Jack’s Blog

First of all, the Orlando Magic should be congratulated for beating thumping the Cleveland Cavaliers.  The public has learned a great deal about professional basketball from this series and many people will be feeling a major void with the upcoming finals and its participants.

1) There is no conspiracy.  If ever the NBA needed something to give it a boost, a match up between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Cleveland Cavaliers, or rather between Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, would rocket the television ratings skyward to a stratosphere never before believed possible.  You didn’t think those cute Nike commercials with the puppets or the Vitamin Water debate was coincidental to the season’s end, did you?  So, if there was ever a time for the league office to inform officials or scoreboard operators or whomever else comes into play in a conspiracy (maybe James Patterson), this last playoff series would have been it.  Therefore, the result should put to rest all doubts that the NBA is interested in anything other than playing it straight, Tim Donaghy or not.  Not that they weren’t rooting for . . .

2) Coaching matters.  According to none other than Charles Barkley, maybe not an expert, but someone from whom you are guaranteed to get a straight answer - with no punches pulled nor hidden agendas advanced - the offense employed by the Cavs made them and LeBron much less effective than if they had run more and, when they did get in the half court, if they’d have run something besides the 1-4 low (or “give the ball to LeBron at the nail,” as their coach, Mike Brown called it), so that James wasn’t saddled with a one-on-five situation 100% of the time Cleveland played in the half  court.  The mental and physical energy he needed to expend during every one of those situations had to wear him down. 

Stan Van Gundy, on the other hand, took the shots from outsiders - and even one from the ultimate insider, Dwight Howard, who complained he wasn’t getting the ball enough and questioned the coach’s substitution pattern.  Stan didn’t overreact, in fact, he barely reacted.  There wasn’t anything said, no one drawing lines in the sand, no internal voices of dissension.  Who knows who was right and what was done?  But, in the elimination game for the Cavs, Howard did have 40, so either the big guy got his way or Van Gundy got his players to realize that if they stayed the course, all would work out in the end.  The best part of it was, unlike most NBA coach-player arguments, nobody gloated, i.e. there were no “I-told-you-so’s” after the Magic won.  The team got it done and that’s the essence of coaching.   

3) Every time there would have been an isolation opportunity with Kobe on LeBron or LeBron on Kobe, the sporting world would have stopped to see who would have gotten the better of whom - and the chirping would sound like the woods were full.  And that was the reasoning behind the Vitamin Water ads. 

4) Even if the series only went four games, there are probably hundreds of missed photo op’s for posters, magazines, t-shirts, Fatheads (imagine fans of one or the other and the enjoyment they’d have putting a life size shot of their favorite player taking the other - either on a blow by, a dunk opportunity, a J with a hand right in the shooter’s face - or better yet, a block - pasted up on the wall for all eternity)?  Ain’t happenin’.  Not in this year’s playoffs, anyway. 

Seeing the Black Mamba dunk over Superman or the latter reject the former is exciting, but not the same as 48 minutes of mano-a-mano Kobe and Bron-Bron.  Maybe it wouldn’t have been 48 minutes, one or maybe both sides would rather not have their superstar expend that much energy at the defensive end, or risk foul trouble, but all of us know that when it came to crunch time, they each be on the other like brown on rice (the new healthy way to eat has brown rice replacing white).

5) Now the problem of which team to pull for?  Except for the die-hard Lakers fans, and their arch nemesis, the Laker-haters, and most people from Florida, at least the 80% of the population who are under 90 years of age, the remainder of the nation needs a reason to cheer for one team or the other.  After all, when the NBA Playoffs are over, all we have is Major League Baseball and the WNBA and I’d venture to say there is no more than a 10% crossover in terms of the fan base of each.

So pick a team and appreciate that what you’re watching are the best athletes in the world, playing a game that is the only team sport in which the defensive goal is not a shutout, meaning there will be what America likes best in sports - scoring.

And, as much as the pro game has become one-on-one, individual highlight material, it will be the better team which will, in all likelihood, win.  As Vince Lombardi said:

“Teamwork makes the Packers win.  People who work together will succeed.”

It’s always baffled me why anyone would want to be a referee, umpire or official of any sort in an athletics contest.  Sure, you get to “stay in the game” after you’re too old to play it and, you do get paid.

Those two “perks” pale in comparison to all the negatives you encounter.  One, no matter what you call - or don’t call - you have people who will not only disagree with you, but be extremely vocal, even rude (including vulgar) about it, voicing their disagreement of your opinion, which, if you’re what nearly every official is (Tim Donaghy excluded), you made to the best and fairest of your abilities. 

