(01-13-2014 01:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 12:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I think I'm not being clear. I already said refs affect outcomes of games, b/c they are human, and the game moves quickly. I'm just saying they do NOT intentionally try to change the result of a game. They are NOT corrupt.

I think there are incompetent refs. I think there are refs with different styles that cause some teams more problems than others. I think refs have bad games. I think refs sometimes focus on some things to the detriment of others. I think refs call things early that they let go late, or vice versa.

But my point is refs are not out there trying to CHEAT a school out of a win.

Beyond that, it's up to the team to adjust to how things are being called, and to play well enough that a ref's MISTAKES do not cost them a game.

We will have to respectfully disagree. The best example is major league baseball. Heaven forbid you show that you disagree with a ball/strike call either as a hitter or pitcher. Do that and the umpires will make sure that you get the message on EVERY close pitch the rest of the way. Make it a habit and you might as well retire; every umpire will then call everything against you.

Example two; the entire NBA. There are 5 teams that get calls; the teams with 3 stars. The teams with two stars will get them unless they are playing teams with 3 stars. If you don't have any stars, getting a favourable whistle isn't going to happen very often. On an individual level, stars get many more calls than non stars.

Refs aren't only biased in those two sports; they are biased in every sport. It is human nature. Every ref has their favourites and non favourites; the difference in MLB and the NBA is that it is harder to hide.

The good thing about college basketball, is that unlike football, there are so many games, that invariably you will get a lot of games where the refs don't have favourites. When they do, your odds of winning either go up or down.

Exactly

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:30 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote:  I was a basketball official for over 20 years. I suspect that I have known or met more referees that most everyone on this board. I know referees that officiate leagues from the youngest to the NBA. I know many that are incompetent. I have NEVER known one that gave a rat's azz which team won a game. There is a huge difference in cheating,as some folks like to say, by a referee than there is in just officiating poorly during a game. Tim Donaghy in the NBA is the only referee I've ever heard of that may have been gambling on that he officiated. The basketball officials that I know are the highest character people I have ever been associated with in life. Some of them also have no business officiating basketball, but no one will ever convince me that they cheat.

Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:30 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote:  I was a basketball official for over 20 years. I suspect that I have known or met more referees that most everyone on this board. I know referees that officiate leagues from the youngest to the NBA. I know many that are incompetent. I have NEVER known one that gave a rat's azz which team won a game. There is a huge difference in cheating,as some folks like to say, by a referee than there is in just officiating poorly during a game. Tim Donaghy in the NBA is the only referee I've ever heard of that may have been gambling on that he officiated. The basketball officials that I know are the highest character people I have ever been associated with in life. Some of them also have no business officiating basketball, but no one will ever convince me that they cheat.

Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

From an internal control perspective, it is a risk that requires better definition, disclosure, and procedures than the condition you described.

Every sport at every level is having issues with refs these days, but the game we played at louisville was one of the best officiated college games i've seen in a long time. Matter of fact, it was one of the best officiated games i've seen PERIOD. The refs did not help us in the louisville game. The refs may have missed one or two calls the entire game, but mostly they were spot on. Both teams were playing tough defense without getting too physical or tempers being flared, so the refs just didn't call much and let the players on the floor decide the game. That's the way it is supposed to be.

Refs for that louisville game: Don Daily, Roger Ayers, Doug Sirmons. To them i say thank you. I really enjoy games like this, and if you go back in the game thread, you will see i said this several times BEFORE the outcome was even decided.


As far as nba goes, it has issues, but college ball has just as many issues.

(01-13-2014 11:19 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:30 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote:  I was a basketball official for over 20 years. I suspect that I have known or met more referees that most everyone on this board. I know referees that officiate leagues from the youngest to the NBA. I know many that are incompetent. I have NEVER known one that gave a rat's azz which team won a game. There is a huge difference in cheating,as some folks like to say, by a referee than there is in just officiating poorly during a game. Tim Donaghy in the NBA is the only referee I've ever heard of that may have been gambling on that he officiated. The basketball officials that I know are the highest character people I have ever been associated with in life. Some of them also have no business officiating basketball, but no one will ever convince me that they cheat.

Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

From an internal control perspective, it is a risk that requires better definition, disclosure, and procedures than the condition you described.

What do you mean?

(01-13-2014 12:30 AM)Stammers Wrote:  The games that stand out for me the last few years...

Refs Screwed Us:
2013 Louisville
2009 Georgetown
2006 UCLA
2009 Missouri
2007 Ohio State
2006 Duke

Refs Helped Us:
2006 Gonzaga
2013 Michigan State
2014 Louisville

Bad Calls:
2008 Kansas, Hightower missing the out of bounds play
2007 Ohio State, Dorsey picking up 3rd foul early in 2nd half

Good Calls:
2009 Tulsa, Incorrect out of bounds call when Dozier last touched the ball

1973 UCLA. No way Walton plays almost entire second half with 4 fouls.
1985 Memphis State against the Big East. Coincidence against Villanova that Lee and Bedford both have 4 fouls late in that game?? Nova goes on to win the championship.

