# OT: Official coverup? Conspiracy theories no excuse for Dallas



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/14856564.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_sports

*T*here could not be a more perfect locale than Dallas for these NBA Finals to resume tonight. Just a few miles from the basketball arena is the infamous grassy knoll, national Mecca of conspiracy theorists. We presume that when the Mavericks' owner, coach and players talk these days about looking at film, it might not be game film but rather Abraham Zapruder's grainy home movie.

The question now: Is commissioner David Stern acting alone in manipulating to steal Dallas' championship trophy and give it to the Miami Heat? If so, then what of the blurred, shadowy figures on the knoll who appear to be wearing vertically striped shirts?

A delicious, volatile cauldron presents itself for Game 6 tonight in the wake of Sunday's home Heat victory in overtime and the Mavericks' belief the referees helped fashion Miami's 3-2 series lead. Desperation and paranoia is a cocktail more dangerous than Molotov's, and Dallas owner Mark Cuban warring with the officials is something like a match mad at a stick of dynamite.

It is unlikely Miami has been a part of playoff combustion like this since the bad old Knicks-rivalry years, when suspensions rocked a series and your snapshot was New York coach Jeff Van Gundy poodled onto Alonzo Mourning's pistoning leg in an on-court melee.

Here, the Mavs say they'll play with ''anger'' as the hostility of all North Texas funnels into one arena. Not sure in what role Dwyane Wade might find Shaquille O'Neal more useful tonight: Center. Or bodyguard.

''We Wuz Robbed!'' has long been the handiest excuse of teams that cannot find a decent reason for their collapse that doesn't involve the ignominy of a mirror. The convenience of alleging bad calls, or even willfully biased officiating (you'll recall the Seattle Seahawks conducted a remarkable seminar in early February), also is the blame-dodge of choice among teams that cannot bear to properly credit the opponent.

And so there it was for all to see past midnight Sunday in Miami's downtown bayfront arena: the sourest, saddest, sorriest display by a losing team that you'd ever wish to witness.

Not the loss itself; that was rather valiant. The reaction to it.

There was Cuban, whose billions can buy just about anything but a mortal slump by D-Wade, careening onto the court in a blue Jerry Stackhouse jersey after the final buzzer, screaming profanely at referee Joe DeRosa.

Cuban then turned to Stern and other NBA officials who were seated at the scorer's table and was overheard to shout venomously in the jubilant din, ``[Bleep] you! [Bleep] you! Your league is rigged!''

*MAVS COME UNHINGED*

That was just after The Incredible Shrinking Dirk Nowitzki -- who began the series as a 7-foot superstar but has seen the series turn him into his own bobblehead doll -- punted the basketball up into the 300-level seats after the buzzer and marauded off the court, slamming a water cooler and kicking a stationary bicycle in the hallway en route to the visitors' dressing room.

A bit after that is when coach Avery Johnson conducted a news conference that, if it were any stranger, might have seen him restrained and fitted with a straitjacket by men in White Hot coats.

A reporter asked what he thought of the foul call that turned into Wade's game-winning free throws with 1.9 seconds left in overtime.

''You tell me. What was your impression?'' Johnson replied.

The question was essentially repeated four more times; so was the coach's increasingly testy reply.

''No I want you to give everybody an honest answer,'' Johnson demanded, finally. ``We have people from Israel and Minnesota, Chicago, all over Dallas Germany.''

Johnson's performance seemed applicable to the phrase ''cracking under pressure'' to a degree that left you worried the coach was going to suddenly split in two, like a coconut that met a machete. This was the perfect spokesman for a team that seemed to be coming apart before our eyes.

Dallas' once-commanding 2-0 lead in this series seems as long ago now as NBA short-shorts. Three straight home victories by Miami have put control of the championship trophy in Heat hands entering tonight; the only question is how the seismic shift happened.

Wade's 121 points in the past three games is a pretty strong opening argument.

You start with Miami's young Flash asserting himself as the Finals MVP-in-waiting and doing it with a dominance that conjures images of Michael Jordan. And you contrast that with Nowitzki too often playing like David Hasselhoff sings, in the biggest collapse associated with Germany since the Berlin Wall.

Yet Dallas would cite the officiating, as if that was why the Mavs blew a 13-point, mid-fourth-quarter lead in crucial Game 3 -- a collapse that left the entire Dallas team writhing on the court in need a of a group Heimlich maneuver.

*CUBAN'S SOUR GRAPES*

Again Sunday night, responsibility for the loss was not accepted by the Mavericks. Class was not in session. So, in the wake of the 101-100 defeat, they blamed the refs.

Said that Wade, with the ball and 9.1 seconds left, committed a backcourt violation that was not called.

''That's a backcourt violation, at least to most high-schoolers,'' Cuban groused.

Then they said Wade committed a foul on Jason Terry en route to the basket that wasn't called.

''He pushed him. I guess that's not a foul,'' Cuban groused.

''Pushed off, like, three guys,'' Nowitzki claimed.

Then they said Wade was not fouled at all on the final drive that froze the clock at 1.9 and set up his winning free throws. Half right on that. Nowitzki was called but was not the fouler. However, replays clearly show Devin Harris grabbed Wade's inside right elbow, an obvious foul on anybody's court.

Finally, Dallas claimed it wanted to use its last timeout after Wade's second free throw but that the referee mistakenly awarded it after the first one -- even though the mistake clearly appeared to be on the part of timeout-signaler Josh Howard.

Speaking of whom, evidently Howard escapes blame for his two missed free throws with 54 seconds left. Evidently Nowitzki does, too, for another of his late missed foul shots. Maybe a ref hissed, ``Miss it!''

*A LACK OF GRACE*

Yes, let the Mavericks not accept blame for their third straight Finals loss or entertain the absurd idea Miami might be a worthy opponent.

No.

Let's instead put a telescope on the grassy knoll and imagine Stern there -- is he grinning? -- exacting some sort of vendetta against Cuban over the fact he is the most outspoken critic of NBA officiating. A conspiracy! Yes. That's it. Stern's Revenge!

''It's just ridiculous,'' Cuban summarized before climbing onto his team's bus.

He meant the officiating late in Sunday's game.

He might better have meant his team's response to the loss in the absence of any sort of grace.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

I hope Dallas gets their heads out of their asses and wins the next two games. As much as people like Wade and like to compare him to Jordan, Wade isn't even close. Jordan didn't have an aging hall-of-fame-candidate Center helping him to the title. And I hate how it seems like Wade can just get breathed on and the refs will call any and all fouls on the opposing team. I wish they would just stop doing it, because they aren't fouls!

Man, if you ask me, the refs are trying to give Miami the title. I know this is just me saying this after we lost to the Heat, but I just feel as if Stern just wants to give Miami the damn championship, and will do whatever he can to do it. Whatever the case may be, I hope Dallas gets the win tonight and on Thursday. Miami cannot win the title, and I hate how if they do, they'll be comparing Wade to Jordan and all that ****. It just isn't true.

Jordan is in a class of his own. Wade's just been handed the trophy, as far as I see it.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Cuban's been fined $250,000. http://www.nba.com/finals2006/cuban_060620.html


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

PowerWoofer said:


> Jordan didn't have an aging hall-of-fame-candidate Center helping him to the title.


What about Scottie Pippen. He was a better player in his prime than Shaq is right now, imo.



> And I hate how it seems like Wade can just get breathed on and the refs will call any and all fouls on the opposing team. I wish they would just stop doing it, because they aren't fouls!


Players like Wade and MJ consistently got the benefit of the doubt because they were so relentless and emphatic in attacking the basket. I thought that all of Wade's trips to the line on Sunday were earned.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

cuban got fined $250,000 for his outburst!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2006/news/story?id=2492729


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Players like Wade and MJ consistently got the benefit of the doubt because they were so relentless and emphatic in attacking the basket. I thought that all of Wade's trips to the line on Sunday were earned.


