News Radio WOAI KTKR AM Sports
SpursReport.com
  #1  
Old 05-04-05, 01:48 PM
SAScrub's Avatar
SpursReport Team Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Damn I am sleepy.
Posts: 656
Replay is NOT the answer

The NBA needs to widen the court and add a fourth on-court official. The players are too big and the game is too bogged down in the half-court. A fourth official means an official watching each sideline, and only a quarter of the court. Additionally, it will put two refs on the baseline to watch all of the actvity on either side of the paint. It will allow two refs, instead of one, to lead the play on fastbreaks and quick turnaround plays.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-04-05, 01:49 PM
MarineForLife's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,100

interesting idea . . . but you're still going to have bad calls, and as a result you'll still need a method of controlling for that and overturning them when they have a huge impact on a game.
__________________
U.S. Marine - no better friend, no worse enemy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-04-05, 01:51 PM
SAScrub's Avatar
SpursReport Team Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Damn I am sleepy.
Posts: 656

As long as there is a human element, you will always...ALWAYS have mistakes. We cannot expect perfection from these people. There truly is no way to completely eliminate bad calls from any sport. A wider court and a fourth official will reduce the number of bad calls we see.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-04-05, 01:52 PM
maximus's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin
Posts: 652

stern would probably see it as a waste of money.
how much do refs make anyway?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-04-05, 01:53 PM
Crusian's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: State of Confusian
Posts: 1,305

Instant replay sounds great. It would be awesome if NBA games were five hours long.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-04-05, 01:54 PM
bo spur's Avatar
SpursReport Team Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,775

So adding one more horrible official will fix the problem? I don't think so.

They need something to over rule a bad call, especially at the end of a close playoff game were one bad call can ruin a teams entire season. Think Fisher and his 0.4 Bullsh!t shot that never should have counted. What your suggesting doens't fix that.

Quote:
Instant replay sounds great. It would be awesome if NBA games were five hours long.
Yeah reviewing a few replays would add an extra 2.5 hours to the game It could be done only in the last two minutes of the game, but there's no way it would stretch the game another 2.5 hours.
__________________

Last edited by bo spur; 05-04-05 at 01:58 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-04-05, 01:56 PM
MarineForLife's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,100

Quote:
Originally Posted by bo spur
So adding one more horrible official will fix the problem? I don't think so.

They need something to over rule a bad call, especially at the end of a close playoff game were one bad call can ruin a teams entire season. Think Fisher and his 0.4 Bullsh!t shot that never should have counted. What your suggesting doens't fix that.
true . . . true.
__________________
U.S. Marine - no better friend, no worse enemy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-04-05, 01:56 PM
SAScrub's Avatar
SpursReport Team Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Damn I am sleepy.
Posts: 656

What are your expectations of a referee? How do you implement replay while keeping the game free flowing and easy to watch and play? How would ensure a perfectly called game?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-04-05, 01:59 PM
PHANTOM21's Avatar
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I'll be where I'm at!
Posts: 3,352

the answer is not adding more refs....the answer is reducing the number of refs so instead of having 3 refs making 10 bad calls for a total of 30 bad calls, there should be 2 refs making 10 bad calls for a total of 20 bad calls. And the game will move along alot quicker

thats my mind-blowing analysis now wheres my pipe
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-04-05, 02:03 PM
bo spur's Avatar
SpursReport Team Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,775

Quote:
What are your expectations of a referee? How do you implement replay while keeping the game free flowing and easy to watch and play? How would ensure a perfectly called game?
There was nothing free flowing about the last game was there. I mean that was just horrible. And no there will never be a perfectly called game but if the replayed certain plays near the end of games they could have gotten some calls over ruled, like the phantom Ducan call, or Finley being clearly out of bounds when he knocked the ball away from Barry.

On a different note, isn't this pretty much that same thread as the one we were already discussing this matter in?
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-04-05, 02:08 PM
coyotes_geek's Avatar
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,169

We don't need more refs, we don't need instant replay. When you get right down to it I don't even think people are concerned about getting every single call right. They just want to know that there is some sense of accountability that the refs have to face. The NBA keeps stuff like that confidential, thus fans are pissed by not getting to see an official who blew a call publicly reprimanded and humiliated. Are we really looking for justice, or do we just want to see the "villans" get punished?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-04-05, 02:08 PM
DocDoc's Avatar
SpursReport Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 176

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximus
stern would probably see it as a waste of money.
how much do refs make anyway?

