Duncan Suspended or bumping Ref

[LakerMania]

And WTF was he doing in the middle of the court during live play?

What you are seeing is immedietly following a jump ball, that's why he was in the middle of the court. As soon as the ball went into play he was on the move, unfortunately he didn't make it very far. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] This is what I have heard, didn't anyone see the game?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: LakerMania

What you are seeing is immedietly following a jump ball, that's why he was in the middle of the court. As soon as the ball went into play he was on the move, unfortunately he didn't make it very far. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] This is what I have heard, didn't anyone see the game?

The jump ball makes some sense, but he was slower than molasses during a Siberian winter in getting off the court. Plus he out faked Duncan on which direction he was going to move once he did move. Refs' have got to take responsibility for the actions, and it was the refs fault more than anyone that this happened. Unfair to blame Duncan because the ref is a dumbass and can't tell his left from his right.

[MavKikiNYC]

The jump ball scenario doesn't seem plausible given the relative positions of 1) the ball; and 2) Nies. The ball would have to have been tapped to midcourt, and Parker is already controlling the ball when the clip starts, and Nies is still wandering around like a chicken with his head cut off.

What happens when a ball in play hits a referee? The referee is regarded as part of the playing court. The player passing the ball isn't assessed a technical for hitting the ref with the ball, and if the ball goes out of bounds, the last team to've touched the ball loses possession.

Why doesn't that principle apply here? The ball is in play, the ref is part of the playing court. If he gets in the way and gets stepped on, play on. To my eye, Duncan did him a favor by trying to push him out of the way. I would be more inclined to see Duncan penalized if he had merely bowled the muthuh over. That he appeared to try to prevent Nies from being the recipient of even more forceful contact speaks more to his intent and his regard for the physical well-being of the churlish Nies.

Duncan was screwed twice.

[LRB]

Duncan was screwed twice.

And not even kissed once. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[EricaLubarsky]

I think that Barkley was right when he said, "refs are part of the game", but refs are responsible for not interrupting the movement of players and the ball. period.
1) On review of multiple angles of the play, it is clear that Nies is officially "a clutz". Although there was contact, Nies fell from getting caught and not from undue contact. Duncan is a strong guy, and he held Nies so he wouldnt fall-- oops.
2) Nies should not have been where he is after that much time. He should have seen the path to the baseline and should have headed there trying to avoid interfering with players and/or getting between players.

[seelenjaeger]

Just because "the Refs are regarded as part of the playing court" does not justify stepping on them ...

Whether or not Nies was supposed to be where he is is irrelevant once you make INTENTIONAL contact. You can aswell argue with the refs about where they are during a Time Out or launch a protest regarding the Ref´s movement, but pushing or shoving them intentionally without Traffic is the wrong method and will get an appropriate response.

The Refs are allowed to make mistakes without getting shoved around. A player losing his assignement and standing in the Refs line of sight cannot be pushed by the refs, why should a Ref losing position be allowed to cleared off by the players?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: seelenjaeger
Just because "the Refs are regarded as part of the playing court" does not justify stepping on them ...

Whether or not Nies was supposed to be where he is is irrelevant once you make INTENTIONAL contact. You can aswell argue with the refs about where they are during a Time Out or launch a protest regarding the Ref´s movement, but pushing or shoving them intentionally without Traffic is the wrong method and will get an appropriate response.

The Refs are allowed to make mistakes without getting shoved around. A player losing his assignement and standing in the Refs line of sight cannot be pushed by the refs, why should a Ref losing position be allowed to cleared off by the players?

But the contact wasn't intentional. Duncan's actions were to try and prevent or reduce harm to the ref. The ref made a mistake, and paid for it somewhat. Why should Duncan be punished for a mistake the ref made?

[seelenjaeger]

Well, we can argue if the contact was intentional or not - I do think it was, and the replay I saw gave me enough insight to follow the arguments.

I probably wouldn´t have suspended him if I´d been in charge, but I can see why they did it.

And I do think the Tech was justified. This is where the discussion may begin.

Look LRB, I sse your point, but it´s like the discussion of the "bench player stepping to the court" argument when there´s a riot. It doesnt matter if the bench player is entering the court to stop the riot or to take part in - he´s just not thought to be there, and if he is, he gets a suspension.

You are not thought to touch the ref, and when you do it though you can avoid it, you get punished by a tech.

From the Refs point of view, Duncan could have avoided the intense contact. He didn´t, and got the Tech that lead to further observation of this situation. And Stu Jackson and his crew followed the arguments of the tech-calling ref and suspended Duncan. That´s okay as far as I am concerned.

Remember Garnett beeing ejected earlier when he went mad on a ridicolous no-call? The decision to eject him was right, though he was right about the no-call. Still, that doesn´t affect the punishment of his misbehaviour.

You just cannot allow players to make contact with the refs intentionally. So - when there is a chance that the contact was intentional, and it looks like it might - you get punished. Works for me.