Wow, were you and I watching the same game? I love Wade's skills, but some of the calls he got Sunday (and gets on a regular basis) are just plain sickening. Sickening, as in it literally made me a little sick to my stomach to see him get some of those calls. Granted, it's nothing new, as you said; Jordan got similar calls and every superstar in the league now gets calls like that. However, Wade seems to have gotten to the point where he's far and away the most benefited (and best at acting like he just got mugged) out of anyone. With all of his contorting, pratfalls and begging to the refs on almost every single play that doesn't get called, it's become very tiresome to me and made him much less enjoyable to watch (which is unfortunate, as he has become probably the most clutch player in the league).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

PC Load Letter said:


> Wow, were you and I watching the same game? I love Wade's skills, but some of the calls he got Sunday (and gets on a regular basis) are just plain sickening. Sickening, as in it literally made me a little sick to my stomach to see him get some of those calls. Granted, it's nothing new, as you said; Jordan got similar calls and every superstar in the league now gets calls like that. However, Wade seems to have gotten to the point where he's far and away the most benefited (and best at acting like he just got mugged) out of anyone. With all of his contorting, pratfalls and begging to the refs on almost every single play that doesn't get called, it's become very tiresome to me and made him much less enjoyable to watch (which is unfortunate, as he has become probably the most clutch player in the league).



Amen. Wade is the boy who cried wolf to me. He makes plenty of gutsy, hard-nosed plays and draws a lot of fouls. However, his increasing desire to show you how much pain he's playing through combined with some of his acting for foul calls is getting really, really old.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I very much agree with ScottMay on this one. Wade got to the line because he dominated Dallas' defense. They couldn't get someone to stay in front of him.

I agree that Wade's act gets a little tired. He gets enough calls that he should shut his yap when he doesn't get one. But he was getting fouled a lot.

The solution isn't to officiate Wade differently. Its to defend him better.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Amen. Wade is the boy who cried wolf to me. He makes plenty of gutsy, hard-nosed plays and draws a lot of fouls. However, his increasing desire to show you how much pain he's playing through combined with some of his acting for foul calls is getting really, really old.


you could say this about any nba star that gets to the line 7 or more times a game. who knows if it's real, fake, or them just trying to buy a quick rest before some free throws. what makes it annoying are the announcers who make it sound like an epic struggle everytime it happens. because they harp on it, the cameras focus on it, and we get to watch it and hear it over and over.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

PC Load and jnrjr,

You have no idea how similar your complaints about Wade are to those of two friends of mine who had the misfortune of being diehard Cavs and Blazers fans living in Chicago in the late 80s-early 90s. 

How many times did Jordan rise from the ashes to play on a bad ankle, after being in Atlantic City all night, after contracting food poisoning? It all became part of his mythology. 

And no, Jordan didn't "*****" at the refs the way a Tayshaun Prince or Terry Porter (player) did -- he was more Bob Knight-like in the way he would get flat-out abusive. "How in the **** is that not a technical?" was a common complaint from my two friends.

I wish the game could be played (at ALL levels, not just the NBA) without the crying and whining. But that's just how it is, and I'm okay with that, because I truly do believe Wade goes to the line legitimately, not because he's pissing and moaning or because there's some sort of grand conspiracy. I felt the same way about Jordan, too.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> PC Load and jnrjr,
> 
> You have no idea how similar your complaints about Wade are to those of two friends of mine who had the misfortune of being diehard Cavs and Blazers fans living in Chicago in the late 80s-early 90s.
> 
> ...


I, too, think a conspiracy is ridiculous, but Wade did not get fouled that many times legitimately. 25 FTs and who knows how many times he was actually fouled? I watched the game and there's not a chance. 

I truly think the refs have bought into the idea that Wade is the next Jordan, the game's premier player, and are treating him the same way MJ was treated later in his career. That, along with the alarmingly high number of ticky-tack, flopping fouls that are called league-wide, is concrete evidence of how incompetent these refs are (outside of Danny Crawford, who is almost always right on). Not to mention, watching a parade of FTs is annoying, boring basketball. I don't want to see it. I hate the idea of players working more on the skill of drawing fouls than improving their jump shot.

By the way, if Wade *****es like this now, when he's only 24, how bad is it going to be when his skills start to diminish and he actually _needs_ to get those calls? Yikes.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If you ATTACK the basket strong and can finish over people if needed, you will get the calls.

Wade was getting by whoever what attempting to guard him.... he was fouled often... even on the controversial one, as we saw on the picture posted on this website. He's just so damn strong that when you looked at it real time it seemed like noone touched him.

Dallas needs to defend him better (good luck with that). They are not getting to the line as much because the ball is dominated by jump shooters.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I think that much of the blame for all the calls Wade gets can be put on the rules changes. There are way too many touch calls nowadays. Jordan and Pippen got what would today be flagrant fouls put on them nearly every time they went to the rim by teams like the Pistons and Knicks. Seeing Wade do his fall on the ground routine following the type of fouls that are given today seems a bit of a mockery to me.

Look at the 91' Finals and see how Pippen defended Magic. That type of defense just isn't anywhere near possible today. Players today get called ticky-tac foul calls as a result of incidental contact that simply can't be avoided if you're trying to defend someone like Wade when he is going to the rim. That has also resulted in all the shameful flopping we see today.

I just don't see any valid comparison to be made between the calls Jordan and Wade got because many of the calls Wade and even non-stars get today would have been no calls back in Jordan's heyday.

I have no problem getting rid of the rought stuff, but I don't like seeing a team shoot 50 free throws. Basketball needs to be a semi-contact sport.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The NBA has a problem when it's obvious even to neophytes that officiating inequities are a major component of the the game. The usual home-court and all-star deference calls have no place in the playoffs, much less the finals, where many viewers unaccoustomed to biased officiating are watching and instant replays are a TIVO click away. These unfortunate customs are just bad business. The amazing thing is that some experienced fans pathetically try to deny the obvious.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

there's also a downfall to the hack-a-shaq strategy. it puts the other team in the bonus alot earlier than they should be. 

i don't see how a team that willingly goes into the foul penalty and then intentionally fouls a player at every opportunity before the 2 min mark can cry about the ft disparity. 

it seems like you waste 4-5 possesions where you can foul a guy and make them take it out of bounds. instead those 4-5 possesions become 2 free throws. in a 1 pt game that's pivotal.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Clearly, the officiating took on a good old fashioned case of home cooking in Miami. Unfortunately, it was almost of epic proportions. An argument could certainly be made that Miami needed every favor it got to escape with a 2-pt and 1-pt overtime win. 

Whats funnier - those who say yeah somebody did touch Wade on his way to two more free throws to win it with 1.9 seconds left or those who believe stars have "earned" those calls? Are there any Bulls fans here who believe Wade should have shot those two free throws that also believe Charles Smith shouldn't have shot two in 1993?

As for Wade, I too believe the NBA would like nothing more than a coronation of him as a marquee Jordan-like figure and the trophy coupled with the series MVP award will do just that. I see it differently though. I see Flash as becoming more about style over substance. While picking up his post season hardware it'll be interesting to see if an Emmy is included. Wade puts Reggie Miller to shame when it comes to the offensive flop.

I've got no dog in this hunt, but my impression is the Mavericks got jobbed in Miami. It also makes for rather boring TV. On top of that, this has got to be the worst coverage of an NBA finals I think I've ever seen. Is anyone out there really enjoying the game broadcasts? Time for TNT to find a way to get the Finals.

Theres an old adage that you needn't watch an entire basketball game, that you can just tune into the final two minutes. The reason thats true is NBA officiating seems to act as a ballast whose job is to angle for a close finish. Thats the real reason no lead is safe. Sometimes we get confused and think of this as sport. It's not. It's entertainment and the NBA plays it that way. 