(01-13-2014 11:35 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 11:19 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:30 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote:  I was a basketball official for over 20 years. I suspect that I have known or met more referees that most everyone on this board. I know referees that officiate leagues from the youngest to the NBA. I know many that are incompetent. I have NEVER known one that gave a rat's azz which team won a game. There is a huge difference in cheating,as some folks like to say, by a referee than there is in just officiating poorly during a game. Tim Donaghy in the NBA is the only referee I've ever heard of that may have been gambling on that he officiated. The basketball officials that I know are the highest character people I have ever been associated with in life. Some of them also have no business officiating basketball, but no one will ever convince me that they cheat.

Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

From an internal control perspective, it is a risk that requires better definition, disclosure, and procedures than the condition you described.

What do you mean?

It means little is in place (based on information provided) to give reasonable assurance that refs do not have a conflict of interest that may influence their calls.

(01-13-2014 12:07 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 11:35 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 11:19 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

From an internal control perspective, it is a risk that requires better definition, disclosure, and procedures than the condition you described.

What do you mean?

It means little is in place (based on information provided) to give reasonable assurance that refs do not have a conflict of interest that may influence their calls.

Every D1 official goes through a background check in order to referee the postseason. All others are subject to a background check at any time. The NCAA and coordinator of officials review almost every single game. If trends are noted then they are handled.

It's not a cut and dry situation. The idea is to Get the best officials on the floor. It's practically and financially impossible to do military level background checks on every official. Lots of checks and balances were put in place with the Tim Donoughy situation.

(01-13-2014 12:20 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 12:07 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 11:35 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 11:19 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

From an internal control perspective, it is a risk that requires better definition, disclosure, and procedures than the condition you described.

What do you mean?

It means little is in place (based on information provided) to give reasonable assurance that refs do not have a conflict of interest that may influence their calls.

Every D1 official goes through a background check in order to referee the postseason. All others are subject to a background check at any time. The NCAA and coordinator of officials review almost every single game. If trends are noted then they are handled.

It's not a cut and dry situation. The idea is to Get the best officials on the floor. It's practically and financially impossible to do military level background checks on every official. Lots of checks and balances were put in place with the Tim Donoughy situation.

Thanks for the info.

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:30 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote:  I was a basketball official for over 20 years. I suspect that I have known or met more referees that most everyone on this board. I know referees that officiate leagues from the youngest to the NBA. I know many that are incompetent. I have NEVER known one that gave a rat's azz which team won a game. There is a huge difference in cheating,as some folks like to say, by a referee than there is in just officiating poorly during a game. Tim Donaghy in the NBA is the only referee I've ever heard of that may have been gambling on that he officiated. The basketball officials that I know are the highest character people I have ever been associated with in life. Some of them also have no business officiating basketball, but no one will ever convince me that they cheat.

Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

This is the core reason why home teams, and teams with superstars historically get favourable treatment from refs.

(01-13-2014 01:05 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:30 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote:  I was a basketball official for over 20 years. I suspect that I have known or met more referees that most everyone on this board. I know referees that officiate leagues from the youngest to the NBA. I know many that are incompetent. I have NEVER known one that gave a rat's azz which team won a game. There is a huge difference in cheating,as some folks like to say, by a referee than there is in just officiating poorly during a game. Tim Donaghy in the NBA is the only referee I've ever heard of that may have been gambling on that he officiated. The basketball officials that I know are the highest character people I have ever been associated with in life. Some of them also have no business officiating basketball, but no one will ever convince me that they cheat.

Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

This is the core reason why home teams, and teams with superstars historically get favourable treatment from refs.

That's a completely unfounded statement. Pretty much on par with the rest of what you say.

(01-13-2014 12:18 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 09:01 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Refs have an effect on EVERY game. It's actually part of the game, b/c it moves so quickly, and they normally don't have the benefit of replay for most plays.

The refs helped us against Louisville with that non-existent goaltending call. On the road. I don't see anybody here complaining about that one. All you can do is hope your team plays well enough to overcome any inevitable mistakes by refs.

The refs were definitely in our favour the entire game at Louisville without taking into account the completely bogus goaltending call. Nobody is talking about the missed 3 by Hancock that would have tied it. I THINK they whistled it because it hit the top of the backboard, but it didn't...and Louisville came down with the rebound.

I totally disagree. No one will call a perfect game, but there is no good reason to believe the refs helped the tigers beat louisville. The game was decided by the players on the floor.

(01-13-2014 12:30 AM)Stammers Wrote:  The games that stand out for me the last few years...

Refs Screwed Us:
2013 Louisville
2009 Georgetown
2006 UCLA
2009 Missouri
2007 Ohio State
2006 Duke

Refs Helped Us:
2006 Gonzaga
2013 Michigan State
2014 Louisville

Bad Calls:
2008 Kansas, Hightower missing the out of bounds play
2007 Ohio State, Dorsey picking up 3rd foul early in 2nd half

Good Calls:
2009 Tulsa, Incorrect out of bounds call when Dozier last touched the ball

Sorry, but i don't buy it. Those games were not just won or lost due to refs. I will admit that i didn't like the calls in the 2006 ucla game or the 2013 louisville game.

