5 vs 8: Where we discuss the quality (or lack thereof) of NBA Playoff Officiating

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
Honestly, I can't remember being super mad about a Scott Foster game in awhile. Usual minor gripes, but seemed pretty normal.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Honestly, I can't remember being super mad about a Scott Foster game in awhile. Usual minor gripes, but seemed pretty normal.
His crew fouled out Tatum on some terrible calls in game 4 of the Nets series. But in general yeah he's been much better lately than Zarba or Brothers.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,271
His crew fouled out Tatum on some terrible calls in game 4 of the Nets series. But in general yeah he's been much better lately than Zarba or Brothers.
The 3 worst refs this playoffs have been Brothers. Zarba and Eric Lewis. Kane Fitzgerald is in that tier too
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
The fact that they're looking for DMs and use the word "submission" makes it seem like candidates need to win them over somehow. Who's going to represent SoSH?
View: https://twitter.com/OfficialNBARefs/status/1535266303379968001

NBA Referees
@OfficialNBARefs
We’re looking for Boston #Celtics & Golden State #Warriors fans that are watching Game 4 tonight to talk to an NBA Ref on Monday via Zoom. Interested? DM us. #1FanAtATime

*Submissions will CLOSE at 4 PM CT today. You must have watched the game & have Zoom capability to apply.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
So far this series I've felt like:
Game 1: This crew was good, and looking at neutrals and non-crazy fans/writers of the teams, both BOS and GSW seemed to agree.
Game 2: The worst crew, as expected... neutrals seemed to think the Celtics got the worse whistle, which I agree with.
Game 3: Not as bad as game 2 but not as good as game 1 either, neutrals mostly thought GSW got the worse whistle, which I agree with

I also think the refs even in the bad games didn't really have all that big an impact on the outcomes, the team that played better won all 3 games.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Not that it impacted the game too much but someone is going to have to explain to me how that was a foul on Al.
It def wasn’t. It was a clear no-call that they messed up. The review was for the Steph clear out which didn’t occur so they were stuck with the original call.


It wasn't. Ref "We weren't wrong" review bias. And I agree, this wasn't a refball game overall.
It was pretty well officiated from an equality standpoint in the the 50/50 calls balanced out well. I thought there were several plays where the reds swallowed their whistles but if the shot was missed we would have heard a late whistle which I don’t mind either as it helps with game flow.
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Found in central mass
It def wasn’t. It was a clear no-call that they messed up. The review was for the Steph clear out which didn’t occur so they were stuck with the original call.



It was pretty well officiated from an equality standpoint in the the 50/50 calls balanced out well. I thought there were several plays where the reds swallowed their whistles but if the shot was missed we would have heard a late whistle which I don’t mind either as it helps with game flow.
Agreed. I had no problems with the refs in general tonight. Your explanation above makes sense and is another example of what’s wrong with the review system.
 

Light-Tower-Power

ask me about My Pillow
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
15,947
Nashua, NH
I’m pretty sure they can call nothing on review and then jump it up. They stuck with the original call because…reasons? Didn’t affect the game, but the NBA challenge system is easily the worst in sports. Either totally get rid of it or limit it to more objective things like OOB, goaltends, etc. The lack of any rhyme or reason to the foul reviews is laughable.
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Found in central mass
I’m pretty sure they can call nothing on review and then jump it up. They stuck with the original call because…reasons? Didn’t affect the game, but the NBA challenge system is easily the worst in sports. Either totally get rid of it or limit it to more objective things like OOB, goaltends, etc. The lack of any rhyme or reason to the foul reviews is laughable.
It’s especially frustrating because that’s the type of thing Ime is saving the challenge for, late in the game and pretty obvious, when there was a incontrovertible OOB play that was incorrectly called Warriors ball earlier in the quarter
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
Out of the gamethread, can someone explain the JB no-call flagrant on the landing zone and how it differed from Curry in game 3? It seems pretty clear to me that Klay lands his feet right where JB lands and they didn't even review it, let alone give a flagrant.

 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
Agreed. I had no problems with the refs in general tonight. Your explanation above makes sense and is another example of what’s wrong with the review system.
They can review the whole play though, right? It can be a no call if they want. To me, it's just typical ref bias against changing the call.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Out of the gamethread, can someone explain the JB no-call flagrant on the landing zone and how it differed from Curry in game 3? It seems pretty clear to me that Klay lands his feet right where JB lands and they didn't even review it, let alone give a flagrant.

