Check this out: http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2002/s/2002/0605/1390908.html Interesting. It's nice to see another public figure putting some pressure on the NBA to change other than Cuban.
Ralph Nader is officially the man now. Here is his letter to the NBA: http://www.khtk.com/nader.html Dear Mr. Stern, At a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives, it is important, during the public's relaxation time, for there to be maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports performances. That sense was severely shaken in the now notorious officiating during Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings. Calls by referees in the NBA are likely to be more subjective than in professional baseball or football. But as the judicious and balanced Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon wrote this Sunday, too many of the calls in the fourth quarter (when the Lakers received 27 foul shots) were "stunningly incorrect," all against Sacramento. After noting that the three referees in Game 6 "are three of the best in the game," he wrote: "I have never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad as that in Game 6....When Pollard, on his sixth and final foul, didn't as much as touch Shaq. Didn't touch any part of him. You could see it on TV, see it at courtside. It wasn't a foul in any league in the world. And Divac, on his fifth foul, didn't foul Shaq. They weren't subjective or borderline or debatable. And these fouls not only resulted in free throws, they helped disqualify Sacramento's two low-post defenders." And one might add, in a 106-102 Lakers' victory, this officiating took away what would have been a Sacramento series victory in 6 games. This was not all. The Kobe Bryant elbow in the nose of Mike Bibby, who after lying on the floor groggy, went to the sideline bleeding, was in full view of the referee, who did nothing, prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials. Wilbon discounted any conspiracy theories about the NBA-NBC desire for a Game 7 etc., but unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound and lead to more distrust and distaste for the games in general. When the distinguished basketball writer for the USA Today, David DuPree, can say: "I've been covering the NBA for 30 years, and it's the poorest officiating in an important game I've ever seen," when Wilbon writes that "The Kings and Lakers didn't decide this series would be extended until Sunday; three referees did..." when many thousands of fans, not just those in Sacramento, felt that merit lost to bad refereeing, you need to take notice beyond the usual and widespread grumbling by fans and columnists about referees ignoring the rule book and giving advantages to home teams and superstars. Your problem in addressing the pivotal Game 6 situation is that you have too much power. Where else can decision-makers (the referees) escape all responsibility to admit serious and egregious error and have their bosses (you) fine those wronged (the players and coaches) who dare to speak out critically? In a February interview with David DuPree of USA Today, he asked you "Why aren't coaches and players allowed to criticize the referees?" You said, "...we don't want people questioning the integrity of officials. ...It just doesn't pay for us to do anything other than focus people on the game itself rather than the officiating." "Integrity" which we take you to mean "professionalism" of the referees has to be earned and when it is not, it has to be questioned. You and your league have a large and growing credibility problem. Referees are human and make mistakes, but there comes a point that goes beyond any random display of poor performance. That point was reached in Game 6 which took away the Sacramento Kings Western Conference victory. It seems that you have a choice. You can continue to exercise your absolute power to do nothing. Or you can initiate a review and if all these observers and fans turn out to be right, issue, together with the referees, an apology to the Sacramento Kings and forthrightly admit decisive incompetence during Game 6, especially in the crucial fourth quarter. You should know, however, that absolute power, if you choose the former course of inaction, invites the time when it is challenged and changed – whether by more withdrawal of fans or by more formal legal or legislative action. No government in our country can lawfully stifle free speech and fine those who exercise it; the NBA under present circumstances can both stifle and fine players and coaches who speak up. There is no guarantee that this tyrannical status quo will remain stable over time, should you refuse to bend to reason and the reality of what occurred. A review that satisfies the fans' sense of fairness and deters future recurrences would be a salutary contribution to the public trust that the NBA badly needs. We look forward to your considered response. Sincerely, Ralph Nader
27 FT's and he can only gripe about 2 phantom calls and a no-call that was called correctly? Must have had money on the Kings...
I'm guessing he mentioned those because they helped to foul out the Kings only defenders for Shaq, and the fact that the blatant Kobe elbow happened right in front of the official. There's such a thing as being concise, and if Nader wanted to go over every bad call in that fourth quarter, the letter would've gone on for pages and pages. The point is for him to prompt a review of the game, and three prominent examples of poor officiating should suffice. It's not his job to point out every single bad call in the game... it's the NBA's. And that's what he's trying to get them to do.
...except I can pull 3 examples of bad calls against Shaq in every game this series. The officials completely forced him to change his game for goodness sake. He returned to it in six---everyone cries. He returned to it in seven, and if the Kings had hit a decent amount of FT's and still lost, folks would still be crying. There's no winner here. It seems that a lot of people wanted the Kings to win it and expected the refs to expedite the process.
And considering a large part of his game has been and is illegal, that may be a good thing. Bowling over and elbowing players over on your way to a dunk isn't part of basketball. A large portion of Shaq's offensive moves are offensive fouls, and defensively, he's not as smart of a player as you would like him to be. He leaves his feet too much, and typically isn't great at playing with foul trouble. A good example would be game 2 of the Spurs series, when he has three fouls with a minute left in the first half. Phil leaves him in, and what's the first thing Shaq does? He takes Tim Duncan down to the low block and levels him with a shoulder to the chest. That's number four. Shaq's basketball intelligence is a little lacking at times on the floor.
Is it your contention that the NBA has perpetuated a fraud on the fans and other players for a decade by allowing a obviously egregious rulebreaker to to be a multi-time all-star, a top 50 player, a two and soon to be three-time world champion and future hall of famer? You can't be serious.
I'm saying the calls should have been the same all series long---it should have been called in one through six as it was in seven. The refs gave too much credence to unAbleman and his teams whining in 1 through 5 and raised questions about their performance in six. Is it the same ref crew all series long? It should be. And a panel of seven randomly selected coaches and GM's from the league should be formed to address concerns from teams between games and rate the refs on the basis of the complaints made. If a ref is found to have too many legit complaints against him by the panel, he's removed from the ref team for that series and replaced. The potential for a public removal and embarassment like that would clean things up.
After reading the title, I had hopes that Swen Nater would be coming back and Nellie just misspelled his name. There are several issues here: 1. Bad Officiating. 2. Freedom of Speech. 3. Can you make calls on a 380 lb mobile guy the same way you would on a 220 lb guy? 4. Bad Officiating. 5. Superstar calls and non-calls. 6. At least the perception of favoritism. 7. Bad Officiating. I said it before... The Kings are the only team to win 5 games in a series and still lose 3-4. Lakers win 1 and 7, Kings win 2,3,4,5,and 6 except for 4 and 6.
gettinbranded, Many people believe that is true. From day one, I've believed that they call the game much differently for Shaq than they do for other players. He's allowed to commit offensive fouls much more than any one else.
What would a Bulls fan know about fair officiating? His sense of reality is probably warped after watching Jordan all those years.
Quoting rimrocker: Can you make calls on a 380 lb mobile guy the same way you would on a 220 lb guy? I think the weight is fudged a bit, but the point stands out. How in the world can a ref be exact? Given Shaq's size and weight, the calls have to be relative. Kenyon Martin whacking into Vlade Divac at the same speed as Shaq whacking into Vlade Divac will appear a lot less of a foul than it will when Shaq does it. I thought the refs explanation in game (5?6?7?) was apt when he told Divac that he had contact with him, but did not go through him so it wasn't an offensive foul. Different sized men, different results. The refs have done a good job for the most part.
