PDA

View Full Version : Tim Donaghy: Tip of the Iceberg?



wilson
06-10-2008, 09:46 PM
According to a letter released today, Donaghy claims that the NBA refereeing scandal reaches far beyond himself. Among his claims:
-the 2002 Western Conference Finals (Lakers over Kings in 7 games) were fixed
-officials have conspired (perhaps even with the league office) to target specific players, most notably Yao Ming
-NBA referees routinely fraternize improperly with players, coaches, etc.

The list goes on. Stern has, of course, denied it all, but a poll on the same page (non-scientific, of course) currently shows that 84% of readers believe that the '02 WCF were in fact rigged. Not good for the NBA, regardless of the story's veracity.

Bluedog
06-10-2008, 10:43 PM
Quite interesting indeed. I'm not quite sure I believe everything Donaghy has to say as he has clearly demonstrated he is not a trustworthy source. Plus, he is just trying to reduce his sentence by seeming to cooperate with authorities. But this should definitely show that basketball officials can and do determine outcomes (I'm not saying they "fix" them though). They do the best that they can, but their differences in tendencies need to be adjusted for by both teams and can favor a particular style over another. I feel like no other sport comes even close to having officials that can play such a large role. I guess in baseball the strike zone can vary a bit, and that can have some affect. Football officials have a negligible affect....as do soccer/hockey/golf/tennis/volleyball/field hockey/wrestling/boxing/lacrosse officials (at least, relative to basketball, IMO). But attempting to "fix" games as a football/baseball/hockey official wouldn't be a very lucrative gig, I'd imagine.

cspan37421
06-11-2008, 12:21 AM
Quite interesting indeed. I'm not quite sure I believe everything Donaghy has to say as he has clearly demonstrated he is not a trustworthy source. Plus, he is just trying to reduce his sentence by seeming to cooperate with authorities.

I don't pretend to know the truth of the matter, but despite the above, it may be the case that a) he is trying to reduce his sentence AND b) he may be telling the truth. The fallacies of ad hominem and poisoning the well come to mind.

A troubling matter to me is that, IIRC, Stern's first major public statement on the Donaghy matter made a point of painting him as a lone rogue referee. I found it curious that he was so confident of this despite not having made a thorough investigation. [this was 5 days after the FBI notified him - hardly time for a thorough investigation]. Like Donaghy, Stern has an interest in making people believe his own story.

As an aside, someone one pointed out to me on an NBA DVD that the copyright was "NBA Entertainment, Inc.", and made a point of emphasizing the word "entertainment". One's mind just drifts thinking about what the head office might find entertaining. Lakers-Celtics, 7 games? Home team dominates?

Nothing would surprise me, though I hardly care about the NBA, it is so boring (and IMO phony) compared to college hoops.

Bob Green
06-11-2008, 01:20 AM
As an aside, someone one pointed out to me on an NBA DVD that the copyright was "NBA Entertainment, Inc.", and made a point of emphasizing the word "entertainment". One's mind just drifts thinking about what the head office might find entertaining.

Is the NBA in the 21st Century synonymous with game shows (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/quizshow/peopleevents/pande02.html) in the 1950s? I have no idea but it is certainly an interesting discussion topic.

SMO
06-11-2008, 08:34 AM
A troubling matter to me is that, IIRC, Stern's first major public statement on the Donaghy matter made a point of painting him as a lone rogue referee. I found it curious that he was so confident of this despite not having made a thorough investigation. [this was 5 days after the FBI notified him - hardly time for a thorough investigation]. Like Donaghy, Stern has an interest in making people believe his own story.

IIRC, before Donaghy was exposed Stern was questioned about the integrity of officials in the NBA. He vehemently denied that there could be cheating, favoratism, or fixing in his league. Now that there was clearly at least one official cheating, what does that say about Stern's credibility?

Pacer
06-11-2008, 08:43 AM
Stern's response is predictable.. this is exactly how baseball went after Canseco when his first book came out. Attack the credibility of the source, because you can't win on the actual issue.

Everyone has seen the suspect reffing for years and known this was going on in the NBA. I believe every word.

The NBA is a joke.

studdlee10
06-11-2008, 09:54 AM
David Stern has been so arrogant for so long it is likely that A) he feels he can beat anything thrown at him and B) he is blind to a lot of the issues surrounding his league.

I use to love the NBA. But suspect officiating and the decline in number of likable stars has helped steer me away from the league.

The league has become and absolute joke. An average joe like me (and the SportsGuy if you read his stuff) can practically guess officiating crews and how a game is called before it even happens. Look at this year's finals. Game 2, how is it possible that at one point, Boston shot 10x as many FTs as the Lakers? You have perhaps the greatest basketball player on earth (and they saddled him with early fouls) who is aggressive and driving the ball and you're gonna tell me he's not gonna draw more fouls than a jump shooting tandem of Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett? Ridiculous. Of course, true to form, back in LA, the Lakers shot more 50% more free throws than Boston. This has made the NBA a joke.

David Stern should take heed of these allegations, and whether baseless or not, needs to find a way to create some consistency in officiating. The NBA has become way to dependent on officiating, but the league continues to ignore the problem.

I've always thought the Lakers/Kings and Mavs/Heat games were somehow fixed. It was absolutely unreal to me the type of calls Wade got in that finals series. I for one hope these allegations are true, and the NBA has to clean house and make wholesale changes.

Son of Mojo
06-11-2008, 10:51 AM
If this peters out to be truth, would it surprise anyone? The nba is all about star power. Given, those stars have to produce but every person who has played basketball knows you do not have it every single game. So what happens in this situation in the nba. . .? Could Stern have given directives to his refs to aid his stars with calls? :eek: The league for years with what I have though to be questionable calls reminds me of pro wrestling--it's not sport, it's "sport's entertainment" or exhibition. I have trouble accepting the word of Donaghy, but it would kind of give confirmation to what many have thought for years. Real question is does it explain how Stephen A. Smith keeps a job (because Stern thinks he's good for the league)? haha :p

Bluedog
06-11-2008, 10:58 AM
I don't pretend to know the truth of the matter, but despite the above, it may be the case that a) he is trying to reduce his sentence AND b) he may be telling the truth. The fallacies of ad hominem and poisoning the well come to mind.

A troubling matter to me is that, IIRC, Stern's first major public statement on the Donaghy matter made a point of painting him as a lone rogue referee. I found it curious that he was so confident of this despite not having made a thorough investigation. [this was 5 days after the FBI notified him - hardly time for a thorough investigation]. Like Donaghy, Stern has an interest in making people believe his own story.

I agree that Stern's response is troubling and I didn't mean to suggest that I am convinced that Donaghy's allegations are false. I'm just skeptical of everything he says and I think the allegations should be fully investigated before being found credible. However, I also don't think that the allegations should immediately be seen as blatantly false because of Danaghy's credibility issues. I have no opinion on the matter yet as there's not enough evidence one way or the other.


Real question is does it explain how Stephen A. Smith keeps a job (because Stern thinks he's good for the league)? haha :p

Yeah...Stephen A. Smith is quite possibly the most annoying sports personality out there...maybe behind Jay Mariotti.

Edouble
06-11-2008, 11:52 AM
If this peters out to be truth, would it surprise anyone?

No... I've thought for years that the league is fixed. After game 7 of the LA-Portland series in 2000, I'll always be suspicious.

JStuart
06-11-2008, 12:07 PM
And to think that Coach K could be coaching either of these teams after the offers he was given years back.

I'm actually looking forward to the Olympics in basketball, more than I'm interested in this series...

Classof06
06-11-2008, 12:21 PM
I'm not naive enough to believe that the NBA could never be fixed. But whether you like David Stern or not, you have to look at Donaghy for who he is; namely, a convicted felon trying like hell to knock months or years off the sentence that will be handed down to him next month. Not that the NBA has nothing to lose but the guy has too much to gain by lying.

The NBA asked for restitution from Donaghy for the $1MM they spent conducting the Dongahy investigation. If Donaghy is unable to pay that money back (which he apparently is), there's a decent chance his sentence will be longer than it would've been had he been able to pay the restitution. Thus, he fired back with these accuastions, hoping the NBA would rescind their claims.

If these allegations were true, why didn't we hear about it until the NBA filed for restitution? Technically, Donaghy's allegations were supposed to be filed in federal court secretly, like the NBA's restitution claims were. Instead, his lawyer filed a public letter, ensuring it would leak to the press and public; at the height of the NBA Finals no less.

To be honest, I'm not a big David Stern fan at all but Donaghy's claims just seem to be dripping with desperation. Just one man's opinion.

mgtr
06-11-2008, 12:41 PM
I have no idea whether there is cheating or fixing in the NBA --- but, remember the adage of follow the money. When there is so much money involved, and where action is incredibly fast with many judgment calls, anything is certainly possible.

darthur
06-11-2008, 12:42 PM
A troubling matter to me is that, IIRC, Stern's first major public statement on the Donaghy matter made a point of painting him as a lone rogue referee.

I think to say this is to completely miss the point. Stern is one thing above all others - the head PR department of the league. It doesn't matter what's true. He basically HAS to say Donaghy is a lone rogue, no matter what. To understand Stern, you have to understand this. What decides his real credibility is not his obvious PR statements, but whether (a) he was involved in any way, and (b) he takes action to make sure such things don't happen again. There's certainly no evidence (outside of Donaghy's testimony) that suggests Stern's done anything wrong yet. Donaghy's own corruption is related to Vegas, not to the NBA office.

As for the actual allegations, I think it's telling to look at them:

1. Refs watched Yao Ming for illegal screens in one series after Mark Cuban complained he was getting away with them. Well, uh, this happens at all levels of basketball. You know when Coach K is talking to the refs? One of the big things he's doing is saying, players X and Y are doing illegal things Z on the opposing team. Please keep an eye out for it. And then the refs do. That is their job.
2. Nepotism, not skills, determine ref hirings. If this is going into the letter, don't you think Donaghy's reaching ever so slightly for controversy? Because this sounds like bitterness to me, and it sure doesn't have much to do with fixing games.
3. Refs are supposed to try to avoid ejecting superstars on technical fouls, and a ref got privately reprimanded for an ejection once in the first quarter 8 years ago. Big whoop. Another ref recently got publicly reprimanded for ejecting Tim Duncan on a bad technical call, and everyone agreed with that. This is the same thing. Refs *should* try to avoid deciding games based on technical fouls, because it's usually just bad reffing when they do.
4. In the strongest claim, two refs out of three decided to extend a 2002 playoff series. So only two of the three are in on it? Doesn't sound like that could be an order from on high. Also it doesn't sound like they would have then likely told Donaghy about it. This one is a big deal if it's true, but I'm going to wait for some evidence, thank you very much.

Anyway, I hope all of you people who are already jumping on the NBA for fixing games based on this, also firmly believe Duke gets all the calls because the NCAA favors Duke. The eagerness I'm seeing in this thread to jump all over the NBA is the same eagerness that blames every Duke win on 8 vs 5 basketball.

