Oh, those power-hungry refs

The NBA expanded the guidelines on technicals over the offseason. Most seemed to think it was crazy at the time. It took almost half of the season, but we finally have some visual evidence that cracking down on player behavior was, in fact, crazy:

For those counting at home, that’s five total technicals on three players and a coach in less than ten seconds. The game descended from a competitive game to a complete farce in less than ten seconds.

That scene is really a microcosm of why no one cares about the NBA. At least when other sports’ games turn into a farce that quickly, it gives fans some form of entertainment. A bench-clearing brawl in baseball, a hockey fight, a massive car wreck in NASCAR – these are all perversely exciting. In the NBA, a team gets five free points because three players apparently sighed.

It is hard to tell based on those camera angles exactly what the players did to deserve technicals, but it could not have been that bad. By my estimation, there were only 47 people in the crowd for the game.* If one of those players actually said something worthy of a technical, we would have heard it echo.

* The Timberwolves drew a reported 11,209 to the game against the Spurs, the team with the best record in the NBA. The Target Center’s capacity is 19,500. Even using the Timberwolves’ very generous attendance figure, the arena was barely half full for the game.

LeBron recently was criticized for suggesting contraction. If your product is a distant fourth among major sports teams in only the 16th largest metropolitan area in the United States…well, contraction can’t be THAT bad of an idea.

I have lived in Minneapolis for four years but I have never gone to a Timberwolves game. The $10 ticket price is about $8.75 more than I think they are worth. But if I was a fan, I would be pretty upset about these technicals. At this point in the game, my 9-29 T-Wolves were only trailing the 31-6 Spurs by six in the second half. Just like that, the lead expands to eleven and the game is pretty much over. Minnesota did not get back within eight the rest of the way.


You’d think this would be the part where I rip on the referee for getting a little out of control. That would be too easy.

The real problem is with the league. A new rule or a rule change/interpretation should be implemented for one of these four – and only these four – reasons:

1. A rule is ambiguous as written;

2. A team has an unfair advantage under the current rules;

3. There are safety concerns;

4. Modern technology becomes available to make certain calls easier.

That’s it. Sometimes these rules do not pan out. Changing the rules on helmet-to-helmet contact in the middle of the NFL season was silly. But at least it was understandable. In principle, nobody thinks that launching at somebody’s helmet with your own helmet is a good idea. The increased fines midseason was a poorly executed plan, but the idea behind it was reasonable.

The commonality between these four reasons is simple: they are all real problems for a sport. The new rules seek to solve the problems. #1, 2, and 4 go to the integrity of the game. #3 goes to safety. Most people would agree that integrity and safety are important issues – perhaps even the most important issues in sports.

You know what’s not a real problem? Whiny players that complain. Granted, in certain situations, players that complain could be a problem, but it is a made-up problem, not a real one. Of course these are sports and to a certain degree all of these problems are made up, but let me explain what I mean by a real vs. a made-up problem.

A real problem means that something is intrinsically wrong with your sport. A real problem is not sport-specific; it would affect any sport the same way. For example, “a lot of our players are dying of brain-related problems in their 40s, and pretty soon our sport might die out because no parent in their right mind will let their kid play.” Or “our fans are starting to really question our impartiality because we refuse to fix our umpire’s blatant mistakes with readily available technology.” Those are real problems.

A made-up problem is context-specific. It is only a problem because someone said it was a problem. As in, “grrr…it makes me so mad when that player shows emotion after an amazing touchdown run.” Or “how dare that man sigh to the referee when he is already overpaid by $8 million a year.” Those are only problems because someone with power decided that they were. Nothing about those problems are intrinsic to sports. If that were the case, European soccer would spontaneously cease to exist.

The NBA argued that the problem was equivalent to the umpire problem in baseball. According to the ESPN.com article, the senior vice president of referee operations said that audience research was a major factor in making these changes. I’m not buying it. First, who made up the audience in this research? Unless it was made up of 70-year old white dudes longing for the good ol’ days and angry columnists that are running out of story ideas, I’m not sure the audience is representative of NBA fans as a whole.

Second, even if the audience was mildly annoyed by the player complaints, I can’t imagine that giving the other team five free throws would be their answer to the problem. At least the 82 Timberwolf fans in the audience would agree. Unless the secret goal was to further turn off an already fragile fan base, I would say the crackdown failed miserably.

So was the referee power hungry? Absolutely. But I don’t blame him. I blame the out-of-touch NBA executives that empowered him to pull off such nonsense. That’s what happens when you use real solutions to solve made-up problems.*

* And yes, I will be republishing the same article next fall when the NCAA starts punishing after touchdown celebrations as live-ball fouls. I give it until Week 3 before the first game-changing touchdown gets called back in the closing seconds. Hell shall be raised.


3 Responses to Oh, those power-hungry refs

  1. jhg says:

    There’s nothing like watching Eric Gregg call a Maddux game. That’s enough reason to keep from wanting instant replay in baseball.

  2. Rick says:

    I love on Mondays when the sports radio show here reads off the ratings from the week before and not once has an NBA game made it into the top 25 since I’ve been paying attention.

    Also, I’ll be looking forward to your NCAA article regarding the live ball celebration fouls… as there is no way the season finishes without a game changing moment that should have never been called.

  3. sethbeccard says:

    Yeah I agree on the Eric Gregg comment, although we probably could have used him when Livan Hernandez pitched for the Twins. I don’t think instant replay will be good for balls and strikes, but I think eventually it’ll be necessary on base calls and fair/foul balls with more Armando Galarraga and Joe Mauer incidents.

    And that NCAA article is coming – it’ll be an easy article because I can just run a find and replace with the NBA and the NCAA. I picked Week 3 because I think that was about when Jake Locker scored that touchdown over BYU to pull within 1 in the closing seconds a couple year, then got the flag and they missed the PAT from the 18. That was ridiculous then…imagine if it completely wiped away the touchdown.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: