I noticed on this forum that there was a fairly high level of scrutiny directed toward the officials during the playoffs, but mostly concentrated on games 1 and 2 of the finals. Of course, a lot of that was precipitated by Larry's infamous 1-7 comment ostensibly directed at Garretson and Dan Crawford (and I still was surprised that he wasn't fined for that comment although he was fairly obtuse and perhaps the NBA Pooh Bahs felt that addressing it would just draw more media frenzy around the officiating).
Anyway, it brought several questions to mind. MLB posts their umpire rotation prior to games but why not the NBA? Is is worthwhile to know who the officials are? Does it help to know that Dan Crawford is officiating the next game the Pistons are playing? Do officials favor or "go against" a certain team? What about over/unders?
It occurred to me the best person to ask about officiating is an official (yeah I know, it's a gift). Anyway I looked at a couple of forums for officiating (beware they are not particularly receptive to sports bettors) and found many of these questions, particularly about Larry, already being addressed.
Regarding some of these subjects, here are a couple of excerpts that I cut and pasted (remember these are other referees commenting):
-----------
I uphold the belief that most (99.999%) of officials are completely impartial and would never want to be part of any "fix" in a game. I think in the case of the officials that you mentioned, they probably call a game that is counter-productive to the type of game that Detroit tries to play. Officials sometimes do have their eyes open for certain things and will be more apt to call it than another official. The other officials on here are welcome to disagree with me, but I've worked with way too many officials to dispute this with me. Because of this, their officiating may hinder the play of certain teams even though the officials are 100% ethical in their duties and administration. Perhaps this is the case with Larry Brown's team.
As for an official deliberately calling things against Detroit in order to influence the game's outcome, it is possible, but like so many of you have stated previously, it is highly unlikely this is the case because it would be career suicide. With all the work and luck that it takes to make it to the NBA, I would never risk throwing this away by being partisan...EVER. Have I been tempted to whack a coach sooner than usual because he rubs me wrong, or a player because of their attitude...sure. Have I done it? I don't think so.
------------
"whack" of course means T up. Here's another one...
--------
I still have major problems with the premises of the argument that Brown makes:
1) There are three officials on every game. Crawford isn't doing the game by himself, he part of a CREW. It would be impossible for him and him alone to determine the outcome of a game. If you want to prove that the officials are directly affecting the outcome of the game, you would need statistics on all of the permutations of crew possibilities.
2) No game comes down to one call or one play. There are numerous opportunities for players, coaches, and refs to both succeed and screw up. None of the games that Brown is talking about came down to some sort of last-second call that got kicked; at least not that I am aware of.
3) What little I know about the evaluating process of NBA officials indicates that any official that was doing things that caused a game to be so poorly officiated as to predispose one team to lose, would probably have a very difficult time getting another assignment.
It would be a lot easier to address Brown's quote if it had even some semblance of logic to it. As it was, it not only looked absurd, it sounded that way when he said it. He really just sounded like a whining coach trying to place the blame for embarassing losses somewhere else. Not very becoming.
---------
I might argue that knowing an official has the appearance of being against someone actually helps that team because he has to be careful not to draw attention to himself by calling against that team. That is probably why Larry made his comments (they were I feel well planned and I know Phil J. is infamous for the same type of politicking through the press).
As a rule, these and other posters didn't seem to feel there was anything untoward in the officiating beyond the obvious human error. I know my post here probably brings up more questions than answers but it's something to give some thought to.
If anyone is interested, here are the teams game by game in the finals--
gm 1 Mike Callahan , Ron Garretson , Steve Javie
gm 2 Bernie Fryer , Dan Crawford , Jack Nies
gm 3 Bennett Salvatore , Bob Delaney , Joe Crawford
gm 4 Dick Bavetta , Eddie F. Rush , Joe Derosa
gm 5 Mike Callahan , Ron Garretson , Steve Javie
gm 6 Bennett Salvatore , Bernie Fryer, Dan Crawford
For what it's worth, I found some educated guesses and the general consensus is that Bavetta, Joe Crawford, and either Eddie Rush or Bob Delaney will likely be up tonight. Add of course the usual caveats that I doubt this information is helpful and no guarantee of accuracy, your mileage may vary.
