View Full Version : What's your opinion on refs that have been...

05-31-2006, 01:38 PM
in the league a long time? First, let's define what a ref is supposed to do. Isn't he supposed to call an impartial game based on the rules of the officiating book? Although impossible to eliminate, shouldn't he be unbiased towards any team, player or coach?

So, the question is which is better? Refs that have been in the league for a long time or should there be a turnaround of about 3-5 years for refs.

I can see the benefits of both. Older, more experienced refs have seen more and are supposed to be wiser because they have experience. The downside is its easy to create a favoritism or distaste. Experienced officials can fall into a mindset such as:

1. Rookies don't get calls
2. Superstars get calls and don't foul out.
3. There should be makeup calls.
4. Some players should get the "T" quickly.

Newer refs on the other hand, have less experience but they are also less biased. They haven't been thru many battles yet so they haven't formed an opinion on teams, coaches or players.

I don't know if newer refs are more error prone or have missed calls but I've seen veteran refs with blown calls too.

So, what do you guys think? Are older, veteran refs better or should there be a turn around time for refs. Let's say they should retire after 5 years.

05-31-2006, 05:00 PM
Bevetta is one of if not the worst officials in the nba so i dont think experience means you will be good.

06-01-2006, 12:21 AM
Consistently inconsistent.

06-01-2006, 12:56 AM
I think the referees, for the most part, do the best job they can as far as being consistent and unbiased. Penis Bavetta should be in a forced retirement and Steve Javey(sp?) should take his place as the "Chosen One" amongst NBA officials. I think he does the best job as far as I can recognize the officials.

06-01-2006, 04:09 AM
The refs do their jobs-- to help entertain. They are no better or worse than professional wrestling referees and their role is the same. Some refs are a little old school and play the game a little closer to the NCAA game at times-- Im thinking of old farts like Dick Bavetta who may still remember the old days.

Anyway, they all have their tendencies-- how they control the game to keep it exciting or whatever. Cuban has researched it, or has had his cronies do it and came up with http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/3341359613624458/. Even referee magazines have articles about reffing to keep the crowd in the game. It isnt a big secret

NBA is a hybrid entertainment/sport, and you have to live with that.

Big Boy Laroux
06-01-2006, 09:21 AM
the problem is that we have 200-year-old refs trying to keep up with some of the best athletes in the world. that's why they miss so many damn calls.

and have i ever mentioned that i HATE joey crawford. that dude wants all eyes on him. the way he makes calls is comical.

06-02-2006, 04:30 PM
I don't think there's a problem with rookies not getting the benefit of the call in a 50/50 situation, and a superstar getting the call. You have to earn the respect. On the other hand, Tim Duncan absolutely gets too much superstar treatment on offense. At least they call it straight when he's on D.

06-02-2006, 04:41 PM
I personally, prefer the more experienced refs (doesn't necessarily mean the ancient ones, just seasoned). That being said, I would like to see a true grading plan in put in place by the NBA, to try and limit some of the concerns already pointed out, such as bias for a team or anemosity against a team. They could also put a training program together in the off-season to teach consistency; Stop the ticky tack foul calling and only call fouls that alter the result of the play. No more phontom calls. And stop the superstars get away with everything BS. I know this is not the full answer, but at least it could be a start