$90,000 to $225,000
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-04-05, 02:10 PM
rjv's Avatar
rjv rjv is offline
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: surrounded by gamma rays
Posts: 1,665

perhaps 2 or disputes or challenges per game would work but i think that the concern from the referees union is that it undermines their authority or credibilty. this concern seems ridiculous in light of the fact that their credibility is just as undermined when coaches and fans watch the same highlight over and over of the same bad call. if such calls were allowed to be overturned on the court that would end it right there. however, there should be no more than 1 or 2 'challenges' or reviews made per half. now, how that gets done i have no idea. don't expect it though. an interview i heard about 6 weeks ago with stern brought up that question to which stern responded with an emphatic no.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-04-05, 02:11 PM
GC's Avatar
GC GC is offline
SpursReport Team Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 462

Quote:
how much do refs make anyway?
I'm going on memory here so don't kill me if I'm not right on ... but I believe from a low of 80-90K up to 200K or so. This should be in the ballpark.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-04-05, 02:17 PM
SAScrub's Avatar
SpursReport Team Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Damn I am sleepy.
Posts: 656

One thing we're leaving out is that missed calls can be just as impacting as bad calls. The addition of a fourth official would reduce the number of missed calls, which could not even be replayed anyway.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-04-05, 02:20 PM
dark21horse's Avatar
Delusional Manu Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,887

I am all for Instant replay, however I think it needs to be set up similar to the way the NFL has it setup. Each team gets a limited (maybe two) number of challenges. They already have instant replay to see if shots are good at the end of the half and at the end of regulation. I think there are benefits from instant replay, but it is not perfect.
__________________
Hibbert, who worked out with Duncan in San Antonio during the lockout, said he has grown close to the perennial All-Star. On Friday, he texted Duncan and asked how he should guard him.

"He said, 'Go for every pump fake,' " Hibbert said.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-04-05, 03:10 PM
coyotes_geek's Avatar
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,169

Giving coaches the ability to challenge calls could quite possibly be the worst idea ever. How do you think they're going to use those challenges? There are only 3 reasons coaches would ever challenge a call.

1.) To get a foul called on the other team's star player.
2.) To keep a foul from getting called on their own team's star player.
3.) To try to reverse a call that went against them late in a close game.

Only one of those 3 reasons is a legimate reason to challenge. Say goodbye to the star treatment and say hello to the bench because that's where the stars are going to end up sitting. George Karl isn't going to use a challenge to keep Greg Buckner from picking up a cheapy. He's going to wait for Tim Duncan to get mixed up in something and challenge that. Rasho draws a charge but actually had his heel on the no-charge circle, who cares? Tim Duncan does it? Challenge, foul on Tim. Robert Horry goes to the free throw line on a borderline blocking foul that could have been a charge, Karl let's it slide. Tim Duncan at the line? Challenge, take a chance that foul gets called on Tim. Nazr Mohammad raises his hand after a whistle and gets called for a foul that Tim Duncan really committed? Challenge, foul on Tim. All you're really doing by giving coaches challenges is giving them the opportunity to put your star under a much bigger officials microscope. If you follow the rulebook most players commit more than 6 fouls a game but get away with enough to stay in the game. Do you really think it's a good idea to give opposing coaches a tool which they will certainly abuse and use to try and go back and get some of those extra fouls called?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-04-05, 03:26 PM
Menudo Terremoto Williams's Avatar
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: grew up in Say-town, now I live in Buffalo '66
Posts: 2,816

Instant replay for foul calls in basketball is idiotic. I've watched games with friends., had the instant replay slow mo over and over and we still disagreed. Foul calls generally even out over the course of a game, and definitely over the course of a season.

Widen the court by a foot. It will make a huge difference.

And if you widened the court by two feet, it would make a monumental difference.

It would completely suck for defensive-minded clubs like the Spurs.

Instant replay for foul calls in basketball is idiotic. I've watched games with friends., had the instant replay slow mo over and over and we still disagreed. Foul calls generally even out over the course of a game, and definitely over the course of a season.

4 officials? Hmmm...do we really want MORE foul calls? I don't know about you, but the 3rd quarter of Game 4 was painful to watch.

Widen the court by a foot. It will make a huge difference.

And if you widened the court by two feet, it would make a monumental difference.

It would completely suck for defensive-minded clubs like the Spurs.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-04-05, 03:35 PM
MarineForLife's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,100

Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
Giving coaches the ability to challenge calls could quite possibly be the worst idea ever. How do you think they're going to use those challenges? There are only 3 reasons coaches would ever challenge a call.

1.) To get a foul called on the other team's star player.
2.) To keep a foul from getting called on their own team's star player.
3.) To try to reverse a call that went against them late in a close game.