Anyway, it brought several questions to mind. MLB posts their umpire rotation prior to games but why not the NBA? Is is worthwhile to know who the officials are? Does it help to know that Dan Crawford is officiating the next game the Pistons are playing? Do officials favor or "go against" a certain team? What about over/unders?
It occurred to me the best person to ask about officiating is an official (yeah I know, it's a gift). Anyway I looked at a couple of forums for officiating (beware they are not particularly receptive to sports bettors) and found many of these questions, particularly about Larry, already being addressed.
Regarding some of these subjects, here are a couple of excerpts that I cut and pasted (remember these are other referees commenting):
-----------
I uphold the belief that most (99.999%) of officials are completely impartial and would never want to be part of any "fix" in a game. I think in the case of the officials that you mentioned, they probably call a game that is counter-productive to the type of game that Detroit tries to play. Officials sometimes do have their eyes open for certain things and will be more apt to call it than another official. The other officials on here are welcome to disagree with me, but I've worked with way too many officials to dispute this with me. Because of this, their officiating may hinder the play of certain teams even though the officials are 100% ethical in their duties and administration. Perhaps this is the case with Larry Brown's team.
As for an official deliberately calling things against Detroit in order to influence the game's outcome, it is possible, but like so many of you have stated previously, it is highly unlikely this is the case because it would be career suicide. With all the work and luck that it takes to make it to the NBA, I would never risk throwing this away by being partisan...EVER. Have I been tempted to whack a coach sooner than usual because he rubs me wrong, or a player because of their attitude...sure. Have I done it? I don't think so.
------------
"whack" of course means T up. Here's another one...
--------
I still have major problems with the premises of the argument that Brown makes:
1) There are three officials on every game. Crawford isn't doing the game by himself, he part of a CREW. It would be impossible for him and him alone to determine the outcome of a game. If you want to prove that the officials are directly affecting the outcome of the game, you would need statistics on all of the permutations of crew possibilities.
2) No game comes down to one call or one play. There are numerous opportunities for players, coaches, and refs to both succeed and screw up. None of the games that Brown is talking about came down to some sort of last-second call that got kicked; at least not that I am aware of.
3) What little I know about the evaluating process of NBA officials indicates that any official that was doing things that caused a game to be so poorly officiated as to predispose one team to lose, would probably have a very difficult time getting another assignment.
It would be a lot easier to address Brown's quote if it had even some semblance of logic to it. As it was, it not only looked absurd, it sounded that way when he said it. He really just sounded like a whining coach trying to place the blame for embarassing losses somewhere else. Not very becoming.
---------
I might argue that knowing an official has the appearance of being against someone actually helps that team because he has to be careful not to draw attention to himself by calling against that team. That is probably why Larry made his comments (they were I feel well planned and I know Phil J. is infamous for the same type of politicking through the press).
As a rule, these and other posters didn't seem to feel there was anything untoward in the officiating beyond the obvious human error. I know my post here probably brings up more questions than answers but it's something to give some thought to.
If anyone is interested, here are the teams game by game in the finals--
gm 1 Mike Callahan , Ron Garretson , Steve Javie
gm 2 Bernie Fryer , Dan Crawford , Jack Nies
gm 3 Bennett Salvatore , Bob Delaney , Joe Crawford
gm 4 Dick Bavetta , Eddie F. Rush , Joe Derosa
gm 5 Mike Callahan , Ron Garretson , Steve Javie
gm 6 Bennett Salvatore , Bernie Fryer, Dan Crawford
For what it's worth, I found some educated guesses and the general consensus is that Bavetta, Joe Crawford, and either Eddie Rush or Bob Delaney will likely be up tonight. Add of course the usual caveats that I doubt this information is helpful and no guarantee of accuracy, your mileage may vary.