PDA

View Full Version : Extra Referees



TheMightyHumph
11-19-2016, 07:24 PM
I would like for there to be four more referees on the floor with explicit duties.

There would be two each on opposite sides of the court.

Two of the referees would just be watching the lanes for 3-second violations (damn, would that change the game).

The other two would be assigned to watch the ball handler on the offensive end of the court, looking for traveling, palming and flopping (offensively and defensively).

Raps18-19 Champ
11-19-2016, 07:26 PM
Refs cost a lot. NBA wouldn't do it.

5ass
11-19-2016, 07:37 PM
Refs cost a lot. NBA wouldn't do it.

How much does a ref get paid anyway?

mikekhelxD
11-19-2016, 07:38 PM
Refs cost a lot. NBA wouldn't do it.

How much does a ref get paid anyway?

Close to $200k for newbies last time I read about it. Kinda wish you're a ref for the NBA now huh? Haha

TheMightyHumph
11-19-2016, 08:41 PM
Close to $200k for newbies last time I read about it. Kinda wish you're a ref for the NBA now huh? Haha

Damn!!!! So my suggestion would bring about the ruination and destruction of the NBA,

Raps18-19 Champ
11-19-2016, 11:42 PM
A 4th ref would improve the calls but not worth the additional cost. The calls that need to be called don't warrant a 4th ref. It should normally be called by 1 of the 3 refs.

IndyRealist
11-19-2016, 11:45 PM
You know how we talk about how watered down the league is compared to previous decades because of the number of teams spreading out the talent? Consider bringing in 33% more referees that would not have qualified to be NBA referees prior to the change.

TheMightyHumph
11-20-2016, 12:52 AM
You know how we talk about how watered down the league is compared to previous decades because of the number of teams spreading out the talent? Consider bringing in 33% more referees that would not have qualified to be NBA referees prior to the change.

With limited and specific duties.

NYKnickFanatic
11-20-2016, 01:03 AM
I'll do it for 50K a year.

hornetsfansydne
11-20-2016, 07:52 AM
I would like for there to be four more referees on the floor with explicit duties.

There would be two each on opposite sides of the court.

Two of the referees would just be watching the lanes for 3-second violations (damn, would that change the game).

The other two would be assigned to watch the ball handler on the offensive end of the court, looking for traveling, palming and flopping (offensively and defensively).

And then you would complain about the amount of 3 second calls made.... No basketball would be played

hornetsfansydne
11-20-2016, 07:54 AM
Close to $200k for newbies last time I read about it. Kinda wish you're a ref for the NBA now huh? Haha

Nah it is much lower than that, closer to $60k USD for a rookie I think. I once spoke to a referee in Australia and he had the opportunity to go over but with a young family it was too hard and the money was roughly the same as what he got for his job in Aus

tredigs
11-20-2016, 11:39 AM
I'll do the 3 second call from my house on a dedicated feed for 200 a game. In all honesty, how horrible would it be to have even more stoppages for random nonsense like this? I don't think there has ever been a 3 second call made on a player who has either been in the lane for less than 6 seconds and/or it was brought to the attention by opposing coaches that the player was camping out and they needed to get him for one.

More officiating: NOT what the NBA needs.

Scoots
12-12-2016, 11:54 PM
http://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/12/12/d-league-experimenting-with-larger-referee-crews/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs&yptr=yahoo

I've been saying for years that 4 refs is an extremely easy step to help officiating. Nice to see that the NBA is hearing the complaints.

tredigs
12-13-2016, 01:25 AM
All we'll see from extra officials is more whistles. There's nothing positive about this other than the fact that Silver is proactive in thinking about ways to try to improve the game.

What they need to do is have a mandatory retirement age. No refs over 60, period. You're slower, your vision is lesser and your reaction times are just not what they used to be. It's an incredibly difficult game to officiate at the NBA level due to the speed and athleticism of these guys and the dozens of 50/50 calls (or no calls) every game, and I don't want them being made by senior citizens.

Jeffy25
12-13-2016, 02:22 AM
What about a booth ref? Someone that can review replays quickly and whistle for calls that are incorrectly made?


The issue I have with officiating is inconsistencies with foul calls. Clean that up and make things more standard and consistent and I think you have something.

Saddletramp
12-13-2016, 04:12 AM
All we'll see from extra officials is more whistles. There's nothing positive about this other than the fact that Silver is proactive in thinking about ways to try to improve the game.

What they need to do is have a mandatory retirement age. No refs over 60, period. You're slower, your vision is lesser and your reaction times are just not what they used to be. It's an incredibly difficult game to officiate at the NBA level due to the speed and athleticism of these guys and the dozens of 50/50 calls (or no calls) every game, and I don't want them being made by senior citizens.