Only one of those 3 reasons is a legimate reason to challenge. Say goodbye to the star treatment and say hello to the bench because that's where the stars are going to end up sitting. George Karl isn't going to use a challenge to keep Greg Buckner from picking up a cheapy. He's going to wait for Tim Duncan to get mixed up in something and challenge that. Rasho draws a charge but actually had his heel on the no-charge circle, who cares? Tim Duncan does it? Challenge, foul on Tim. Robert Horry goes to the free throw line on a borderline blocking foul that could have been a charge, Karl let's it slide. Tim Duncan at the line? Challenge, take a chance that foul gets called on Tim. Nazr Mohammad raises his hand after a whistle and gets called for a foul that Tim Duncan really committed? Challenge, foul on Tim. All you're really doing by giving coaches challenges is giving them the opportunity to put your star under a much bigger officials microscope. If you follow the rulebook most players commit more than 6 fouls a game but get away with enough to stay in the game. Do you really think it's a good idea to give opposing coaches a tool which they will certainly abuse and use to try and go back and get some of those extra fouls called?
that's why you include a negative result for the coach if the play is not changed.

it works pretty well in the NFL. can't see why it won't work for the NBA.

but hey, don't upset the applecart . . . we might actually improve things if you do!
__________________
U.S. Marine - no better friend, no worse enemy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-04-05, 03:52 PM
coyotes_geek's Avatar
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,169

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineForLife
that's why you include a negative result for the coach if the play is not changed.
Even if they're only successful 50% of the time what coach wouldn't trade one time out for an extra foul on Tim Duncan?

Quote:
it works pretty well in the NFL. can't see why it won't work for the NBA.
Even in the nfl you can't use instant replay to challenge subjective calls made by officials.

Quote:
but hey, don't upset the applecart . . . we might actually improve things if you do!
Instituting instant replay with coaches challenges would screw things up even worse. No thanks, I'll stick with what we've got now if that's the alternative.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-04-05, 04:16 PM
Golem's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 944

Coyote Geek brings up several unassailable points.

Here's another scenario to mull over:

At the end of regulation on Monday night, Manu Ginobili dribbled the ball at the top of the key, waiting for the game clock to wind down so he could take the final shot. However, instead of making his move with seven or eight seconds remaining, he lingered too long, finally attempting to penetrate with only four seconds left. When two defenders converged on his position, Ginobili had to force up a difficult shot because there was not enough time to pass the ball to a teammate. Both of the Denver defenders made contact with Ginobili, the second one bumping the Spurs guard to the ground after the ball was away.

Although Ginobili initially complained, and although a strict reading of the rules indicates a Denver violation, NBA convention in this situation is not to blow the whistle and let the players decide the outcome. In fact, a called foul would have brought howls of protest (and not just from Nugget fans) that the officials had "bailed out" Ginobili in spite of his poor clock management and decision making.

Ginobili later admitted to being "blind" as he attempted to get to the rim, and responded to this failure by passing to an open Tony Parker on the wing in a similar situation in overtime.

I believe that I am in accordance with basketball tradition when I say that Ginobili did not earn a foul at the end of regulation, even though the Nugget players made contact with him. Were the situation reversed, and had, say, Carmelo Anthony been clipped at the end of regulation while attempting a bad shot, I would have been incensed if the officials were to send him to the line. And I would have been even more incensed if no foul had been initially called and then Melo were sent to the line upon further review.

Do we really want a situation where Jordan's steal from the Mailman in the final seconds of game 6 of the 1998 Finals is overturned upon review because Jordan caught a tiny piece of Malone's wrist?

Fouls are not, and have never been, cut and dried. They vary from game to game, situation to situation, official to official.

As other posters have pointed out, no two people agree on what constitutes a foul. The last thing we need to do is muddy the waters even more, especially since, as I have posted in another thread, you could make the case for a foul being committed somewhere on the court on every single possession.

If we need to change the way officials are graded, fine, let's do it. If we need to give teams more of a voice in the process, fine, let's do that. If we want to expand the way replay is used for the clock, fine, or even if we need to see whether a player's foot was on the line for the game's final shot, fine.

But replay for fouls or situations that occur during the flow of the game, no freakin' way.
__________________
I don't drink champagne. I wear it.
--David Robinson
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-04-05, 04:19 PM
bo spur's Avatar
SpursReport Team Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,775

Well they sure as hell bailed out Melo right before that Golem. Duncan got him on the hand/wrist but the ball was clearly out of his hands.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-04-05, 04:20 PM
Lord Deimos's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: being productive for a change
Posts: 1,893

Quote:
Even if they're only successful 50% of the time what coach wouldn't trade one time out for an extra foul on Tim Duncan?
That's a good point, I didn't think of that. Replays could end up being a double-edged sword.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-04-05, 04:26 PM
Golem's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 944

Quote:
Originally Posted by bo spur
Well they sure as hell bailed out Melo right before that Golem. Duncan got him on the hand/wrist but the ball was clearly out of his hands.
I agree, and I was pissed about that.

However, in defense of the officilas, that was not a final shot situation, and they had been calling everything all night.

As we all know, calls are expected to be consistant within the course of the game until the closing seconds when the officials invariably put their whistles in their back pockets.