The NBA wants players with better fundamentals, they like the open game. They don't want a game of ISO's. Well, why bother? We get to the Finals and it still comes down to one team getting into the other teams grille while the NBA's chosen stars are allowed to dictate the outcome. For the seemingly millionth year - Shaq elbowing guys in the head are not fouls. Whistling in the wind in Wade's direction is a foul. These guys are great talents, its ashame the games can't be decided by the players straight up. And to answer ScottMay, yes, the Bulls got plenty of generous officiating during the title years.

One of the funnier peculiarities is the lane violations when Shaq is hoisting a brick. You could call that practically all game long, but they generally only do for the stars (Shaq, Malone). Sure they have quirky hitches, but so does Chandler.

And how about an NBA that has to put in a rule for one of its greatest stars because he doesn't know how to shoot a free throw? Hack-a-Shaq had to be instituted we were told, because it was slowing the game down and nobody was interested in watching a free throw shooting contest. I presume that's unless that player is Dwayne Wade.

In the end it's all about entertainment. The NBA talks like they want a better product, but why should anyone take them seriously. After all, they've got a commissioner who believes his officials and the officiating is the best in all of sports. He denies star treatment exists. Is there even one poster on this board who believes that?

So long as the NBA prefers to market its stars and create personna's that are bigger than life (even if aided by officiating) the conspiracy theories will continue.


*Take your pick: Wade's either full of grit or full of it* 
http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/9509525


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

The foul Wade got against terry on the jumpshot would've made Reggie Miller proud. He drew the foul without even making contact with the guy; thats beyond even Reggie's level, as Reggie kicked his man.

I think I'm gonna keep a tally of the fouls Wade and Nowitzki draw as a result of their prowess as thesbians.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

God I hate Wade more than any other player in the league. Where are half these fouls? Do they not pick the right camera angle? Someone get me a doctor, I'm blind to all these fouls. 

Gotta love the one where Wade jumps into Devin Harris. Harris started banging the floor, and the Ref prolly thought, 'I got you sucka'


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

Since I didn't get to watch Jordan play, all I know is the myth of the man. So saying Jordan got the same calls Wade does is not reasonable, since the rules are different and Jordan had to work to get fouled. Wade could be ten feet away from a guy, trip, and still get a fouled called on his opponent.

I'm telling you, officiating is as shady as it is ridiculous. The refs are so biased that it's a pain to watch the game nowadays. It's fun to watch the young Bulls get some vindication for being young and being able to get to the playoffs, but in the end, the team with the superstar will always get to the top before a team like the young Bulls ever will. The only exception is Detroit in '04. That's probably the only team that was able to get to the top without a superstar like Kobe and Shaq on that Lakers team they faced. Incredible how they did it; too bad the refs aren't that fair during the entire year.

Oh well, I'll be rooting for LeBron to take out Wade if they meet in the playoffs, and we don't get that far. Let's hope we do. :biggrin:


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

PowerWoofer said:


> Wade could be ten feet away from a guy, trip, and still get a fouled called on his opponent.


lol. the heat really didnt look happy that they were the champs maybe because they knew they didnt deserve it since the NBA is fixed. It also could of had something to do with the fact that they were in Dallas and not Miami tho.

congrats to Miami even tho im not a fan of them.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

PowerWoofer said:


> Since I didn't get to watch Jordan play, all I know is the myth of the man. So saying Jordan got the same calls Wade does is not reasonable, since the rules are different and Jordan had to work to get fouled. Wade could be ten feet away from a guy, trip, and still get a fouled called on his opponent.


Though you bring your flair for hyperbole as usual, I agree. You can't compare Wade's calls to Jordan's because so much of the things that are called for fouls against Wade's defenders were legal contact against Jordan. The game was far far far more physical at that time. 

Also, Wade has a little Reggie Miller in him. But most of the big scorers have added that flopping aspect to their repetoire. Its now a respected part of the game, as opposed to then, when the floppers like Reggie and Vlade were subject to derision.

Its a different game. Wade plays it better than anybody. Don't hate the player.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

Babble-On said:


> Though you bring your flair for hyperbole as usual, I agree. You can't compare Wade's calls to Jordan's because so much of the things that are called for fouls against Wade's defenders were legal contact against Jordan. The game was far far far more physical at that time.
> 
> Also, Wade has a little Reggie Miller in him. But most of the big scorers have added that flopping aspect to their repetoire. Its now a respected part of the game, as opposed to then, when the floppers like Reggie and Vlade were subject to derision.
> 
> Its a different game. Wade plays it better than anybody. Don't hate the player.


ur right, the rules have changed but the thing is defense wins games so if you cant get close to people without a foul being call this isnt basketball anymore. How can a team win unless they have D-Wade or Lebron James on their team who get calls just because the league wants them to be better than Michael Jordan or because they need to hit their free throws to win the game. is basketball a sport to c wut superstar can get the most points from the free throw line to help them average 25 or more points a game and bring more money to the NBA?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

taurus515th said:


> ur right, the rules have changed but the thing is defense wins games so if you cant get close to people without a foul being call this isnt basketball anymore. How can a team win unless they have D-Wade or Lebron James on their team who get calls just because the league wants them to be better than Michael Jordan or because they need to hit their free throws to win the game. is basketball a sport to c wut superstar can get the most points from the free throw line to help them average 25 or more points a game and bring more money to the NBA?


Hey, I'm not defending the way the game has changed. I hate all the touch fouls and incidental contact fouls that the rule changes have precipitated. I hate the defensive flopping that has just about become a necessity. 

I'm just saying don't hate the player. Hate the game. Wade is just taking advantage of the way the game is being called. 

I'm also saying that because the rules are so different, it does a disservice to compare the calls given to Jordan and Wade. Jordan got some favorable calls, but the fact is he also had to go against players who could handcheck him for most of his career, and body him up, and he had to take true hard fouls when he went to the hole, and none of those things can be said about Wade.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

o sorry i wasnt arguing to u i was agreeing and should have made a seperate post after i said ur right lol.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

He also played in the age of the Dominant Center.

Where is Hakeem the Dream?

Where is Ewing for Wade to dunk on?

Where is David Robinson? McHale?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

taurus515th said:


> How can a team win unless they have D-Wade or Lebron James on their team


This is the most disappointing part of the finals as a Bulls fan. It seems like an impossible task to beat any Wade or LeBron team because the officials put them on the line so often that it's disheartening. Not only do they get those free throws, but it forces a great defense to loosen up and become a spectator (or else they'll foul out too quick), which makes things even easier for them to score, even when there isn't a call. 

Sad day indeed. We need a Jordan-a-like, because Dirk didn't get that same treatment from the officials and he is a top 10 player at worst. Wade stiff armed Dirk and they called a foul on Dirk like he was some Jeff Hornacek in comparison to Jordan.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

re hand-checking -- yes, Jordan had it much worse than Wade when it came to hand-checking.

The flip side -- Jordan never had to face zone defenses, and the way the illegal defense rule was set up, it was extremely hard to double-team on the perimeter. 

In any case, hand-checking was a minor inconvenience for Jordan when he was being guarded by a single defender. I don't think there are any individual defenders in the league right now who could stop Wade even with the benefit of being able to hand-check. You stop Wade the same way the Pistons stopped Jordan in the late 80s -- you throw the kitchen sink at him. Hard double teams, rotate different defenders, foul him hard at the last line of defense.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Mavs choked man plain and simple. So did Dirk. All playoffs long he was attacking the rim, then he sees Udonis Haslem and becomes timid. What the hell was that about?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Mavericks did choke, and Dirk was absolute garbage in 3 of the games, although he was pretty good tonight (29 points 15 rebounds).


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> re hand-checking -- yes, Jordan had it much worse than Wade when it came to hand-checking.
> 
> The flip side -- Jordan never had to face zone defenses, and the way the illegal defense rule was set up, it was extremely hard to double-team on the perimeter.
> 
> In any case, hand-checking was a minor inconvenience for Jordan when he was being guarded by a single defender. I don't think there are any individual defenders in the league right now who could stop Wade even with the benefit of being able to hand-check. You stop Wade the same way the Pistons stopped Jordan in the late 80s -- you throw the kitchen sink at him. Hard double teams, rotate different defenders, foul him hard at the last line of defense.