Classof06
06-11-2008, 12:47 PM
Anyway, I hope all of you people who are already jumping on the NBA for fixing games based on this, also firmly believe Duke gets all the calls because the NCAA favors Duke. The eagerness I'm seeing in this thread to jump all over the NBA is the same eagerness that blames every Duke win on 8 vs 5 basketball.

Yes, yes, yes. Very well put.

bdh21
06-11-2008, 01:00 PM
3. Refs are supposed to try to avoid ejecting superstars on technical fouls, and a ref got privately reprimanded for an ejection once in the first quarter 8 years ago. Big whoop. Another ref recently got publicly reprimanded for ejecting Tim Duncan on a bad technical call, and everyone agreed with that. This is the same thing. Refs *should* try to avoid deciding games based on technical fouls, because it's usually just bad reffing when they do.


What about the referees that were suspended by the ACC for missing a call in a 2006 Duke game?

Edouble
06-11-2008, 01:02 PM
Anyway, I hope all of you people who are already jumping on the NBA for fixing games based on this, also firmly believe Duke gets all the calls because the NCAA favors Duke. The eagerness I'm seeing in this thread to jump all over the NBA is the same eagerness that blames every Duke win on 8 vs 5 basketball.

Nah, I don't see any similarities there. Just because you think one thing's crooked, doesn't mean you have to believe another thing is crooked. As a long time NBA fan, there are certain playoff games that just seem fixed (something I've thought for a while, not something I'm jumping on because Tim Donaghy brought it up). As a long time Duke fan, I don't think we get all the calls--I think Coach K teaches his players, better than other coaches, how to put themselves in position to force calls and to be the beneficiaries of those calls.

SMO
06-11-2008, 01:30 PM
"Anyway, I hope all of you people who are already jumping on the NBA for fixing games based on this, also firmly believe Duke gets all the calls because the NCAA favors Duke. The eagerness I'm seeing in this thread to jump all over the NBA is the same eagerness that blames every Duke win on 8 vs 5 basketball."

Of course, the difference here is that there has been a NBA referee that admitted to fixing games. He's claiming it's more widespread than just him. Big difference between that and pure conjecture by fans about Duke.

darthur
06-11-2008, 01:35 PM
Of course, the difference here is that there has been a NBA referee that admitted to fixing games. He's claiming it's more widespread than just him. Big difference between that and pure conjecture by fans about Duke.

Let me fix that for you. A disgraced NBA ref and convicted felon has accused *other* refs of fixing games while seriously downplaying any wrongdoing of his own, in a move that could coincidentally decrease his jail time.

darthur
06-11-2008, 01:38 PM
As a long time Duke fan, I don't think we get all the calls

Exactly. I am suggesting you have a double standard for Duke and the NBA because you are a Duke fan, and you should consider what you would think of Duke if you were not a fan. And then ask yourself whether such a conclusion is fair.

Edouble
06-11-2008, 02:08 PM
Exactly. I am suggesting you have a double standard for Duke and the NBA because you are a Duke fan, and you should consider what you would think of Duke if you were not a fan. And then ask yourself whether such a conclusion is fair.

It's not a double standard because we're talking about two completely different things. If I were not a Duke fan, I would think the same thing that I think now--we're pretty good, we weren't in a position to compete with Kansas or Memphis after February of this year, people are generally somewhat jealous of our success, and the NBA is a crooked league. I'm a Duke fan and I don't think we get all the calls. I'm an NBA fan and I think the league's fixed. I like Duke and I like the NBA, but only one of them is fraudulent in my eyes, based on the evidence before me, not on a personal whim.

Kfanarmy
06-11-2008, 02:20 PM
The NBA is not providing athletic competition; they are providing athletic entertainment. It shouldn't be on ESPN or a sports channel. It should be on E! network. Really if you don't believe it review the San Antonio - New Orleans series this year with an unbiased eye. Mostly blowouts...third quarter decided almost every game, free throw disparity was wildly in favor of the home team in the first four games. The two teams were realistically very evenly matched through completely contrasting styles. Should have indicated one or the other would get the preponderance of foul calls throughout the series. It just didn't/doesn't happen that way and, I believe, NBA officials are told to/encouraged to give the home team the benefit of the doubt on close calls and call everything on the road team until the game is decided. It is about putting butts in chairs and getting fans to return to home games.

Take an honest look at the current series. Does anyone believe that each team changes it style significantly enough on the road that it should draw radically different foul calls...I don't buy it. I can't stand Bryant, but even he said last night they hadn't changed a thing from game 2, yet LA (at home) had the calls going their way; while on the road they were pummeled by the boys in black and white stripes....

For years the NBA and ESPN replayed MJs final shot to win the NBA title with the Bulls (I think it was their fourth). In the play MJ Shoves the defender with his left hand and shoots the winning shot. Clearly an offensive foul, clearly the opposing team should have won the series. Even more clearly MJ and the Bulls sold more gear and provided more revenue for the NBA...a foul for anyone else wasn't a foul for MJ. He was an incredible athlete and player. The NBA made him a superstar.

I really think that if anyone believes the NBA is providing the best possible, unbiased officiating, they are kidding themselves. It is nearing the point of matching professional wrestling in officiating effectiveness and, I believe, with the exact same purposefulness.

darthur
06-11-2008, 02:30 PM
^Please. Arguments like that are used almost verbatim to argue Duke gets all the calls. And "homecooking" with refs is a pretty darn popular topic in the NCAA too.

And Edouble: I can hardly prove how you would feel in a hypothetical case that doesn't exist. But you sure haven't convinced me otherwise.

SMO
06-11-2008, 02:43 PM
Let me fix that for you. A disgraced NBA ref and convicted felon has accused *other* refs of fixing games while seriously downplaying any wrongdoing of his own, in a move that could coincidentally decrease his jail time.

So we still have a ref that admitted to fixing games in the NBA vs. pure speculation of the NCAA fixing games. Which is more believable: the problems already proven in the NBA were more widespread than what is known, or that there is a conspiracy of favoring one team in the NCAA with absolutely no proof to date. I think the impartial observer would say it's more likely that something that has been proven in one case could be more prevalent than we know as opposed to believing something with no proof at all.

Classof06
06-11-2008, 02:55 PM
So we still have a ref that admitted to fixing games in the NBA vs. pure speculation of the NCAA fixing games. Which is more believable: the problems already proven in the NBA were more widespread than what is known, or that there is a conspiracy of favoring one team in the NCAA with absolutely no proof to date. I think the impartial observer would say it's more likely that something that has been proven in one case could be more prevalent than we know as opposed to believing something with no proof at all.

I don't know about you, but if a convicted felon knocked on my door asking me to believe him, I'd be a little skeptical. The fact that Donaghy has alleged game fixing does absolutely nothing to prove it.

I'm not saying there's no possible way Donaghy's telling the truth but I find it interesting how many people are leaning towards Donaghy because they seemingly want to believe the NBA is fixed. Never mind the source that's feeding this information and the time at which he's feeding it. Just a little too many ironies in the timing for me take this at face value.

Kfanarmy
06-11-2008, 02:57 PM
Darthur
Please. Arguments like that are used almost verbatim to argue Duke gets all the calls. And "homecooking" with refs is a pretty darn popular topic in the NCAA too.

Great logic...two arguments are similar, though they contain different subjects and examples; I believe one is wrong, therefore the other must be....a + B doesn't equal c; therefore D + E can't equal F....wow, didn't know the rules of logic, and errr argument or fact, worked that way....

If ten other refs were to come out tomorrow and admit the NBA told them to give a team/player a break some fans and the NBA would claim they were the only ten therefore the NBA is rock-solid competition.

darthur
06-11-2008, 03:03 PM
So we still have a ref that admitted to fixing games in the NBA vs. pure speculation of the NCAA fixing games.

We have evidence that one ref, without the knowledge of the league, made a handful of bets on games that he reffed, and that he also gave some inside tips to his gambler friends (e.g. player X will not play this game). He has denied all allegations of fixing games. Should we immediately believe him when he denies fixing games? Of course not. Just like we shouldn't immediately believe him when he makes a self-serving announcement that everyone else is crooked too, especially one that could lead to decreased jail time.

This ref, and his ties to gambling, could have easily been a college ref. Regardless of what you think of his recent allegations, HIS story is one of a single ref acting dishonestly for his own benefit, and nothing to do with anyone else in basketball.

Classof06
06-11-2008, 03:11 PM
We have evidence that one ref, without the knowledge of the league, made a handful of bets on games that he reffed, and that he also gave some inside tips to his gambler friends (e.g. player X will not play this game). He has denied all allegations of fixing games. Should we immediately believe him when he denies fixing games? Of course not. Just like we shouldn't immediately believe him when he makes a self-serving announcement that everyone else is crooked too, especially one that could lead to decreased jail time.

This ref, and his ties to gambling, could have easily been a college ref. Regardless of what you think of his recent allegations, HIS story is one of a single ref acting dishonestly for his own benefit, and nothing to do with anyone else in basketball.


Don't give them too many facts; it's just easier to believe convicted felons rather than consider they might actually be (gasp!) lying.

Apparently, guys that associate with organized crime to make a side profit off their employer are real stand up individuals.

Kfanarmy
06-11-2008, 03:11 PM
SMO
I think the impartial observer would say it's more likely that something that has been proven in one case could be more prevalent than we know as opposed to believing something with no proof at all.

I agree and while it "could" be more likely the Donaghy's actions are more widespread, I believe both are true. I still say the radically different foul calling for home/away teams, involving the same two teams, with the same referees, playing in a series wherein their isn't significant strategy change either points to complete ineptitude in the officials or purposefulness. I believe the latter. Casual observation often times leads to valid theory that ultimately proves true or not...it is unlikely that you have the proof before the theory is presented...I think denying the potential, even likelihood, that this guy is as credible as Stern is an attempt to deny the first piece of evidence so that the next won't be found and the theory won't be proven.

darthur
06-11-2008, 03:13 PM
Great logic...two arguments are similar, though they contain different subjects and examples; I believe one is wrong, therefore the other must be....a + B doesn't equal c; therefore D + E can't equal F....wow, didn't know the rules of logic, and errr argument or fact, worked that way....

The arguments aren't similar. They are identical. You argued MJ benefited from a bad call, and that the home team gets more foul calls in a totally statistically significant sample of THREE games. Duke has had bad calls go their way, and it is really, really not hard to find evidence of home teams getting better calls at home in the NCAA too (whether you believe they play better at home, whether you believe the refs are influenced by the fans, or whatever you believe causes it).


If ten other refs were to come out tomorrow and admit the NBA told them to give a team/player a break some fans and the NBA would claim they were the only ten therefore the NBA is rock-solid competition.

