Is Donaghy's saga over? - Page 3 - Detroit Pistons Fan Community

roscoe36 · #21 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaShawn

My question is this. Why is a technical default a small suspension for a player and a lifetime ban for a ref?

Both of these rules are meant to stop things from getting out of hand. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with leaving a bench or engaging in legal gambling. But they are both stepping stones to more serious offenses. So, in my mind, they are equally serious.

So, yes, they should carry equal penalties.

You can't possibly believe that Tay.

Leaving the bench is an emotional response. Do you believe that leaving the bench once in a season would be the same as a ref possibly harbouring a gambling habit ala Donaghy that compromises his integrity?

If a ref is clean, he's clean. And if he's not, then he needs to be removed from officiating duties. Even the suggestion that a ref is engaged in gambling (however unrelated) creates an aura of impropriety. There was a purpose and intent behind having it in the officials' CBA.

We're not talking about morality. We rarely do when it comes to rules or laws.

**max** · #22 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 02:30 AM

I would tend to agree that this Vick thing is overshadowing the NBA scandale. I am so tired of hearing about Vick.

Does not mean it is going to go away. I even heard Bill Walton talking about standardizing the calls in last nights game.

Its on Hiatus and not dead quit yet. Wait until the season starts and everyone is questioning calls way more than they ever did.

The Low · #23 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by max

I would tend to agree that this Vick thing is overshadowing the NBA scandale. I am so tired of hearing about Vick.

Does not mean it is going to go away. I even heard Bill Walton talking about standardizing the calls in last nights game.

Its on Hiatus and not dead quit yet. Wait until the season starts and everyone is questioning calls way more than they ever did.

That's precisely what I'm waiting for. I'm dying to see if this actually makes a difference or if they continue with the same shenanigans they have been going on with. I'm almost willing to bet (no pun intended) that the officiating doesn't get any better, but they try to spin it as though it's much better now that they've gotten rid of the bad apple. Hell, for all the posturing and rule making Stern has been doing to keep his players in line with the company image, it's perfectly ironic that the officials turn out to be the ones to burn him the worst.

TaShawn · #24 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roscoe36

There was a purpose and intent behind having it in the officials' CBA.

You don't think there was a purpose and intent to having the rule where players can't leave the bench during a fight?

roscoe36 · #25 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 11:22 AM

I do believe there was.

Do you truly believe the penalties should be equal?

Answer me this. What is more heinous? Swearing at a fan, or manipulating an outcome?

TaShawn · #26 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roscoe36

Do you truly believe the penalties should be equal?

Answer me this. What is more heinous? Swearing at a fan, or manipulating an outcome?

Not for Donaghy. But for the soon-to-be-named refs who were only gambling recreationally. Sure, suspend them for 25 games and give them a $25K penalty. That would be much more meaningful to them than to the players.

I mean if punching a fan in the face (which is illegal) doesn't even result in the loss of a player's job, then why should this for the good refs?

As much suspicion as I have over the way games are reffed, I could care less if they play poker. In fact, I sort of like them better now that I know they do. They seem like they'd be fun to hang out with.

coynejeremy · #27 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaShawn

Not for Donaghy. But for the soon-to-be-named refs who were only gambling recreationally. Sure, suspend them for 25 games and give them a $25K penalty. That would be much more meaningful to them than to the players.

I mean if punching a fan in the face (which is illegal) doesn't even result in the loss of a player's job, then why should this for the good refs?

As much suspicion as I have over the way games are reffed, I could care less if they play poker. In fact, I sort of like them better now that I know they do. They seem like they'd be fun to hang out with.

I feel compelled to come to Tashawn's defense. I don't have anything meaningful to add to the discussion, but I believe you have been spot on with your points. Keep up the good work, bro!!!

roscoe36 · #28 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 01:09 PM

I want you to know, I do see your point. And I'm a contrarian by nature, so the argument does resonate with me.

But at the same time, I am a fan who spends a lot of his disposable income following the sport. I don't gamble, so I can't claim losses because the scales were tipped against me in a secretive manner. Just the same, I invest time, interest and money into following the sport, and the assumption that it is somewhat fair is a key component of that.

I have long said the referees are incompetent as a group. Now I have a better understanding that the system is incompetent as well. Not in the, "what is really travelling" or "how much time is on the clock" sense but that there are not the safeguards or means to preserve the perception of integrity about the game.