Except the hard foul part has been taken out of the game. And it is literally impossible to play D against the man without at least some contact occuring. If the refs dictate dictate that just about any contact is a foul on the defender, then it is impossible to prevent the man from getting to the hole. 

Also, the zone to me has much more of an impact on post play. If a guy has the ball in the middle of the floor on the perimeter, its still extremely hard to effectively double team on the perimeter. And regardless of all that it has little to do with the amount and kinds of fouls Wade benefits from to go to the line 20 plus times in games like the last couple.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Honestly, if the officials are crooked or trying to concoct high ratings scenarios by directive from the NBA executives, then stop watching, unless you really think you are watching pro wrestling.

I'm tired of all this complaining about officiating. Yah, its frustrating at times, but its the NBA..... if you are not used to it by now, then why watch?

The better teams win. The better players dominate. Its a fair competition.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, if the officials are crooked or trying to concoct high ratings scenarios by directive from the NBA executives, then stop watching, unless you really think you are watching pro wrestling.
> 
> I'm tired of all this complaining about officiating. Yah, its frustrating at times, but its the NBA..... if you are not used to it by now, then why watch?
> 
> The better teams win. The better players dominate. Its a fair competition.


I don't really think its a conspiracy, it just the rules changes have transformed the game. And in many ways for the worse. I mean, I have a problem with a lot of the calls Nowitzki got too, its just he didn't have the same level of agressiveness, stamina, relentlessness, or whatever to take advantage like Wade did. 

I still find enough enjoyment to continue watching, but I have problems with the way things are. Apply it to your Bulls fandom and how you still follow the team despite your clear opinion that things are not being done right, and I think you can relate to my sentiment on NBA officiating.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Babble-On said:


> I don't really think its a conspiracy, it just the rules changes have transformed the game.


I don't think it's a conspiracy, but it is emphasis. Like you said, rules change to benefit the most profitable players. So not only are the great players better than everyone, but to add insult to injury, they tweak the rules to make the gap even larger, as if those guys needed the league's help to make them even better. Then, to add even more insult to injury, we've all accepted this idea that superstars get the calls. Superstar treatment. 

So not only do defenders have to stop a great player, but they have to do it within a set of rules that benefit the great player, and if there is any close call, superstar treatment says that tie goes to the superstar. 

This is why the Bulls need a superstar. Plain and simple. Basketball is a team sport, but NBA basketball not as much.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't think it's a conspiracy, but it is emphasis. Like you said, rules change to benefit the most profitable players. So not only are the great players better than everyone, but to add insult to injury, they tweak the rules to make the gap even larger, as if those guys needed the league's help to make them even better. Then, to add even more insult to injury, we've all accepted this idea that superstars get the calls. Superstar treatment.


David stern admitted as much yesterday on the Dan Patrick show.....except for the "superstar treatment" part. Like that doesn't happen. 

So not only do defenders have to stop a great player, but they have to do it within a set of rules that benefit the great player, and if there is any close call, superstar treatment says that tie goes to the superstar.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, if the officials are crooked or trying to concoct high ratings scenarios by directive from the NBA executives, then stop watching, unless you really think you are watching pro wrestling.
> 
> I'm tired of all this complaining about officiating. Yah, its frustrating at times, but its the NBA..... if you are not used to it by now, then why watch?
> 
> The better teams win. The better players dominate. Its a fair competition.


And as the playoffs wore on I did stop watching. Free throws are not entertaining. Repeated needless an/ord questionable calls are not entertaining. The only thing that is entertaining anymore in the NBA for me is watching the team I've invested so much time in evolve.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't think it's a conspiracy, but it is emphasis. Like you said, rules change to benefit the most profitable players. So not only are the great players better than everyone, but to add insult to injury, they tweak the rules to make the gap even larger, as if those guys needed the league's help to make them even better. Then, to add even more insult to injury, we've all accepted this idea that superstars get the calls. Superstar treatment.
> 
> So not only do defenders have to stop a great player, but they have to do it within a set of rules that benefit the great player, and if there is any close call, superstar treatment says that tie goes to the superstar.
> 
> This is why the Bulls need a superstar. Plain and simple. Basketball is a team sport, but NBA basketball not as much.


I agree that superstars get the lion's share of calls, but it's because they're usually better than the guy trying to guard them, and they've got the ball in their hands so often. 

I would also argue that the presence of decidedly non-superstar players like Bruce Bowen, Tayshaun Prince, Doug Christie, Theo Ratliff, Eric Snow, etc. on recent All-Defense teams sort of belies the "superstar" theory. It's possible for a non-superstar to play effective defense on superstars (we saw Hinrich and Co. do this to Wade for a lot of the opening round). 

I agree that most toss-up judgment calls go to the superstar. That's not ideal, but it sure beats the overcompensating done by FIBA refs, who go to great pains to negate the differences in talent amongst players. That's far more unwatchable than what goes on in the NBA.

The officials aren't perfect. But when so many calls are snap-judgment interpretative decisions, I don't think it's unusual, or indicative of a caste system, that most of those decisions will go in favor of the player who is faster, quicker, stronger, and has better skills.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I agree that superstars get the lion's share of calls, but it's because they're usually better than the guy trying to guard them, and they've got the ball in their hands so often.
> 
> I would also argue that the presence of decidedly non-superstar players like Bruce Bowen, Tayshaun Prince, Doug Christie, Theo Ratliff, Eric Snow, etc. on recent All-Defense teams sort of belies the "superstar" theory. It's possible for a non-superstar to play effective defense on superstars (we saw Hinrich and Co. do this to Wade for a lot of the opening round).
> 
> ...


The problem is the framework Stern has created for refs to operate in. The refs have far too much impact on the game as it is called now just because Stern wants to shove scoring down our throats. There needs to be far fewer calls on incidental contact.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> And as the playoffs wore on I did stop watching. Free throws are not entertaining. Repeated needless an/ord questionable calls are not entertaining. The only thing that is entertaining anymore in the NBA for me is watching the team I've invested so much time in evolve.


That's too bad. You missed one of the most interesting playoffs that I can remember. There were only two run-of-the-mill series -- Det-Mil and Miami-NJ. Everything else was highly entertaining.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, if the officials are crooked or trying to concoct high ratings scenarios by directive from the NBA executives, then stop watching, unless you really think you are watching pro wrestling.
> 
> I'm tired of all this complaining about officiating. Yah, its frustrating at times, but its the NBA..... if you are not used to it by now, then why watch?
> 
> The better teams win. The better players dominate. Its a fair competition.


It's entertainment. It's not really sport and no, the best team doesn't always win. The better players dominate because both the rules and the officials are designed to acheive that result. 

Fair competition? Hardly. 

So you deny there is such a thing as star treatment? Star treatment = fair competition? You agree with Stern that these are the best officials in any sport? Didn't Shaq just make a comment in the Finals about knowing what he was up against based on the official doing the game? How come the officials in basketball have personalities? Sure football has Ed Hercules, er Ed Hocules, but every basketball official is a Hocules. They ought to be invisible or at least as much as possible.

Here are a couple of columns that openly wonder about this stuff. Think they ought to stop watching too?

*Take your pick: Wade's either full of grit or full of it* 
http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/9509525

*State of the NBA Finals*
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060620

Maybe the rest of us are just waiting for some of the positive changes that we thought we were seeing in this years playoffs.

And btw, do you really think that many people are Heat or Mavericks fans? I don't like either. Yet, I'd be blind to think there wasn't a bias against Dallas in that series.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> That's too bad. You missed one of the most interesting playoffs that I can remember. There were only two run-of-the-mill series -- Det-Mil and Miami-NJ. Everything else was highly entertaining.


I watched until the finals. 

I didn't find the ball all that inspiring. Close games don't necessarily equal entertainment for me.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> And as the playoffs wore on I did stop watching. Free throws are not entertaining. Repeated needless an/ord questionable calls are not entertaining. The only thing that is entertaining anymore in the NBA for me is watching the team I've invested so much time in evolve.