ONE ref, whose credibility is already suspect based on his history, has made several minor accusations, and one big one about two other refs (not himself of course!) cheating with:
- The chance to reduce jail time if the accusations are believed
- The chance to look better himself if the accusations are believed (see! I wasn't the only one cheating!)
- Accusations made in a way (publicly) and at a time (during the Finals) designed to cause as much damage to the NBA as possible
When someone who does not have such an obvious conflict of interest speaks up, or when real evidence is put forth (i.e. not there have been bad calls in the history of the league - ya think?), then I'll jump on the bandwagon.

SMO
06-11-2008, 03:16 PM
We have evidence that one ref, without the knowledge of the league, made a handful of bets on games that he reffed, and that he also gave some inside tips to his gambler friends (e.g. player X will not play this game). He has denied all allegations of fixing games. Should we immediately believe him when he denies fixing games? Of course not. Just like we shouldn't immediately believe him when he makes a self-serving announcement that everyone else is crooked too, especially one that could lead to decreased jail time.

This ref, and his ties to gambling, could have easily been a college ref. Regardless of what you think of his recent allegations, HIS story is one of a single ref acting dishonestly for his own benefit, and nothing to do with anyone else in basketball.

Could have been a college ref....but he wasn't, was he? He was an NBA ref. So if there's a corruptible NBA ref who has pled guilty to charges related to his gambling and altering the outcome of games, I'm more inclined to believe that NBA officials influence the outcome of games than I am to believe NCAA officials have done the same thing specifically in favor of Duke. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that somone who suspects Donaghy's stories are true must also believe Duke gets all the calls. They are two entirely different ideas with different evidence to support and refute them.

darthur
06-11-2008, 03:36 PM
Could have been a college ref....but he wasn't, was he? He was an NBA ref. So if there's a corruptible NBA ref who has pled guilty to charges related to his gambling and altering the outcome of games, I'm more inclined to believe that NBA officials influence the outcome of games than I am to believe NCAA officials have done the same thing specifically in favor of Duke.

Please. If it HAD been a college ref, would you be here talking about how college refs are the corruptible ones? PEOPLE are corruptible, no matter where they are. Or do you seriously believe no college refs gamble on the side / would gamble on the side if they thought they could get away with it? I think the tons of rules violations these days should make it more than clear that the NCAA is as vulnerable to corruption at the individual level as anyone else.

But there's a huge, huge leap from having one corrupt ref to accusing an entire league of organizing and supporting this corruption. This is what people are doing here to the NBA, and what Duke haters do every day to Duke.


It is absolutely absurd to suggest that somone who suspects Donaghy's stories are true must also believe Duke gets all the calls. They are two entirely different ideas with different evidence to support and refute them.

The evidence is actually really quite similar.

Pro: There are bad calls in the NCAA / NBA, many favoring Duke / large market teams.
Pro: Duke / large market teams do better than other teams, possibly thanks in part to bad calls favoring them.
Pro: There have been accusations from non-credible sources that the refs are less than impartial (sports writers and rival coaches for Duke / convicted felons trying to reduce jail time for the NBA)
Pro: The refs have an incentive to cheat since Duke / large market teams get better TV ratings.

Con: Conspiracies like this are impractical - how could they be kept secret so long across so many people? Why has nobody in good standing (e.g. active refs, retired refs, soon-to-be active refs, league officials) spoken out?
Con: The risk is way too big. If real evidence ever got out, the NCAA / NBA might be completely finished as an organization. Why risk it?

Sure, the exact examples of bad calls or what-not you point to varies, but the arguments are basically identical.

Now, if Donaghy's allegations turn out to have any evidence supporting them or he can otherwise establish himself as a credible witness, then sure, things change. But that brings us back to: we believe him why again? He's given no evidence, and he has every incentive to lie. We believe him because this board generally just hates the NBA, and will believe anything bad about it, no matter what the evidence.

SMO
06-11-2008, 04:13 PM
Please. If it HAD been a college ref, would you be here talking about how college refs are the corruptible ones? PEOPLE are corruptible, no matter where they are. Or do you seriously believe no college refs gamble on the side / would gamble on the side if they thought they could get away with it? I think the tons of rules violations these days should make it more than clear that the NCAA is as vulnerable to corruption at the individual level as anyone else.

But there's a huge, huge leap from having one corrupt ref to accusing an entire league of organizing and supporting this corruption. This is what people are doing here to the NBA, and what Duke haters do every day to Duke.



The evidence is actually really quite similar.

Pro: There are bad calls in the NCAA / NBA, many favoring Duke / large market teams.
Pro: Duke / large market teams do better than other teams, possibly thanks in part to bad calls favoring them.
Pro: There have been accusations from non-credible sources that the refs are less than impartial (sports writers and rival coaches for Duke / convicted felons trying to reduce jail time for the NBA)
Pro: The refs have an incentive to cheat since Duke / large market teams get better TV ratings.

Con: Conspiracies like this are impractical - how could they be kept secret so long across so many people? Why has nobody in good standing (e.g. active refs, retired refs, soon-to-be active refs, league officials) spoken out?
Con: The risk is way too big. If real evidence ever got out, the NCAA / NBA might be completely finished as an organization. Why risk it?

Sure, the exact examples of bad calls or what-not you point to varies, but the arguments are basically identical.

Now, if Donaghy's allegations turn out to have any evidence supporting them or he can otherwise establish himself as a credible witness, then sure, things change. But that brings us back to: we believe him why again? He's given no evidence, and he has every incentive to lie. We believe him because this board generally just hates the NBA, and will believe anything bad about it, no matter what the evidence.

If there were a college ref set to do time for a similar offense I would be much more likely to think there is game fixing in the NCAA, however you would still need to convince me that it involves Duke specifically. Citing NCAA rules violations as evidence of refs cheating is ridiculous. Again, they are two entirely different things. You're groping and I'm not sure why you're so hell-bent on tying believing Donaghy to believing random fans of college basketball. The "why believe him? he's a felon!" argument rings very hollow when you consider that his felony involved influencing NBA games.

In your last paragraph it becomes apparent you have an ax to grind against this board and its hatred of the NBA. Perhaps a better discussion point would be why this board hates the NBA (if that's even true). Trying to tie suspicion of the NBA to Duke is a stretch at best, and I think you know it.

cspan37421
06-11-2008, 05:18 PM
some of the recent talk here is so full of fallacious reasoning that it is laughable. I don't have time to comment on it all, but to me, the elephant in the room w/r/t Duke calls is confirmation bias. Duke haters tend to only remember questionable calls that went in Duke's favor; Duke fans tend to only remember questionable calls (or noncalls) that went against Duke. Bottom line is, however, that the Donaghy issue is its own issue and does not relate to Duke, AFAIK.

Another fallacy is that there's bad officiating when there is a big free throw discrepancy. Believing this implies a belief that teams actually commit fouls at similar rates, so a big discrepancy should not be expected. I find it hard to believe that some teams aren't more physical than others. My best examples though point to the ACC. Who thinks FSU, BC, VT, and Miami play no rougher than Duke, Wake, UNC? From what I've seen the style differences are obvious, and a free throw discrepancy should be expected.

Having said that, the officiating in the finals has been a joke, and only further adds to my suspicion that Donaghy is not by far the only crooked ref. I admit, I know of no receipt trail or other hard proof, but I've watched enough NBA games to conclude that the officiating is such that traveling isn't called, palming/carrying isn't called, foul calls are often nonsensical and almost always inconsistent, that the notion that star players deserve a longer leash (in fouls or technicals) simply because they're stars just offends my sense of fairness in the game - it is simply not worth watching. I hope the Olympics are better, but they don't exactly have an untarnished history of officiating either.

Kfanarmy
06-11-2008, 05:26 PM
Darthur
He's given no evidence, and he has every incentive to lie. We believe him because this board generally just hates the NBA, and will believe anything bad about it, no matter what the evidence. Point of fact is that he has given evidence...both the FBI and his lawyers say he has provided EVIDENCE, not just his public statement. The NBA has provided only statements. If we review, the NBA has "looked into these accusations in the past and found nothing." Donaghy's activities came to light because Las Vegas odds makers recognized a pattern discernable from other NBA patterns....not because the NBA found it. Had the odds makers pointed this anomoly out to the NBA only, this individual would have been quietly fired...not because of what he was doing, but because people knew what he was doing. His activity didn't hurt the NBA, people knowing about it hurt the NBA's image.

There are many ways, subtle and not-so subtle, to convince employee officials that it is in their best interest to insure max profitability of the business...one of them is to deny that they are doing anything unsportsmanlike to the public while insuring "the right team" wins/doesn't win in a given situation.

darthur
06-11-2008, 05:30 PM
however you would still need to convince me that it involves Duke specifically. Citing NCAA rules violations as evidence of refs cheating is ridiculous.

Exactly. And yet, you obviously didn't understand me. It would be totally unfair to say Duke gets unfair calls based on one NCAA ref gambling, just like it is totally unfair to say that one ref in the NBA gambling is evidence that there must be a widespread conspiracy to fix games. I claim the two arguments are equally unfounded.


The "why believe him? he's a felon!" argument rings very hollow when you consider that his felony involved influencing NBA games.

You keep conflating Donaghy gambling with the NBA fixing games; these are very, very different things. He lied and cheated on his own to gamble. His accusation is that, completely independent of this, there is a wide-spread conspiracy among other refs in the NBA to fix games. The fact that he is independently a cheater does not make other people cheaters too - it just makes him one. So no, his history as a liar makes his story more suspect, not less suspect.


In your last paragraph it becomes apparent you have an ax to grind against this board and its hatred of the NBA. Perhaps a better discussion point would be why this board hates the NBA (if that's even true).

Not really. But I've been reading the board for 6 or 7 years, and I'd have to be blind to not notice that people here greatly dislike the NBA. The reason why is actually quite relevant, as you point out. The main complaint as far as I can tell is that players are thugs who don't try and don't play defense. Regardless of whether you believe this complaint, it has nothing to do with fixing games, and yet it colors people's perception of all NBA news, so whenever something bad happens, people jump all over it. Which is exactly what is going on here, and exactly why I think people's lightning-fast judgments here are just silly.

Anyway, we are repeating ourselves at this point. I feel I have expressed myself as clearly as I can. It is my opinion that this is a complete non-story. Donaghy made it clear from the very beginning he was going to accuse others to try to reduce his sentence. Here are the accusations. Until there's some shred of proof backing them up, I'll take them with one giant grain of salt.

pfrduke
06-11-2008, 05:31 PM
I want to pose the following questions:

1) Do you believe that the NBA instructs its officials, as a general matter, to call games differently than the rule book would specify? If so, in what way (i.e., ignore traveling/palming, give star players a longer leash, make sure the big market team gets better calls in the playoffs, etc.)?

2) Do you believe that the NBA instructs the officials who will be calling a specific game to call it in favor of one team or the other?

3) If your answer to 1 and/or 2 is yes, do you find it odd that in all of NBA history, the only current or former NBA official to say that these kinds of things happened is Tim Donaghy, someone who conspired with gamblers (and not the NBA) to fix games for personal gain and is now facing felony charges?

darthur
06-11-2008, 05:44 PM
Another fallacy is that there's bad officiating when there is a big free throw discrepancy.