Second, especially if you referee basketball, you have chosen a nearly impossible task.  In many instances, not only would some of your colleagues not only see the call you made differently than you did, they would defend their decision as strongly as you would defend yours.  What this means is that your job (and all the decisions that come with it) - and which affect the participants on the playing surface much more than they do you, has become incurably subjective.  This can only cause headaches for the person (you) who is supposed to have no stake in the outcome, yet whose every call can make a winner into a loser, or vica versa.

One major bone of contention is that too many (and one is too many) officials have overblown opinions of themselves, i.e. they know they have that kind of power - and many thrive on it.  Many are typical humans, people who like to hear the approval of the crowd.  This brand of official is known as the homer.  Make the call in favor of the home squad and you are serenaded with loud and, seemingly, loving cheers - almost like you actually did something that others ought to be celebrating.

On the other hand, there are those “whistle blowers” who truly get a kick out of upsetting folks and enjoy the chorus(es) of boos they extract from an otherwise civil group of men, women and children.  These are, in most instances, the egomaniacs.  Each of the two groups have a common trait.  They are nearly always wrong, and are among the most inept people performing their jobs that we have in today’s society, but fail to understand their incompetence.

One thing in their favor: not only do they not have to discuss their job performance, they aren’t allowed to.  In an earlier blog, I mentioned that my friend and mentor, as well as my former boss, George Raveling, made the comment regarding the officials: “This is some country.  You can call the President of the United States a (jerk) but you can’t say anything about the officials.”

For the two incompetent groups mentioned thusfar in this blog, there is a weird and terrible mix taking place.  People who aren’t very good at their job are not being held accountable.  Directors of officiating will vehemently disagree.  They claim there have been officials who been fined, suspended or even dismissed from the profession.  Yet, that still can’t come close to making up for the awful travesty the official(s) created.  When teams win or lose, it goes on their records.  Ever ask an official what his/her record is?  It’s one of those hypothetical questions you hope doesn’t have an answer (another Donaghy reference).

All of this (gentle) ranting has a point.  If the officiating crew from last night’s Boston-Chicago NBA game aren’t subjected to intense scrutiny regarding the non-call on the Celts’ Rajon Rondo, when he simply smacked - with quite a bit of force - Bulls’ center, Brad Miller, in the face on his would be game-tying layup, with less than five seconds left  in overtime - then let all the conspiracy theories abound.

With the Celtics up 106-104, courtesy of Paul Pierce’s clutch jumper (he seems to have an endless supply), the Bulls called their final time out.  Even knowledgeable Doug Collins made the statement that there was nothing either of these teams could do that the other didn’t know.  It certainly sounded reasonable, since this was the fifth game in the best of seven series and three of the five, including this one, had gone into overtime.  But the Bulls ran an out of bounds play with a great deal of movement and cutters . . . and lo and behold, there was Brad Miller, standing with the ball, at the free throw line - and nobody in front of him!

He took a dribble toward the basket and looked as if he were going to dunk, tying the game and sending it into a second overtime (matching Sunday’s game).  Rondo came from the sideline where the ball had been inbounded and just took a swing at Miller’s head.

What’s beautiful is that, even in the pro game, make that especially in the pro game, the calls are so difficult to differentiate, two people of sound mind can sit next to each other and see a call exactly opposite from one another.  Personal prejudice has to be factored in - not only which team the person’s for, but what other life experiences the person has encountered.  Case in point: On the TNT in studio set, Charles Barkley (a big guy, who’d been situations like Miller) exclaimed that Rondo committed a flagrant foul, while his partner, Kenny Smith (a former point guard), maintained that Rondo, also a point, was making a play on the ball (what distinguishes a flagrant foul - illegal - from just a hard foul - illegal).

The officials did call a foul, but not a flagrant one.  To muddy it up a little more, Collins made the claim that, while it may have been a flagrant foul, there’s no way an official would, or should, call it flagrant at that point in the game.  Kind of the “let the players decide the game.”  This flys in the face of “a foul is a foul and if it’s a foul early in the first quarter, then it ought to be a foul at the end.”  And, working off of that theory, a flagrant foul at the beginning ought to be a flagrant foul at the end.  Yet, many in the game feel that the calls made at the beginning are made to set the tone by which the game will be called, i.e. the refs are “going to take control of the game and not let it get out of hand.”