But this is my point. If the officials had rightly let that play go, Karl could have used instant replay to overturn the ruling on the technical grounds that Duncan had indeed made contact with Melo's arm. How pissed would you have been then?

So replay obviously isn't the answer.
__________________
I don't drink champagne. I wear it.
--David Robinson

Last edited by Golem; 05-04-05 at 04:29 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-04-05, 04:31 PM
Jones's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 1,077

I don't think we need more refs. We need a different sort of accountability. I might be mistaken but in Baseball the refs (umpires) have their own union and are not at the whim of the commishioner. In basketball, Stern runs the show. Until Stern takes real efforts to deal with the perceived problem with the officiating, (and not slapping down ridiculous fines for questioning what everyone has been questioning for the last 10 years, e.g., Jordan's favorable treatment by the refs) he will more and more have a credibility problem.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-04-05, 04:44 PM
coyotes_geek's Avatar
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,169

^^^the problem is that Stern has always kept the lid closed on things like that and we just don't know one way or the other and that's what is making fans pissed off. I may have said this already but I don't think it's perfection fans are after, it's accountability and if "we" don't get to see for ourselves what that actually is we don't believe it's happening at all.

There very well may be a system in place and Dick Bavetta and Bennett Salvatore may actually be facing the music already. We don't know because Stern won't tell us, but it's possible justice is being served. The judgement call Stern is making is that to keep everyone in the dark creates less of a credibility problem than making disciplinary actions public, thus giving everyone some actual hard data from which to come to conclusions that the officials suck. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Stern's decision, but I do see his reasoning. He'd much rather have us saying "this ref sucks" with nothing more than our own perceptions to back that up instead of us being able to say "this ref sucks, he's been fined/suspended 15 times and he's obviously out to get us because he keeps letting this guy call our games". He's kind of in a no win situation because nothing he does is going to make us happy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-04-05, 04:46 PM
Golem's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 944

Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
He's kind of in a no win situation because nothing he does is going to make us happy.
Very well said.

What was it that Clayton Williams once said about grinning and bearing it?
__________________
I don't drink champagne. I wear it.
--David Robinson
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-04-05, 04:53 PM
MarineForLife's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,100

Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
He's kind of in a no win situation because nothing he does is going to make us happy.

You mean nothing anyone would suggest will make you happy!

This is kinda like Social Security reform. The Republicans make a suggestion on how to fix it, and the Democrats just sit back and poo-poo it without offering any constructive alternatives. I see you as being the Democrat in this topic.

I don't see what the big problem would be in instituting coach challenges. If you have problems with details, work out solutions to them. Otherwise, suggestion something as alternative.
__________________
U.S. Marine - no better friend, no worse enemy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-04-05, 04:55 PM
coyotes_geek's Avatar
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,169

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golem
Very well said.

What was it that Clayton Williams once said about grinning and bearing it?
True that. Unlike Clayton though, Stern's smart enough to not come right out and say it, but that's basically what he's telling us.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-04-05, 05:05 PM
Golem's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 944

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineForLife
This is kinda like Social Security reform. The Republicans make a suggestion on how to fix it, and the Democrats just sit back and poo-poo it without offering any constructive alternatives. I see you as being the Democrat in this topic.
You just can't resist the metaphor, can you?

It's all right. You're a stand up guy and an intelligent poster, so I'll let pass the notion that being a Democrat is inherently pejorative.

But your analogy is flawed. Whereas the issue you suggest does indeed require some kind of solution at some point, the NBA officiating "problem" does not necessarily require a remedy. In fact, the point of view that there is even a problem is purely subjective.

Constructive alternatives are arguably helpful but unecessary in this debate.

Keep in mind, my conservative friend (and I mean this in the most apolitical sense of the term), the Constitution is hard to ammend precisely for this reason: Changing the system in the emotional heat of the moment can have disastrous consequences.
__________________
I don't drink champagne. I wear it.
--David Robinson
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-04-05, 05:34 PM
Jones's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 1,077

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineForLife
You mean nothing anyone would suggest will make you happy!

This is kinda like Social Security reform. The Republicans make a suggestion on how to fix it, and the Democrats just sit back and poo-poo it without offering any constructive alternatives. I see you as being the Democrat in this topic.

I don't see what the big problem would be in instituting coach challenges. If you have problems with details, work out solutions to them. Otherwise, suggestion something as alternative.
Dude, no politics.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-05-05, 04:13 PM
MarineForLife's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,100

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golem
You just can't resist the metaphor, can you?

It's all right. You're a stand up guy and an intelligent poster, so I'll let pass the notion that being a Democrat is inherently pejorative.

But your analogy is flawed. Whereas the issue you suggest does indeed require some kind of solution at some point, the NBA officiating "problem" does not necessarily require a remedy. In fact, the point of view that there is even a problem is purely subjective.

