NBA Refs: What the $#%@?!?!

Part II: The Solution

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know the first thing about training or coaching professional basketball referees. That’s where the changes are going to be needed in order to see any real progress. However, there are things that can be done on a more basic level that I think can help alleviate some of the problems, and eliminate some of the factors working against NBA referees.

The most glaring problem I see is that the average age of an NBA referee is around 45 years old, with the oldest being 70 year old Jack Nies. 70! That’s 15 years past retirement age. And he’s supposed to run up and down with some of the greatest athletes on the planet, while keeping a keen eye on all of them, and do so, of course without any relief. Heck, even the best conditioned athletes in the league take a break from time to time. No wonder they have problems. That’s a tall order.

So, since age discrimination is illegal in this country, and since it takes years of training to become an NBA level basketball referee, the age issue is difficult to fix. We’re gonna have to look at other areas to improve things.

What I propose is that the NBA adds an extra on-court official to all games. It’s a simple adjustment that I think will noticeably improve the quality of officiating in today’s NBA. The current 3 man teams just aren’t cutting it, and it shouldn’t be a surprise. There are simply fundamental deficiencies in the system, especially when the situation is compounded by adding in some of the best athletes in the world.

Think about it. There are 3 people in charge of monitoring 10 people, spread across a court that is 94 feet wide and 50 feet long. That’s 4700 square feet to keep an eye on at all times, or just under 1600 sq ft per person. Now, granted, the game is played mostly on one side of the court at a time, but that still leaves about 800 square feet to keep an eye on. That’s still a lot, especially considering the increasing popularity of the run and gun styles of teams like Phoenix and Golden State, and the speed at which even predominantly half court teams, such as San Antonio and Detroit, play at.

With 4 refs, there would not only be more eyes watching the action, but it would allow the referees to reposition themselves for better sightlines to the ball with less fear of “abandoning” an area. I’ve seen too many games where crucial calls are missed, simply because a referee didn’t have a good angle on the call, or his view was obstructed for some reason.

Another advantage of the extra referee would be to limit the required court coverage of each official. It’s absolutely ludicrous to have 40, 50 and 60 year old men running up and down the court with world class athletes in their 20’s and 30’s. With a 4^th official, a rotation could easily be worked out where the longest an individual ref would travel would be no more than half the length of the court.

You would have two officials (one on each end; 1 & 4) under the baskets who would roam the baseline while the ball is on their end of the court, and then trail the action as it heads up the court, positioning himself just short of mid-court line, slightly shaded to one side. He would be primarily out of the play at this point, although he would still be able to make calls that happen around the perimeter. His primary objective, however, would be to lead the action back down the court, particularly on fast breaks, almost as if he were a cherry-picking defensive player. Under no circumstances should a player ever get behind him (If a player stays back, like Shaq has been doing on Phoenix, then the ref should stay with him).

I’ve seen WAY too many examples of players (particularly the “Superstars”) driving for contested lay-ups on a fast break and getting the “benefit of the doubt” on a foul call, only to see a replay that shows they were either untouched, or actually responsible for the contact themselves. On a vast majority of these plays you can specifically see the (obviously) much slower footed ref, trailing the play, and struggling to find a good sight angle on the shot. With the 4^th official leaking out at the first sign of a player turning his head down the court, he should be able to comfortably get himself into position under the hoop by the time the ball arrives.

The other two referees (2 & 3) would patrol the sidelines, with each side being primarily shaded to the back or front ends (depending on which side of the court the action was on). One would be positioned more towards the baseline, while the other would be shaded towards the mid court line. Once the ball settles into the half court, they would then position themselves as normal, for a better view of the action, although never straying too far from their “position”.

Not only would this positioning allow for more eyes and better views in the half court set, it would VASTLY improve the viewing angles on fast breaks. Due to the staggered set up, once play switched directions and headed back down court, each ref would be in an advantageous position during the entirety of the play.