Agreed. And with about 20 seconds left in the game last night did anyone else sense the refs had played their hand a little to closely? I mean, Dallas got just about every chance in the book to make an amazing comeback to force game 7. Where were any of those calls in the previous games (including last night)?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> *Take your pick: Wade's either full of grit or full of it*
> http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/9509525


This article doesn't contain a single word that's relevant to this discussion -- whether there's an officiating bias in favor of superstars and the quality of officiating overall. I'm sorry that Dallas was driven to distraction by Wade's injury status, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. And if you want to castigate Wade for "faking," again, I'll remind you that no one employed the device of injury(real or imagined, severe or minor) as motivator more than Michael Jordan.



> Yet, I'd be blind to think there wasn't a bias against Dallas in that series.


Did bias cause Dallas to choke away a double-digit lead in the last half of the fourth quarter in Game 3?

Did bias cause Dallas to shoot 37% from the field last night? 

Did bias turn Dirk Nowitzki into a passive fourth-quarter jump-shooter who passed the ball off to the likes of Erick Dampier rather than assume the responsibilty of winning?

The. Best. Team. Won. If Avery Johnson recognizes and emphasizes that point, that's good enough for me.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I don't understand why criticism by Bulls fans against either refs or players faking injuries is invalid because Jordan benifited in the past. The word of a hypocrite is not wrong because they are a hypcocrite.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> *Take your pick: Wade's either full of grit or full of it*
> http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/9509525


This kind of stuff has happened as long as I've watched the NBA. Do you think MJ was really close to collapsing from the flu against Utah? These guys have big egos and love to play this warrior stuff up, and the media, if they are stars that they are trying to frame the series around, play it up as well. 

Wade is a great basketball player who takes some nasty spills as he relentlessly attacks the basket. I'm sure he's banged up. Might he have a little drama queen in him? Perhaps, but it does not affect my enjoyment of the game.




> *State of the NBA Finals*
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060620
> 
> Maybe the rest of us are just waiting for some of the positive changes that we thought we were seeing in this years playoffs.


A lot of people are upset that the "new NBA" didn't win... and now are looking for reasons as for why it didn't happen. I don't read Simmons everyday, but when I do he seems to spew his dislike of ball-dominating players like Wade and Pierce.... and singing the praises of Steve Nash and Dirk. Once again, I don't read him every day though. 




> And btw, do you really think that many people are Heat or Mavericks fans? I don't like either. Yet, I'd be blind to think there wasn't a bias against Dallas in that series.


I actually like the Heat. I'm a big SHAQ fan and also have come around to the wade is great camp. There was no bias, IMO. The more aggressive team won. The better team won. Wade was the best player on that basketball court and really the only guy who could impose his will on the game and take it over when he needed to. 

The Heat are a better NBA basketball team than the Mavericks.




I also thought these playoffs were highly entertaining.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> That's too bad. You missed one of the most interesting playoffs that I can remember. There were only two run-of-the-mill series -- Det-Mil and Miami-NJ. Everything else was highly entertaining.


I think the only way the Finals could have been considered highly entertaining was if you enjoyed Wade's free throw touch during his nearly 100 attempts in the series. Could have been the game winning free throws with 1.9 left too. 

Odd that they raved endlessly that he could hit those two clutch free throws but not once did they question such a foul would be called with less than two seconds left.

I never did hear ESPN address the backcourt violation a single time. What was the outcome on that complaint?

Or how about the effective game winner last night when Wade pushes off on Nowitzki with the Heat up 91-90. Star vs. Star right? 

To be honest, this should have been an entertaining series. You have no dog in the hunt so you can just sit back and enjoy. No need to get involved in the series as one would with the Bulls playing. It probably also makes it easier to objectively view the state of the NBA.

Unfortunately something tells me the NBA already envisions Wade vs. Lebron for the next decade. Maybe we'll get lucky and get the "next thing" in Oden.

It does pose an interesting question. Are you better off getting a vet like Odom or Marion or are you better off gambling that the #2 pick turns into the "next thing"? Wade is the darling of the NBA now and that was with a #5 pick. What if Thomas, Roy, Morrison or Gay is the next thing and we opt for a "nice" vet in a trade? Maybe Paxson executing the #2 pick IS being bold!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> I think the only way the Finals could have been considered highly entertaining was if you enjoyed Wade's free throw touch during his nearly 100 attempts in the series. Could have been the game winning free throws with 1.9 left too.


Wade is a spectacular player who is nigh on impossible to guard. He got the majority of those calls on emphatic, skilled, unflinching drives to the basket. He earned his trips to the stripe.



> Odd that they raved endlessly that he could hit those two clutch free throws but not once did they question such a foul would be called with less than two seconds left.


If what you truly want is a cleanly and correctly called game, I don't know what your beef is with that play. Wade was fouled, and the refs called it. End of story.



> I never did hear ESPN address the backcourt violation a single time. What was the outcome on that complaint?


Not a backcourt violation -- in the last two minutes, inbounds passes can go to the backcourt no matter where the inbounder is. Even from the baseline.



> Or how about the effective game winner last night when Wade pushes off on Nowitzki with the Heat up 91-90. Star vs. Star right?


A clear foul and a really stupid play by Nowitzki. 



> To be honest, this should have been an entertaining series. You have no dog in the hunt so you can just sit back and enjoy. No need to get involved in the series as one would with the Bulls playing. It probably also makes it easier to objectively view the state of the NBA.


It was an extremely entertaining series. You had a legendary performance by Wade (I'm sorry his FT trips took away your attention from the boatload of amazing, high-degree-of-difficulty, clutch shots he made). You had a terrific performance by Nowitzki. You had Shaq making a successful transition to role player. You had so-called malcontents and cancers like Antoine Walker, Jerry Stackhouse, Erick Dampier, Jason Williams, etc. playing their guts out and doing whatever it took to win (this was my favorite angle to the series). You saw fantastic coaching from a relative newcomer, and you saw Riley reinvigorating the "best coach ever" debate. 



> Unfortunately something tells me the NBA already envisions Wade vs. Lebron for the next decade. Maybe we'll get lucky and get the "next thing" in Oden.


It's a star's league because unlike almost any other sport, individuals can have such a profound impact on the outcome. The league had Bird and Magic. It had MJ. It has Shaq. It has Duncan. It has the younger guys. It will always put a premium on the superior individual player. 



> It does pose an interesting question. Are you better off getting a vet like Odom or Marion or are you better off gambling that the #2 pick turns into the "next thing"? Wade is the darling of the NBA now and that was with a #5 pick. What if Thomas, Roy, Morrison or Gay is the next thing and we opt for a "nice" vet in a trade? Maybe Paxson executing the #2 pick IS being bold!


You take the best player you can possibly get either with the pick or via trade. That's simple.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> This article doesn't contain a single word that's relevant to this discussion -- whether there's an officiating bias in favor of superstars and the quality of officiating overall. I'm sorry that Dallas was driven to distraction by Wade's injury status, but that's their fault, not anyone else's. And if you want to castigate Wade for "faking," again, I'll remind you that no one employed the device of injury(real or imagined, severe or minor) as motivator more than Michael Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the article goes hand in hand with the discussion of Jordan. If he's worked into the conversation, I think the Wade article fits. My point is this is more about entertainment than sport. It's more about marketing than reality. 

The NBA and it's marketing partners want to validate greatness. My beef is the greatness they are looking for is always about the individual. Its as if they must shamelessly prostitute the individual in order to sell the overall product. Sorry, just not that appealing to me. I've said in years past I thought the Bulls were becoming overly whining in the second three-peat and the level of MJ "calls" was approaching obscenity. Only in the NBA can MJ shove Bryan Russell halfway across the court to get the game winner and the NBA only focus on "the shot". 