Constructive alternatives are arguably helpful but unecessary in this debate.

Keep in mind, my conservative friend (and I mean this in the most apolitical sense of the term), the Constitution is hard to ammend precisely for this reason: Changing the system in the emotional heat of the moment can have disastrous consequences.

well, I'm glad you find me to be of some value . . .

Never said being a Democrat is "inherently pejorative" . . . though with the representation that party has as of late and the pandering to the fringe minority it seems obsessed with, I'd have to agree with your assessment of (what is apparently) your party!

Some come to argue; others come to offer constructive ideas for solving things. Some feel there's a problem, others obviously don't.

How anyone, after seeing the absolutely rediculous clown acts that have been NBA officiating lately, can say there is not a problem is beyond me. But as you so eloquently - and condescendingly I might add - stated, there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved in stating the NBA has a problem. It's kinda like saying world hunger is a problem, isn't it? Seems it ought to be pretty obvious to everyone, but . . . maybe not.

Similarly, your contention that my analogy is flawed, and the basis upon which you make that contention, is absolutely subjective itself. There are many to whom it is not so obvious that Social Security needs repair/reform. There are many who agree the NBA officiating needs repair/reform. It's subjective. You use poor logic in stating subjective topics are not subjective in the process of dismissing my subjective argument countering your subjective argument, my apparently not so Conservative friend. (say that 20 times as fast as you can )

As for the Constitution, I'm fairly familiar with it . . . seeing how I've sworn an oath to defend it and all. And in the world of activist judges, it ain't nearly as hard to change it as you state . . . but that's entirely a different topic altogether.

But comparing the NBA rules to the Constitution is about as silly as, well, comparing this thread to the Social Security debate . . . leave it to a dumbass jarhead (me) to make that comparision!

Peace.
__________________
U.S. Marine - no better friend, no worse enemy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-05-05, 04:21 PM
Buzzsaw's Avatar
SpursReport Team Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 2,805

There is a problem with NBA officiating. The problem is that no one can talk about anything else but the officials at this time of year. And it's like this every year.

NBA fan is not happy with the product because he believes the officials, at best, suck, or at worst, are conspiring to affect games. That's a problem, real or perceived.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-05-05, 04:26 PM
DizzG's Avatar
SpursReport Team Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,595

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzsaw
There is a problem with NBA officiating. The problem is that no one can talk about anything else but the officials at this time of year. And it's like this every year.

NBA fan is not happy with the product because he believes the officials, at best, suck, or at worst, are conspiring to affect games. That's a problem, real or perceived.
Yep...its a valid...real problem that some either want to ignore or try to claim its not a big deal

every single year for the last many years problems with officating has been a huge topic nationally. Its not just part of the game. It needs to be addressed but the NBA acts like nothing is wrong
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-05-05, 06:15 PM
Golem's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 944

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzsaw
There is a problem with NBA officiating. The problem is that no one can talk about anything else but the officials at this time of year. And it's like this every year.

NBA fan is not happy with the product because he believes the officials, at best, suck, or at worst, are conspiring to affect games. That's a problem, real or perceived.
But not a problem that necessarily needs to be "solved," and certainly doesn't necassarily need to be solved with instant replay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineForLife
well, I'm glad you find me to be of some value . . .

Never said being a Democrat is "inherently pejorative" . . . though with the representation that party has as of late and the pandering to the fringe minority it seems obsessed with, I'd have to agree with your assessment of (what is apparently) your party!

Some come to argue; others come to offer constructive ideas for solving things. Some feel there's a problem, others obviously don't.

How anyone, after seeing the absolutely rediculous clown acts that have been NBA officiating lately, can say there is not a problem is beyond me. But as you so eloquently - and condescendingly I might add - stated, there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved in stating the NBA has a problem. It's kinda like saying world hunger is a problem, isn't it? Seems it ought to be pretty obvious to everyone, but . . . maybe not.

Similarly, your contention that my analogy is flawed, and the basis upon which you make that contention, is absolutely subjective itself. There are many to whom it is not so obvious that Social Security needs repair/reform. There are many who agree the NBA officiating needs repair/reform. It's subjective. You use poor logic in stating subjective topics are not subjective in the process of dismissing my subjective argument countering your subjective argument, my apparently not so Conservative friend. (say that 20 times as fast as you can )

As for the Constitution, I'm fairly familiar with it . . . seeing how I've sworn an oath to defend it and all. And in the world of activist judges, it ain't nearly as hard to change it as you state . . . but that's entirely a different topic altogether.

But comparing the NBA rules to the Constitution is about as silly as, well, comparing this thread to the Social Security debate . . . leave it to a dumbass jarhead (me) to make that comparision!