Yes.


I've watched enough NBA games to conclude that the officiating is such that traveling isn't called, palming/carrying isn't called, foul calls are often nonsensical and almost always inconsistent

Then you haven't watched enough NBA games. I am rarely surprised by NBA foul calls. Maybe a few a game. Which is a lot more than I can say for college officiating. At the very least, NBA officiating is pretty consistent and predictable within each game.


only further adds to my suspicion that Donaghy is not by far the only crooked ref... it is simply not worth watching.

You talk about how Duke-gets-all-the-calls is just confirmation bias. I agree. But then you end with this long rant about why you hate what are effectively NBA rules (e.g. traveling and palming), and that this confirms what you already knew about all refs being crooked. Hmmm... Please refer to my post about people on this board disliking the NBA for unrelated reasons and letting that color their perception of Donaghy.

You are right about one thing though. I also don't have time for these arguments. So adieu. Enjoy your NBA-bashing.

darthur
06-11-2008, 05:51 PM
Point of fact is that he has given evidence...both the FBI and his lawyers say he has provided EVIDENCE, not just his public statement.

Oops, missed that. Well I don't care what his lawyers say. But I have heard nothing at all about the FBI supporting Donaghy's claims, and I have heard every indication that the NBA has cooperated pretty fully with the FBI throughout. If you have heard something meaningful from a reputable source that contradicts this, link it.


Had the odds makers pointed this anomoly out to the NBA only, this individual would have been quietly fired...not because of what he was doing, but because people knew what he was doing.

Oh come on. What's the point of making a baseless, completely unsubstantiated accusation like this? It just makes it harder for me to believe you on things that matter.

SMO
06-11-2008, 06:08 PM
"Exactly. And yet, you obviously didn't understand me. It would be totally unfair to say Duke gets unfair calls based on one NCAA ref gambling, just like it is totally unfair to say that one ref in the NBA gambling is evidence that there must be a widespread conspiracy to fix games. I claim the two arguments are equally unfounded."

You continue to reference a non-existant example of an NCAA ref gambling to support the "Duke gets all the calls" mantra. Doesn't it seem odd that you must reference something that hasn't happened to illustrate your point?

"You keep conflating Donaghy gambling with the NBA fixing games; these are very, very different things. He lied and cheated on his own to gamble. His accusation is that, completely independent of this, there is a wide-spread conspiracy among other refs in the NBA to fix games. The fact that he is independently a cheater does not make other people cheaters too - it just makes him one. So no, his history as a liar makes his story more suspect, not less suspect."

Donaghy has influenced NBA games as an employee of the NBA. While that is not the same thing as NBA leadership demanding that official influence the game, his actions provide some support that other NBA officials have influenced the game. It may be a stretch, but it's more believable now than if there never was any Donaghy case.

"It is my opinion that this is a complete non-story. Donaghy made it clear from the very beginning he was going to accuse others to try to reduce his sentence. Here are the accusations. Until there's some shred of proof backing them up, I'll take them with one giant grain of salt."

I don't totally disagree that this should be taken with a grain of salt, but to suggest that belief in this story is akin to believing Duke gets all the calls is a stretch. At least here there are details from someone who would know vs. pure speculation.

cspan37421
06-11-2008, 06:13 PM
I want to pose the following questions:

1) Do you believe that the NBA instructs its officials, as a general matter, to call games differently than the rule book would specify? If so, in what way (i.e., ignore traveling/palming, give star players a longer leash, make sure the big market team gets better calls in the playoffs, etc.)?

2) Do you believe that the NBA instructs the officials who will be calling a specific game to call it in favor of one team or the other?

3) If your answer to 1 and/or 2 is yes, do you find it odd that in all of NBA history, the only current or former NBA official to say that these kinds of things happened is Tim Donaghy, someone who conspired with gamblers (and not the NBA) to fix games for personal gain and is now facing felony charges?

1) Yes - I've heard an NBA official say this specifically. It was several years ago in the Kobe/Shaq era, and it was said that they were specifically instructed (during summer ref training/review) to not foul out stars, as it diminished the entertainment value of the product. Of course, the NBA subsequently issued a statement denying this and said the ref must have misunderstood etc. IIRC it was reported on the Dan Patrick Show back when he was on ESPN radio.

2) I think the substance of a "message" may be sent, at times, through third channels, yes. Why? Not just Donaghy - you see enough bad calls (and no-calls), you conclude they're either not competent or intentionally calling it one way or another. I do not think the NBA scripts every game, though. I think they just go overboard managing outcomes when they have a desired outcome, but that isn't all the time.

3) of course not. Who wants to stand up and tell the world they did something morally, ethically, or legally wrong? Or that you stood by and did nothing while others behaved badly? If you do, your credibility on all other statements can be immediately called into question, and is. Plus you might face civil or criminal charges. Note, too, that one could easily agree to call a game the way one perceives the NBA wants it called, without necessarily calling Vegas and trying to capitalize on it. You want to be a company man, you do things the company way. Donaghy's mistake was that he wanted more - he got greedy.

Indoor66
06-11-2008, 06:39 PM
You want to be a company man, you do things the company way. Donaghy's mistake was that he wanted more - he got greedy.

...and we all know you feed pigs and slaughter hogs! :D

darthur
06-11-2008, 06:57 PM
Note, too, that one could easily agree to call a game the way one perceives the NBA wants it called, without necessarily calling Vegas and trying to capitalize on it.

Well I said I'm done so I won't argue, but uh, you know this is a complete misrepresentation of all information that is out there right? I can't tell if you're talking tongue-in-cheek, or if you actually believe this is what happened. Anyway, there is zero, zilch, nada suggestion that anything Donaghy did was ever done with the approval or even knowledge of the NBA, right?

Here's what he did:
- He bet on games, including a few he reffed.
- He passed on information that refs are privy to (namely: who is reffing, what players will be sitting out, etc.) to other betters.

The only reason to think he "fixed" games at all is to make his own personal bets come true, and even this he has denied. There has been no suggestion from him or from anyone that the NBA has told him what to do in any games.

pfrduke
06-11-2008, 07:09 PM
2) I think the substance of a "message" may be sent, at times, through third channels, yes. Why? Not just Donaghy - you see enough bad calls (and no-calls), you conclude they're either not competent or intentionally calling it one way or another. I do not think the NBA scripts every game, though. I think they just go overboard managing outcomes when they have a desired outcome, but that isn't all the time.

Just out of curiosity, which third channels are you referring to?

MChambers
06-11-2008, 08:04 PM
No... I've thought for years that the league is fixed. After game 7 of the LA-Portland series in 2000, I'll always be suspicious.

That was a remarkable job of officiating, to say the least. Pretty well finished off my interest in the NBA.

El_Diablo
06-11-2008, 10:30 PM
I think the tons of rules violations these days should make it more than clear that the NCAA is as vulnerable to corruption at the individual level as anyone else.

Oh wait, someone called you on it. So now it's:


I claim the two arguments are equally unfounded.

Sorry, darthur. You put up a good fight...up to this point. But you can't try to make a claim and then (after it falls flat) try to disown it.

Anyway, I stopped watching the NBA for some of the reasons previously mentioned in this thread, so I'm not all that surprised by these accusations or by Stern's reaction to them. We'll probably never get the full truth from either side, but I guess it makes an interesting story for now.

weezie
06-11-2008, 10:38 PM
...and we all know you feed pigs and slaughter hogs! :D

Yes! What?
I'm a Detroiter, what's this about slaughtering hogs? Must we deal with the sordid butchering details? We prefer our kielbasas already grilled.... To quote Rasheed, "I TOLD y'all!"

Edouble
06-11-2008, 11:17 PM
That was a remarkable job of officiating, to say the least. Pretty well finished off my interest in the NBA.

Thank you sir. The lack of logic coming from one of the main players on this thread has finished off my interest here as well.

darthur
06-12-2008, 02:39 AM
Sorry, darthur. You put up a good fight...up to this point. But you can't try to make a claim and then (after it falls flat) try to disown it.

Huh? I think you misunderstood. I believe that both the NBA and NCAA are susceptible to corruption on an individual level (i.e. there could easily be a Donaghy in college ranks), but talk of a conspiracy in either case is completely baseless at this stage. I do not disown anything I said.

I also note that pretty much everyone (or is it literally everyone?) in this thread who's coming down hard on the NBA has also gone out of their way to say they disliked the NBA already before this happened. If that's true, then this really is a non-story: the people who hate the NBA find one more thing to hate, and nobody else pays attention, at least until evidence (if there is any) comes to light.

cspan37421
06-12-2008, 11:16 AM
Once again you jump to conclusions, darthur. [Maybe you need a jump to conclusions mat.] I didn't give a timeline of my like/dislike of the nba, and keep in mind, Exhibit A (the LAL-SAC game 6) was in 2002. Others iffy games preceeded that. You failed to consider the possibility that the decline in my appreciation of the NBA co-evolved with these and other developments (such as the general quality of the game and the prevalence of so many unadmirable people playing it). You're confusing cause and effect.

Kfanarmy
06-12-2008, 11:27 AM
.... but talk of a conspiracy in either case is completely baseless at this stage. If that's true, then this really is a non-story: the people who hate the NBA find one more thing to hate, and nobody else pays attention, at least until evidence (if there is any) comes to light. I have watched a lot of games this spring/summer...just because I watch doesn't mean I think it is competition...and just because I'm not blind to the set up doesn't mean I hate the NBA.


What is missing in your statements are 1: a positive position and 2: any semblance of logic.

1: Do you believe that the NBA is providing, to the best of their ability, competitively neutral officiating? Do you believe the NBA does not purposefully insure star players are available at the end of games, ie...makes sure they aren't fouled out during games...or have their scoring assisted by bogus calls against non stars (I once saw a player get called for a foul against MJ when no one was within four feet of him on a missed shot!) didn't impact my opinion of MJ at all, and reinforced my opinion that the NBA needed him to be a superstar, day-in and day-out ? Do you believe the NBA does nothing to assist/insure home teams win games?

If so, I applaud your temerity to support what you believe...please provide any evidence for the opionion...ie some outside agency, independent review, etc....


2: I have not been able to follow the logic at all with Duke, college basketball comparison to the NBA, donaghy and current realities...It seems to be something similar to "People say the moon is made of green cheese and it aint, therefore soup can't have cheese in it....."

darthur
06-12-2008, 12:11 PM
Once again you jump to conclusions, darthur. [Maybe you need a jump to conclusions mat.]

Let's see. There's two ways to interpret my statement "before this happened".

#1: before the nebulous time at which the possibly non-existent cheating in the NBA started happening
#2: before the Donaghy story broke a few days ago.

Even barring the fact that #1 is so nebulous as to be a completely worthless statement, you choose to assume this is what I mean, whereas #2 is completely well defined and completely accurate. Well, at least you just showed it is for you, Mr. 2002 finals. So how am I the one that jumps to conclusions?


What is missing in your statements are 1: a positive position and 2: any semblance of logic.

