PDA

View Full Version : New System for Refs?


ibivibiv
11-09-2006, 12:53 PM
We have a nice new "can't talk back or get emotional" rule on the players/coaches and it seems like we are feeling the pain from it nicely so far, but it made me think why is it even needed? I think the CAUSE not the SYMPTOM is that certain players/teams/owners/coaches are dissatisfied with the officiating in the league. I'd have to agree on a certain level. Now I'm not saying there is a conspiracy against the Mavs, but I'd say there are certain teams/players feeling the pain more than others out there with this new rule.

Here's what I'd love to see and I was blown away the other night when one ref left the game and they went with just 2?????? No subs????, anyway that made me think. WHY would you only have the 3 officials for a professional basketball game? Why not have 5 or 6. Let them rotate around each quarter. That way no one can say, well so and so official is calling against us and there is very little chance that is true. I can say just as a fan there are certain officials I hate to see on the floor at a Mavs game. I'd love to see for the sake of subs and injuries to officials and for the plain fairness of the league that we get some variety on that floor.

I know the officials shape the pace and style of each game as much as players, but isn't that a problem? If you had more rotation in a game then the players would be more apt to play by the rules and not by what ref # 2 is calling tonight. I think that is WAY better than this zero tolerance garbage about not challenging them, and on the line of challenges to them, why not fine them too if they make a HORRIBLE call. That last one is iffy, you don't want to have them scared to make a call, but man... if it's just a BAD BAD call then go ahead and hit them in the pocketbook like everyone else.

Sorry for the rant, but I've seen so many locker room trips this year already and I think they are just plugging a hole rather than fixing the damn.

Usually Lurkin
11-09-2006, 01:53 PM
I think they usually have a backup. But more refs makes sense to me. 6 at a time, 3 on each end, leave them there. Surely the league has money for this.

DavidDaMonkey
11-09-2006, 02:22 PM
I think they usually have a backup. But more refs makes sense to me. 6 at a time, 3 on each end, leave them there. Surely the league has money for this.

Heck, they can use the money they are raking in from the zero-tolerance fines.

Dirkadirkastan
11-09-2006, 05:39 PM
More refs on the floor at a time would simply cause more whistles and fewer (correct) noncalls, since it only takes one ref to stop the play. Same would apply to technicals, as a player would only have to get under one ref's skin (yikes).

But any increase in staff, even if no more than three were on duty at a time, would that really improve the situation? It might reduce grudges. But the new guys hired would probably not be any better than the ones already employed. If there are any good refs out there, chances are most would already be hired (and believe it or not, there are good refs in the NBA). It would be tough to argue the average quality per ref would increase by doubling the staff.