THE REFS - the 538 nerds weigh in

[fightinfunbags]

What do you have backing up 'they are getting worse'?

Exhibit A - last night’s Sixers Nets game.

 

[tlance]

It is a complete strawman because "The refs have to be perfect" isn't a position. It's absurd from the start. But its positioned as being legit, they set up that refs will always miss some calls (which of course they will), throw out a couple of percentages showing that the refs miss a few calls but get most right, and then claim victory over the refs have to be perfect myth. That is a strawman. It's taking the legitimate claim that the refs are missing calls, there could be a problem here, are they getting worse position and flipping it to the refs have to be perfect.

Nobody really thinks the refs are supposed to be perfect.

But with the amount of complaining that goes down when they miss a call?

People most definitely do have unrealistic expectations.

And like @msgkings pointed out, you claimed they have gotten worse.

But where is your proof?

You have fallen into the perception trap too.

 

[tlance]

Exhibit A - last night’s Sixers Nets game.

Nah.

There are poorly officiated games throughout the history of the sport.

Citing 1 game that was bad in your opinion is proof of absolutely nothing.

 

[fightinfunbags]

Nah.

There are poorly officiated games throughout the history of the sport.

Citing 1 game that was bad in your opinion is proof of absolutely nothing.

It wasn’t just bad. It was straight unprofessional. I’ve seen high school officials better at keeping control of a game.

 

[msgkings322]

Exhibit A - last night’s Sixers Nets game.

Oh I guess this year is the first with some questionable choices

 

[tlance]

It wasn’t just bad. It was straight unprofessional. I’ve seen high school officials better at keeping control of a game.

And there are games throughout the history of the league that people can say the same about.

1 bad game is not proof that officiating is worse.

 

[fightinfunbags]

Got it. The new argument is that the officiating has always been ass and unaccountable. I feel better now.

 

[wildturkey]

Got it. The new argument is that the officiating has always been ass and unaccountable. I feel better now.

It's his go to pivot. Tlance is basically Captain Ref. No matter the sport, no matter how bad a call is, and no matter how consistently you see bad calls, the go to response is always some version of "reffing is hard, there will be blown calls *shoulder shrug*."

 

[wildturkey]

What do you have backing up 'they are getting worse'?

Quantitatively? I can't, nor can any other fan, say because we don't have the numbers. The NBA, especially with tracking cameras has them, but they won't release any accuracy numbers. The most you'll get is something that you saw from the 538 piece that says "92 to 95% the last couple of years, we're happy with that". But what's that compared to? That doesn't tell you much without more context. I'm basing my argument on the reffing outcomes from watching games the last couple of years. There's more talk about reffing. It's not just because of slo-mo and social media either. We had that 5years ago too. We had that 10 years ago. There's more talk about bad calls now, especially this season. That points to a decline in reffing quality. And that could still be in line with the numbers in those pieces too. If they were at 95% from say, 2015 to 2019 but dropped to 92% from 2020 till now, that could be noticeable on court to players, coaches, and avid fans. It's not just a one game, bad call issue either. There's more frequency with questionable calls almost nightly. Just in the games last night we had questionable foul calls in the Suns/Clips game, including a bad missed take foul call that if officiated correctly could have made that a 1 possession game late. And in the Philly game, they screwed up the flagrant calls, both of which were inconsistent with how they are normally called but if you listen to the League today, they will claim they were called correctly because the actual rules are written in such a way to give broad cover. That's something you have to watch for to with this league. You'll notice guys on the broadcast like Steve Javie and Monte McCutchen will never say the refs are wrong and will always find an interpretation to claim rightness, no matter if its inconsistent from other calls or what the video show.

 

[wildturkey]

Nobody really thinks the refs are supposed to be perfect.

But with the amount of complaining that goes down when they miss a call?

People most definitely do have unrealistic expectations.

And like @msgkings pointed out, you claimed they have gotten worse.

But where is your proof?

You have fallen into the perception trap too.

Nobody really thinks the refs are suppose to be perfect? The entire Myth #1 that piece claimed to debunk was that they were perfect. You can't tell me that wasn't a strawman and then turnaround and tell me points that I myself made telling you why it was a strawman.

 

[Shanemansj13]

What game is Foster reffing tonight?

 

[tlance]

It's his go to pivot. Tlance is basically Captain Ref. No matter the sport, no matter how bad a call is, and no matter how consistently you see bad calls, the go to response is always some version of "reffing is hard, there will be blown calls *shoulder shrug*."

It is the truth.

So until they incorporate technology to take pressure off of human officials, this will always be a problem.

Just as it always has been.

 

[tlance]

Nobody really thinks the refs are suppose to be perfect? The entire Myth #1 that piece claimed to debunk was that they were perfect. You can't tell me that wasn't a strawman and then turnaround and tell me points that I myself made telling you why it was a strawman.

