Crying foul

As usual, playoff officiating ignites the conspiracy theories

Someone really ought to send a tape of last Thursday's Lakers-Timberwolves playoff game to the three refs who worked the contest.

Why?

Because they sure didn't see it.

Referees Ronnie Nunn, Leroy Richardson and Bill Spooner botched so many calls in favor of the Lakers during the closing minutes of that game that the Timberwolves, who clearly deserved to win, almost didn't. The most blatant error came when Minnesota's Wally Szczerbiak was called for a foul on a drive to the basket by Lakers guard Jannero Pargo (don't worry, if you didn't realize the Lakers even had a guard named Jannero Pargo, you're like 99 percent of NBA fans) even though the T-Wolves forward clearly never touched Pargo. Even NBA commissioner David Stern, a master of spin control, had to admit the refs blew that one. "Guess what," Stern said. "We make mistakes."

Let's pause for a moment to make the obligatory and valid defense of all officials: Refereeing is a thankless job. A ref can -- and usually does -- make 99 of 100 calls correctly, yet the only one we remember is the one he got wrong. Referees are only human, and human error is part of sport. Officials have to make decisions in the blink of an eye, without the slow-motion instant replays that fans have at home. Professional refs, for the most part, make fewer mistakes at their job than most of us do at ours.

Still, there's something different about the NBA. When referees and umpires in other sports make mistakes, they're dismissed as simple, infrequent examples of human error. When NBA officials miss calls, the conspiracy theorists come out. You could almost hear the callers around the country dialing up their favorite sports radio talk shows Friday night, getting ready to complain that the referees' "mistakes" were evidence that the league wants the high-profile, big-market Lakers to win.

You'll find no accusations here about the integrity of the league's refs, but it's easy to see where the suspicions come from. The problem is that NBA referees don't just call what they see. Whether or not they blow their whistle often seems to be a function of the game situation or the stature of the individuals involved. There's no secret that when a marquee player like Tracy McGrady gets bumped on the way to the basket, a foul is far more likely to be called than when a journeyman like Tracy Murray draws the same contact. A veteran gets the benefit of more calls than a rookie, a starter gets more calls than a substitute, and a star gets more calls than a starter. There's not a player or coach in the league who would deny that -- and, privately, neither would most referees.

Then there's the postseason, when NBA officials allow more contact than they do during the regular season. The league seems to take a certain macho pride in this, as though it separates the men from the boys. But in reality it's as absurd and unfair as it would be if baseball umpires widened their strike zones during the playoffs, or football officials decided to relax the pass interference rules in the postseason.

Stern and the others in the league office tend to get understandably irritated at the suggestion that the NBA in any way encourages its referees to give even slightly preferential treatment to one team or one player over another. But until the league and its refs start treating a foul in December the same as a foul in April, until they decide that Michael Jordan shouldn't get better treatment than Michael Curry, those suspicions will always be out there.

Senior writer Phil Taylor, who used to cover the NBA for Sports Illustrated, writes about a Hot Button topic every Monday on SI.com.

 

Related information

Stories

Controversial calls at end of Game 3 are hot topic SI.com's Complete NBA Playoff Coverage Previous Phil Taylor Columns

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video