Peace.
Who, exactly, is the activist in the instant replay discussion? I'm not quite sure how I ended up being the Democrat since I've taken the conservative postion.

I addressed your Social Security analogy because I found it hilarious, and, yes, I couldn't resist bringing up the Constitution tongue in cheek because I knew the patriot in you would be all over it.

However, I stand by my argument. The Social Security metaphor is weak because at some point the system will be bankrupt. The subjective aspect of that issue is a semantic argument about what constitutes a "crisis" and when and who is going to get the political kudos for dealing with it. Regardless of how anyone defines the "problem" in that debate, empirical data forecasts a broken system that will cease to exist.

But this is not so with NBA officiating. The "problem," as Buzzsaw points out, is that people are frustrated. But that doesn't mean we're not going to have any more basketball in thirty or forty years. We can go on this way indefinitely because the system is not necessarily broken. I doubt seriously that the officiating problem is even something that can be solved. And it doesn't make me some kind of cynical obstructionist because I think instant replay would make the problem worse. I've said in an earlier post that it might be a good idea to reevaluate how the league grades officials.

Regardless, it's a logical nonsequitur to invalidate may arguments against instant replay because I don't have an equally radical counterproposal.

Lastly, I wrote "amend" the Constitution. That's quite a different proposition from extrapolating rights from the existing document.

I'm just going to let the world hunger thing, if you'll forgive the pun, starve to death.

Peace back at you.
__________________
I don't drink champagne. I wear it.
--David Robinson
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-05-05, 10:27 PM
MarineForLife's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,100

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golem
Who, exactly, is the activist in the instant replay discussion? I'm not quite sure how I ended up being the Democrat since I've taken the conservative postion.

I addressed your Social Security analogy because I found it hilarious, and, yes, I couldn't resist bringing up the Constitution tongue in cheek because I knew the patriot in you would be all over it.

However, I stand by my argument. The Social Security metaphor is weak because at some point the system will be bankrupt. The subjective aspect of that issue is a semantic argument about what constitutes a "crisis" and when and who is going to get the political kudos for dealing with it. Regardless of how anyone defines the "problem" in that debate, empirical data forecasts a broken system that will cease to exist.

But this is not so with NBA officiating. The "problem," as Buzzsaw points out, is that people are frustrated. But that doesn't mean we're not going to have any more basketball in thirty or forty years. We can go on this way indefinitely because the system is not necessarily broken. I doubt seriously that the officiating problem is even something that can be solved. And it doesn't make me some kind of cynical obstructionist because I think instant replay would make the problem worse. I've said in an earlier post that it might be a good idea to reevaluate how the league grades officials.

Regardless, it's a logical nonsequitur to invalidate may arguments against instant replay because I don't have an equally radical counterproposal.

Lastly, I wrote "amend" the Constitution. That's quite a different proposition from extrapolating rights from the existing document.

I'm just going to let the world hunger thing, if you'll forgive the pun, starve to death.

Peace back at you.



One can empirically measure games that have been unduly impacted by piss-poor ref calls. Not sure what more one needs to identify there is a problem. Of course, one can empirically demonstrate there's a problem with Social Security; yet, many folks continue to claim there's no problem with it. And there's no problem with NBA ref-ing, either, right?

The problem is not that people are frustrated. That's merely a symptom of the problem. The problem is that there exists no accountability for piss-poor ref calls, at least no accountability that really matters re: the quality of the product they produce. So they get a love note from Stern afterwards . . . big deal. But their shoddy work remains unaltered, and the recipients of that shoddy work - the teams, players, and fans - are stuck with it no matter how shoddy. That's BS.

I did not invalidate your arguments; I invalidated CoyoteeGeek's arguments. The only thing of yours I invalidated was your dismissal of my arguments, because your logic was just as subjective as you accuse mine of being when you dismissed my arguments - kettle calling the tea pot black?

Amend, change, extrapolate rights: they're all produce essentially the same results. Why argue over words? But I am surprised by your willingness to play games with someone else's patriotism. Does that smug outfit fit you well? I hope not, because it certainly is not becoming on you.

But if we're gonna keep on this track, we need to bounce over to the ol' political forum . . . oh wait! KA will ban me if I speak my mind there, so let's drop it.

BTW: there are actually some conservative Democrats - you might find that enlightening! Meanwhile, there are millions of starving people in Africa . . . and thousands of b-ball fans who long for an officiating process they can respect.
__________________
U.S. Marine - no better friend, no worse enemy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-05-05, 10:59 PM
Robinson50's Avatar
SpursReport Team Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,098

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golem
But not a problem that necessarily needs to be "solved," and certainly doesn't necassarily need to be solved with instant replay.