Did Dallas choke the 13 pt lead? They lost, right? Again, in an earlier post I point out that NBA officiating is also designed to allow teams the opportunity to get back in. Call it home court advantage, whatever. Did the officals give Dallas every opportunity to get back in last night in the last 20 seconds or so? Absolutely.

Shooting Pct? Nonsense. If you're fouled while shooting and don't get a call thats a lower pct. If you get the call thats a better pct. Theres a reason why guys like Wade, even MJ can shoot 50%. Plenty of their missed shots get erased by the whistle.

Does it really matter if Dirk shot a jump shot or passed it to his teammate? If its a fair competition its all about putting the ball in the hole more than the other guy. I'd just prefer it had less to do with the refs helping you accomplish your goal.

As for Avery, you expected him to say what? You're telling me you've never lost a game and then shaken the hands of your opponent all the while thinking you'd prefer to strangle them? :biggrin: 

It sounds like you're employing the Laker defense. Wasn't it about 2002 when Sacramento clearly beat the Lakers in LA, yet the officiating GAVE the game to the Lakers. When the series returned to Sacramento and the Lakers won there and everyone said yeah, the Kings got jobbed in LA, but they lost the deciding game on their own court so it was their fault. I just don't see the logic. In a fair competition they would have already won. Sort of like the Pittsburgh fans blaming the 62-year old woman for making an illegal left turn. Roethlisberger didn't have a license, so if he wasn't driving illegally he wouldn't have been injured in the first place.

I also believe teams tend to go to the hole less when they don't score and don't get the call. It simply becomes a harder shot than a jumper. The risk/reward just isn't there. In contrast, just about everytime Wade goes he'll be rewarded with free throws. Risk/reward makes it a worthwile adventure to keep attacking.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> This kind of stuff has happened as long as I've watched the NBA. Do you think MJ was really close to collapsing from the flu against Utah? These guys have big egos and love to play this warrior stuff up, and the media, if they are stars that they are trying to frame the series around, play it up as well.
> 
> Wade is a great basketball player who takes some nasty spills as he relentlessly attacks the basket. I'm sure he's banged up. Might he have a little drama queen in him? Perhaps, but it does not affect my enjoyment of the game.
> 
> ...


I don't deny Wade is a great basketball player. I just don't think its entertaining that he is rewarded by prostituting his talents. Or to put it more eloquently, he's better than that.

How is Wade jumping into defenders and falling down like a sissy after every shot entertaining? How is Wade shooting 100 free throws entertaining?

The Heat may be better than the Mavericks. I was hoping we'd find out. I didn't.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Wade is a spectacular player who is nigh on impossible to guard. He got the majority of those calls on emphatic, skilled, unflinching drives to the basket. He earned his trips to the stripe.


And what % did he get based on star treatment or imaginary foul calls? Lets keep in mind they won by 2 pts and 1pt in overtime at home.




> If what you truly want is a cleanly and correctly called game, I don't know what your beef is with that play. Wade was fouled, and the refs called it. End of story.


Thats your opinion. I view the sport as a semi-contact sport not a non-contact sport. 



> Not a backcourt violation -- in the last two minutes, inbounds passes can go to the backcourt no matter where the inbounder is. Even from the baseline.


The question is whether a player established in the frontcourt can jump in the air, catch the ball and then land in the backcourt. My understanding is that would be a backcourt violation, but I don't read the NBA rules per se.



> A clear foul and a really stupid play by Nowitzki.


Oh, come on now - you're clearly better than that ScottMay! :clown: 



> It was an extremely entertaining series. You had a legendary performance by Wade (I'm sorry his FT trips took away your attention from the boatload of amazing, high-degree-of-difficulty, clutch shots he made). You had a terrific performance by Nowitzki. You had Shaq making a successful transition to role player. You had so-called malcontents and cancers like Antoine Walker, Jerry Stackhouse, Erick Dampier, Jason Williams, etc. playing their guts out and doing whatever it took to win (this was my favorite angle to the series). You saw fantastic coaching from a relative newcomer, and you saw Riley reinvigorating the "best coach ever" debate.


You make a nice pitch for the series. Perhaps you should work for the NBA. At the very least you'd be more entertaining than Breene and Brown.



> It's a star's league because unlike almost any other sport, individuals can have such a profound impact on the outcome. The league had Bird and Magic. It had MJ. It has Shaq. It has Duncan. It has the younger guys. It will always put a premium on the superior individual player.


Thats fine, but theres also a point where it crosses the line. For me, we're there.





> You take the best player you can possibly get either with the pick or via trade. That's simple.


It's not simple because you know what Marion and Odom are. Do you know what kind of career one of those rookies will have? The next Bird or Wade could be in this draft. Who knows. Even with my hiatus, the crystal ball still isn't what it ought to be.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> And what % did he get based on star treatment or imaginary foul calls? Lets keep in mind they won by 2 pts and 1pt in overtime at home.


I'd say no more than any other star who takes it to the rack on a regular basis gets.






> Thats your opinion. I view the sport as a semi-contact sport not a non-contact sport.


That is the way I like to play and the game I like to see as well. However, there are rules and the refs were calling the rules. I moan because they don't follow the rules re double dribble, palming and travelling. I can't very well fault them for actually making calls for other infractions, like contact.





> The question is whether a player established in the frontcourt can jump in the air, catch the ball and then land in the backcourt. My understanding is that would be a backcourt violation, but I don't read the NBA rules per se.


Perhaps you should defend the point by reading the rules and reporting back. Don't make a conclusion and leave it in someone else's court to do the heavy lifting.



> Oh, come on now - you're clearly better than that ScottMay! :clown:


Link? Source? 




> You make a nice pitch for the series. Perhaps you should work for the NBA. At the very least you'd be more entertaining than Breene and Brown.


Cheap, ad hominim shot.





> Thats fine, but theres also a point where it crosses the line. For me, we're there.


I don't like the star system one bit. I think the Mark Madsens of the league should get the same calls/no calls as the Shaqs. Doesn't seem to be any chance of that happening, however.




> It's not simple because you know what Marion and Odom are. Do you know what kind of career one of those rookies will have? The next Bird or Wade could be in this draft. Who knows. Even with my hiatus, the crystal ball still isn't what it ought to be.


Not quite following you there. Of course, every draft pick is an unknown. You take the best one, based on the homework you've done, and what you need to make your team better. Or, if you are convinced you will get a better player in trade, and have a trade partner who will make you better, you do that.

Its all about doing the best you can to improve the team. Right?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> I think the only way the Finals could have been considered highly entertaining was if you enjoyed Wade's free throw touch during his nearly 100 attempts in the series. Could have been the game winning free throws with 1.9 left too.
> 
> Odd that they raved endlessly that he could hit those two clutch free throws but not once did they question such a foul would be called with less than two seconds left.
> 
> ...


I certainly did not have a dog in the finals hunt. If I favored any team it was Miami, since they beat the Bulls and since they had two locals (Wade & Walker) playing for them. Game 6 was the only game I took time to watch in it's entirety, although I followed the series on the web and in the papers. 

The officials in that game 6 were some of the NBA's best -- and it was evident that early in the game that Dallas was not getting the usual home-court courtesy calls that we have become accustomed to seeing in the NBA. 

Fine, That's the way things should be. Dallas was beating Miami anyway. But by the second quarter, it was clear that Wade was going to be getting phantom fouls until the Dallas bench was depleted and that Nowitski wasn't going to get his usual aliquot of deference calls. 

In the second half the officiating disparity wore away at the Mavericks. Five extra fouls and 14 extra foul shots is too much of an advantage to give a quality opponent. The end of the game comically featured a spray of questionable calls in favor of Dallas that I perceived to be "make up" calls for a decisive phantom foul called on Nowitski when he was guarding Wade in the last minute. 

High theater this game was not. From what I hear, the same could be said for the series in general. 



Kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, if the officials are crooked or trying to concoct high ratings scenarios by directive from the NBA executives, then stop watching, unless you really think you are watching pro wrestling.
> 
> I'm tired of all this complaining about officiating. Yah, its frustrating at times, but its the NBA..... if you are not used to it by now, then why watch?