That has lawsuit written all over it. As long as they can pass their physicals, they'll be there. To set an actual number would be ageism.


I think 4 refs would be good but they'd need to let some stuff go. Like tre said, they'd just call more fouls and I don't think it be worth it just to be able to call some plays right that might go otherwise unnoticed.

Jeffy25
12-13-2016, 04:34 AM
That has lawsuit written all over it. As long as they can pass their physicals, they'll be there. To set an actual number would be ageism.


A CBA can negotiate whatever they like. But the refs are unionized. But the game can do that if they like. NBA doesn't allow players to play in the league before they are 19.

Jimm
12-13-2016, 05:03 AM
That has lawsuit written all over it. As long as they can pass their physicals, they'll be there. To set an actual number would be ageism.


I think 4 refs would be good but they'd need to let some stuff go. Like tre said, they'd just call more fouls and I don't think it be worth it just to be able to call some plays right that might go otherwise unnoticed.

Not really imo. If the referees cant do their job to the satisfaction of the players and the nba and that reason is age related then they should be let go.

If you cant do your job, especially one to the level of a NBA referee, then why should you be there over someone who can??

Scoots
12-13-2016, 09:10 AM
We need more refs because right now refs are guessing and blowing the whistle ... a LOT. They are calling the "rip through" every time even if there is no contact. They are calling a foul on a block if the defender brings his arm down and the offensive player complains even if there is no contact. Flopping is getting worse because it works because the refs have too much to look at.

I agree that the NBA also needs younger refs. Dick Bavetta was a great ref well past his 60th birthday so I don't think it should be age based, but merit based. But keep in mind that bringing in younger refs has it's own issues too ... players will push around, take advantage, and complain about ALL new refs and any who are younger than they are, and any refs new to the NBA game regardless.

Adding a ref to the floor reduces the running needed and increases the number of things refs can watch. If flops start getting called right the flops go away and those whistles stop happening. If traveling starts getting called all the time the players will stop traveling. If the NBA adds a 4th ref to every crew the age of NBA refs will go down.

Don't we want every foul called as long as it's right?

Scoots
12-13-2016, 09:19 AM
http://www.nbastuffer.com/referee_stats

Always things to see here that are alarming.

Why does Ken Mauer call so many more fouls on the home team than the road team? I think it might be because SO MANY of the refs call games the other way and favor home teams.

It's also alarming how many fouls are called per game I agree ... but the biggest issue I see is guessing on calls and inconsistency.

warfelg
12-13-2016, 09:28 AM
Eh. I think extra refs means more whistles means longer games.

Maybe they should look at better training and get these guys all calling the same fouls the same way. Then again that is the human element of the game.

koreancabbage
12-13-2016, 09:47 AM
its not the number of refs. Its the judgement calls made the current refs that enable superstars to get away with more than they should.

IndyRealist
12-13-2016, 09:59 AM
A CBA can negotiate whatever they like. But the refs are unionized. But the game can do that if they like. NBA doesn't allow players to play in the league before they are 19.

The requirement is not actually that they have to be 19. The requirement is that they be over 18 (which is legal)and be out of highschool for a year. If someone graduated highschool at 17, they would be eligible for the draft at 18. For instance, my birthday is in July and I was 17 when I graduated. After my first year of college, I was still 18 when the draft occurred. Under current rules, I would have been eligible.

You cannot discriminate against an adult based on age. You can try to prove an individual is unfit for the job, but you can't make a blanket statement.

Scoots
12-13-2016, 10:37 AM
The reason for more refs is to reduce the number of things each ref has to make calls on. With each ref designated to make certain calls they will not necessarily total more calls.

We want them to be consistent and to not miss critical and fundamental calls.

If the calls are consistent the players will adjust and the fouls will go down.

da ThRONe
12-13-2016, 11:25 AM
its not the number of refs. Its the judgement calls made the current refs that enable superstars to get away with more than they should.

Yeah but the judgment calls have to be made a lot of the time from poor vantage points and refs are often times forced to guess on the call. More refs means more vantage points and less guessing calls.

Scoots
12-13-2016, 12:29 PM
Yeah but the judgment calls have to be made a lot of the time from poor vantage points and refs are often times forced to guess on the call. More refs means more vantage points and less guessing calls.