You are getting caught in semantics.

The point of that part of the argument is that officials who some of you call “terrible” get 92-95% of calls correct in a very tough game to officiate.

I guarantee none of the people who constantly clown the refs would guess anything close to that.

The “myth” is an exaggeration of what people here actually expect.

 

[wildturkey]

It is the truth.

So until they incorporate technology to take pressure off of human officials, this will always be a problem.

Just as it always has been.

No one is denying there will always be bad calls. Yet you use this as a crutch to go against any officiating issue as if there is zero way to ever improve. Why bother to question if something could be better? They're human, bad calls happen. That's not an answer. That's a cop out

You are getting caught in semantics.

The point of that part of the argument is that officials who some of you call “terrible” get 92-95% of calls correct in a very tough game to officiate.

I guarantee none of the people who constantly clown the refs would guess anything close to that.

The “myth” is an exaggeration of what people here actually expect.

It's not semantics when it literally frames the argument that way. It could have just as easily started as "Myth: Refs are bad" if the author wanted to but didn't because that pathway opens up more discussion that with what they presented can't address.

And once again, you side step. It does not matter one ounce if a random person could do a better job than a trained professional official. It's one of your go to rebuttals any time any person brings up refereeing yet it holds no weight at all. What matters is if the actual refs are doing better/worse based on a set standard and in comparison to each other whether its current (as in recent seasons) or historical standards.

 

[msgkings322]

No one is denying there will always be bad calls. Yet you use this as a crutch to go against any officiating issue as if there is zero way to ever improve. Why bother to question if something could be better? They're human, bad calls happen. That's not an answer. That's a cop out



It's not semantics when it literally frames the argument that way. It could have just as easily started as "Myth: Refs are bad" if the author wanted to but didn't because that pathway opens up more discussion that with what they presented can't address.

And once again, you side step. It does not matter one ounce if a random person could do a better job than a trained professional official. It's one of your go to rebuttals any time any person brings up refereeing yet it holds no weight at all. What matters is if the actual refs are doing better/worse based on a set standard and in comparison to each other whether its current (as in recent seasons) or historical standards.

Did you read the article? It's not like the NBA doesn't want them to be as good as possible. They look at every game and give penalties and advances based on how good the refs do. Our point is simply that it can never be perfect and if it was worse this year they will see it on the tape and punish the worst offenders and promote the best.

 

[Picklerick 2.0]

Myth one is not a straw man at all.

It is data that backs up exactly what I have been saying all along.

Officiating has not gotten worse. In fact, if anything it has gotten better.

There is just way more attention paid to missed calls due to social media. So the perception is that it is worse.

But it really isn’t.

Officials will always miss calls because the job is impossibly hard. You just didn’t see the slow no replay from 4 different angles posted with a meme about how terrible the ref is 25 years ago.

The communication part?

I don’t know. I doubt that it is worse today, but that claim could be legit.

Technically myth one IS a strawman.

 

[tlance]

No one is denying there will always be bad calls. Yet you use this as a crutch to go against any officiating issue as if there is zero way to ever improve. Why bother to question if something could be better? They're human, bad calls happen. That's not an answer. That's a cop out



It's not semantics when it literally frames the argument that way. It could have just as easily started as "Myth: Refs are bad" if the author wanted to but didn't because that pathway opens up more discussion that with what they presented can't address.

And once again, you side step. It does not matter one ounce if a random person could do a better job than a trained professional official. It's one of your go to rebuttals any time any person brings up refereeing yet it holds no weight at all. What matters is if the actual refs are doing better/worse based on a set standard and in comparison to each other whether its current (as in recent seasons) or historical standards.

No…

I told you how they can improve.

They need to completely change the system.

Camera technology is too good today to not use it. You can see every angle to verify the official missed the call.

But the league can’t use the technology to get the calls right.

Human officials are always going to miss calls. It isn’t a cop out. It is common sense.

So either stop complaining when they do, or change the system.

You have absolutely nothing but your own perception that officials are worse today. And I am telling you that you are incorrect.

The burden of proof is on you, and you have absolutely none.

 

[tlance]

Technically myth one IS a strawman.

I don’t really care what you want to call it.

The people who who constantly talk about how much the refs suck at their jobs and that officials don’t get consequences for mistakes are wrong.

 

[Picklerick 2.0]

I don’t really care what you want to call it.

The people who who constantly talk about how much the refs suck at their jobs and that officials don’t get consequences for mistakes are wrong.

I'm not disagreeing with your second part, but with your first part? Don't blame me, I didn't create the English language.

 

[trojanfan12]

Quantitatively? I can't, n

You should have stopped there.

The rest of your post only serves to back up that statement.