Nba In A 'fix'

[Meister]

This should stir up this slow sports summer a bit:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07202007/news/columnists/nba_in_a_fix_columnists_murray_weiss.htm

July 20, 2007 -- THE FBI is investigating an NBA referee who allegedly was betting on basketball games - including ones he was officiating during the past two seasons - as part of an organized-crime probe in the Big Apple, The Post has learned.
.....

I bet you this is why the raptors lost against NJ.

 

[bonghitter]

just read this on MSn.ca, wow, really hope its not true. This can be really bad for the game, and north american sports in general.

 

[Meister]

They named the ref:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2943095

 

[Back Burner]

This is crazy!!! Knowing that a ref can control the out come of a game and cash in; crazy!!

 

[newguy27]

I know we all rag on them but the NBA is normally not too bad with three refs calling the game. What a disgrace to have a dirty one (allegedly). Stern will kick him out for sure...they cant afford this kind of bad press.

 

[Don]

Somewhere in the world, Mark Cuban has a smug smile on his face.

 

[boffo]

This guy thinks Donaghy fixed game 3 of the Spurs/Suns series in favour of the Spurs with atrocious refereeing.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070722

 

[slidebone]

What I think is really interesting is that if this ref was fixing games, which seems painfully obvious at this point, nobody noticed based on the games themselves at the time. In fact, in general everyone talks about how good the officiating is. I don't recall any articles or fan comments suggesting games looked fixed or that officiating looked so funny that questions should have been raised (aside from the usual griping that we see every year). What about the other refs? Didn't they think something was incredibly wrong? They should be experts.

A lot of times too, the colour commentators will point out a bad call and usually we get an instant replay to double check. Again, nothing seemed out of the ordinary.

It is now only in retrospect that games are being called into question.

I guess what I'm saying is that the refs have so much impact on the game by the way they call it (either "letting them play" or not) that it is possible the refs can control the outcome of the game whether they are on the take or not, and that it would be difficult to tell a "fixed" game from one that was officiated without bias. Of course what that ref did was wrong and can't be tolerated, but it exposes an idiosyncrasy of the game.

 

[teassoc]

What I think is really interesting is that if this ref was fixing games, which seems painfully obvious at this point, nobody noticed based on the games themselves at the time. In fact, in general everyone talks about how good the officiating is. I don't recall any articles or fan comments suggesting games looked fixed or that officiating looked so funny that questions should have been raised (aside from the usual griping that we see every year). What about the other refs? Didn't they think something was incredibly wrong? They should be experts.

A lot of times too, the colour commentators will point out a bad call and usually we get an instant replay to double check. Again, nothing seemed out of the ordinary.

It is now only in retrospect that games are being called into question.

I guess what I'm saying is that the refs have so much impact on the game by the way they call it (either "letting them play" or not) that it is possible the refs can control the outcome of the game whether they are on the take or not, and that it would be difficult to tell a "fixed" game from one that was officiated without bias. Of course what that ref did was wrong and can't be tolerated, but it exposes an idiosyncrasy of the game.

Not totally true. Firstly the Raptors Hawks game was talked about a lot when the score was subsequently found to be wrong. Also commentators had a lot to say about the officials in the third Suns Spurs play-off game. This ref was involved in both games.

A crooked ref would be a bit stupid to be too obvious in his calls as that would invite attention. Has to be subtle i.e. at really key moments seen to make a bad call to get away with it for any protracted period.

 

[slidebone]

I would look at it this way: while the investigators are looking at the games, they are relying heavily on the statistics to prove their case. Apparently, the "smoking gun" is that the point spread moved too much in games this ref officiated. During his games, the betting shifted so heavily that the FBI knew something was up.

An experienced NBA ref could fix games using legitimate calls depending on how tight they call the game. Make sure to call 2 quick fouls early in the game on the star player and then "let them play" at the end, but make sure you call a couple of key fouls, and there you have it, a legitimately officiated game. The ref only has to influence the point spread of a game, not who wins. This means the ref could make 2 iffy calls and still shift the game, or strategically make legitimate calls.

I don't think they could prove their case from looking at the games individually themselves. At face value, the games might not look like they were called all that badly.

 

[RTRD]

Totally agree here...

I would look at it this way: while the investigators are looking at the games, they are relying heavily on the statistics to prove their case. Apparently, the "smoking gun" is that the point spread moved too much in games this ref officiated. During his games, the betting shifted so heavily that the FBI knew something was up.

An experienced NBA ref could fix games using legitimate calls depending on how tight they call the game. Make sure to call 2 quick fouls early in the game on the star player and then "let them play" at the end, but make sure you call a couple of key fouls, and there you have it, a legitimately officiated game. The ref only has to influence the point spread of a game, not who wins. This means the ref could make 2 iffy calls and still shift the game, or strategically make legitimate calls.