I doubt I will be able to watch the Pistons lose this season, and short of a lot of missed shots, keep from wondering what the referee's agenda is each and every time they make a call.

And that to me is a bigger crime and more damaging than the Malice at the Palace. We know fans go to far, and we know Artest is a moron. We know that the players can be emotionally overboard and we know that the tension can run high. It's part of the thrill of being a fan, knowing that the sport is volatile enough to produce the best and worst from the athletes.

But the refs? The league? The system? The review process? Incapable and impotent?

We might as well take stats and scores and throw them out the window. Because those late game free throws, those technical fouls, ball handling violations are all suspect.

I want to see refs outed. I don't even care who they are. The ideal outcome would be for this to burn down the house, and force the NBA to admit failure (instead of blaming one guy, over and over) and rebuild with a new paradigm that they are smarter for it, and safeguards to preserve the fan's perception of the game that it has integrity.

The Low · #29 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roscoe36

I want you to know, I do see your point. And I'm a contrarian by nature, so the argument does resonate with me.

But at the same time, I am a fan who spends a lot of his disposable income following the sport. I don't gamble, so I can't claim losses because the scales were tipped against me in a secretive manner. Just the same, I invest time, interest and money into following the sport, and the assumption that it is somewhat fair is a key component of that.

I have long said the referees are incompetent as a group. Now I have a better understanding that the system is incompetent as well. Not in the, "what is really travelling" or "how much time is on the clock" sense but that there are not the safeguards or means to preserve the perception of integrity about the game.

I doubt I will be able to watch the Pistons lose this season, and short of a lot of missed shots, keep from wondering what the referee's agenda is each and every time they make a call.

And that to me is a bigger crime and more damaging than the Malice at the Palace. We know fans go to far, and we know Artest is a moron. We know that the players can be emotionally overboard and we know that the tension can run high. It's part of the thrill of being a fan, knowing that the sport is volatile enough to produce the best and worst from the athletes.

But the refs? The league? The system? The review process? Incapable and impotent?

We might as well take stats and scores and throw them out the window. Because those late game free throws, those technical fouls, ball handling violations are all suspect.

I want to see refs outed. I don't even care who they are. The ideal outcome would be for this to burn down the house, and force the NBA to admit failure (instead of blaming one guy, over and over) and rebuild with a new paradigm that they are smarter for it, and safeguards to preserve the fan's perception of the game that it has integrity.

Amen..

TaShawn · #30 (**permalink**) 08-30-2007, 01:31 PM

I'm sure I'm going to be crying foul when we lose due to bad calls this year too. I've been telling everyone I know, that the NBA is rigged (for ratings purposes) for years.

I think the good news for Stern is that Donaghy seems to be unable to name another ref who is actually corrupt. And it seems as though he has no reservations about ratting people out. None of us would have been surprised if he would have exposed a massive conspiracy here right? All the way up to Stern perhaps. But it isn't happening. And that could be because there is no real systematic corruption.

I saw that there is news today about pro tennis matches being rigged. They are also investigating a point shaving case revolving around Toledo football. There is probably dirt under the covers of every pro and college sport if you look hard enough.

Has anyone here read Freakonomics? There is a chapter in the book where the author basically proves that Sumo wrestling is corrupt.

Quote:

One striking example of the authors' creative use of economic theory involves demonstrating the existence of cheating among Sumo wrestlers. In a Sumo tournament, all wrestlers compete in fifteen matches and stay in the top league if they win at least 8 of them. The Sumo community is very close-knit, and all of the wrestlers at the top levels tend to know each other well. The authors looked at the final match, and considered the case of a 7-7 wrestler (i.e. a wrestler with seven wins and seven losses, and one fight to go) fighting against an 8-6 wrestler. Statistically, the 7-7 wrestler should have a slightly below even chance, since the 8-6 wrestler is slightly better. However, the 7-7 wrestler actually wins around 80% of the time. Levitt uses this statistic and other data gleaned from Sumo wrestling matches and the effect allegations of corruption have on match results, to concluded that those who already have 8 wins collude with those who are 7-7 and let them win, since they have already secured their place in the league

Freakonomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We need this guy to do some data mining on NBA games to pick out the bad refs!