NBA reffing: so subjective that worst team could be made best w/o raising suspicion?

(hope this kind of sports topic fits in Cafe Society)

Is the nature of NBA officiating so subjective that any team could be made to win on any given night? And if so, can we extrapolate from there that any team could be made to have the best record in the league, or sweep through the playoffs to the title?

Further, if this were to take place … and, say, the Grizzlies were “reffed” into a 70-win juggernaut: would it be obvious to league observers what was going on? Or could it be done in such a way that no one would really “know” for sure?

For instance, consider shooting foul calls where instant replay shows no contact had been made. If one such call is not suspicious, would 10-15 such calls necessarily be?

Is that what it comes down to – a matter of degree? The refs can “screw up” a handful of times in a game and it can slide because that falls within some human-error range – is that right? But if you add some more “screw ups”, when do you reach the point of obvious shenanigans? And just how many “screw ups” would the refs have to make to make the Grizzlies consistently beat the Spurs by 3-to-6 points?
ATTENTION: the question is purely hypothetical. The OP does not believe this takes place. The question is could it hypothetically take place – not to confirm that it, in fact, does.

I can’t imagine it wouldn’t be noticeable. People notice that kind of thing with just one game, let alone a whole season.

Not exactly, or the Kobe led Lakers would have one in the bag already…

But I do concur that NBA referring is by far the worst in consistency and the most subjective of any of the ‘major’ sports. It’s pretty much made the game unwatchable for me.

Players, coaches, and the media often go ballistic about a missed call. I can’t imagine a season of missed calls causing a rotten team to be good going unnoticed.

Joe

I wouldn’t go that far, but it’s no secret that NBA reffing is an absurd joke. Everybody knows that the more famous a player is, the more he can get away with on the court. A first-year rookie will get called the moment he gets in someone’s face, while Shaquille O’Neal can pretty much rape people on the court, and the refs won’t even bat an eye.

NBA refereeing, especially the calls for hand fouls, traveling, and lane violations, is horribly inconsistent and subjective (so is the MLB strike zone). I don’t think it could translate into more than a handful of victories for a bad team, though, before people would be all over it. It’s just too closely scrutinized, by fans and writers as well as by players, coaches and the league itself. Sure, NBA refereeing is inconsistent and unfair, but in predictable ways, to wit:

  1. Tracy McGrady is allowed to run from foul line to foul line on one crossover dribble.
  2. Shaquille O’Neal is allowed to spend nine seconds in the lane.
  3. Once Kobe Bryant dribbles into the paint, he doesn’t have to dribble anymore; he can just kind of run towards the basket.

It’s a double standard, but it’s one the league feels makes for a product the fans want to watch. If that unspoken double standard was suddenly bent to let the Grzzlies shoot free throws every time one of their players jumped with the ball in the general direction of the basket, people would notice.

Yes, but are they taken seriously when they complain? Isn’t it almost invariably considered an illegitimate excuse to lose a game by the vast majority of fans and media?

I know the NBA does referee reviewing and all that. But that’s in real life – in the hypothetical, the NBA is complicit in the plot. The idea is whether or not there’s enough wiggle room in “accpetable” reffing to turn the worst to the best.

A season, no. But a few key playoff games, definitely yes. I’ve stopped watching basketball for that very reason, scrappy underdog teams routinely get the “ref hammer” brought down on their playstyle if they are steamrolling a marquee team. There are way too many instances of a defense completely and legally shutting down Shaq one night, only to have the refs neuter their play style the next.

I remember when the first USA Olympics Dream Team was put together. It had Jordan, Bird, Magic, and other greatest of the greats, and was America’s first Olympic team of pros. It was back when they had what they called “The Jordan Rules”, meaning that a lot of people perceived that Michael Jordan got away with far more than his share of favorable calls.

Before sailing through on an undefeated tour-de-force, the guys got together for a photo shoot. Jordan was in the front row, and Magic was behind him. The photographer’s assistant was trying to push everyone into place, but they were all still giggling and squirming. Finally, the photographer told Magic to move up closer to Michael.