[LRB]

It's obvious that Duncan extends his hands and touches the ref on purpose, but he was trying to soften the blow IMO. If Duncan hadn't done this the ref would have been hit much harder. But I see nothing to give a tech over. It's like penalizing a player for not trying to hurt a ref. Football refs get hit all the time like this but bigger and stronger guys moving much faster and wearing body armor which compounds the hit. Penalties aren't called on the players, because it was accidental on their part. It is the refs job to stay out of the way of the players. If the player has a resonable rationale for going where the ref is on the field of play, it is up to the ref to recognize this situation and avoid being in that position. The game is about the players, not the refs. This only is common sense. Duncan didn't go after the ref. The ref got in Duncan's way in such a manner that Duncan could not avoid him. It is not Duncan's responsibility to note the position of the ref and not to make any moves that might accidentally cause contact as it is with the opposing teams players. Because the opposing team wants to draw a charge or foul, they will purposefully place themselves in position to do this and will purposefully not remove themselves. They actually have a right to do that. The ref doesn't. His instructions are to keep the hell out of the way. He has no rights to draw charges or fouls and should immediately vacate any position on the court where there a significant likelyhood that a collision with a player might occur. If the ref had been an opposing player, that player would have been guilty of a foul on Duncan. He moved into Duncan's path and was not set when contact occured. Now the NBA is saying that the refs can essentially not only draw charges, but aren't even held to as strict of rules of doing so as the players are. This is all part of making the game about the refs rather than the players.

This incident was entirely the refs fault. I doubt that he did it on purpose, but he was the one who did things wrong, not Duncan. Duncan made a move to make a legal play. There was no reasonably way that Duncan could know that at the last minute the ref would inexplicably change direction and move into his path. This occured after Duncan was committed to taking that path by the laws of physics. IMO God, the creator of the Universe, or Nature if you're not religious, overrules David Stern and his stoopid cronies.

The only possible explanation for the ref being in the middle of the floor and not be in total violation of doing his proper job would have been to administer a jump ball. If that was the case, he should have vacated the court in a timely manner. He failed to do so. Which was mistake #1. Mistake #2 was not looking where he was going. The ref blindly changed directions without looking to see if approaching traffic was headed his way. The long and short is the ref should not have the "right of way" in an incident like this.

[LRB]

From the Refs point of view, Duncan could have avoided the intense contact. He didn´t, and got the Tech that lead to further observation of this situation. And Stu Jackson and his crew followed the arguments of the tech-calling ref and suspended Duncan. That´s okay as far as I am concerned.

How can the ref make that call when he didn't see what happened? He can't.

And why would Duncan intentionally run down a ref? That makes absolutely no sense. If Duncan had intentionally tried to run down the ref, he would have failed because of the refs unpredictable movements.

The bottom line is the NBA refs are a bunch of spoiled babies with big egos and thin skin. There's not more than one or two who don't deserve to be fired. This ref is one of them.

[seelenjaeger]

Well, there´s a difference between American Football and Basketball - in both speed and situation. If American Football players make contact with a ref beeing NOT in traffic they will get punished. If in Hockey a player checks a ref without beeing involved in a playing action he will likely get ejected.

I assume the ref made the call because he was standing in an area with not many players around, so he could be quite sure that Duncan was NOT in traffic. It´s not like the ref got lost under the basket. He was in a merely crowded area, so you have to assume that a guy like Duncan, a professional and highly intelligent player is able to avoid heavy contact with him by either not moving there, or maybe even setting the screen half a foot shorter.

Actually the ref himself was responding to the playing action. It looks to me like he was realizing about his interference of the play, and once Tony Parker approached him, he tried to leave for the weak side.

If you say that Duncan was not able to avoid contact with a unpredictably moving ref, but you see him approaching the refs position from the low post and preparing for contact, that rises the question why he just didnt stopped his movement completely.

The reason is obvious - he didn´t WANT to stop his movement, because he (1) didn´t expect the Ref to move that way and (2) didn´t want to blow the play. Now while (1) is speaking for his innocence, (2) is his coffin nail. Why? Because you can argue that he was taking the risk of touching and probably shoving the Ref in order not to break up the play.

And here we are with the "don´t step on the floor" ruling - if you are willing to take the risk to commit an illegal action, you have to carry the punishment. So if you´re not in traffic, and you can hardly call the Duncan situation traffic imho, stay away from the ref or take the consequence.

[LRB]

I assume the ref made the call because he was standing in an area with not many players around, so he could be quite sure that Duncan was NOT in traffic. It´s not like the ref got lost under the basket. He was in a merely crowded area, so you have to assume that a guy like Duncan, a professional and highly intelligent player is able to avoid heavy contact with him by either not moving there, or maybe even setting the screen half a foot shorter.