I’m not saying that this is wrong; it’s that I’ve never seen it anywhere in the rule book. This means the rules are subject to each referee or each trio working a game.  Talk about a can of worms.

Full disclosure: As many who read this blog on an even semi-regular basis know, one of my closest friends, Dave Severns, is an assistant coach for the Bulls.  However, I consider Bulls’ assistant Kevin Eastman a friend (in fact, he and I were roommates at Michael Jordan’s Flight School Summer Camp) and, while I only know Doc Rivers on a casual basis, I’ve never even met Vinny Del Negro.  What I’m trying to say is I honestly believe I can leave the partisanship at the door when it comes to judging calls, especially after seeing many replays from all different angles. 

One of the most vital facets in officiating is that the referee (umpire, linesman, back judge, etc.) must have confidence of judgment that the call that’s made is the right one, made with integrity and without an ounce of outside influence.  Each call is to follow the basic tenet of all fouls, advantage/disadvantage or did one player gain an unfair advantage or, was a player put at a disadvantage.  In the book, The Aladdin Factor, confidence is descibed like this:

“Self-confidence is the result of a successfully survived risk.”

The NBA gossip mill is flourishing with the news that former referee and current convicted criminal, Tim Donaghy, claimed that he was not alone in performing his job at less than an honorable level.  Donaghy, who is facing sentencing, a prison term and restitution he owes the NBA to the tune of a million dollars to cover the cost of their legal investigation, has come out and made the statement that Game 6 of the 2002 NBA Playoffs between the Los Angeles Lakers and Sacramento Kings was refereed in such a manner as to ensure a Lakers’ victory, and hence, a Game 7.

Checking the stats of that contest, it is a fact that the Lakers shot 27 free throws in the fourth quarter alone.  Writers Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times and Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post each remarked - on camera - how flabbergasted they were, watching the game in-person, at the utter incompetence of the officiating.  Both reporters went on to say each wrote about it in their columns the following day, something they claimed was completely contrary to their style.

However, before we go off the deep end, let’s think about what we have here.  Maybe it’s because I teach math and things need to follow a logical order, or maybe it’s because I was born and raised in New Jersey, where it’s been known an occasional dollar or two is wagered on the outcome of a game, my question is, “If, in fact, the ‘fix’ was in - and the officials were in on it - why did they wait until the fourth quarter to begin working their magic?”  If someone were to influence the outcome of a game, wouldn’t it be wise to orchestrate the entire game - from beginning to end - rather than see how the game was progressing on its own before saying, “Well, it looks like things aren’t going the way we’d hoped, so we’d better step in and take over.”  And make it so obvious that Plaschke’s going to write his first and only article on inept officiating? 

Or could it be that Tim Donaghy, known conniving dirtbag, is trying to make a last ditch effort at saving his butt?  It’s no secret that Game 6 of the ‘02 playoffs was  horribly officiated.  Why not throw some doubt onto the integrity of the guys who were working the game (since you’ve already done that to the profession)?  Number one, most fans hate referees anyway.  They make their favorite team lose (at the lower levels, they make the fans’ children look bad and no one wants to deal with a parent whose child has made a mistake, yet hasn’t been held accountable for anything they’ve ever done, even when caught red-handed), they cost money to people who are foolish enough to try to “earn” money by gambling (bookmaking is one industry that seldom goes out of business, unless caught by the authorities - because there are too many suckers out there) and they give obnoxious people in the office fodder to bust someone’s chops (unless that someone’s team won and they get to be obnoxious).  In all, you have a group of guys who make a living doing something that upsets people.  Kinda like being a politician who votes against a bill that would help his/her constituency.

NBA officiating is a great gig, the money, the perks, even the notoriety.  And if you don’t think that’s the case, ask any referee, at any level, if they’d like to move up to the next level.  The answer is overwhelmingly “yes” and it’s not because you can have an influence in who wins or loses a game.  Referees love calling games - maybe it’s the control, maybe it’s ego, maybe it’s the extra cash, but as you move up, all of those reasons are magnified.

Sorry, Tim Donaghy is a person of no integrity and has absolutely zero credibility.  The NBA is exciting enough and, although it may be poorly - or even unfairly - officiated (especially when it comes to superstars getting calls), it’s not fixed.  No way.

Possibly, Donaghy might be telling the truth, but as Aesop said:

“Liars will never be believed - even when they tell the truth.”Â