As mentioned in my earlier post, disgraced NBA referree Timothy Donaghy has essentially accused the NBA of fixing games. In his sentencing letter (linked in my earlier post), he makes a thinly-veiled reference to game six of the Lakers-Sacramento series in 2002:
Referees A, F, and G were officiating a playoff series between the Team 5 and Team 6 in May of 2002. It was the sixth game of a seven-game series, and a Team 5 victory that night would have ended the series. However, [I] learned from Referee A that Referees A and F wanted to extend the series to seven games. [I] knew Refereees A and F to be "company men," always acting in the interest of the NBA, and that night, it was in the NBA's interest to add another game to the series.
Ralph Nader complained about this game to NBA Commissioner Stern at the time in a letter that can be found here. What he wrote at the time takes on a whole new cast now:
Calls by referees in the NBA are likely to be more subjective than in professional baseball or football. But as the judicious and balanced Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon wrote this Sunday, too many of the calls in the fourth quarter (when the Lakers received 27 foul shots) were "stunningly incorrect," all against Sacramento. After noting that the three referees in Game 6 "are three of the best in the game," he wrote: "I have never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad as that in Game 6....When Pollard, on his sixth and final foul, didn't as much as touch Shaq. Didn't touch any part of him. You could see it on TV, see it at courtside. It wasn't a foul in any league in the world. And Divac, on his fifth foul, didn't foul Shaq. They weren't subjective or borderline or debatable. And these fouls not only resulted in free throws, they helped disqualify Sacramento's two low-post defenders." And one might add, in a 106-102 Lakers' victory, this officiating took away what would have been a Sacramento series victory in 6 games.
This was not all. The Kobe Bryant elbow in the nose of Mike Bibby, who after lying on the floor groggy, went to the sideline bleeding, was in full view of the referee, who did nothing, prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials.
Wilbon discounted any conspiracy theories about the NBA-NBC desire for a Game 7 etc., but unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound and lead to more distrust and distaste for the games in general.
Nader makes a point that I agree with: The NBA should not prohibit coaches and players from criticizing referees, on penalty of substantial fines.
Donahy's suggestions, contained in his letter, are less helpful. He suggests "that the league train referees to treat all players equally, regardless of popularity. This policy would help ensure that referees officiate games fairly." Well, yeah, but how are you going to do that?
UPDATE: As pointed out by a VC reader, there's a good, balanced discussion of the issue over at Salon, found here.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Is the NBA Trying to Silence Donaghy?
- Was Ralph Nader Right About the NBA's Failure to Investigate Bad Refs?
- Does the NBA Rig Games?
shhhhh ... not to be discussed.
No harm, no foul. Eugene should have taught him about robots.txt.
Eugene, so what exactly DO you include in your emails to Judge Kozinski?
Kozinski's naughtiness problem
what does everyone think about judge alex kozinski's porn pics?
Nothing I've read has indicated that they are illegal per se. I'm not so prudish as to criticize his taste beyond that.
As to the actual post, there's no question to me that Game Six was screwy.
As far as Kozinski goes, it probably is rude to flout the Conspirators, but. . . disagreements I may have with him notwithstanding, this quote from the link in Volokh Groupie’s comment makes me admire his honesty and common sense:
"Is it prurient? I don't know what to tell you," he told the newspaper [about the pictures on his website]. "I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life."
Nick
They are amazing displays of athletic ability, but seem to have little to do with basketball.
aoWhat a ridiculous question.
Nader was right about the NBA in 2002 and he's right for America now in 2008.
Oh, I doubt they do. Pro wrestling is America's other original art form and I suspect its devotees are as aware they're watching a performance as jazz fans are.
Many if not most older wrestling fans know it is completely staged and enjoy it anyways, but there are many on the younger age and low IQ range who do not realize this. Part of the fun of the "sport" is watching how easily the refs get distracted and never learn from their obvious mistakes like not noticing a folding steel chair getting thrown into the ring while their back is turned for 5 seconds.
I recommend the hard to find documentary Beyond The Mat for anyone interested in knowing just how staged wrestling is. Vince McMahon is behind the scenes even telling the commentators word for word what to say besides determining the outcome for matches. It also makes the point that the wrestlers are in legitimate pain and tend to abuse drugs and develop a lot of other problems over the years.
PersonFromPorlock: by jazz do you mean the music or the utah jazz basketball team? I'd say both are performances, of course.
LM: any sport with referees is staged. Which is not to say the players are not great athletes and don't play their hearts out. But it's about making money. I'm not saying every single play of a basketball game is rehearsed and choreographed, with both teams practicing for weeks before the game to 'get it right' ... i'm saying it's like a globetrotters game, and the refs are in on it. They know which team will be more profitable for the company if it wins. So do the players. Put aside gambling for the moment (which also affects a lot of games, but more in regards to the spread than actually who wins... after all what's the harm in missing one shot to beat the spread when you have a 20 point lead? None, jesus doesn't care. All the players and refs work for the company, whether it be the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc. If a game can be influenced in a way that it will make the company's stock go up, that's what will happen.
I always thought it was obvious that NBA refs call fouls (among other things) to influence who wins. That this is some newly uncovered conspiracy is simply amazing to me.
But sports like golf and bowling, with no refs, are not staged, for the most part. Individual players will always miss/lose for betting purposes, but that's all.
Easy to say, and you say it confidently. But confidence isn't evidence. Even accepting that for every notorious incident like the current one there might be others still undetected, you're still pretty low on the hierarchy of corruption Joseph Slater summarized, and nowhere near what you're claiming. Unsupported assertions of players altering their performance in what they believe is the league's economic interest are far-fetched.
And just because something is ipse dixit doesn't mean it's not correct (especially when I say it, heh).