They fined Rick Adelman too... Seems odd that opposing teams would be complaining about the same thing, no?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4108575

It would help if they could count. I know one of Scola's fouls was misplaced in game 4 -- Wheels told me so.

anybody wonder what would lead a sports league to be so weirdly protective that it *fines* any person who even obliquely criticizes its practices in public?

look at that--mysteriously, the Blazers suddenly fouled less than half as much as the last game. despite Oden and Pryzbilla playing *exactly the same*. other stats were about the same.

and they won.

but surely, refereeing has nothing to do with game outcomes.

I think Congress should threaten to revoke their antitrust exemption (assuming NBA has one?) like they always do to MLB and the NFL, unless they adopt uniform officiating standards. This is absurd.

Of course refereeing affects game outcomes. Anybody's who's played sports knows that.

But the NBA, naturally, does not want the story to be about the referees - for any of a thousand obvious reasons. No professional league does. That's why the NFL and MLB have the exact same policies about coaches and players slamming the refs - they drop fines as quickly as the NBA does. A rather profane former Dallas Cowboys coach even had a clause in his Cowboys contract to have the team reimburse him for fines when he criticized the refs - until the NFL made him take it out.

There's nothing creepy here re the fines. Both coaches got dinged for $25K, which is chump change to both.

If the Blazers had lost last night, I'm sure we could all find at least ten judgment calls or non-calls that didn't go the Blazers' way. My favorite from last night was Yao's ability to hip-check Blazers as they drove to the hoop - you'd think someone would notice a guy who's 340-plus and wearing bright red, but that's just me.

But we won, so we act as if the refs did a better job. Human nature, I suppose.

There is no NBA conspiracy to have the Rockets advance. The league would be just as happy promoting the Blazers with their feel-good story and reminding everyone that the Jail Blazers are a thing of the past as it would promoting Yao and his no-name comrades.

The league would be just as happy promoting the Blazers with their feel-good story

You haven't been paying attention. This is the year for the Kobe-Lebron Finals®, and the Blazers can beat the Lakers. So the plan is to give the Lakers a tired version of Houston as their next opponent.

Yes I have been paying attention. The only possible conspiracy here is if David Stern thinks he can tap into the China TV market by having Yao in the playoffs as long as possible (as Wilbon mentioned in his recent column) - but if that's the case then wouldn't Stern want a Houston-Cleveland finals?

This is where the conspiracy talks break down - Yao's (allegedly) the biggest global name in the league, and yet the NBA hasn't found a way to get him into the second round of the playoffs yet in his entire career.

Of course the Blazers can beat the Lakers straight up, but so can Houston now that they aren't saddled with a me-first-last-and-always T-Mac.

Are you saying that the Blazers can't overcome Houston when the fix is in, but they somehow could overcome the mighty Lakers when the fix is in? If it's a foregone conclusion to put Kobe in the finals, why does the league care of Houston is tired or not?

This is where the conspiracy talks break down

wrong. the thing is, there are several valid "conspiracy" scenarios; it's not all or nothing, and it's not necessarily top down. in other words, it's not David Stern or nothing.

officiating is challenging, but it's simply not that hard to recognize a foul. they're clearly defined in the rule book, the refs watch extensive amounts of video--it's crystal clear.

the problem is: professional players commit fouls nearly every possession and defensive effort. they sit in the key too long, they reach around, they push and shove, travel--constantly. Any high school basketball ref can sit you down and show you Shaq committing a foul (either traveling, hooking, or several others) most times he handles the ball.

but you see, this makes it easier to manipulate the game. if games were really called by the rules, star players would foul out within minutes. in fact, nearly every player would.

so, refs pick and choose. they play favorites. they give "veteran calls" and "rookie calls". they let LeBron take three or four steps with the ball. they stand three feet from Kobe, watch him fake the foul on offense, and call it in his favor. or, a ref can stand across the court, out of sight line with Pryzbilla, and call him for two quick fouls on Yao--even though the ref can't actually see behind Yao.

in other words: it doesn't matter if there's a management conspiracy, or other conspiracy--the whole system is the issue.

do I still love basketball? yeah. are they still amazing athletes? yes. but pretending that games are always (or heck, even *often*) decided by athletic endeavor is silly.

[P]retending that games are always (or heck, even *often*) decided by athletic endeavor is silly.

Now that's silly. The refs do not decide games - neither do the coaches. The players do - nobody else. Occasionally the refs exercise undue influence on games, such as when they tagged Oden and Pryzbilla for four first-quarter touch fouls. But historically the "superstar gets the call" practice gets dialed down a notch or two in the playoffs (with notable exceptions).

But the coaches and refs set the stage for the players. If you don't think last night's game was decided by Brandon Roy gutting out a great performance while suffering from the flu, or LA getting his confidence back, or Oden/Pryzbilla playing Spartan defense against Yao, but instead was decided by the three zebras, then I don't know what to tell you.

What the good refs do - and here is where I think the NBA officiating has suffered in recent years - is to bring a high degree of consistency to their calls. Each major league umpire has a unique strike zone, and the best umps are the most consistent with their zones. Same thing for the NBA refs - if the players and coaches know going into the game that Ref X is whistle-happy with low-post contact, then they can adapt accordingly. The glaring issue I see is a remarkable lack of consistency with these refs so the players are left adrift as to how to play.

If the refs are more important to the outcome than the players, then why bother watching?

Blazer fans complain more about officiating than fans of any other NBA franchise. I've lived in enough cities to know. Such pathetic whiners.