Trust me, Kukoc4ever, unbalanced officiating and excessive foul shooting has never been an attractive feature of the NBA. It was worse than ever this year. In the long run the practice has, and will continue to lose them fans, including lifelong fans like myself. 

Why watch? How is the NBA doing on national TV compared to other sports? My guess it's doing better than Hockey, which killed itself with stupid fistfights. Definitely better than pro boxing and bowling. It may still be leading pro wrestling, which features some of the better athletes in the world. But it is trailing baseball, football, ballroom dancing, golf, and World Cup Soccer. In my case old habits are hard to break, but if prices and practices in the NBA keep going the way they are, the league will be a tough sell to my wife and daughters compared to the Sky.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Why watch? How is the NBA doing on national TV compared to other sports? My guess it's doing better than Hockey, which killed itself with stupid fistfights. Definitely better than pro boxing and bowling. It may still be leading pro wrestling, which features some of the better athletes in the world. But it is trailing baseball, football, ballroom dancing and golf. In my case old habits are hard to break, but if prices and practices in the NBA keep going the way they are, the league will be a tough sell to my wife and daughters compared to the Sky.


The ratings for the NBA are up.

It's important to remember officiating in the NBA is tough. It's a very tough game to officiate, and yes, it can be a lot better. But to suggest that the refs are in league with Stern to tip a series one way or the other is problematic - the refs and Stern don't have good relations and haven't had good relations since the labor trouble. Plus it means all of the league owners agree with Stern to tip the series one way or the other. He is an employee of the owners. 

Dallas lost because their strategy sucked big time.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> A clear foul and a really stupid play by Nowitzki.


Ok. I need you to explain that one to me. The only contact that occured on that foul was clearly created by Wade putting his fist in Nowitzki's stomach. Also, why was it stupid on Nowitzki's part? He was doing what you suggested earlier in the thread to guard wade- double teaming. That should have been a no call.

I agree with you to an extent that yes, Dwyane earns a lot of his free throws by driving to the basket and taking advantage of the rules changes to draw fouls. 

However, I also think that a higher percentage of his free throws than you let on occur as a result of the types of tactics guys like Reggie Miller and Karl Malone were maligned for back in the day, such as falling down after shooting a jumpshot even when he wasn't touch to draw a foul, or pumpfaking then blatantly jumping into the defender to draw fouls. But I don't really think thats a result of bias either. Those types of moves have become an accepted part a good deal of the league's big scorers' movesets, and the refs let the guys get away with it. I just personally hate that aspect of the game. I guess you can get some enjoyment out of how crafty the offensive player is, but I think that **** is wack. 

Do you personally enjoy the way the game more than in the early 90's? Do you like free throw inflated scores? I don't, and even if I did enjoy watching free throws, I don't think that on the whole scoring has increased to the extent that all the touch fouls are justified. I personally enjoyed seeing someone like Scottie Pippen get up in a guys grill and harass him down the length of the court, I was raised on those types of denfensive battles(which a lot of the time still ended up with higher Final scores than today's games), but right now thats not possible. Defensive players have been neutered.

I also agree with you that Wade was clearly the best player out there. I think Nowitzki got plenty of BS calls himself, but he didn't take advantage the way Wade did. I also acknowledge that Wade managed to take advantage of the officiating the way he did because of of his skill, quickness, relentlessness, etc allowed him to keep attacking the defense. Not to mention the actual shots from the field that he put in. 

Doesn't change the fact that the refs played far too large a hand in what happened.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Why watch? How is the NBA doing on national TV compared to other sports? My guess it's doing better than Hockey, which killed itself with stupid fistfights. Definitely better than pro boxing and bowling. It may still be leading pro wrestling, which features some of the better athletes in the world. But it is trailing baseball, football, ballroom dancing, golf, and World Cup Soccer. In my case old habits are hard to break, but if prices and practices in the NBA keep going the way they are, the league will be a tough sell to my wife and daughters compared to the Sky.


The only sport the NBA consistently trails in ratings is the NFL. Baseball ratings are way, way down from their peak, and ratings for ALL sporting events sans the Super Bowl are at all-time lows.

This particular NBA playoff set all kinds of ratings records on the cable side, and I believe the games in Miami were the highest-rated TV shows of any kind for the week.

Due to cable, Internet, etc., ratings will likely never again approach what they did during the Jordan years. But as a sports TV property, given its more youthful demographic and the giant drug/revenue sharing problems plaguing baseball, it's firmly in second place behind the NFL.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Ok. I need you to explain that one to me. The only contact that occured on that foul was clearly created by Wade putting his fist in Nowitzki's stomach. Also, why was it stupid on Nowitzki's part? He was doing what you suggested earlier in the thread to guard wade- double teaming. That should have been a no call.


I think Nowitzki took a poor angle on that play, and I think he initiated the contact. All Wade's warding off did was prevent Nowitzki from running Wade over.



> Do you personally enjoy the way the game more than in the early 90's? Do you like free throw inflated scores? I don't, and even if I did enjoy watching free throws, I don't think that on the whole scoring has increased to the extent that all the touch fouls are justified. I personally enjoyed seeing someone like Scottie Pippen get up in a guys grill and harass him down the length of the court, I was raised on those types of denfensive battles(which a lot of the time still ended up with higher Final scores than today's games), but right now thats not possible. Defensive players have been neutered.


I probably don't enjoy the game more than than I did in the 80s or 90s, but not because of how the games were called. I'm not going to do the research to back this up, but I doubt very much that there's been a recent spike in FTAs or fouls called or FTs as a % of total points. I think that the individual players in the NBA are as good as they've ever been, but expansion has kind of prevented any single TEAM from reaching a point where they could be considered on a par with the 90s Bulls, 80s Celtics/Lakers, etc. The Spurs can certainly make a case for that if they win another title or two.



> Doesn't change the fact that the refs played far too large a hand in what happened.


I think when you look at what happened in the baseball playoffs and Super Bowl, the NBA refs officiated a solid playoffs. There were some blips here and there, but at no point did they decide the outcome of any individual game or series, and I don't even think they unduly influenced any outcome.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

narek said:


> The ratings for the NBA are up.
> 
> It's important to remember officiating in the NBA is tough. It's a very tough game to officiate, and yes, it can be a lot better. But to suggest that the refs are in league with Stern to tip a series one way or the other is problematic - the refs and Stern don't have good relations and haven't had good relations since the labor trouble. Plus it means all of the league owners agree with Stern to tip the series one way or the other. He is an employee of the owners.
> 
> Dallas lost because their strategy sucked big time.


I doubt that there was a conspiracy between the refs and Stern as well. On the other hand, its entirely possible that the refs took exception to Cubans outburst at the end of the 5th game and were less inclined to administer the usual homecourt nicities to Dalls, or to cease and desist calling phantom fouls for Wade.

No doubt basketball is a difficult sport to officiate. But it's odd that I don't have the same complaints when watching the NCAA tournament, womens pro basketball, or FIBA basketball. Officials make bad calls there as well, but systematic shading of the rules in favor of certain players or the home court team are not as evident. The practice has become habitual in the NBA, which is the reason why so many professional NBA veteran players spend valuable time and energy during the game whining to officials about so many calls.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I doubt that there was a conspiracy between the refs and Stern as well. On the other hand, its entirely possible that the refs took exception to Cubans outburst at the end of the 5th game and were less inclined to administer the usual homecourt nicities to Dalls, or to cease and desist calling phantom fouls for Wade.


There is almost certainly some truth to that. Cuban upstaged the refs, called them out and tried to make them look bad.

Even if it was not entirely a coordinated plot, it is not hard to imagine that none of the officials was in the spirit of giving Dallas many breaks.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> No doubt basketball is a difficult sport to officiate. But it's odd that I don't have the same complaints when watching the NCAA tournament, womens pro basketball, or FIBA basketball. Officials make bad calls there as well, but systematic shading of the rules in favor of certain players or the home court team are not as evident. The practice has become habitual in the NBA, which is the reason why so many professional NBA veteran players spend valuable time and energy during the game whining to officials about so many calls.