You tell me to take a position? Here's my position, spelled out as clearly as I can make it. This Donaghy testimonial is mildly interesting, completely unproven allegations from a highly questionable source that should not be taken at face value without serious evidence. At Duke of all places, we should know the value of not believing questionable accusations before the evidence comes out... And no, before you try (again), anecdotal evidence of bad calls will never, ever be that evidence. Please see cspan's comment about confirmation bias.

What's missing from *your* statements is any suggestion of this evidence. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the FBI supports Donaghy's allegations. An ESPN article today basically says this is false, and the NBA fully believe all FBI evidence (to be released after Donaghy's sentencing) will exonerate them.

And thanks for the bland assertion that I don't use logic. That really adds to this discussion.


I have not been able to follow the logic at all with Duke, college basketball comparison to the NBA, donaghy and current realities...It seems to be something similar to "People say the moon is made of green cheese and it aint, therefore soup can't have cheese in it....."

Yeah, obviously not. If you have specific questions or counterpoints, say them. I do not mind clarifying my position. When I said I was wasting my time here though, it was this kind of comment I was referring to. I'm not going to repeat my entire argument, guessing where you had trouble following or where you disagree, only to be dismissed with a one-line "I don't follow and you don't use logic".

Duke4Ever32
06-12-2008, 12:28 PM
Apparently the FBI has been concerned enough about this - for some time now - to have already been asking about other referees and how they officiated games, including Dick Bavetta.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/53672

Doesn't sound like this is going to end well.

darthur
06-12-2008, 12:44 PM
It means the FBI is making a full investigation, although I think that information had been out for a while. At least publicly, the NBA has invited them to do so. The interesting part will be when the FBI releases their findings, assuming they do.

It's strange questioning though. So they are checking if Bavetta favors home teams? Ok. But they are specifically targeting him? The league as a whole might have reason to favor home teams as it would presumably make ticket holders happy (although don't the individual teams get the money from tickets, not the league? I thought the league got money mainly off TV.) Individual refs though? What incentive could they have? Even if it was gambling or something shady like that, there would be no reason to consistently favor the home team in particular. Shrug.

Kfanarmy
06-12-2008, 12:51 PM
the theory/belief and the evidence...

Theory/belief/accusation: The NBA is purposelly affecting the outcome of games and individual performances.
evidence: 1. Donaghy's statements, reliability questionable.
2. ongoing investigation, results unknown
3. thousands of Fan "witnesses" concluding either widespread incompetence or purposeful misconduct

Theory/belief/: The NBA is NOT purposelly affecting the outcome of games and individual performances.
evidence: 1. Stern's statements, reliability questionable.
2. thousands of Fan "witnesses" concluding each individual call/no-call is solely a result of official performance in a difficult situation...you cannot establish trends in officiating.

darthur---that's how I see the evidence...so far I've seen zero NBA insider evidence that the NBA doesn't attempt to impact games and performances. by the way, the anecdotal evidence was of bad trends, not individual calls...your standard would limit evidence to only the participants in a crime...only the robber and conspirators, the person(s) robbed, and an investigator could make a statement...the person who noticed that money was missing from the till each week based on the number of customers (the rules) and said so would not be allowed to testify--a witness.

darthur
06-12-2008, 01:12 PM
Theory/belief/accusation: The NBA is purposelly affecting the outcome of games and individual performances.
evidence: 1. Donaghy's statements, reliability questionable.
2. ongoing investigation, results unknown
3. thousands of Fan "witnesses" concluding either widespread incompetence or purposeful misconduct

Exactly. Your summary of 1 more or less echoes my main beliefs.

I would also add that I strongly believe #3 to be completely worthless as evidence (and apparently you feel somewhat similar since you list it for the other side as well). When I bring up Duke gets all the calls, I do so precisely to discredit fan "witnesses". This is what people cite when they say Duke gets all the calls, and I think doing so is as invalid here as it is there. Now, you talk about trends. If you could come up with statistical trends (over a very large sample set), not anecdotal ones, then I would be very, very interested to see them. The data may be out there, but I do not know where. However, anecdotal evidence is worthless IMO, no matter what it purports to be. Give me stats or give me nothing I say.

Now, my point has never really been about the NBA as a whole, so much as Donaghy's testimony in particular. But since you are so interested in it, I will state my position. I believe:

(1) any kind of fixing is very hard to maintain and keep secret
(2) the risk far outweighs the gains
(3) the onus is on us to prove guilt, not on them to prove innocence
(4) when it comes to personal belief, I do trust *my* anecdotal evidence, even while understanding it will never convince anyone else, and I see nothing to suggest any kind of fixing when I watch the NBA. I see Phoenix, the most popular team in the NBA screwed by a deliberate decision from the front office, I see small-market San Antonio dominate and big-market New York creamed. I see bad calls as well yes, but no suspicious pattern behind them.

In the end, when all evidence of all kinds is so questionable, I trust logic (there is no reason for the NBA to do this, or to think they could get away with it), and fairness (it's unfair to assume guilt). If the FBI investigation turns up real evidence, I will reevaluate this position of course.

Anyway, I do not aim to convince people the NBA doesn't cheat. This is my opinion, but others differ I know. I aim to convince people that Donaghy's accusations mean nothing until real evidence can be provided to back them up.

Kfanarmy
06-12-2008, 02:51 PM
(2) the risk far outweighs the gains....that remains to be seen. Professional wrestling exploded in popularity when it was obvious to everyone that it was being choreographed--necessarily so that wrestlers didn't get hurt and so that the most popular could participate as often as possible. Not that the NBA has the same physical reason for doing the same, but I believe the NBA has the same bottom line reason...Oh and on that Phoenix Suns "screwed by a deliberate decision from the front office" instance, there is no knowing who made the most money from that one but it was clearly as you say a deliberate decision by the front office that gave the series to one team. I believe the NBA game is in the transition between true competition and purely entertainment, as the major wrestling venues were 40+ years ago....what happens over the next ten to 15 years will tell us which way they go...and, I believe you are going to see more evidence that games are purposely being impacted for the sake of the might dollar. Don't discount what people's eyes tell them, sometimes you smell a rat before you see it.

darthur
06-12-2008, 07:14 PM
...that remains to be seen. Professional wrestling exploded in popularity when it was obvious to everyone that it was being choreographed--necessarily so that wrestlers didn't get hurt and so that the most popular could participate as often as possible.

What reason would professional basketball players who have played competitive basketball all their life have to accept a sham? If the NBA were revealed as such, the players would simply go elsewhere as soon as the chance presented itself (and it would), and the NBA would be totally screwed. The WWF can find replacement actors for their wrestlers, because in the end, they are big men doing mildly athletic things. Such men are replaceable. There is nobody the NBA can find to replace a Kobe Bryant. There is one person in the world that can do what he does, and that person would not accept playing a sham.


Oh and on that Phoenix Suns "screwed by a deliberate decision from the front office" instance, there is no knowing who made the most money from that one but it was clearly as you say a deliberate decision by the front office that gave the series to one team.

Well stats are hard to find, but I assure you that the Suns are a much, much bigger fan draw than the Spurs. We are pretty much talking the most popular major team in the NBA vs the least popular. Or have you missed all the ragging on the Spurs as boring, and the fact their finals win set record lows in TV ratings (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/basketball/nba/specials/playoffs/2007/06/12/stern.ratings/index.html)? Anyway, I did find national TV schedules for this year, and the Suns did indeed beat the Spurs. The difference was only 24 to 22, but (a) the Spurs were national champions this year which inflates their numbers, and (b) apparently teams are only allowed to be on national TV 24 times, so the Suns' numbers are likely artificially limited.

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/oden-to-open-up-against-spurs.html

And I like how you are willing to insinuate anything is manipulation by the NBA. If they tell refs to go easy on technicals that could eject superstars and decide a game, they are cheating in the stars' defense. If they follow the written rules to suspend a superstar for a game, even though it seriously hurts the fan favorite team, they are ruining the game by deciding it themselves, instead of letting the players decide.

Accusing the NBA on both accounts is just silly.


Don't discount what people's eyes tell them, sometimes you smell a rat before you see it.

I don't discount what *my* eyes tell me. I most certainly will discount questionable conclusions other people draw from incredibly incomplete evidence though, thank you very much. Otherwise, I really would believe Duke gets all the calls. Heaven knows a lot of message board posters have assured me of it over the years.

Kfanarmy
06-13-2008, 01:42 PM
:eek: Warning some points of this post may have been included solely for their potential as humor.

Have to let this one die....darthur, you even argue against things you said if someone else quotes...I don't think there is anyway you will consider the potential that the sporting organizations can be corrupt and that paid sports analysts, reliant on major sports organizations for revenue, would back their claims unquestioningly as you are.


for the Record, Kobe Bryant, just like whoever the superstars are in professional wrestling today, will be replaced the day he starts to slow down, if not sooner...wouldn't surprise me at all if Durant has surpassed him in two-three years.


And I like how you are willing to insinuate anything is manipulation by the NBA. If they tell refs to go easy on technicals that could eject superstars and decide a game, they are cheating in the stars' defense. If they follow the written rules to suspend a superstar for a game, even though it seriously hurts the fan favorite team, they are ruining the game by deciding it themselves, instead of letting the players decide.
for what it is worth...this would make sense if I and others hadn't provided specific examples...Stern and Jackson said the rule on leaving the bench was black and white...the overwhelming public read was that there was huge interpretation as to when and whether an altercation ever took place. There are multple revenue streams available to the organization and to the individual NBA employees, legal and illegal. Again, what I have seen indicates to me that it aint an even playing field.

Hoping your point in
What reason would professional basketball players who have played competitive basketball all their life have to accept a sham? doesn't mean you honestly believe that star players aren't playing by special rules....if so, you may be the only one on the planet, (an assumption in there somewhere)


I don't discount what *my* eyes tell me. ;) Now I understand...they open with those little flaps of skin above them and below your eyebrows...please open, observe, and opine...apparently you are relying on what ESPN, NBA and others say to you....opening your eyes may help.

Following the train of thought here is like trying to herd a hundred cats through a dog fight.;)

darthur
06-13-2008, 02:40 PM
Kfanarmy. If you wish to continue this discussion with me, you will address the points I have made, and you will stop running to a new argument every post. In particular:

1. You will (a) provide concrete statistical evidence to prove the Spurs are more popular than the Suns to counter the proven fact that the Spurs have less television coverage and their finals win set record-low TV ratings, or (b) give a specific, concrete and plausible explanation for how, despite the massive popularity the Suns enjoy over the Spurs, it is in the interest of the NBA to fix the Sun/Spurs series from last year to favor the Spurs, or (c) admit all your claims along these lines were completely without basis in reality.
2. You will provide several reputable sources seriously arguing there was no altercation at the time of the Stoudemire suspension, never mind that Nash had to be restrained and Bell and Horry were all over each other, or you will retract this statement, and explain how you could have made it with such certainty.
3. You will cease to refer to any of your observations of calls you didn't like as evidence of anything, or you will explain very clearly and precisely why they should be taken as anything other than confirmation bias.
4. You will retract your claim that I contradicted myself and apologize, or you will specifically point out what claim (with direct quotes) I contradicted and where (with direct quotes) I contradicted it.
5. If I am correct in my memory that you were the one who said the FBI backed Donaghy's allegations (whoever it was seems to have stealth-edited their post to remove that claim - always a good trick), you will provide evidence that the FBI is backing Donaghy's allegations, or you will admit that your claim was completely false.