not much, just didn't go to review because the ref who called it missed it. I would guess part of the reason is that he hit him with the body/hand first, so they didn't notice the feet. Those are super inconsistent calls, basically comes down to what was called on the floor ( like if last game had not been called flagrant I bet they never even review it). But the ones that tend to get called the most are ones where the contest is late and not close, like the Al one, instead of where it's a contest an a foul even without the landing zone.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
They can review the whole play though, right? It can be a no call if they want. To me, it's just typical ref bias against changing the call.
The whole problem with the system is that the same refs that made the call are reviewing themselves... not that VAR has been any better for soccer.. Expecting NBA refs to review themselves and then possibly overrule themselves is the worst idea ever. The whole system has zero consistency.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
not much, just didn't go to review because the ref who called it missed it. I would guess part of the reason is that he hit him with the body/hand first, so they didn't notice the feet. Those are super inconsistent calls, basically comes down to what was called on the floor ( like if last game had not been called flagrant I bet they never even review it). But the ones that tend to get called the most are ones where the contest is late and not close, like the Al one, instead of where it's a contest an a foul even without the landing zone.
It's just baffling that the answer basically boils down to: just because he didn't whine enough. If he stays down for another minute writhing in leg pain that's a flagrant. Silliness.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
They can review the whole play though, right? It can be a no call if they want. To me, it's just typical ref bias against changing the call.
Yeah but it was so marginal all around. There was “some” contact made by Horford which shouldn’t have been enough to call at game speed but too much to completely ignore on replay.

The one where Wiggins slammed into the chest of White was interesting and I wasn’t able to rewind to see if we caught a break bc White was inside the circle or the Warriors did by the no-charge call.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
Yeah but it was so marginal all around. There was “some” contact made by Horford which shouldn’t have been enough to call at game speed but too much to completely ignore on replay.

The one where Wiggins slammed into the chest of White was interesting and I wasn’t able to rewind to see if we caught a break bc White was inside the circle or the Warriors did by the no-charge call.
Oh, I agree that that’s how they usually treat it (if there’s any contact at all, assume their original judgment of who caused the contact was correct). I’m just saying it shouldn’t be that way. If an objective observer has no idea what the call on the floor was and they watch that replay, it’s clearly not a foul on Al. Curry created all of the contact with his arm. Not enough for an offensive foul I’d say. But in a review situation, get it right and don’t penalize the innocent.

At least the game wasn’t so bad that this is all we are taking about right now.
The whole problem with the system is that the same refs that made the call are reviewing themselves... not that VAR has been any better for soccer.. Expecting NBA refs to review themselves and then possibly overrule themselves is the worst idea ever. The whole system has zero consistency.
Correct. This is exactly the bias I was talking about upthread.
 
Last edited:

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
Oh, I agree that that’s how they usually treat it (if there’s any contact at all, assume their original judgment of who cussed the contact was correct). I’m just saying it shouldn’t be that way. If an objective observer has no idea what the call on the floor was and they watch that replay, it’s clearly not a foul on Al. Curry crated all of the contact with his arm. Not enough for an offensive foul I’d say. But in a review situation, get it right and don’t penalize the innocent.
In the situation of a "no-call", I thought it was supposed to be deemed a jump ball? I could've sworn I've seen that this year. IIRC, the play doesn't need to be deemed a foul for either side in a replay situation. This seems like a prime example.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
That’s not at issue here because the reviewing ref failed to see it’s a no call. But yes, there is a remedy for it.
Exactly. I don't see how the Curry and Al contact don't offset for a no-call in this situation. I'm super glad for their in-depth explanations of the call for the one replay per game! Nothing fishy at all about this product.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
The whole problem with the system is that the same refs that made the call are reviewing themselves... not that VAR has been any better for soccer.. Expecting NBA refs to review themselves and then possibly overrule themselves is the worst idea ever. The whole system has zero consistency.
On all calls except flagrants the final decision is made by the ref in the replay center. Which last night was...... Scott Foster
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
On all calls except flagrants the final decision is made by the ref in the replay center. Which last night was...... Scott Foster
Oh.. I stand corrected ..sort of

edit: calls were overturned 308 of 700 times this year.. 44%. Not sure if that’s high or low. Having one challenge a game seems low.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
not much, just didn't go to review because the ref who called it missed it. I would guess part of the reason is that he hit him with the body/hand first, so they didn't notice the feet. Those are super inconsistent calls, basically comes down to what was called on the floor ( like if last game had not been called flagrant I bet they never even review it). But the ones that tend to get called the most are ones where the contest is late and not close, like the Al one, instead of where it's a contest an a foul even without the landing zone.
I could be wrong but I thought on the 7 point play possession, the foul was called on Horford and then it was reviewed for a flagrant.

I was shocked they didn't at least review Klay for a flagrant on Brown. Maybe it was because there was a screen? Though there was a play earlier in the series when Steph landed on someone's foot - can't remember the defender (JT?) and outcome but I am thinking neither a foul nor a flagrant was called?

