that is one of the reasons why so many fans always leave games with a bad taste in their mouths.
this book needs to be released, it's just hilarious, the first foul bet? and how he'd call travels and 3 second violations on obvious fouls so he wouldn't lose the bet?LOL
So what happened to the rule book that says a foul is a foul? I have seen large gashes and many large scratches on Yao's face, body and arms and I hardly see any on opponents' similar body parts after playing against Yao. I don't think Yao's game is beating up on anybody. So when has beating up an opponent part of a legitimate basketball game? How legitimate is a daily mugging on a player just because he is big and is not inclined to retaliate? Donaghy might be a criminal but there are probably bigger criminals in the NBA management that get away with "legitimacy".
There was obviously too many things going in each game to hardly call your conspiracy theory just a theory when a referee is writing book to confirm everything. Usually theories are based on little evidence to back it up. This is more like speculation and fueled by a real source who got caught for cheating and fixing scores so some part of it is actually proven by the referee himself. What he says is more his word Vs the NBAs and not a conspiracy theory. Unlike conspiracies his can be substantiated and upgraded to fact one day. Its like when Roger got caught almost or the whole steroid era. We might just be learning the begining of the first rumblings like we did with Mc Guire and Sosa at the begining.
What part of Javie having a personal grudge against Iverson or Joey C giving him favorable calls because his of grandson idolizing him do you not understand? What games have you been watching? True, but the whole point, which buttresses some of Donaghy's allegations, is that refs have players they hold personal grudges against. The Joey C and Duncan incident was just the most blatant example.
The question of a personal vendetta/liking/disliking Yao is irrelevant, assuming the refs would be professional doing their job. There are umps who hated Barry Bonds but would do their jobs at the plate. Officials at Wimbledon hated John McEnroe but does anyone actually think that linesmen adjusted line calls because he was a dick? Why is that any more acceptable in the NBA? Ignoring blatant corruption for the moment, being professional means that regardless of personal relationship or potential backlash you make the call by the rules as it happened on the court... because you are a professional and anything less would be taking salary for a job you're not prepared to do. The larger issue isn't with Yao specifically, it's that regardless of whether they love or hate Yao they should simply be consistent making calls by the book. That includes not making up their own "unwritten" rules to influence how they make calls for specific players. Yao isn't the first big man in the league. Nor is he the first one who towered over competitors. Kareem was variously listed 7'2"-7'4" playing against 6'10" guys like Moses, Ewing and Hakeem yet I dont remember him sitting every other game on the bench in foul trouble by the 2nd quarter. It's the definition of an excuse when you make exceptions and penalize one guy (Yao) and then attribute it to some some of larger trend that somehow only exists for that one person. The only other person who ever even gets mentioned in the same breath is Shaq and the way the refs officiate him isn't even remotely the same as they ref Yao. The fact that Yao shows up then all of the sudden the league office and officials start chanting about "big men being hard to officiate" is as close to official corruption/top down directive targeting Yao as you can get.. Despite his size, it is visually clear when a smaller player jumps into Yao, yet even if Yao is straight up and is not in the restricted area they make that call on Yao. Be clear on this point, it's not because it's somehow "impossible" to see who initiates the contact it's an arbitrary call to give the advantage to the offensive player outside the written rules. It would be one thing if there was literally a big dust cloud around Yao and all you could see was the collateral damage of someone bouncing off Yao and like anthropologists refs had to make some kind of assumption or inference about the contact. But the refs can actually see the play develop and see where Yao and the opposing player starts off making contact, there's no need to start generalizing about big players and small players if the refs are interested in actually making the right call. Just make the call as you saw the play, it's just an excuse to talk about Yao being too big to officiate.
great post, it's almost like we accept the fact that in the NBA that refs will be biased towards players where as in any other sport those same kind of biases are considered grounds for immediate firing.
great post. very well thought and written. the officiating is the only thing that makes me feel not so good about being an nba fan, because it makes me wonder, at times, if the games could be fixed. i am not really into baseball, but am a fan of football and soccer outside of basketball. compared to these other sports that i follow, the nba officiating is really a joke. and i fault that largely on mr. stern. i know the commish has been great for marketing the nba and has had huge success, bust his hollywood style treatment towards stars (or certain stars) has caused some big problems and controversies.
Their 'job' is to 'officiate' games for the League... They work for the league - they're company men. They can change the outcome of games whenever they want, starting after tip-off. They only have a tentative loyalty (if even that) to the paycheck makers, and maybe their bookie friends.
I am willing to bet that none of these resulted in a foul.....refs are def biased and i think that the book probably tells the whole truth. He would know better than anyone what goes on in the refs little huddles.
They will never call it fair. Just think about it. If they gave Yao 10-11FTs per game, Yao would easily average 25-29pts a game. That ain't happening, he is already one of the most effective post players in this league. I bet you if Yao shot 70%FT, he would get more FT's. But I also think defensively he has some protection, but I rather it be reversed where he gets more calls for the offense fouls on him.
bloop, i totally agree. I never said it was acceptable for refs to have personal biases or officiate Yao the way they do. In my post I was simply observing that refs DO have personal biases and that they officiate Yao unfairly, and obviously everyone hopes for more professional and fair refereeing. We're on the same page here. But I feel like you responded to my post to refute something? Maybe it's just me.
Just because we don't call them racists does not mean they are not. Racism is not the monopoly of one race. I have been subjected to racism more from the "victims" of racism than from the ones accused of being so.