In return, if you think you have caught me saying anything factually incorrect, I too will find supporting evidence or retract my statements. If you are unwilling to do these things, this discussion is not worth my time.

Kfanarmy
06-13-2008, 03:41 PM
Kfanarmy. If you wish to continue this discussion with me, you will address the points I have made, and you will stop running to a new argument every post. In particular:. not sure what makes you think I will or won't do anything based on your desires, remember I and others asserted what we believed based on what we see...you are welcome to provide any statistical evidence to refute anything you want. good luck.


1. You will (a) provide concrete statistical evidence to prove the Spurs are more popular than the Suns to counter the proven fact that the Spurs have less television coverage and their finals win set record-low TV ratings, or (b) give a specific, concrete and plausible explanation for how, despite the massive popularity the Suns enjoy over the Spurs, it is in the interest of the NBA to fix the Sun/Spurs series from last year to favor the Spurs, or (c) admit all your claims along these lines were completely without basis in reality. Please review closely what was said, I never asserted anything about the two teams popularity in this case; point of fact in our little to and fro, you brought up the teams, you established the opinion that
Phoenix, the most popular team in the NBA screwed by a deliberate decision from the front office was screwed in a deliberate act by the front office, while at the same time arguing the NBA is clean, as though the front office isn't part of the NBA as a whole....I proferred that there are other monetary reasons why this might have been done; I didn't assert nor do I know which one is right, But the same Las Vegas betting through third parties is plausible...conspiratorial yes, impossible not even close.

what I have asserted is that in many series, the home teams are being given an advantage...this, again, keeps fans going to games, and makes the series last longer, generatting a lot of $ directly into the pockets of NBA owners, through Televison/network contracts, and indirectly through merchandizing and betting.

2. You will provide several reputable sources seriously arguing there was no altercation at the time of the Stoudemire suspension, never mind that Nash had to be restrained and Bell and Horry were all over each other, or you will retract this statement, and explain how you could have made it with such certainty.3. you can find these quickly on the internet.


3. You will cease to refer to any of your observations of calls you didn't like as evidence of anything, or you will explain very clearly and precisely why they should be taken as anything other than confirmation bias. pls review, the only call I have presented was one shown hundreds of time on TV...MJs (fourth I think) win with the Bulls. You provided one example as well, and YOUR EXAMPLE supported MY ARGUMENT. I have talked about trends; about what I've seen...you are the one arguing that what others have seen and what others have talked about is untrue...to prove their observations wrong, you provide the statistics... HINT HINT, I wouldn't use as an example a case where a team was screwed deliberately by the head office, see that indicates that the NBA is adversely affecting fairness....and by the way confirmation bias is just as likely in the case of one who says aint nothin wrong as it is in someone who says the opposite...the only example you've provided supports my argument, yet you cling to the opposite conclusion--that is confirmation bias as it examples a "a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs"


4. You will retract your claim that I contradicted myself and apologize, or you will specifically point out what claim (with direct quotes) I contradicted and where (with direct quotes) I contradicted it. please see your refence above to the head office and your entire argument that their is no evidence that the NBA is not purposefully impacting games...as a guide, it is quoted above...


5. If I am correct in my memory that you were the one who said the FBI backed Donaghy's allegations (whoever it was seems to have stealth-edited their post to remove that claim - always a good trick), you will provide evidence that the FBI is backing Donaghy's allegations, or you will admit that your claim was completely false. I know this was way back to yesterday evening so I went back and found it for you....
Theory/belief/accusation: The NBA is purposelly affecting the outcome of games and individual performances.
evidence: 1. Donaghy's statements, reliability questionable.
2. ongoing investigation, results unknown
3. thousands of Fan "witnesses" concluding either widespread incompetence or purposeful misconduct "stealth editing?" must not work too well, it is all back there, just doesn't read the way you read/remember/want it to.

In return, if you think you have caught me saying anything factually incorrect, I too will find supporting evidence or retract my statements. If you are unwilling to do these things, this discussion is not worth my time. ok,,,,start with the stealth editing statement, work your way through the I indicated in any way that the Mavs were more popular than the Suns, awaiting apology as of time now.

DBFAN
06-13-2008, 03:44 PM
My problem with this whole situation is that so far it is nothing but speculation. Since we are all Duke fans here, I would hope that none of us get caught up in it, basically since that is all we hear about our own beloved team. Dont think that the speculation will stop with the NBA. It concerns me that other professional and Collegiate sports will be investigated, because we all know that teams like Duke pay the refs, and CBS always but Duke in easy brackets in March so they can obtain a larger audience. (I hope you all are catching the sarcasm here :rolleyes:)

This kind of stuff will never end basically because everybody wants their team to win. Notice that teams like the Lakers, Or the Celitics are not complaining about it, just fans of teams who do not have a history of greatness. Even if their are real issues with some of the refs, and they fixed it, can you honestly say that all of the conspiracies would stop. Of course not, because when people are passionate about things like sports they seem to have tunnel vision, and can not see that other teams get bad call too.

That is the end of my soapbox, you may not agree with me, but I am unanimous in my decision.

SmartDevil
06-13-2008, 05:20 PM
Isn't it telling in and of itself that so much of America regards pro basketball as possibly (or even likely) corrupt, and perhaps even fixed?

That isn't the case with football, baseball, hockey, other pro sports (except possibly boxing and various kinds of racing) and college sports.

Personally, I no longer waste a dime on NBA tickets or waste my time in watching the NBA on tv.

The comparison others have made to pro wrestling is compelling. But wrestling at least proclaims itself sports entertainement rather than sport.

cspan37421
06-13-2008, 05:50 PM
A little history - much recent, some is not:

Football: steroids, HGH, spying on opposing teams

Baseball: steroids, HGH, lying about it to Congress, masking it with Viagra, doctoring ball via scuffing or "foreign substance", corked bats, bowls of greenies (amphetamines), etc, guys like Pete Rose betting while managing (signaling to his creditors a tank job by not betting on his team)

basketball: point shaving scandals; NCAA recruiting violations almost annually by somebody, under the table payments violating the salary cap in the NBA .

The fact is we have a culture of cheating in this country. Read the book by David Callahan. And that's why when Donaghy starts to sing, most of us don't find his claims incredible. We don't necessarily believe him, but we don't dismiss the charges out of hand as Mr. Stern does with such unearned confidence. And many of us are a bit too skeptical to think that the NBA (or anyone, for that matter) can investigate itself honestly.

darthur, you're welcome to believe what you want, and I hope you can accept that others may not agree with you. This is not to say that we think our evidence is conclusive, but we've lived long enough to see enough fraud that discreditable claims no longer surprise us. We've seen enough to have our suspicions, again, to which we are entitled. As Mencken said, "Evil is that which one believes of others. It is a sin to believe evil of others, but seldom a mistake."

darthur
06-13-2008, 06:01 PM
Kfanarmy: You have not met my request. I will explain how you failed to meet my request, and then as promised, I will stop participating in this discussion.


not sure what makes you think I will or won't do anything based on your desires,

I expressed conditions required for ME to participate. Whether you choose to accept them is up to you.


Please review closely what was said, I never asserted anything about the two teams popularity in this case;

You stated that the NBA's ruling (I like how you emphasize "deliberate" by the way, as if a ruling could not be deliberate, and yet somehow that by itself implies crookedness) was evidence of shady dealing, specifically insinuating how it was to make money. I gave factual evidence that it was TV rating suicide for the NBA to cheat in San Antonio's favor. That makes your suggestion incredibly implausible.

Thus, my condition here was to demand any plausible explanation, with evidence to support your claim, that this particular call, which lead to such a dramatic negative impact on NBA television ratings, is a product of conspiracy. You have not countered my argument that it was ratings suicide, and you have not provided anything beyond a totally implausible, completely unfounded guess at a reason why the NBA would cheat in this way. Your rather nebulous reason - that the NBA front office could potentially be illegally betting on their games in Vegas - is particularly unlikely since the Stoudemire/Diaw suspensions would have been announced well before betting closed for the next game.


and by the way confirmation bias is just as likely in the case of one who says aint nothin wrong as it is in someone who says the opposite...

In addition to failing to actually prove confirmation bias does not completely undermine your whole position, you have have also completely mischaracterized MY position. You claim the NBA is crooked. I claim you have no evidence of any substance to back that up. For example, I said:

"Anyway, I do not aim to convince people the NBA doesn't cheat. This is my opinion, but others differ I know. I aim to convince people that Donaghy's accusations mean nothing until real evidence can be provided to back them up."

This is NOT the same thing as claiming the NBA is not crooked, and thus, the onus is on YOU, not on both of us, to provide concrete evidence.


please see your refence above to the head office and your entire argument that their is no evidence that the NBA is not purposefully impacting games...as a guide, it is quoted above...

You have badly mischaracterized my position. If you had bothered to do as I asked, and looked for direct quotes, you would have probably realized this.


"stealth editing?" must not work too well, it is all back there, just doesn't read the way you read/remember/want it to.

That is certainly not the quote I was referring to. As I said at the time, I was not entirely sure it was you who said it. So if it wasn't you, there's nothing you need to say.


ok,,,,start with the stealth editing statement, work your way through the I indicated in any way that the Mavs were more popular than the Suns, awaiting apology as of time now.

1. The stealth editing comment was prefaced with a big "If this was you". If it wasn't you, then there's nothing to complain about, is there?
2. As for the popularity of the Spurs vs the Suns, what I told you to do was either (a) dispute that the Suns were much more popular, or (b) justify your claim about cheating while accounting for this. So once again, you have mischaracterized my position.

darthur
06-13-2008, 06:14 PM
The fact is we have a culture of cheating in this country.

Oh, I agree with this. But I'll point out the vast, vast majority of the time the cheating is done either by the competitors, or it is single people acting in isolation (e.g. betting). It's not that I think sports organizers are somehow immune to moral lapses. It is just that I don't think there's any reason for them to cheat. It's too hard to keep quiet, there's too much risk, and there's too little reward (when people actually cheat, they do it for millions of dollars right now, or becoming a better player, not for slightly better tv ratings). Yes, I know it's possible, but the NBA is not the WWF, and I'll believe it when I see proof.


darthur, you're welcome to believe what you want, and I hope you can accept that others may not agree with you.

Yep. Nor do I hope to convince other people there's no cheating going on, even though that's my opinion. In the end, how could I? I merely hope to remind people that there is no real evidence of cheating... for now.

cspan37421
06-13-2008, 06:23 PM
Right. Well, our legal system requires that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, there are no such constraints for public opinion.

