The NBA’s Refereeing Paradox
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: Welcome to the NBA’s quest to perfect an imperfect situation
IN THE FOURTH quarter of what appeared to be a regular Tuesday night matchup between the Spurs and Rockets, James Harden intercepted a pass and took off down the court.
Cocking the ball behind his head, Harden slammed the ball, but rather than going straight through, the net twisted in such a way that ball popped out, hitting the rim again and collectively confusing the AT&T Center crowd.
The dunk should have been 2 points for Harden, who would go on to score 50 points despite a poor shooting night from the field, but instead, it became the defining moment of the recent crisis between the league’s referees and the league’s teams.
In the ensuing chaos, Rockets coach Mike D’Antoni and his superstar guard Harden would argue the call, perplexed as to how there could be any conclusion other than two points awarded to the Rockets. In doing so, they waited over 30 seconds to challenge the call, meaning the ruling was left to the referees. Still, the referees should have and could have corrected the call, but they didn’t.
There have a multitude of headlines over just the past two seasons, with refereeing becoming as much of an issue as ever in the league. And this issue extends beyond the undeniable reality that social media places an unfair spotlight on the worst missed calls.
Today, with as much pressure on the referees as ever, the league should trace back to the roots, to the very nature of their refereeing issue.
Because the truth is, as long as the league continues to try and perfect refereeing, more negative consequences will follow.
WHEN THINKING OF ways to improve the correctness of calls, the league essentially decided that the best way was to create a coaches challenge. The idea behind this change was that, for once, coaches would have a chance to have a say in the officiating of a game where the coaches inevitably feel the regret of seeing dozens of missed calls every quarter.
There were the early successes of the challenge, like Damian Lillard helping to save a game with a late challenge, resulting in the media heaping praise over the new rule. In fact, the league and media were hoping to view the change as positive, as a necessary change due to the unenviable conflict that played out between NBA coaches and players and the referees over the course of the 2018–2019 season.
The new rule, like refereeing itself, however, is a paradox.
Avid viewers of the league will remember not only the reform to the shot clock made just two years ago, but the constant chatter of it. Through the first of the month, National TV commentators would mention the new rule at seemingly every offensive rebound (where the rule was implemented), at which point the rule would be praised.
Yet, of all of the possible reasons the NBA felt it needed to make this change, there was one glaring issue: around the end of games, when offenses slow down, it can be borderline unwatchable to see teams miss shots only to get the rebound and dribble down the clock to their advantage in what would be an exciting game. By speeding up the game, there are ultimately more plays, which equates to more excitement.
Certainly, in the name of profit (the league is still a business, after all), it was wise of the league to account for the shortened attention span of the average viewer today.
But by creating a challenge, there are more replays than ever, more time in which players are standing with their hands on their knees, more time for commercials to bore fans out of the intrigue of a game entering its final stages.
There is also the dehumanization caused by this change, and with replays already taking up so much time in fourth quarters, the challenge call is like the death-knell for an already bored fan.
And there is the final, most glaring issue. The challenge call, which triggers a review, is an attempt to perfect the call, but this doesn’t account for the fact that referees believe they are right, or the fact that referees don’t want to give in to complaints and bickering from players and coaches.
The push-and-pull, ebb and flow of this situation, with no clear solution. On the one hand, there is the goal of the league to perfect refereeing, especially given how many complaints have been made over refereeing in recent years, but on the other hand, correcting more calls ruins the flow, the speed, and the viewership of each NBA game.
IN TERMS OF influence over the referees — what is called, what is ignored — there is no bigger influence than the league’s stars and its coaches. But, like refereeing itself, the effects and repercussions of players’ disdain for officiating are paradoxical, as well.
Players and coaches are hypocritical, at times wanting more calls, at times being frustrated over the amount of stoppages in the game, with the obvious underlying factor that they are being paid millions of dollars to win games by any means possible.
But, regardless of whether the league’s players and coaches are biased or not, right or wrong, correct or incorrect in their assessments of officiating, there is one clear fact: they like to voice their opinion loudly and boldly, for all to hear.
“When the ref makes that call, he don’t never want to be wrong,” commented LeBron James to Jeff Van Gundy, in the middle of a close game.“They’re never going to overturn it. Ever. Ever.”
He was commenting on the league’s new coach’s challenge, and even after video evidence looked to prove Kentavious Caldwell-Pope didn’t foul Brandon Ingram on the play in question, the call remained, with an extra two minutes wasted.
But James hasn’t been the only member of the league to voice his frustrations. In fact, almost every coach in the league has been or is upset with the challenge.
Coaches from the Miami Heat, Golden State Warriors, Sacramento Kings, Brooklyn Nets, Toronto Raptors, and Los Angeles Clippers have openly criticized the rule.
Brad Stevens, who usually keeps in emotions in check, openly yelled, “I’m done with these f — -ing challenges.This is unbelievable,” in a game against the Knicks.
But through all of the complaints, there has been one issue that has stood out, one claim that is as contradictory as it is true.
In an extremely revealing statement, Steve Kerr said, “This never-ending quest to get everything perfect, we’re just chasing our tail. The fact is the referees have an enormously difficult job. You can watch a replay and two rational people can argue. I think we’re trying for the impossible.”
And in this statement lies the contradiction. Players, coaches, and referees are probably all pleased to go on and on about the beauty, the perfect imperfections of the sport, but, when pressed with the pressure and magnitude of the final stages of the playoffs, players and coaches want every call to be perfect, and referees are on edge trying to make every call perfect.
This idea of basketball being perfect as an imperfect sport, for as noble as it seems, is simply false due to metamorphosis that teams and officials undergo due to pressure.
“I think we’re trying for the impossible.” — Warriors Coach Steve Kerr
“We want perfection as fans, and I kind of like the imperfections,” Kenny Atkinson, head coach of the Nets said, adding to the discussion. “Maybe I’m different in that way, but that’s just my thought.”
“It’s just another thing to focus on that’s distracting,” Erik Spoelstra, coach of the Miami Heat added. “We’re all focusing on the wrong thing, I think. This is a beautiful game.”
Ultimately, the decision of how to deal with the refereeing issue needs to come from somebody outside of the teams and officials.
Players will cite egregious missed calls, unwanted stoppages, and perceived biases as proof that there needs to be change. Referees will respond that the only way to fix this is the use of technology and replay systems. And coaches, who lived in a time before advanced technology, will argue that the purity, the beauty of the game is gone because of technology. And neither side is wrong.
Perhaps, the NBA’s best decision is to maximize profits. It is apparent how analytical they are when it comes to researching the habits and trends of their viewers — the new shot clock rule was primarily meant to increase interest from bored fans.
And yet, from another perspective, the league could look to perfect the game by embracing its imperfections. After all, refereeing is a flawed task by nature, and this sentiment has been echoed by numerous coaches featured earlier.
But does maximizing profits coincide with the league reducing replays? Does having more replays equate to more profit because of an increase in advertisements? Or is it not worth it to lose viewer’s interests due to repeated stoppages in play?
These are questions only the league can answer, and striking the right balance — which is no easy feat, it is a paradox after all — is ultimately the only way the league can end the ongoing cold war between its referees and teams.
And if the league does solve this issue, then basketball will once again be a beautiful game, no longer marred by an impossible quest for perfection.
First Image: Link