I guess you haven't lived in New York or Boston . . .

The refs do not decide games - neither do the coaches. The players do - nobody else. Occasionally the refs exercise undue influence on games

let me see if I heard you right: refs do not decide games, but they occasionally exercise undue influence on games.

if the players and coaches know going into the game that Ref X is whistle-happy with low-post contact, then they can adapt accordingly.

but you said "refs do not decide games".

The glaring issue I see is a remarkable lack of consistency with these refs

but you said "refs do not decide games".

so, if I hear you right, refs are "remarkably inconsistent", "occasionally whistle-happy", "occasionally exercise undue influence", and "set the stage for players"--but they don't decide games?

really?

Blazer fans complain more about officiating than fans of any other NBA franchise.

cool! can you point me to the stats on that? I'm assuming somebody counted the complaints? Post here.

Eco.

If you've ever played a sport, you know that referees do not decide games. You seem to believe that the refs have a set outcome in mind before the game starts, and they'll make darn sure that this result occurs.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

How, I ask you, can refs do this? Imagine yourself as a referee. How would you do guarantee a Houston win while making sure you had a job the next day? Calling touch fouls on the Blazer centers won't get you far - how do you plan on deciding the game when Roy goes for 42, Artest forgets Yao is on his team and decides he's second coming of World B. Free and starts jacking up wild three-pointers while Rudy goes 5 for 7?

The best you could hope for is to influence the game enough to help put Houston in a position to win - but you couldn't guarantee anything because you can't control the players. Sure, you could foul out the entire Blazer team, but I imagine even you would admit that the refs haven't gone that far in their quest to decide these games.

A bad referee can have an undue influence on a game by making his inconsistency an issue and effectivly providing an advantage to one team. A good ref ensures competitive balance between teams by requiring adherence to rules. But even if a ref gives one team an effective advantage via bad calls, that does not stop the offended team from hitting their shots and playing terrific defense in spite of the bad calls. The advantage is an influence on the game, but does not decide the game.

Why else do you think there's an unwritten rule in the NBA that the refs swallow their whistle during crunch time? It's not to keep a ref from "deciding" the game. It's done to help ensure that everyone is playing by the same set of rules at the most intense part of the game - in this example, offensive players know that the refs won't bail them out they draw minor contact while going up for a shot. You can still draw a foul, but you're going to have to earn it. Everyone knows this unwritten rule and understands how to play as a result.

Have you never won a game where you thought you were being "homered" by the refs? This happens, you know.

Sparky Anderson once had a player who struck out looking three times in a game on calls he thought were questionable. When the player complained to Anderson, he replied, "Maybe you should just hit the ball and not give him the chance to ring you up."

The idea that refs "decide" games is a cop-out. You didn't win, so rather than face your own shortcomings, you blame some nefarious external force.

That's poor sportsmanship.

Really.

If you've ever played a sport, you know that referees do not decide games.

I have played a sport, including basketball. I think you're wrong.

You seem to believe that the refs have a set outcome in mind before the game starts, and they'll make darn sure that this result occurs.

nope. didn't say that. you're using the "all or nothing" argument to have a platform to argue on.

Why else do you think there's an unwritten rule in the NBA that the refs swallow their whistle during crunch time?

I've seen the opposite happen in three different league-wide games this playoff season.

The idea that refs "decide" games is a cop-out.

but blathering on and on about the influence they do have is not? trying hard to differentiate between "unfair" and "rigged" is cool?

seriously, man.

really.

No blathering here, Eco. Reasoned arguments. Try 'em sometime. They come in handy.

You said refs decided games. You said that pretending that "athletic endeavor" "even often" decides games is "silly." You staked out the all-or-nothing position here, Eco. Not me.

I said "influence." Explain how my position - that refs influence games, but do not determine the outcome - is all-or-nothing. Double-dog-dare-ya.

I am not blathering - nice of you to go for the ad hominem approach rather than a logical, supported argument, though.

As far as "cool" is concerned: we're both posting on a blog about the Blazers. I don't think "cool" enters into the equation. If you think you're building cool points . . . well, good for you.

No blathering here, Eco. Reasoned arguments. Try 'em sometime. They come in handy.

so...that was your reasoned reply?

You said refs decided games. You said that pretending that "athletic endeavor" "even often" decides games is "silly."

seriously? you think what I'm saying right there is "the opposite of players deciding games is refs decide games?" no other possible outcome? like, say...they both play a role?

I am not blathering - nice of you to go for the ad hominem approach rather than a logical, supported argument, though.

look up ad hominem. then, maybe go back to posting under the name you used to use.

I said "influence." Explain how my position - that refs influence games, but do not determine the outcome - is all-or-nothing.

i'll explain again. we're both saying the same thing. we only disagree about the degree. make sense?

and I'm glad you made several posts pointing out many of the way refs help decide games.

Eco -

Thanks for seeing the light and dropping your earlier position. You've gone from saying - in post after post - that refs decide games to that they "help decide" games. Good for you.

BTW - I used to post under my nickname, but others here complained that posters using nicknames were hiding behind their anonymity. So now I post under my first name. Nothing more than that. Fascinating, and a mite creepy, that you remember, though.

Thanks for seeing the light and dropping your earlier position. You've gone from saying - in post after post - that refs decide games to that they "help decide" games. Good for you.

nice try, man.

So now I post under my first name. Nothing more than that. Fascinating, and a mite creepy, that you remember, though.

I was thinking something was creepy too.