What did you think of the game last night? I watched a good bit of the first half, and that's it. If there was one thing I noticed, it was a lot of non-calls, each way, mostly shoving under the basket for a rebound. Most of the noncalls were when some other player, other than the two tussling, ended up with the rebound. If that's allowed, either de jure or de facto, fine, but I find it an ugly part of the game. I felt confident that in a college game, those would have been fouls. Flopping is a bad part of the game too, and my guess is that the art of flopping evolved from a need to "sell" such fouls. Now, of course, it's simply to get a call, whether contact occurred or not.

darthur
06-13-2008, 06:40 PM
What did you think of the game last night? I watched a good bit of the first half, and that's it. If there was one thing I noticed, it was a lot of non-calls, each way, mostly shoving under the basket for a rebound. Most of the noncalls were when some other player, other than the two tussling, ended up with the rebound. If that's allowed, either de jure or de facto, fine, but I find it an ugly part of the game. I felt confident that in a college game, those would have been fouls. Flopping is a bad part of the game too, and my guess is that the art of flopping evolved from a need to "sell" such fouls. Now, of course, it's simply to get a call, whether contact occurred or not.

I definitely think this series (when I've watched, which has been maybe half the time) has been called loosely, especially away from the ball. I'm not cheering for anyone in particular here, so mainly, I just want to see the players and refs in synch. This means that the players are not testing the refs' limits with excessive contact, and the refs are not feeling obliged to call continuous fouls off the ball. I think that has basically been true this series, so I'm mostly happy.

I certainly see your point about the contact off the ball, and if it got worse, I'd have a problem with it, but with this much pressure, I think the contact is inevitable, and I'd rather the refs accept that than try too hard to stop it. Just my personal preference of course.

greybeard
06-14-2008, 11:41 AM
Whether there is purposeful fixing by refs or not matters not one whit. The reality is that refs have not called games straight up, according to the rules, for well more than 20 years.

If they did, games would, as in the 60s and 70s, be scored in the low to mid 100s, there would be far fewer high-light reel plays (many dunks, break your ankle cross-overs, three point jump shots would be waived off as violations.)

As it is, the best one can hope for is that they call it "consistently." Consistency is bs, and everyone knows it. Consistency gives one set of players an advantage that the rules don't permit that players of different size and skill sets can't match.

For example, if 10 years ago you were playing Shaq, you were dead meat if as often happened refs consistently allowed the bigs on both teams to lower their shoulder sqare into the defender's chest, dribble step my step as you back him in, without even bothering to go side to side, and then literally jumping over/on-top of him. That game Shaq wins, and surprise, LA, the best market in sport, gets multiple championships. You watch the game that everyone is talking about, the one against Sac. You will see in the first half Shaq playing basketball, displaying a dizzing array of moves, most of which resulted in difficult finishes that he made. Little 3 foot bacnks, layins, tiny hooks. When Shaq's legs tired and the money was on the line, forget basketball. It was Shaq-a-derby. The one game they called a few charges on the big guy, LA lost and Phil screamed to the media about "inconsistent" calls. If there was inconsistency it was only due to the fact that Shaq barrelled over people and the folks on the Kings didn't. Ditto for the famous series against the Trailblazors.

Who cares if it's not fixed; it's not basketball.

If they allow shuffling of feet, then guys like Rip who shuffle regularly to get off their jump shots, particularly 3s, are impressive as heck but they are not playing basketball. Getting one's feet under oneself so as to be in rhythm off a catch is one of the most demanding and least appreciated skills in the game. Not anymore. It is largely irrelevant because 9 out of 10 times, refs consistently let the shuffling go, especially if you (the shooter) are a star and the shot is meaningful.

It is not just the games that are riding on allowing rules violations, it is the much larger hi-light industry, ESPN and the plethora of wannabes.

How many interior jams off rebounds are the product of a guy's shuffling his feet. How many more are the product of a guy's pulling down the rim to stuff the ball in because, despite all the shuffling, he couldn't jump high enough to dunk it in the rim so, hey, bring the rim down to him.

I could go on, but for me at least nearly every game I try to watch I have to turn off when I see blatent violations go uncalled and then some rinky-dink-call-of-the-day, which one ref or another is calling consistently, gets called while eggregious violations that produce advantage go unwhistled.

Several years ago, when he and Phil were on sabbatical, Rex Winter was asked about whether there was a need for rule changes; whether they needed to make the court wider or the rim higher, to allow more creative play. Winter responded that the rules they have are more than adequate; they just need to call them, not just consistently, but to call of them.

He went on to describe how the rule book defines a foul. I forgot the definition. Howver, Rex's view was that if they called everything a foul that should be, and every walk and palm and shove that should be, the game would have much of the shall we say elan that makes it a great game of pass and catch and movement that it once was.

It would undoubtedly sell less product and produce less ESPN moments, and therefore bring in less cash. And, that, boys and girls, as the T man would put it, is the list for the Commish. The Commish for all his whining about the "integrity of the game" and about how he and da law are gonna bury this one ref for sullying it, has already sold the game that I once loved down the river for cash. He sold the integrity of the game down the river for a pot of gold.

As I once told an appellate judge who wanted to reach an issue that the other side had waived because the judge thought it oh so important that the rules of the court be damned, "Your honor, if the court will not follow its own rules, how do you expect me to do business with you." Nope, I didn't end up in jail and the judge to his credit and that of his colleagues, at least one of whom was on board with tossing the rules out the window, did not even mention the issue that had been waived. Somebody needs to say the same thing to David Stern, only in his case they better bring the cash, and lots of it.

Raleighfan
06-14-2008, 11:45 AM
he could come to the acc and improve officiating on both levels ;)

mgtr
06-14-2008, 01:45 PM
Greybeard-
Excellent analysis! I enjoyed reading it immensely.

darthur
06-14-2008, 03:15 PM
If they allow shuffling of feet, then guys like Rip who shuffle regularly to get off their jump shots, particularly 3s, are impressive as heck but they are not playing basketball.

Well this doesn't have much to do with Donaghy anymore... but basketball is what we make it. Purists from fifty years ago would be saying the same thing you're saying right now when talking about today's NCAA play, and I don't think anybody would advocate going back to that.

If you don't like the current NBA rules, that's fine, but you should argue about the merit of specific points, not just claim they are bad because they don't match your personal notion of what basketball is. There is nothing sacred about the original rules and any young sport *should* change as people begin to understand its potential. If you don't like the specific changes made by the NBA over the years, that's fine of course, but the changes are not bad simply because they are changes.

mgtr
06-14-2008, 06:58 PM
If you don't like the current NBA rules, that's fine, but you should argue about the merit of specific points, not just claim they are bad because they don't match your personal notion of what basketball is. There is nothing sacred about the original rules and any young sport *should* change as people begin to understand its potential. If you don't like the specific changes made by the NBA over the years, that's fine of course, but the changes are not bad simply because they are changes.

Maybe we should change it allow personal firearms to be carried on the court.

This is no sillier than your argument.

greybeard
06-14-2008, 07:21 PM
Well this doesn't have much to do with Donaghy anymore... but basketball is what we make it. Purists from fifty years ago would be saying the same thing you're saying right now when talking about today's NCAA play, and I don't think anybody would advocate going back to that.

If you don't like the current NBA rules, that's fine, but you should argue about the merit of specific points, not just claim they are bad because they don't match your personal notion of what basketball is. There is nothing sacred about the original rules and any young sport *should* change as people begin to understand its potential. If you don't like the specific changes made by the NBA over the years, that's fine of course, but the changes are not bad simply because they are changes.

Tex's point, and mine: the rules haven't changed, they just stopped enforcing them. A walk is still a walk, you don't get to lift your pivot foot before releasing the ball for a dribble, you certainly do not get to shuffle before dunking or shooting a three; a carry is still a carry, you don't get to turn it over, whether for advantage, aka Iverson, or for show, aka almost everybody; and you don't get to push people without it being called a foul. You find a modern rule to support a contrary proposition then I'll advocate a rule change. However, I don't believe you can.

As for the college game, I find the same unwillingness to call the game straight up, only not as pronounced. Way too much walking not called in the college game, and way too much shoving, impeding the movement of pivot players through the key and then "fighting" for position. If there are such fights, the guy who started it should get called for a foul. End of discussion. If a big guy shuffles and then grabs the rim to pull it down to force the ball in when it would be an embarassing miss instead of a monster dunk where the guy gets to not just hang, but swing on the rim, the game is diminished because both plays are violations that are routinely not called.

I'm an advocate for calling the game according to the rules, not inventing new ones. In college, as in the pros, if the games were called straight up, there would be fewer oohs and aahs, but much better crisper play. Fewer stars and more clever ball movement. Big men with finishing skills instead of unseemly displays of I do not even know a word or phrase to call it but it ain't basketball.

darthur
06-15-2008, 04:28 AM
Maybe we should change it allow personal firearms to be carried on the court.

This is no sillier than your argument.

Uh, what? I claimed rule changes are not automatically bad just because they are changes. I never said they are automatically good either...

darthur
06-15-2008, 05:24 AM
Tex's point, and mine: the rules haven't changed, they just stopped enforcing them.

Where is this canonical set of rules you refer to? Different organizations have different rulebooks, and none of them match the original rules by Naismith (which did not even include dribbling).

Furthermore, these rulebooks are almost always too vague to fully resolve anything but the most basic questions. For example, the NBA rulebook says from the get-go:

"many of the rules are written in general terms while the need for the rule may have been created by specific play situations. This practice eliminates the necessity for many additional rules and provides the officials the latitude and authority to adapt application of the rules to fit conditions of play in any particular game."

So why do different organizations (or even the same organization at different times) call these things differently? Because the rulebooks (at least originally) were actually unclear on what was legal and what was not, largely because the writers didn't foresee every possible thing a player might try.

When players do start trying these things, basketball organizations independently decide what they think should be legal, and then enforce it. Some organizations probably try to write up exactly what they decide on whenever possible, others don't even try. Either way, the rules are always still in flux as the refs continually see players trying new things and have to decide where to draw the line in each case. This is natural and it is inevitable, and no matter where the refs draw these lines, the game is still basketball.

You dislike the interpretations made by some of these organizations. And maybe for good reason. Maybe some of these interpretations really hurt the game. And you did say things along these lines, which is fine with me - I do not feel strongly enough to get involved in that argument. I just object to oversimplifying things to the degree of saying the NBA "is not basketball" simply because their subjective rule interpretations differ from yours, or because their interpretations have changed over the years.

greybeard
06-15-2008, 09:27 AM
Where is this canonical set of rules you refer to? Different organizations have different rulebooks, and none of them match the original rules by Naismith (which did not even include dribbling).

Furthermore, these rulebooks are almost always too vague to fully resolve anything but the most basic questions. For example, the NBA rulebook says from the get-go:

"many of the rules are written in general terms while the need for the rule may have been created by specific play situations. This practice eliminates the necessity for many additional rules and provides the officials the latitude and authority to adapt application of the rules to fit conditions of play in any particular game."