“You can’t get too close to Michael,” Magic quipped. “It’s a foul!”

I think it would have to look like the 1972 Olympics (basketball not the terrorists) reffing to make a cellar dwellar look like a premier team.

NBA reffing is bad and so are many of the rules on their books.

While the officiating is bad, it seems that the lengths that the league will go to in order to polish the knobs of its stars (or at least Tim Duncan) is incredible. First he has a verbal altercation with a ref from the bench which results in a slap on the wrist for Duncan and a suspension for the remainder of the season and the playoffs for the ref in question.

Then there was that whole Horry/Nash incident from about 2 weeks ago. That was all bad, bad subjective reffing and bad subjective application of a ‘zero tolerance’ rule by league officials. Of course those ‘errors’ just happened to Duncan and the Spurs.

I dunno…to make the Grizz look like a premier team might in fact entail some people gettimg murdered.

Well, this sort of thing is raised all the time in the NHL, mostly by teams going against the Toronto Maple Leafs (since the league offices are basically in the ACC in Toronto).

I would definitely say that a penalty in hockey is far more damaging to a team than a foul in basketball (even if they don’t get a goal, which happens 1 in 5 times, the shorthanded team still has to exert a lot of energy in order to prevent that occurrence), yet the Leafs did not make the playoffs…so if Toronto was working to get the team in, they didn’t do a good job :smiley:

I just don’t think that it would be damaging enough a pattern (unless a ref consistently went after a star player to get him in foul trouble, which would be obvious) to seriously affect a team THAT much. Maybe they’d win an additional 5 games, but I doubt there could be that kind of swing.

(Ohh, and incidentally, Leafs fans whine about themselves getting the bum end of the stick because “the league wants to prevent that kind of appearance”, but all I have to say to them is…1-9-6-7!! :smiley: )

I think they need an extra ref that ONLY watches for travelling.

To the topic, the Grizzlies COULD essentially be given a studly record by the officials. There would be MUCH bitching, but Jerry West is the logo…still.

You’re excluding the fact that many witnesses heard the referee challenge Tim Duncan to a fight. You make it seem like the referee was totally innocent.

Why was that bad reffing? Horry deliberately knocked Nash out of bounds, on his buttocks. Horry was ejected and suspended for the remainder of the series. Frankly, I didn’t understand the suspension at all. It was a “flagrant 2” foul, which is grounds for ejection. Nothing more. David Stern hands out suspensions for the dumbest things, these days – I think he’s trying to de-thug-ify the NBA. I guess the real answer is to not allow the thugs in to begin with, instead of trying to change them.

Now I’m picturing an NBA of short shorts, Chuck Taylor shoes, and two-handed set shots - 1948 all over again. Ain’t gon’ happen. :slight_smile:

I think you’re overestimating the effect that reffing has on outcomes. It’s not the subjectivity of calls, but rather the effect that reffing has on game outcomes.

If a “30 win team” were reffed to be a “50 win team”, the reffing would have to be so egregious and systematic that anyone would notice. The refs would have to be fouling out the stars of the other teams early in the game on a nightly basis, and be calling virtually nothing on the shit team.

A few more victories over the course of the season. . .you could probably do it. People might think “oh, they lucked into a couple” but people think that about teams now anyway. Like how Detroit lucked into the game 1 win.

NBA Race Study

I highly suggest you read the actual study. I think it can be a rewarding read even if you skip the technical material.

I thought “The Jordan Rules” referred to a style of defense played by Chuck Daly and the Pistons, to stop Jordan. It wasn’t the preferential treatment that Michael did receive from the refs.

There are several current big name players that have lots of phantom fouls called for them.

Oh no, senor. The Jordan Rules were rules and calls that he got that others did not. Refs looked the other way on 4 steps to the basket, phantom fouls, etc.

Dwyane Wade gets a some of these same calls these days.