It sucks when one's memory goes.
 

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
620
One question I have about the replay system is why teams get punished no matter what (IMO). If you win you still lose the ability to challenge. If you lose, you lose a timeout on top of that. Seems overly harsh when looking at subjective things.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
One question I have about the replay system is why teams get punished no matter what (IMO). If you win you still lose the ability to challenge. If you lose, you lose a timeout on top of that. Seems overly harsh when looking at subjective things.
I kind of get what you’re saying but that’s not really being punished. That’s just capping reviews at 1. I wouldn’t mind rewarding a team for getting the first review correct but where do you stop? 2?Can’t be infinite. And considering reviews are a crap shoot, does it really matter?

That last sentence is why I’m a big proponent of just using the review whenever you have an obvious, inarguable overturn with fair value. It seems like almost every game the challenge either goes unused or they’re forced to use it late on a play that has like a 20% chance of succeeding. Just get value out of it when you can. Two points and the ball in the second quarter is worth the same as two points and the ball in the fourth. Thinking it isn’t is just psychological trickery.

Edit: I guess the one argument against that is being able to protect against a 6th foul. But again, in that case you’re almost always being forced to challenge a call which probably won’t be overturned.
 
Last edited:

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
620
I kind of get what you’re saying but that’s boy really being punished. That’s just capping reviews at 1. I wouldn’t mind rewarding a team for getting it right but where do you stop? 2?Can’t be infinite. And considering reviews are a crap shoot, does it really matter?
I get what you're saying. Why not give them a second one if they win the first, but not if they lose? I still don't understand the timeout part of it, shouldn't be losing the chance to challenge again be enough?
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
I get what you're saying. Why not give them a second one if they win the first, but not if they lose? I still don't understand the timeout part of it, shouldn't be losing the chance to challenge again be enough?
I think the argument there is it’s a “free” timeout for the challenging team. Need a TO but don’t have any or don’t want to waste one? Just call for a BS challenge. Yeah, kind of silly.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
I kind of get what you’re saying but that’s not really being punished. That’s just capping reviews at 1. I wouldn’t mind rewarding a team for getting the first review correct but where do you stop? 2?Can’t be infinite. And considering reviews are a crap shoot, does it really matter?
It can and absolutely should be infinite as long as you keep being correct. Otherwise yes, you're completely punishing the team for the refs being terrible. A team shouldn't have to choose to not challenge an obviously wrong call because they're worried that they won't be able to challenge another wrong call later.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
For the third time in five games, I’ve tuned out in disgust. (Tonight, it was the T on Udoka — after all the bullshit Draymond has gotten away with this series.)

It bums me out because I’ve been a fan for 40+ years and used to enjoy watching with my son, but if I’m not going to watch the Finals when my team is playing, what’s the point? I guess my life is better not being a fan of the NBA.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Two cheap ones on Klay to begin the 2H, especially the second one, followed by ref swallowing whistle on Jaylens obvious travel that resulted in a Tatum 3. They usually balance these things out after a TO so expect something bad shortly.

Edit: Took a minute but that block on Smart sure qualifies.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Marcus not getting the DPOY love from the zebras on the obvious Klay push off. This may be the worst game the refs have had on both sides. Painful to watch.
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Found in central mass
Two cheap ones on Klay to begin the 2H, especially the second one, followed by ref swallowing whistle on Jaylens obvious travel that resulted in a Tatum 3. They usually balance these things out after a TO so expect something bad shortly.

Edit: Took a minute but that block on Smart sure qualifies.
They’ve been awful both ways tonight. Klay clearly blocked Jaylen, Jaylen tipped a ball out of bounds that went Celtics way. But I don’t think Jaylen traveled on that kick out to Tatum. If his feet hit the ground it’s a travel but it looked to me like he dished it just before.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
Bear in mind that Draymond did not receive a technical for this, yet two Celtics have picked one up tonight - including Smart at a critical point in the fourth quarter. The double standard that goes on in this league is a joke.

 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
18,470
The game us simply too much for them. The pace. The activity. They are guessing a ton of the time.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
Draymond just did all he could to draw a tech, yet the zebras swallow the whistle. Minutes after Smart picked up one. If you're going to have a lower threshold within a game --especially in a safe situation with one side up big late -- that's a fucking joke.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
They’ve been awful both ways tonight. Klay clearly blocked Jaylen, Jaylen tipped a ball out of bounds that went Celtics way. But I don’t think Jaylen traveled on that kick out to Tatum. If his feet hit the ground it’s a travel but it looked to me like he dished it just before.
They screwed Smart over on B2B plays and now blew the Draymond call. Lol

Edit: Wow I’m surprised that Green foul want overturned. That was weak too. These zebras are clownshoes tonight.