So why do different organizations (or even the same organization at different times) call these things differently? Because the rulebooks (at least originally) were actually unclear on what was legal and what was not, largely because the writers didn't foresee every possible thing a player might try.

When players do start trying these things, basketball organizations independently decide what they think should be legal, and then enforce it. Some organizations probably try to write up exactly what they decide on whenever possible, others don't even try. Either way, the rules are always still in flux as the refs continually see players trying new things and have to decide where to draw the line in each case. This is natural and it is inevitable, and no matter where the refs draw these lines, the game is still basketball.

You dislike the interpretations made by some of these organizations. And maybe for good reason. Maybe some of these interpretations really hurt the game. And you did say things along these lines, which is fine with me - I do not feel strongly enough to get involved in that argument. I just object to oversimplifying things to the degree of saying the NBA "is not basketball" simply because their subjective rule interpretations differ from yours, or because their interpretations have changed over the years.

I do not believe that it is their "subjective interpretations" that differ from mine. If you asked the refs whether the types of acts I described in my posts above were violations or fouls, to a man they would say they are. That is because they are. They are not called because both the pro and college game have been overwhelmed by money, by ESPN replays. That would be okay if the "call it consistently during one game and we'll call you a good ref" mentality was not outcome determinative. However, anyone who watches knows that in way, way too many instances it is.

Look, if the world of basketball is as subjective with respect to rule interpretation as I say it is (you allow for subjective interpretation but impute it to leagues, me and Donahue see it much more game specific and refs having the latitude) the game loses definition. It is what it is on any given night. I find that maddening.

And, giving you your due, there are certain ethoses as to subjective interpretation that must be imputed to the league or Stern and whoever does such things for the ACC or the NCAA would intervene. Those most particularly have to do with creating POP for the game, the spectacular, the star, which sells. Me, it makes many games unwatchable.

Look, everybody points to the great play of Curry for why Davidson progressed as far as it did. I think that the NCAAs had two sets of rules when it came to good littles this year. Davidson's bigs were small yet somehow guarded giants and got them to foul out. Sitting in front of my TV set, I can tell you that if anybody tried to guard me off the ball the way no. 14 tried to guard Hibbert, I would have done more than just shove him. He would have gotten an inadvertent elbow, and a hard one in the jaw. Georgetown, who was bigger than Davidson by 4 inches and 20 lbs at every position and save for Curry much more skilled, had at least 4 clear out pushes on the interior called against it that game. Either the Davidson coach came on a unique invention that no one in the history of basketball thought of, or his littles were allowed to crowd players in the paint that, if it had been the other way around, and Georgetown had tried to crowd Davidson in the spots Davidson liked, fouls would have been called. I like watching basketball, which that game wasn't, not selective, subjective refereeing, which that game was.

By the way, from my perspective, the very same thing happened in the Butler Duke game. Butler played with Duke only because the refs created an environment on the inside that disallowed the advantage to Duke's superior size and athleticism my permitting positional interior defense that crossed the line that the basketball rules permit. Free wheeling Henderson, with his vastly superior athleticism, was the only Duke player that could navigate the web that the refs permitted. To me it was unseemly.

At any rate, your subjective-relativism-lead-by-the-league theory is just another way of saying what I have. Mr. Green rules, and that makes me sick.

Papa John
06-15-2008, 09:58 AM
If ten other refs were to come out tomorrow and admit the NBA told them to give a team/player a break some fans and the NBA would claim they were the only ten therefore the NBA is rock-solid competition.

No, you're not following the logic that you so eloquently outlined above... I believe what Darthur is trying to say is that if ten other refs were to come out tomorrow and admit that the NBA told them to give a team/player a break, it would prove that Duke gets all the calls...

darthur
06-15-2008, 11:28 AM
At any rate, your subjective-relativism-lead-by-the-league theory is just another way of saying what I have. Mr. Green rules, and that makes me sick.

Well it sounds like I misinterpreted you. I thought you were saying the current rules were bad rules, but it sounds more like your complaint has to do with inconsistency and what causes it. Well I think it should be clear from my other posts on this thread that I do not agree with the conclusions you draw.

First of all, I do not see inconsistency at the level you're talking about. I do believe there is a lot of subjective rule interpretation and evolution going on at all times in all leagues (both by the league and on a game-to-game basis by the refs), but that it isn't money's fault this happens. It is just part of the deal in a free-flowing game that has to be officiated by human beings.

If you believe sinister or bad-faith motives guide a lot of these subjective decisions in the NCAA or NBA, well I disagree, but I can hardly prove you wrong. Just return the favor, agree there's not enough evidence to actually prove good/bad faith one way or another, and let me not get drawn back into that debate!

darthur
06-15-2008, 11:48 AM
No, you're not following the logic that you so eloquently outlined above... I believe what Darthur is trying to say is that if ten other refs were to come out tomorrow and admit that the NBA told them to give a team/player a break, it would prove that Duke gets all the calls...

Funny man... And one more internet message board poster who'd rather anonymously laugh at a strawman than bother to actually understand and refute an opposing argument. It's good though. You're making me feel better about my side just based on the fact that you're not on it.

Papa John
06-15-2008, 12:53 PM
Funny man... And one more internet message board poster who'd rather anonymously laugh at a strawman than bother to actually understand and refute an opposing argument. It's good though. You're making me feel better about my side just based on the fact that you're not on it.

Thanks, I thought it was quite funny, too...

And I note that you, too, are anonymously posting on an internet message board...

Just to be clear, I didn't take 'sides' here... I merely poked fun at the fallacy inherent in your logic, as pointed out by another poster... You know, it wouldn't hurt to perhaps not take yourself so seriously... Life is simply too short...

It seems clear that no argument is going to change your perspective on the matter, which is fine--this is a free country, after all... Please note, however, that simply because others might not agree with your opinion on a matter such as the one currently being discussed in this thread doesn't mean they fail to understand your perspective...

Cheers!

darthur
06-15-2008, 01:47 PM
And I note that you, too, are anonymously posting on an internet message board...

Fine, I have nothing to hide. http://www.stanford.edu/~darthur/

Anyway, I staked a claim, made an argument, and stood by it. You came in and insulted me via a strawman representation of my argument, but you did not back up your insults, and you did not put any argument of your own out there. When you are not taking part in the discussion, keep your insults to yourself.


I merely poked fun at the fallacy inherent in your logic, as pointed out by another poster...

Yeah, I'm still waiting to hear what the fallacy is. Kfanarmy said I contradicted myself, and when I challenged him on that, he defended it with an ultra-vague description that completely misrepresented what I said and contained 0 direct quotes. Most likely because they do not exist.


You know, it wouldn't hurt to perhaps not take yourself so seriously... Life is simply too short...

What can I say? I used to absolutely love this site. I came here to listen to people talk about basketball who knew far more than me. Now... well, it pains me to see threads like this. They do a disservice to the site.

darthur
06-15-2008, 04:07 PM
Ok I think I just need to back out of this debate. As is probably obvious, people are getting under my skin, and there's just no point in getting angry over this. If somebody actually cares to continue the debate, they can PM or email me.

SMO
06-15-2008, 08:51 PM
What can I say? I used to absolutely love this site. I came here to listen to people talk about basketball who knew far more than me. Now... well, it pains me to see threads like this. They do a disservice to the site.

Guess who has the most posts on this thread.

mgtr
06-15-2008, 09:20 PM
Ok I think I just need to back out of this debate. As is probably obvious, people are getting under my skin, and there's just no point in getting angry over this. If somebody actually cares to continue the debate, they can PM or email me.

This is not the first time you have said you were through here. Is this time for real?

greybeard
06-16-2008, 12:15 AM
Well it sounds like I misinterpreted you. I thought you were saying the current rules were bad rules, but it sounds more like your complaint has to do with inconsistency and what causes it. Well I think it should be clear from my other posts on this thread that I do not agree with the conclusions you draw.

First of all, I do not see inconsistency at the level you're talking about. I do believe there is a lot of subjective rule interpretation and evolution going on at all times in all leagues (both by the league and on a game-to-game basis by the refs), but that it isn't money's fault this happens. It is just part of the deal in a free-flowing game that has to be officiated by human beings.

If you believe sinister or bad-faith motives guide a lot of these subjective decisions in the NCAA or NBA, well I disagree, but I can hardly prove you wrong. Just return the favor, agree there's not enough evidence to actually prove good/bad faith one way or another, and let me not get drawn back into that debate!

sorry, while refereeing is not easy; the calls that go uncalled are. Kobe fouled Pierce in the open court to steal the ball with 45 seconds to go and LA up two. The non call ended the game. It was a foul in the open court. There is no discretion here. Kobe, no call. Same as MJ pushing Russell. Outcome determinative non-calls. It is sinister, and it ruins the game!

throatybeard
06-18-2008, 03:32 PM
Jimmy Kimmel was funny, on the Finals:


I can't wait to find out who the NBA decided to win this thing...I heard they shot multiple endings

mgtr
06-18-2008, 04:04 PM
The zinggg!!!! heard round the world.

greybeard
06-18-2008, 05:44 PM
Thanks Throaty, made me laugh! Great get.

Kfanarmy
07-01-2008, 02:06 PM
This would seem to indicate that the NBA recognizes a significant issue with officiating in the NBA...if they truly believed Donaghy was the only significant bad apple, would they have hired a newly retiring military officer to the position...he certainly won't have expertise in the details of making calls...but will recongize when they significantly impact the game/games...

link to the ESPN article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3469129

SMO
07-01-2008, 05:13 PM
This would seem to indicate that the NBA recognizes a significant issue with officiating in the NBA...if they truly believed Donaghy was the only significant bad apple, would they have hired a newly retiring military officer to the position...he certainly won't have expertise in the details of making calls...but will recongize when they significantly impact the game/games...

link to the ESPN article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3469129

You're not thinking this through. This clearly means Duke gets all the calls. :D

darthur
07-01-2008, 09:02 PM
You're not thinking this through. This clearly means Duke gets all the calls. :D

The invitation to continue the debate over PM still stands. Apparently, you'd rather just spit on its grave though. Even two weeks after its over.

SMO
07-01-2008, 10:07 PM
The invitation to continue the debate over PM still stands. Apparently, you'd rather just spit on its grave though. Even two weeks after its over.

I knew you couldn't stay away! Just trying to add a bit of humor.:p

adam
07-04-2008, 01:08 AM
I'm blaming Tim Donaghy for the Seattle Seahawks losing to the Pittsburgh Steelers in SuperBowl XL. :)

SMO
07-11-2008, 05:03 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3483237&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab6pos2

Here's another angle on NBA officiating. I never know of all the autographs, shoes, etc. that players give to officials. Does anyone know if this happens in college ball?

Kfanarmy
07-11-2008, 05:22 PM
coaches trusting refs 100% at home, 25% away...refs asking for star players shoes....tsk, tsk, tsk....