And very importantly, each ref has assigned things to watch currently, but with the speed of the game and the size of the players reducing the number of things a ref has to watch is a positive. For instance, right now the same ref is looking at a players feet when they shoot outside and checking to see if his arm is contacted during the shooting motion ... Riley used that fact to train his players with the Knicks and Heat to hit outside shooters arms very early in their shooting motion when the ref was looking down ... it didn't stop the ball from going in but it reduced the accuracy of the shot.

ewing
12-13-2016, 12:59 PM
yes!!!! call more fouls, call more fouls

TheMightyHumph
12-13-2016, 02:00 PM
Damn, I got slammed when I suggested it.

nycericanguy
12-13-2016, 02:09 PM
i doubt its a money issue, they are paying a room full of refs in secaucus to review plays and the NBA has a shitload of money, im sure if they thought it would improve the game they wouldn't mind the additional expenses.

just think the court is too crowded enough as is to be adding more refs.

effen5
12-13-2016, 03:03 PM
Refs are worthless. Just have the players call their own fouls.

Storch
12-13-2016, 03:38 PM
Let the players play more physical defense so the refs dont blow their whistles so much. This wuss basketball culture is creating superstar crybabies like demarcus cousins around the league. Then the nba wont need more refs

Scoots
12-13-2016, 03:43 PM
Refs are worthless. Just have the players call their own fouls.

"Before pre-game introductions James Harden was heard yelling foul from the locker room" :)

Vee-Rex
12-13-2016, 04:49 PM
http://www.nbastuffer.com/referee_stats

Always things to see here that are alarming.

Why does Ken Mauer call so many more fouls on the home team than the road team? I think it might be because SO MANY of the refs call games the other way and favor home teams.

It's also alarming how many fouls are called per game I agree ... but the biggest issue I see is guessing on calls and inconsistency.

To be fair, Mauer's stats are only for 1 recorded game this year. So it could've just been a game in which the home team was fouling a lot.

Compare that to the entire 2015-16 season where Mauer called 48.7% of his foul calls on the home team vs. 51.2% on the road team. Just pointing it out. :D

Anyway, I've always been supportive of having an extra referee. I think people automatically assimilate more refs with more foul calls and that's not necessarily true.

An extra referee should improve on the accuracy of calls. A lot of times they're at really, really poor angles and call a foul based on the jerking motion/body movement of a player, instead of whether or not there was contact. Less running up and down the floor should help too.

Is it just me or does anyone notice that the refs nowadays seem to be conferring more with one another? They seem to be more open to sharing their uncertainty on some plays - something that would be better with an extra referee.

Sly Guy
12-13-2016, 05:02 PM
its not the number of refs. Its the judgement calls made the current refs that enable superstars to get away with more than they should.

+1

Saddletramp
12-13-2016, 05:12 PM
The requirement is not actually that they have to be 19. The requirement is that they be over 18 (which is legal)and be out of highschool for a year. If someone graduated highschool at 17, they would be eligible for the draft at 18. For instance, my birthday is in July and I was 17 when I graduated. After my first year of college, I was still 18 when the draft occurred. Under current rules, I would have been eligible.

You cannot discriminate against an adult based on age. You can try to prove an individual is unfit for the job, but you can't make a blanket statement.

Bingo. Glad I kept reading thru before I responded.

tredigs
12-13-2016, 05:29 PM
The requirement is not actually that they have to be 19. The requirement is that they be over 18 (which is legal)and be out of highschool for a year. If someone graduated highschool at 17, they would be eligible for the draft at 18. For instance, my birthday is in July and I was 17 when I graduated. After my first year of college, I was still 18 when the draft occurred. Under current rules, I would have been eligible.

You cannot discriminate against an adult based on age. You can try to prove an individual is unfit for the job, but you can't make a blanket statement.

Well yes OK, forget the age requirement and simply make it an eye exam/physical and possibly a reactions based test that refs have to take bi-annually. No different than a plethora of other private enterprise corporations.

Scoots
12-13-2016, 05:30 PM
To be fair, Mauer's stats are only for 1 recorded game this year. So it could've just been a game in which the home team was fouling a lot.

Compare that to the entire 2015-16 season where Mauer called 48.7% of his foul calls on the home team vs. 51.2% on the road team. Just pointing it out. :D

Anyway, I've always been supportive of having an extra referee. I think people automatically assimilate more refs with more foul calls and that's not necessarily true.

An extra referee should improve on the accuracy of calls. A lot of times they're at really, really poor angles and call a foul based on the jerking motion/body movement of a player, instead of whether or not there was contact. Less running up and down the floor should help too.

Is it just me or does anyone notice that the refs nowadays seem to be conferring more with one another? They seem to be more open to sharing their uncertainty on some plays - something that would be better with an extra referee.

