Six of the alleged twenty referees Donaghy named in his Federal Court soul cleansing have been "reprimanded and punished" by the league, according to the NBA's version of Major Hochstetter, Stooge Axin'. That's all well and good, but what happened to the league's promise of transparency after the whole Donaghy scandal blew up in the first place?
Not only is Stern and Co. not releasing the names of the referees in question, they are refusing to expound on the infractions, as well as leaving the punishments to mere speculation. There are so few clues, Scooby and Shaggy couldn't figure this one out.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that ANY gambling activity is a terminable offense. The whole point is to maintain the integrity of the league's officiating so that no one can even question a referee's motivations after a dubiously called game. Tim Donaghy was supposed to have ruined the non-transparency privilege for everyone involved, including the commissioner and his hired goons.
I understand that it is a person's right to maintain his privacy to the extent that the law allows (not stepping on THAT slippery slope, thank you). But it is part of the NBA officials' collective bargaining agreement, as well it is in each contract, that any type of gambling activity is off limits. An NBA ref isn't even allowed inside a casino, except in the off season, and then only for shows. They are not allowed to be in the gambling arena. Coupled with the entire concept of "integrity," does it not stand to reason that he surrenders that particular right the moment an official scribes his name onto the parchment?
If the infractions are so minor, then there certainly should be no issue in at least releasing those details. But Stern only relates that the rules violations were "not hanging crimes." In light of the Game 3 debacle, should that not be for the fans to decide? A parolee can't even get a DUI without being tossed back into jail, and, in basketball terms, this is far worse than driving home drunk from a bar.
At this point, with Stern in Europe and his mouth-piece tightly sealed until his return, I can only assume that we will have to wait for any relevant details to leak out over time - whether by design or through public pressure. (Not that Stern ever bends to the will of "his" league's fan base.)
This is, indeed, a disturbing turn of events that only serves to exacerbate the frustration felt by fans in general - and Maverick fans in particular - as the league decided to send another mixed message to its players and fans. OOPS!
If you haven't heard - and you probably have - Josh Howard got into a little scrum during Dallas' preseason game against Sacramento when *surprise!* Brad Miller floored little Devin Harris. Apparently, the comparably sized rookie Nick Fazekas proved too tough a match. Howard punked Miller from behind with a forearm (just ONCE can't one of these guys face up like men?), and that was pretty much the end of it - the "worldwide leader in sports" glossed over the rest.
Not surprisingly, Howard found himself suspended for the first two games of the regular season, just enough time for him to return for the home opener against -- Sacramento. I hope it's televised, as well the league's marketing guru's do, I'm sure. Now, I don't know if this next part surprises me or not, considering recent history. Miller has not been, and will not be suspended for two games . . . or one game . . . or at all.
It was our determination that the penalty of an FFP-1 assessed at the game was appropriate.
Typical Stu Jackson quote, isn't it? I'm sure the Flagrant-1 foul was appropriate at the time it was called. But it directly lead to a retaliatory response from the opposing team. Why is it that the league does not take into consideration the full effects of a player's actions when determining punishments? Why does it always seem to start and end with that player's own two hands?
The league is essentially telling us (and however many kids watch the games nowadays) that there is nothing wrong with throwing a blow, so long as nobody throws one back.
"Go ahead, kids. If someone frustrates you, or if you're upset for some reason only known to you, go ahead and shove the first person you see to the ground. But make sure he's smaller than you. We don't want any fights to break out."
Too glib?
So the Robert Horrys and Brad Millers of the world get free reign on all the Devin Harrises and Steve Nashes, apparently. And god forbid a bigger guy comes to the little guy's rescue. As the league has shown us, there is nothing worse than standing up for the defenseless -- literally.
No wonder David Stern is so busy trying to sweeten relations with China. After all . . . one good dictator deserves another.
Update: Now the league says that the New York Daily News report that six officials have been reprimanded is untrue.
"There is no truth to this report," [league spokesman Tim] Frank said. "The commissioner has made it clear that we will have details to share once the review is completed."Fine. So no one was punished...yet. That doesn't change what Stern has already said on the matter, that they're not "hanging crimes."
My ego likes to think that he read this entry and realized that what was reported would be unacceptable. He'd better realize that, even if he isn't literate enough to read this.
5 comments:
Absolutely ridiculous. "Transparency", my foot. The only thing blatantly transparent in this whole thing is that Stern is trying to save whatever credibility he thinks the NBA officials still have. It's an exercise in futility.
Now every NBA fan can claim his favorite team was the victim of corrupt officiating, whether or not his team would have lost anyway, and the sad fact of the matter is he'd probably be right.
Good point about the NBA essentially saying it's okay for a player to check a guy into the score table, but not okay for a player to show any kind of emotional response to such an action.
Thing is, they're not even consistent about how they enforce the stupid rules they say are "not open to interpretation".
Seriously, if the Suns weren't as good and entertaining as they are, I might not be watching NBA basketball this year.
Stern is disrespecting the fans by allowing this crap to continue and trying to hide the truth.
If the Suns weren't as good as they are, I'd DEFINITELY not be watching the NBA. The league and media try to play it up as if it's LeBron and Kobe's league, but we know the truth.
On Howard's suspension, he actually ran the length of the court and clocked Miller in the back of the head. A worse crime than Miller's shove-down, so different punishments are probably appropriate. However, the Stu-Speak is quite astounding, no?
This "zero tolerance" crap really riles me up. It's such double-speak, from politicians spewing their slogans to Stern and Stu. Politicians who promise to "crack down" if elected is as laughable as politicians implementing their programs "to save the children." "You want to save the children, don't you?"
So, NBA double-speak may now be termed either "Stu-Speak" or "Stern-Speak."
More on "zero tolerance":
1. Here's my take on the leaving-the-bench suspensions -- http://kellyse-tavern.blogspot.com/2007/05/stu-jackson-on-radio.html
2. On not calling fouls in the postseason -- if the NBA instituted a "zero tolerance" policy on any "defensive" move pioneered by Bruce Bowen or Bill Laimbeer, there would be many more players fouling but I'm pretty sure the vast majority would change the way they play to resemble their regular season play.
3. Terminable Offenses -- Where is "zero tolerance" on this one? If ever there were a time to actually use a "zero tolerance" policy, it would be this one.
I don't think a half-dozen refs should get fired for being in a casino or playing blackjack in Vegas. Rather, I'd hope this highlights the stupidity of "zero tolerance" policies.
There need to be guidelines and there needs to be someone exercising some judgment. Going to either side is easier to do and defend in soundbites, but it eventually just adds fuel to the flames.
I saw on the ticker this morning that the NBA is now denying the story about the refs. I haven't had a chance to look into it, though. If it's the case, then I wonder where those specific quotes from Stu Stern came from.
It really does amaze me how similar Stern is to a dictator.
Howard ran the length of the court and got two games. Fair enough. But shouldn't Miller have gotten one game?
On Miller's penalty:
There's still the "No shit, Stu?" response to his quote that the Flagrant 1 was the proper call. God forbid he answer the question of whether additional punishment is appropriate.
I don't know if a one-game suspension for the act was approrpriate. He shoved the guy in a bout of frustration. He didn't attack the guy or risk serious physical injury. The question you seem to be pondering is whether the other team's reaction (the 80-foot sprint from Howard) should add to the punishment. In this case, I don't think so.
If Howard was right there and clocked Miller, then maybe. Or, alternatively, they could take into that into consideration when meting out the punishment. But, at that point in time, Howard's move was unnecessary and stupid.
I can't really disagree with that result.
Post a Comment