Re: refs

["Mac Alsup" <macalsup@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mega Dittos!!  I couldn't agree more with your comments.  I was beginning to 
wonder if I were the only one on the face of the earth that thought 90% of 
the charging calls in the Nets/Celtics series were bogus.

Shaq fouls every time he touches the ball.  How about every stinking 
free-throw he shoots, he steps across the line before the ball reaches the 
goal.  NONE of his free-throws should ever count.  Am I the only one that 
this annoys the heck out of?



> From: "Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>
> To: "Celtic list" <celtics@igtc.com>
> Subject: refs
> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:14:06 -0700
>
> So Ralph "Manchurian candidate" Nader has weighed in on NBA refs? Well I
> have complaints too, but they are not just about favoritism (that's always 
> a
> problem). In particular I want to focus on how the game has changed in
> response to an influx of a new generation of refs trained under Stern's
> stewardship:
>
> One of the key problems with refs today seem so focused on the letter of 
> the
> rules that they actually end thwarting the spirit behind the rules. I think
> this has a lot to do with attempting to train refs as automatons 
> conditioned
> to 'reflex calls' rather than acknowledging the fact that reffing a game
> requires judgement not just about facts but also about how a game is MEANT
> to be played. Refs should be trained to understand the relationship between
> the calls they make and the result they have upon play, taking into account
> the context of the larger game - kind of like a judge who takes all the
> available evidence into account when rendering a judgment. This would
> require entrusting the refs with the responsibility for managing the 
> overall
> flow of the game, not simply the ability to make a given call at a given
> time. Instead it seems as if they are instructed to make certain calls 
> based
> on particular criteria REGARDLESS of the overall context (and violence
> within that context) of the call - resulting in weird inconsistencies in
> levels of contact (for example: Kidd undercutting an airborne Pierce versus
> Battie's 'flagrant foul', or Kobe's non-call elbow versus Bibby's 'foul' on
> Kobe in the same sequence) - in a sense they've like judges whose judgment
> has been deliberately neutered by 'mandatory sentencing' in order to 
> comport
> with some strange Skinnerian fantasy about how humans should react to
> stimuli.
>
> Case in point, the "no charge circle": as I understand it, this was
> instituted to prevent the practice popularized by Laimbeer and other 'bad
> boy' Pistons of jumping under the basket when they saw someone driving for 
> a
> lay-up in order to draw a charge and (not incidentally) undercut the
> airborne opponent. This tactic was clearly illegal under existing rules 
> (you
> simply cannot stand under the basket and deny anyone attempting a lay-up 
> any
> place to land) but for whatever reason refs started rewarding such false
> hustle defensive play (as well as allowing all sorts of thuggery) and the
> league stepped in to attempt to return to status quo ante. The result? Now
> we STILL have people jumping in at the last moment - after the opponent is
> airborne in many cases - to draw 'charges' if only they are a fraction
> outside the circle. Meanwhile Shaq can now drive his shoulder full force
> into a defender who happens to be between him and the basket no matter how
> long that defender has held that position because that defender is now
> inside the 'no charge circle'. Not only has the actual intent of the rule
> change been thwarted (refs still allow last-second jump-in-front 'planting
> of feet' resulting in the undercutting of airborne lay-ups) but now they
> ALSO refuse to call what should be obvious offensive fouls (Shaq is not
> airborne coming in for a lay-up - he is actively dislodging positional
> defenders with all his might) all because of a slavish attention to the
> letter rather than the animating spirit behind the 'no charge' rule.
>
> Eliminating the illegal D rules was a good first step in returning to the
> NBA to a league guided by basic principles rather than pedantic attention 
> to
> minutia. The game would be further improved if refs were instructed to
> maintain certain basic principles (the concepts of defensive position,
> freedom of offensive movement and the importance of who initiates contact).
> Refs should understand HOW and WHY such principles are central to the game
> rather than being trained to focus on specific minutia intended to 
> 'trigger'
> calls (the conceptual basis for the now defunct illegal defense rules as
> well as the current flagrant foul rules, the 'no charge zone' and
> jump-in-front charges among others). The way the game is called today too
> often the forest is missed for the trees.