During a fast break, the trailing official (4) becomes the lead (as discussed before), while the sideline official shaded towards mid court (3) begins trailing the players who have leaked out on the break, meaning that there is an official with a good view of both the front end and trailing end of the break.

Once the other players start to fill in (the secondary break), the first sideline official will have a good view of the action from the front side, while the other sideline official (2) is able to wait back a bit, trail the secondary action, and be able to assess the action from behind. Meanwhile, the “4^th official” (1) is, again, trailing the play behind the stragglers, while also preparing for a sudden shift in action caused by a steal or other unforeseen change of possession.

With this set up, each official is actually encouraged to “stay back” more, since there is more “help” on the court, while their spacing benefits their court coverage. It also helps conserve energy, which can only enhance their ability to make quick, concise calls throughout the game.

While I think a 4^th official would be a fantastic start, I believe the overall league refereeing could benefit further from a 5^th official. “5^th?” You say. “Isn’t the court already crowded enough?” Well, yes, it is, and that is why my proposed 5^th official would be positioned at the scorers table, handling all official scoring duties, as well as having a television monitor in front of him.

With the league already having gone through an embarrassing situation in Atlanta, where the official scorer “accidentally” disqualified Shaq after his fifth foul, there is no better time than now to put a properly trained, NBA employee at each scorers table to oversee the process. Also, he could be watching the game from a television monitor and have the advantage of seeing instant replays. This would not only allow him to assess the effectiveness of the on-court quartet (and pass along observations constructively at stoppages of play), but he would also be able to make scoring decisions on plays that need to be observed more closely (most notably 2-point/3-point calls).

I personally watched an overtime game this year (Portland vs. Toronto on ????) in which a Jose Calderon made a long 2 with his toe on the line, late in the overtime, but was mistakenly given 3 points. On the next trip down court (the final possession of the overtime), Brandon Roy made a miraculous 3 that should have been the game winning basket. However due to the scoring error (and yes, it was a blatant error, as replays showed), the game proceeded into double-OT and the Raptors prevailed.

Now, I’m not implying that the game was specifically lost on that play, as any number of situations could have played out in those final seconds had it been a 2 point game instead of a 3 point game. However, it is also very conceivable that the Blazers would still have gone for a 3, being on the road, already in OT, and on the first game of a 7-game Eastern Conference road trip. Either way, it was a mistake that shouldn’t have been made, and could have easily been prevented with an ACTUAL “official scorer.”

At the moment, there are already four officials assigned to every game. There are three game officials, and an emergency “back-up official”, who is on site and ready to step in, in the event of an injury or any other situation that prevents one of the officials from finishing the game. It would be this emergency official who would man the scorers table and watch the television monitor. In the case an on-court official needed to be replaced, the 5^th official could vacate his position for the more pressing need on the court. In addition, the injured official may take over the score table position if he were in good enough condition to do so (i.e. sprained ankle, cramping, etc).

Another potential benefit of this 5^th official would be to allow for each in-game official to take a quarter (or however long) off and rest at the score table position. Referees already switch up their “positions” during games, so this wouldn’t be much of a stretch strategically. Considering that even the most well conditioned NBA players take a rest during most games, it seems only logical that the referees who are, in general, decades older, should be afforded the same opportunity. It just makes sense.

Now, I’m not naïve enough to assume that these changes will reduce the mistakes made by referees to zero. However, with the state of officiating seemingly sinking to new lows each year, it’s about time the NBA takes the situation seriously and tries to institute some sort of change. The changes proposed here are relatively simple to institute. They only require increasing number of official present at each game from 4 to 5, and would unquestionably have a positive impact on the quality of the officiating in the league. If nothing else, it would show a concerted effort by the league to address what is increasingly being identified as it’s biggest on-court problem. After years of sub-standard officiating, it’s the absolute least they could do. Well, except for, you know… continuing to ignore it.