What's wrong with solving this problem? And what's wrong with instant replay? You keep saying things that's completely bold.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-06-05, 01:00 AM
Spurs biggest fan's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 2,196

Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
Giving coaches the ability to challenge calls could quite possibly be the worst idea ever. How do you think they're going to use those challenges? There are only 3 reasons coaches would ever challenge a call.

1.) To get a foul called on the other team's star player.
2.) To keep a foul from getting called on their own team's star player.
3.) To try to reverse a call that went against them late in a close game.

Only one of those 3 reasons is a legimate reason to challenge. Say goodbye to the star treatment and say hello to the bench because that's where the stars are going to end up sitting. George Karl isn't going to use a challenge to keep Greg Buckner from picking up a cheapy. He's going to wait for Tim Duncan to get mixed up in something and challenge that. Rasho draws a charge but actually had his heel on the no-charge circle, who cares? Tim Duncan does it? Challenge, foul on Tim. Robert Horry goes to the free throw line on a borderline blocking foul that could have been a charge, Karl let's it slide. Tim Duncan at the line? Challenge, take a chance that foul gets called on Tim. Nazr Mohammad raises his hand after a whistle and gets called for a foul that Tim Duncan really committed? Challenge, foul on Tim. All you're really doing by giving coaches challenges is giving them the opportunity to put your star under a much bigger officials microscope. If you follow the rulebook most players commit more than 6 fouls a game but get away with enough to stay in the game. Do you really think it's a good idea to give opposing coaches a tool which they will certainly abuse and use to try and go back and get some of those extra fouls called?
Ok how about having a 4th referee watching from a booth on a close circuit TV and HE could challenge if he feels it warrants it.

I'm just thinking out loud here -- but the fact of the matter is that the majority of basketball FANS want to see the league at LEAST attempt to do something to appease the fanbase. AFter all we ARE the ones that make the $$$ jingle no?

That's all I want -- to see that Stern and Co. are actually aware that there is a problem and that they are attempting to do something about it.... tis all...
__________________
"Truth, as in beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-06-05, 02:03 AM
Golem's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 944

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinson50


What's wrong with solving this problem? And what's wrong with instant replay? You keep saying things that's completely bold.
Coyote Geek and I have documented ad nauseum the problems with instant replay.

Just scroll up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineForLife


One can empirically measure games that have been unduly impacted by piss-poor ref calls. Not sure what more one needs to identify there is a problem. Of course, one can empirically demonstrate there's a problem with Social Security; yet, many folks continue to claim there's no problem with it. And there's no problem with NBA ref-ing, either, right?

The problem is not that people are frustrated. That's merely a symptom of the problem. The problem is that there exists no accountability for piss-poor ref calls, at least no accountability that really matters re: the quality of the product they produce. So they get a love note from Stern afterwards . . . big deal. But their shoddy work remains unaltered, and the recipients of that shoddy work - the teams, players, and fans - are stuck with it no matter how shoddy. That's BS.

I did not invalidate your arguments; I invalidated CoyoteeGeek's arguments. The only thing of yours I invalidated was your dismissal of my arguments, because your logic was just as subjective as you accuse mine of being when you dismissed my arguments - kettle calling the tea pot black?

Amend, change, extrapolate rights: they're all produce essentially the same results. Why argue over words? But I am surprised by your willingness to play games with someone else's patriotism. Does that smug outfit fit you well? I hope not, because it certainly is not becoming on you.

But if we're gonna keep on this track, we need to bounce over to the ol' political forum . . . oh wait! KA will ban me if I speak my mind there, so let's drop it.

BTW: there are actually some conservative Democrats - you might find that enlightening! Meanwhile, there are millions of starving people in Africa . . . and thousands of b-ball fans who long for an officiating process they can respect.
Now you're just being obstinate. And since I am no less so, I will reiterate the salient points:

You cannot make a positivist case that there is a problem with NBA officiating. You can only make a subjective one. "Piss poor" is not an objective evaluation. Regardless, I have already conceded that there is a "problem" (there is one because people say there is), but just because you and others say that there is a problem doesn't mean that the problem must be solved.

Social Security is unlike NBA officiating in this essential way: It must be solved or it will cease to exist. The ridiculous argument that occupies our representatives is whether the problem constitutes a "crisis." But not one representative, conservative or liberal, disputes the projection of the system's eventual collapse if we do nothing. (If you've found someone who does, please supply the name.) However, basketball has survived from its inception in spite of endless cries of poor officiating, and there's no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so.

And I do, and will continue to, quibble over words. As George Will is fond of pointing out, inexact words imply inexact thought. Logic, while we're on this topic, cannot be subjective. It is by definition an absolute. An argument is either fallacious or logical. Logic is independent of bias.

As for my smugness, I could argue that this too is a subjective assessment, but my glib comments prevade nearly every thread on the board, so I'd be disingenuous to deny it. The smug outfit that you describe is something of a birthday suit. But what do you want? Sincerity? Straightforwardness? Mushy earnestness?