You honestly don't think that the big-time programs with Hall of Fame coaches don't get the officials' benefit of the doubt in the tourney?

I can't speak to what goes on in women's pro basketball. I can't imagine watching a second of it (no offense meant to anyone).

I wouldn't follow sports, period, if they were all officiated the way FIBA officiates basketball. They let Tim Duncan get sliced and hacked to pieces because he's better than the other players and should just fight through it. This is a good thing?

Oh, and then there's the matter of the '72 gold medal game. Can you point to anything even remotely similar that's happened in the NBA?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I think Nowitzki took a poor angle on that play, and I think he initiated the contact. All Wade's warding off did was prevent Nowitzki from running Wade over.


I strongly disagree with that, but we don't have a replay to look at, so whatever.



ScottMay said:


> I'm not going to do the research to back this up, but I doubt very much that there's been a recent spike in FTAs or fouls called or FTs as a % of total points.


I actually saw something that showed that there aren't really much more fouls called on average than in the past, though I personally can't remember as many games where teams have shot 40 or 50 free throws as I have this year, but regardless, much of my problem is with the *types* of foul couls we see today. If it was all a result of guys going to the rack, then I couldn't complain. As it is, I see way too much incidental contact and touch fouls called and too much of an emphasis on Reggieesque "fou drawing" tactics. And as to the %age of total points thing, well, I guess that would depend on what you consider recent.




ScottMay said:


> I think when you look at what happened in the baseball playoffs and Super Bowl, the NBA refs officiated a solid playoffs. There were some blips here and there, but at no point did they decide the outcome of any individual game or series, and I don't even think they unduly influenced any outcome.


I think they to a large extent influenced Dallas/San Antonio. The Mavs lose games 3 and 4 of that series without ticky tac foul calls very late in games.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

McBulls said:


> I doubt that there was a conspiracy between the refs and Stern as well. On the other hand, its entirely possible that the refs took exception to Cubans outburst at the end of the 5th game and were less inclined to administer the usual homecourt nicities to Dalls, or to cease and desist calling phantom fouls for Wade.
> 
> No doubt basketball is a difficult sport to officiate. But it's odd that I don't have the same complaints when watching the NCAA tournament, womens pro basketball, or FIBA basketball. Officials make bad calls there as well, but systematic shading of the rules in favor of certain players or the home court team are not as evident. The practice has become habitual in the NBA, which is the reason why so many professional NBA veteran players spend valuable time and energy during the game whining to officials about so many calls.


You need to watch more Duke games. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I think Nowitzki took a poor angle on that play, and I think he initiated the contact. All Wade's warding off did was prevent Nowitzki from running Wade over.


Look, I'm with you on the Wade thing for the most part as I wrote earlier in this thread. He was getting fouled and Dallas couldn't guard him. Hence, the free throws. I don't really have a problem with the way the series was officiated and the Heat deserved to win. 

But you need to watch that play again. Wade just forearm-shivered Dirk plain and simple. He blatantly initiated the contact and it was an egregious offensive foul. 

That foul call is indefensible.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Perhaps somebody who has "done the research" can comment on what appears to be an obvious disparity, at least to the naked eye.

Wade is fouled so much that many suggest it is star treatment or phantom calls. Others watch replay after replay hoping to show that there was some actual contact. Yet time and time again, the whistle blows and off to the line he goes.

Meanwhile, Hinrich can get absolutely mugged going to the hole and gets no call... time after time after time. 

And how does that shake out here? Wade is a stud. Wade can finish above the rim. We need a Wade. I say, how about when Hinrich goes to the rim and actually gets fouled, the NBA puts him on the line too? Is that really asking too much?

And don't even get started on the difference in continuation calls for stars vs. non-stars.

Sure, talk about the Dallas FG%, a missed FT, a turnover, a timeout, whatever. But don't address the fact that Wade and the Heat benefitted from an obscene advantage in officiating only to prevail by 1 and 2 pts at home.

The best team won? Ok.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I wouldn't follow sports, period, if they were all officiated the way FIBA officiates basketball. They let Tim Duncan get sliced and hacked to pieces because he's better than the other players and should just fight through it. This is a good thing?
> 
> Oh, and then there's the matter of the '72 gold medal game. Can you point to anything even remotely similar that's happened in the NBA?


I don't think anyone is arguing for FIBA officiating. I believe the argument is for fair officiating. Same call for all players.

There was a great one hour special on the '72 game recently, did you see it?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> You honestly don't think that the big-time programs with Hall of Fame coaches don't get the officials' benefit of the doubt in the tourney?


Maybe it's because I'm entirely dispassionate about the different teams in the NCAA tournament (I don't bet, and have no particular loyalty to individual teams), but I just haven't seen systematic shading of the rules for one team or the other. Occasionally, I have noticed that a demonstrative coach can affect the behavior of officials for a while, but that is not routine.



ScottMay said:


> I can't speak to what goes on in women's pro basketball. I can't imagine watching a second of it (no offense meant to anyone).


Check it out, you're missing some good basketball.



ScottMay said:


> Oh, and then there's the matter of the '72 gold medal game. Can you point to anything even remotely similar that's happened in the NBA?


I knew the '72 gold medal game would come up. The US got jobbed in that and several other games in that era. But that was a long time ago, and it wasn't a good thing for olympic basketball either. The officiating in the Olympics and the world games more recently has been very good and balanced.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Look, I'm with you on the Wade thing for the most part as I wrote earlier in this thread. He was getting fouled and Dallas couldn't guard him. Hence, the free throws. I don't really have a problem with the way the series was officiated and the Heat deserved to win.
> 
> But you need to watch that play again. Wade just forearm-shivered Dirk plain and simple. He blatantly initiated the contact and it was an egregious offensive foul.
> 
> That foul call is indefensible.


We'll just have to agree to disagree. I thought it was called appropriately. It's legal to protect your dribble with your off hand, and Wade beat Nowitzki to the spot.

The crowd reacted lustily to the call, but the Mavs didn't. There was no mention of that specific call even being controversial in any of the game post-mortems I've read today -- ESPN, Miami Herald, Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Star Telegram, etc.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

An explanation of the over-and-back non-call:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2006/news/story?id=2492756


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> *The crowd reacted lustily to the call, but the Mavs didn't.* There was no mention of that specific call even being controversial in any of the game post-mortems I've read today -- ESPN, Miami Herald, Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Star Telegram, etc.


At first glance, thought Nowitzki had thrown his mouthguard after the call and he seemed pretty upset to me. I mean, he didn't kick the ball or choke an exercise machine, but he did seem to disagree pretty emphatically.

As for the media, you seem to discount the media that does believe there was some real problems with the officiating so why would that matter anyway?

I'm guessing much like Avery Johnson and the Mavericks themselves, most of the media is inclined to accept the results and move on.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> An explanation of the over-and-back non-call:
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2006/news/story?id=2492756


Thanks for the explanation. Do you happen to know if thats the rule at all levels?


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree. I thought it was called appropriately. It's legal to protect your dribble with your off hand, and Wade beat Nowitzki to the spot.


It looks like you saw it as Wade protecting his dribble with his off-hand while I saw it as Wade creating all of the contact by throwing his off-hand into Dirk. The former is a non-call, the latter is an offensive foul. In either case, it shouldn't be a foul on Dirk.

That play did not single-handedly decide the game like the call in Game 5 (which I still feel wasn't a foul, but is certainly arguable), but they were two HUGE FTs. Still, if Avery hadn't gotten thoroughly out-coached late in that game (setting up a play for Dampier of all people? It worked once in Game 5, don't press your luck), Dallas may be practicing for Game 7 right now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Another pic of "The Foul."

Looks like he had two hands on him, not just one.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)




----------

