Simmons article was a good read, despite a bunch of logical/factual mistakes. My new database tracks ref assignments along with everything else (I don't know who makes each call, but I know the 3 refs assigned to each game), so I'll be able to do some queries to test hypotheses about things, but I have a feeling that this...
Quote:
We still don't know why certain referees get assigned to certain games, why Bennett Salvatore always seems to be involved when a home team needs a win to change the momentum of a series, why Joey Crawford keeps getting assigned to Spurs games, why Danny Crawford keeps getting assigned to Mavericks games, why Bill Kennedy would get assigned to a big Celtics game only six weeks after an argument cost Doc Rivers money.
....is somewhere between 'selective memory' and 'flat out fabrication'.
The complaint about the age of officials is not a new one. The problem is, while I'm open to the idea that it is a problem, I haven't seen anyone put forward a better case than, "they're old therefore they can't see and they suck." That may or may not be true, but it's not true just because you keep saying it. Until shown good reason why I should believe otherwise, I'm going to continue with the position that it is really ****ing hard to ref regardless of age, and if there's an issue with older refs in particular, it's probably because they are the ones that have been in the league longer and are higher-profile, leading to giant bouts of selection bias when bitching and moaning.
I really think the problem lies not with the refs (who, as Assani likes to point out, have reached the pinnacle of their profession, regardless of how you feel about them), but with the system in which they have to operate and the expectations the public has. They need help.
I am sympathetic to those who worry that a lot of instant replay will slow the game down unbearably. There are countless examples of a 3-pt shot being reviewed where it is blindingly obvious from one glance if it was a 2 or a 3, and yet the review process still takes like 3 minutes. If that's what instant replay is going to be, then keep it out, but it doesn't have to be.
If I was in charge, the following changes would be made:
- Every crew has a 4th ref, who can communicate with the lead ref, but is not on the court himself. He has a video monitor with a simple, easy-to-use replay system.
- The 4th ref basically double-checks every call in the game, and if a call was so clearly blown that it is obvious to him within a few seconds, he signals to the lead ref to change the call on the court. If it's not blatantly obvious, he lets it go.
- There can also be an additional review process for things like challenges or specific late-game situations that would trigger auto-review, as is done now.
Most disputed calls could be changed by a competent video-ref within the time that it usually takes for a player and ref to jaw at each other. It would be a negligible slowdown in the game, but a significant increase in accuracy. Furthermore, it blunts the whining of the players when they know there's a guy confirming/disconfirming calls on video replay.
Also, flopping should be reviewable and punishable by suspension (whether immediately or with some sort of 'points' system).