Mauer has 1 game as an EXTRA and 18 more as MAIN ... 19 totals games reffed. I like Mauer as a ref, I just found it interesting that his numbers skewed so far the other way this year when the average is usually far the other way.

I think the refs used to confer more, but with the recent influx of less experienced refs I've noticed that the baseline refs are stepping up to disagree less.

AllBall
12-13-2016, 05:52 PM
Street ball rules, no blood no foul, and be done with it. lol

Scoots
12-13-2016, 05:54 PM
Well yes OK, forget the age requirement and simply make it an eye exam/physical and possibly a reactions based test that refs have to take bi-annually. No different than a plethora of other private enterprise corporations.

How many of the NBAs regular game refs are over 60? My guess is you'll find that the few that are still working regularly over 60 are some of the better refs in the game. Also, they are easily fit enough to pass vision and endurance tests. How about a test where the refs crews who miss the most calls and who make the most bad calls according to post game evaluation of the game tape accrue points and the bottom 5 officials every year are fired? We could even get fans to submit time stamps for the worst calls to make sure they are graded accordingly.

Here's the complete list of NBA refs this season: http://www.basketball-reference.com/referees/2017_register.html

Saddletramp
12-13-2016, 05:58 PM
^^^^^To piggyback on the "fire the worst 5 refs at the end of the year" thing, are D-League refs able to be promoted up? Maybe the best three D-League refs get a call up and the worst 3 NBA refs get demoted to the "minors"? Pretty sure that's never gonna happen but I wonder if it's an option? Maybe if your percentage dips below a certain number then you get called down and the best D-League guy comes up?

Scoots
12-13-2016, 06:04 PM
Damn, I got slammed when I suggested it.

I've been calling for it for years. And I'm still arguing for it.

Vee-Rex
12-13-2016, 06:43 PM
Mauer has 1 game as an EXTRA and 18 more as MAIN ... 19 totals games reffed. I like Mauer as a ref, I just found it interesting that his numbers skewed so far the other way this year when the average is usually far the other way.


Whoops, my bad.

Scoots
12-13-2016, 11:45 PM
^^^^^To piggyback on the "fire the worst 5 refs at the end of the year" thing, are D-League refs able to be promoted up? Maybe the best three D-League refs get a call up and the worst 3 NBA refs get demoted to the "minors"? Pretty sure that's never gonna happen but I wonder if it's an option? Maybe if your percentage dips below a certain number then you get called down and the best D-League guy comes up?

I think several of the recent NBA ref call ups have come through the D-league.

Scoots
12-13-2016, 11:45 PM
Whoops, my bad.

No problem, the chart is a little mis-leading like that.

zookman65
12-16-2016, 08:49 AM
You know how we talk about how watered down the league is compared to previous decades because of the number of teams spreading out the talent? Consider bringing in 33% more referees that would not have qualified to be NBA referees prior to the change.

I don't think the league is watered down. Unrestricted free agency in 1988 just meant talent spread around more. Every team has to give a max contract to someone. In the days of the Lakers, Celtics supremacy most of the league sucked. I would call that watered down.

Scoots
12-16-2016, 10:00 AM
I don't think the league is watered down. Unrestricted free agency in 1988 just meant talent spread around more. Every team has to give a max contract to someone. In the days of the Lakers, Celtics supremacy most of the league sucked. I would call that watered down.

Certainly there are a LOT more players in the NBA now than their used to be. But there are more college basketball programs than there used to be to pull talent from and back before the league expanded there was virtually no quality ball played anywhere but in the U.S. and that is all another talent pool to pull from. Frankly, the idea that we can't find 450 "worthy" players from the entire world population is pure silliness. We have 1200 MLB players, and 2016 NFL players (sourced almost exclusively from the U.S.) ... certainly 450 is an easier number of positions to fill.

As for the "watering down" of the ref pool. Right now the NBA does a terrible job developing refs because they are full time employees and the union doesn't want more members. With a maximum need right now of 45 refs for active duty on one day (maximum 15 games on a single day which happens infrequently), finding just 15 more refs should not be any kind of challenge. In fact the NBA has employed 67 refs for game work this year already so they wouldn't actually need to hire any more refs to have 4 man crews (though they certainly would hire more because of scheduling and traveling issues).

IndyRealist
12-16-2016, 10:49 AM
Certainly there are a LOT more players in the NBA now than their used to be. But there are more college basketball programs than there used to be to pull talent from and back before the league expanded there was virtually no quality ball played anywhere but in the U.S. and that is all another talent pool to pull from. Frankly, the idea that we can't find 450 "worthy" players from the entire world population is pure silliness. We have 1200 MLB players, and 2016 NFL players (sourced almost exclusively from the U.S.) ... certainly 450 is an easier number of positions to fill.