This is fan forum. How freakin' boring can you get?

And yeah, I'll tease anyone about anything, including patriotism. If you take something seriously enough to wear on your sleeve, it might as well be a bullseye. But I'm sure you can handle it. And it doesn't mean I don't respect you for it anyway. Besides, sarcasm must be fairly innocuous once you've been under fire. (You don't really carry around a circular red-white-and-blue vibranium shield, do you?)

Thanks for the heads up, by the way, about the conservative Democrats. And here I thought that they had gone the way of the Tasmanian Tiger. Little did I know that enlightenment was just around the corner. And guess what, I also heard through the grapevine that there are such things as socially liberal Republicans, even of the Log Cabin variety, and neocons, and theocons, and compassionate conservatives, and all sorts of different creatures frolicking through the fields of public debate. Who knew?

And amending the Constitution and extrapolating rights do not amount to the same thing. If they did, we wouldn't be arguing over judges and nuking the filibuster.

But I digress. Regardless of whether you and I agree, the NBA is never going to institute instant replay for fouls, so it's a moot point.

But it has been fun to debate.
__________________
I don't drink champagne. I wear it.
--David Robinson
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-06-05, 07:50 AM
MarineForLife's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,100

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golem
But it has been fun to debate.
Fun for you . . . I've been bored to tears, frankly.

Clearly you and I are miles apart as individuals. I believe in things for which you apparently have little to no appreciation. Likewise, I find your bureaucratic emphasis on words to be constraining, haughty, and obstructionist. Along the way, you've completely missed the point of my comparisons, because you'd rather complicate the conversation, and I've been distracted by useless commentary about George Will, etc.

Regardless - and amazingly so - we apparently agree there are problems with many things. Most notably for the context of this thread, we agree there's a problem with the NBA's ref-ing. That's where we cease to find common ground.

I've given you several opportunities to drop this in a mutually positive manner, but you keep coming back, inserting your snooty assessments along the way. So, you win . . . hopefully reading that will assuage your ego enough that you'll get off your high horse. Or perhaps you've been so engaged with trying to wrinkle my skin that you've had no time to present positive alternatives to the suggested solutions that have been posted herein? Yeah, that must be it! Maybe I'm the reason for your smug behavior - why didn't I realize that earlier?!

Regardless, I find your position, and Coyote Geek's position, of little value to the conversation, because you seek only to refute the attempts of others to offer positive suggestions for addressing the problem we have with NBA officiating. Offer solutions, rather than simply bringing up the problems with others' suggestions.

Regardless, again I say you win. Go throw yourself a party.
__________________
U.S. Marine - no better friend, no worse enemy.

Last edited by MarineForLife; 05-06-05 at 08:28 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-06-05, 12:03 PM
Golem's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 944

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineForLife
Fun for you . . . I've been bored to tears, frankly.
Sorry it hasn't been more fun for you.

But isn't the title of this thread "Replay is not tne answer"? It therefore eludes me why my defending that position is so irritating. The leage is in a bind: It can't make offcials' evaluations more transparent because it would undermine the officials who don't score as highly, so the league has to work behind closed doors, which fosters notions of conspiracy and/or indifference to complaints from fans and/or team officials.

Replay is not going to happen (and, as I and others have argued in other posts, would probably make things worse). All we can do is keep pressuring the league and hope that they continue to improve the quality of the officiating.

Frankly, I find your occassional political metaphors amusing and enjoy needling you by pretending to take them even more seriously than you intended. To be honest, a silly argument over the relative similarities between NBA officiating and Social Security reform is more entertaining to me than a moot discussion of how to radically change the game.

I thought you liked the absurdity of the thing. My mistake.

There are obviously too many days between games.
__________________
I don't drink champagne. I wear it.
--David Robinson
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-06-05, 12:06 PM
SAScrub's Avatar
SpursReport Team Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Damn I am sleepy.
Posts: 656

Dude...you guys are incredible. All I wanted to do was suggest a 4th ref!!

It was fun to read though.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-06-05, 01:49 PM
Golem's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 944

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAScrub
It was fun to read though.
Vindication.

A mutual victory.
__________________
I don't drink champagne. I wear it.
--David Robinson
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-06-05, 02:19 PM
MarineForLife's Avatar
SpursReport Team Bench
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,100

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golem
Vindication.

A mutual victory.
agreed . . . now let's move on to something with real meaning . . . like drinking beer. It's 2:30 on a Friday in San Antonio!
__________________
U.S. Marine - no better friend, no worse enemy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-06-05, 02:20 PM
SAScrub's Avatar
SpursReport Team Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Damn I am sleepy.
Posts: 656

ding ding!!!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.7.4 Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0