I don't think they could prove their case from looking at the games individually themselves. At face value, the games might not look like they were called all that badly.

...I think this is right on point.

I HIGHLY DOUBT anybody "smart" enough to become and NBA ref (and yes, you have to be pretty smart AND go through a rigorous apprenticeship) would be stupid enough to actually try to change the outcome of the game itself (decide the winner). No...it is about influencing the point spread...for the most part making sure it isn't covered. And as stated here, it could be done in a very subtle way....

 

[Smash]

I knew that Spurs/ Suns game 3 was fixed. I told my friend that after the game. It was in SA and Nash and the boys were getting mugged on almost every other play and there were no calls by that same Ref.

I remember one play where Amare came from the left side of the rim and was going to lay the ball up with his left hand. All of a sudden a Spur comes over from the centre of the key and swats Amares right arm, shoulder and lastly hits the ball loose. Their was no call and the Suns coach was freakin, actually here I'll find it on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvkKdXLwt0U

By the way I am neither a Suns or Spurs fan but IMO the Suns got robbed of a title

 

[slidebone]

Actually that game was very fucked up. I remember Steve Nash doing a lot of complaining to the refs during that game too. That series was tainted by the leagues stupidity as well.

I'm biased because I'm a Steve Nash fan, but the NBA is all about matchups. Sure, the Spurs were better than the Cavaliers, but were they really better than the Suns? I think the momentum of that series was turning in favour of the Suns. But I really blame the league for all that. Even if they didn't know there was cheating, they could have done so much more to ensure a fair series. I think Stern is an absolute idiot.

 

[Smash]

I'm biased because I'm a Steve Nash fan, but the NBA is all about matchups. Sure, the Spurs were better than the Cavaliers, but were they really better than the Suns? I think the momentum of that series was turning in favour of the Suns. QUOTE]

IMO the Suns were the better team and could put the Spurs away within the last 5 min of most games UNTIL that game and the momentum shifted towards the Spurs (do to missed calls) and Manu finally work up.

Before that Parker and Manu were no where to be found.

IMO if the Suns got half the calls they deserved in that game they would win the series. Nash was getting hacked on allot of plays but that ref didnt make the call.

I'm not a Suns fan but they were robbed. The NBA didnt want a offence minded team to win a ring.

 

[basketcase]

If you didn't know, there are three refs and each has an area of calls that they're responsible for. You would have to watch the game and see which calls were this guy's to make. Even the head ref is hesitant to overrule marginal calls.

 

[Smash]

If you didn't know, there are three refs and each has an area of calls that they're responsible for. You would have to watch the game and see which calls were this guy's to make. Even the head ref is hesitant to overrule marginal calls.

Yeah but ONE ref can change the outcome of a game. Thats why this dude was betting on the games he reffed. One or two calls at a key time of a close game could change the outcome. Look at the youtube clip in my earlier post and see for yourself the bad calls.

 

[kirmit129]

Yeah but ONE ref can change the outcome of a game. Thats why this dude was betting on the games he reffed. One or two calls at a key time of a close game could change the outcome. Look at the youtube clip in my earlier post and see for yourself the bad calls.

You are right, one or two calls can make a cold team hot or cool a hot team down.

 

[basketcase]

Not arguing the difference that one ref could make. Just saying that before complaining about specific games or calls, it would be good to know whether it was the ref on the dole who made them (or didn't).

 

[blueline]

Yeah but ONE ref can change the outcome of a game. Thats why this dude was betting on the games he reffed. One or two calls at a key time of a close game could change the outcome. Look at the youtube clip in my earlier post and see for yourself the bad calls.

I don't think this is all about him betting on games for himself, but rather fixing games to make sure people got paid. There was a guy just on Prime Time Sports Fan590, Michael Franzese, a former mob boss. He was also on Jim Rome last week for close to 2 hours and his story was very compelling.

This ref obviously had made bets (maybe for games he reffed, maybe not) and was in way over his head at some point. He can't pay so he gets a visit and is told to pay or figure out a way to make sure these guys on the street, mobsters, get paid. An earlier post referred to focussing on point spread and over under and thats exactly what Franzese was talking about.

This Franzese fellow has a very interesting story, you can check him out at www.michaelfranzese.com

On the Rome show, he was talking about how they would get kids from the NCAA. Maybe a senior with no real future in basketball would be a good target. A mobster would talk to him a few times then eventually a number would come up to entice him to fix a game. He said $10,000 was the magic number that would get their interest. Franzese also said that this thing in the NBA is not the only time it has ever happened. This guy is just the first to get caught.