Any where on the end of the court where the ball is in play and the ref can't have all the players in front of him is a bad place. And he could not be sure that Duncan was not in the traffic. The ref was between the Duncan and the ball. Duncan made a move towards the ball to set a pick. This required him to move as fast as he could to get there and have the greatest possibility to successfully exectue the play. The ref changed direction as the last instant and moved into a path that Duncan could not avoid because of his spead, momentum, and position of other players. Duncan did make a highly intelligent move. The ref didn't. I hit dumbasses like the ref who change direction every day. At work. Out shopping. Wherever I go and there are people. Only I'm not running at full sprint like Duncan and can avoid knocking them down most of the time. But even if I did knock their sorry asses down it would be their on fault. They move into my path by a last minute change of direction which give me no options to avoid them and they did not look to see if this would cause a problem before making the move. Even if I was a superior athelete like Duncan I would still hit these people. Intelligience doesn't help, because they are taking actions that you cannot predict.

Furthermore the ref is obligated to call only the things he can positively identify as being in violation of rules. The ref was not in a position to make the call. And if it was made by one of the other refs, then he was hallucinating which actually would be kind of normal for NBA refs.

If you say that Duncan was not able to avoid contact with a unpredictably moving ref, but you see him approaching the refs position from the low post and preparing for contact, that rises the question why he just didnt stopped his movement completely.

Duncan started preparing for contact after it was too late to stop. Duncan did stop, but only after over running the position where the ref was. I'm sure he made a super human effort just to do that. Duncan initiated his move before the refs made his move to the near sideline. Once Duncan say the direction that the ref was heading he commited him self to passing what would have been behind the ref. But the dumbass stopped his movement and changed directions. But this time physics had take over and Duncan had precious few options and none of them good. He made the best of a bad situation, a situation which was caused by the inattentive actions of another.

The reason is obvious - he didn´t WANT to stop his movement, because he (1) didn´t expect the Ref to move that way and (2) didn´t want to blow the play. Now while (1) is speaking for his innocence, (2) is his coffin nail. Why? Because you can argue that he was taking the risk of touching and probably shoving the Ref in order not to break up the play.

But this is where you are wrong. The ref is not due this protection. Duncan has every right to try and make a play. He can't delay because of a 24 second violation. The ref is not doing his job properly by even being in the position that he is at the start of the clip. There is not valid reason for him to be there. Since he is the ref has to assume full responsibility for the risks, not the players.

The same thing applies to driving. I have the right to drive my car on city streets at the posted speed limits under optimal weather conditions were I have the legal right of way. I do this because I'm in a hurry. But if some idiot or a child runs in front of my car with no warning and I'm going too fast and hit them, then it is there fault or in the case of the child the fault of their caretaker. I would never do this on purpose and would do all I could reasonably do to avoid it. But I will not drive everywhere at 5 miles per hour just because this could happen. That is not reasonable. The law clearly states that the pedestrian assumes the risk of looking both ways an it is their responsibility to avoid being hit by me.

Duncan did everything within the rules. The ref didnot. Therefore the ref is at fault.

And here we are with the "don´t step on the floor" ruling - if you are willing to take the risk to commit an illegal action, you have to carry the punishment. So if you´re not in traffic, and you can hardly call the Duncan situation traffic imho, stay away from the ref or take the consequence.

No that is not right and is outside of the context of the rules. The players have the responsibility of keeping track of 9 other players and a ball that is moving back and forth. There is absolutely no valid reason why they should be tasked with the responsibility of keeping track of the refs positions. It is the refs responsibility to get out of the way and stay out of the way. And if the ref violates it, then he or she pay the consequence and should have no right to complain.

[bernardos70]

This is why the NBA refs are the way they are. This is what happens in the NFL: NFL ref gets fined half of his paycheck
What happens in the NBA? Blame someone else, like the players.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: bernardos70
This is why the NBA refs are the way they are. This is what happens in the NFL: NFL ref gets fined half of his paycheck
What happens in the NBA? Blame someone else, like the players.

Which is why I have a high regard for NFL refs and consider NBA refs to be less than a bucket of crap. At least crap is good for something, fertilizing the soil.

[MavKikiNYC]

Jalen Rose of the Indiana Pacers was fined $5,000 by the NBA and suspended for one game for tripping New York's Patrick Ewing and throwing a forearm that inadvertently hit referee Dick Bavetta. Ewing was fined $2,500 for what the NBA said was "escalating the altercation with Rose."

Does anyone remember the game where Jalen Rose tripped Patrick Ewing, Ewing got up and went after Rose, Rose took a swing at Ewing and ended up tagging Dick Bavetta who was trying to step between them.

For making "inadvertent" contact with Dick Bavetta in a FIGHT, Rose was supsended for precisely one game.

For pushing Nies, who was clearly out of position, out of his path, thereby avoiding a potentially more serious injury to Nies, Duncan gets the same penalty. And please....no one try to tell me that the $5000 fine distinguishes the two punishments.

Where is the rhyme or reason?

[LRB]

Where is the rhyme or reason?

There is none except the refs' egos are more out of control than ever and the NBA League office are more in support of this than ever.