As for the "watering down" of the ref pool. Right now the NBA does a terrible job developing refs because they are full time employees and the union doesn't want more members. With a maximum need right now of 45 refs for active duty on one day (maximum 15 games on a single day which happens infrequently), finding just 15 more refs should not be any kind of challenge. In fact the NBA has employed 67 refs for game work this year already so they wouldn't actually need to hire any more refs to have 4 man crews (though they certainly would hire more because of scheduling and traveling issues).

They need 67 refs currently to staff 3 per game. So it stands to reason they have to acquire 22 more refs to staff 4 per game, not 15. We all talk about how bad NBA calls are, and these are the 67 best referees they can find. The 22 coming in will not be nearly the same caliber.

Consider what effect promoting 10 whole D-league teams would have on the NBA, even spreading those players out among the (now) 40 teams. They very obviously don't belong there.

Scoots
12-16-2016, 11:34 AM
They need 67 refs currently to staff 3 per game. So it stands to reason they have to acquire 22 more refs to staff 4 per game, not 15. We all talk about how bad NBA calls are, and these are the 67 best referees they can find. The 22 coming in will not be nearly the same caliber.

Consider what effect promoting 10 whole D-league teams would have on the NBA, even spreading those players out among the (now) 40 teams. They very obviously don't belong there.

They HAVE 67 refs, that doesn't mean they NEED 89 to have 4 per game. There is a long held belief in business that you should replace the bottom 10% of your employees every year. The NBA should be doing that with their refs based on grading their made calls and missed calls for every minute of every game ... if they did that officiating would improve. If they were able to reduce the number of things each ref has to look at on a play by 33% then officiating would improve. It would take time to bring a whole new bunch of refs up to speed, but they will have that time because they won't have to be in a heavy rotation since the NBA already has enough refs on staff to handle even the rare case where every team is playing on the same day. The NBA can literally use experienced refs to staff every game if they want to and only work in the new refs for less important games and never where any of the other refs have less than 5 years experience.

Do you think it's impossible to find 20 more people in the world who can reasonably referee an NBA game given time to get up to speed?

IndyRealist
12-16-2016, 02:59 PM
They HAVE 67 refs, that doesn't mean they NEED 89 to have 4 per game. There is a long held belief in business that you should replace the bottom 10% of your employees every year. The NBA should be doing that with their refs based on grading their made calls and missed calls for every minute of every game ... if they did that officiating would improve. If they were able to reduce the number of things each ref has to look at on a play by 33% then officiating would improve. It would take time to bring a whole new bunch of refs up to speed, but they will have that time because they won't have to be in a heavy rotation since the NBA already has enough refs on staff to handle even the rare case where every team is playing on the same day. The NBA can literally use experienced refs to staff every game if they want to and only work in the new refs for less important games and never where any of the other refs have less than 5 years experience.

Do you think it's impossible to find 20 more people in the world who can reasonably referee an NBA game given time to get up to speed?

There's also a belief in business that you do not waste payroll on employees you don't need. If they have 67, then they need 67 for their current staffing needs. If you increase the number of positions by 33%, then you need to increase the staff by 33%. You're assuming You're increasing their workload by requiring all those veteran refs to work more games per year, in order to give those new refs time to "get up to speed". That's something you'd have to take up with their union, because they have a CBA too. If your boss came to you and said, "Hey, we've got a massive increase in workload, so you're going to have to work 13 more hours a week from here on out. Don't plan anything for the weekend." How would you take that? Do we even know if they get paid per game, or if they're salary?

Scoots
12-16-2016, 04:56 PM
There's also a belief in business that you do not waste payroll on employees you don't need. If they have 67, then they need 67 for their current staffing needs. If you increase the number of positions by 33%, then you need to increase the staff by 33%. You're assuming You're increasing their workload by requiring all those veteran refs to work more games per year, in order to give those new refs time to "get up to speed". That's something you'd have to take up with their union, because they have a CBA too. If your boss came to you and said, "Hey, we've got a massive increase in workload, so you're going to have to work 13 more hours a week from here on out. Don't plan anything for the weekend." How would you take that? Do we even know if they get paid per game, or if they're salary?

I wasn't talking about the employment aspect of it, rather the quality of the refereeing of the game. This discussion came from the idea that the referees would get "watered down".

I don't know what the refs union deal is, but refs average fewer than 60 games a year. IF it were up to me the NBA would double the number of regular season refs which would only improve the playoff refereeing even more since I believe competition improves the breed.