(01-13-2014 01:08 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:05 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:30 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote:  I was a basketball official for over 20 years. I suspect that I have known or met more referees that most everyone on this board. I know referees that officiate leagues from the youngest to the NBA. I know many that are incompetent. I have NEVER known one that gave a rat's azz which team won a game. There is a huge difference in cheating,as some folks like to say, by a referee than there is in just officiating poorly during a game. Tim Donaghy in the NBA is the only referee I've ever heard of that may have been gambling on that he officiated. The basketball officials that I know are the highest character people I have ever been associated with in life. Some of them also have no business officiating basketball, but no one will ever convince me that they cheat.

Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

This is the core reason why home teams, and teams with superstars historically get favourable treatment from refs.

That's a completely unfounded statement. Pretty much on par with the rest of what you say.

It is exactly right.

(01-13-2014 01:08 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:05 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:30 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote:  I was a basketball official for over 20 years. I suspect that I have known or met more referees that most everyone on this board. I know referees that officiate leagues from the youngest to the NBA. I know many that are incompetent. I have NEVER known one that gave a rat's azz which team won a game. There is a huge difference in cheating,as some folks like to say, by a referee than there is in just officiating poorly during a game. Tim Donaghy in the NBA is the only referee I've ever heard of that may have been gambling on that he officiated. The basketball officials that I know are the highest character people I have ever been associated with in life. Some of them also have no business officiating basketball, but no one will ever convince me that they cheat.

Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

This is the core reason why home teams, and teams with superstars historically get favourable treatment from refs.

That's a completely unfounded statement. Pretty much on par with the rest of what you say.

Home/Road Records:
Indiana
18-1 / 11-6

Clippers
17-3 / 9-10

Golden State
12-4 / 13-10

Houston
15-5 / 9-9

Brooklyn
10-9 / 5-13

AAC Conference
Home: 69-21 - .767
Away: 19-19 - .500

Every year since the history of time in every sport. Posters will say the most ridiculous things when they let personal feelings blind them.

(01-13-2014 01:24 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:08 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:05 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:54 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Is it a safe to assume that refs sometimes officiate games of their favorite teams? If so, what steps are undertaken to mitigate or prevent the appearance or actual conflict of interest?

It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

This is the core reason why home teams, and teams with superstars historically get favourable treatment from refs.

That's a completely unfounded statement. Pretty much on par with the rest of what you say.

It is exactly right.

Based on what? Your enlightening omniscience?

(01-13-2014 01:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 12:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I think I'm not being clear. I already said refs affect outcomes of games, b/c they are human, and the game moves quickly. I'm just saying they do NOT intentionally try to change the result of a game. They are NOT corrupt.

I think there are incompetent refs. I think there are refs with different styles that cause some teams more problems than others. I think refs have bad games. I think refs sometimes focus on some things to the detriment of others. I think refs call things early that they let go late, or vice versa.

But my point is refs are not out there trying to CHEAT a school out of a win.

Beyond that, it's up to the team to adjust to how things are being called, and to play well enough that a ref's MISTAKES do not cost them a game.

We will have to respectfully disagree. The best example is major league baseball. Heaven forbid you show that you disagree with a ball/strike call either as a hitter or pitcher. Do that and the umpires will make sure that you get the message on EVERY close pitch the rest of the way. Make it a habit and you might as well retire; every umpire will then call everything against you.

Example two; the entire NBA. There are 5 teams that get calls; the teams with 3 stars. The teams with two stars will get them unless they are playing teams with 3 stars. If you don't have any stars, getting a favourable whistle isn't going to happen very often. On an individual level, stars get many more calls than non stars.

Refs aren't only biased in those two sports; they are biased in every sport. It is human nature. Every ref has their favourites and non favourites; the difference in MLB and the NBA is that it is harder to hide.

The good thing about college basketball, is that unlike football, there are so many games, that invariably you will get a lot of games where the refs don't have favourites. When they do, your odds of winning either go up or down.

I'm talking strictly about college basketball, and the idea that refs CHEAT.

I agree about MLB umps and their strike zones. I don't understand why they don't do something about that.

(01-13-2014 01:39 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:24 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:08 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:05 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:58 AM)homefry20 Wrote:  It's based on conference policy. Most of them won't give you a game with your alma mater. However, most referees want no part of refereeing any team they are or once were affiliated with. Despite what most people think, referees want to avoid conflict, not create it.

This is the core reason why home teams, and teams with superstars historically get favourable treatment from refs.

That's a completely unfounded statement. Pretty much on par with the rest of what you say.

It is exactly right.

Based on what? Your enlightening omniscience?

Interesting that someone who responded the way you did, would ask this question. Pretty much on par with the rest of what you say.

(01-13-2014 01:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  ...

I'm talking strictly about college basketball, and the idea that refs CHEAT.

I agree about MLB umps and their strike zones. I don't understand why they don't do something about that.

I have a feeling before too long you'll at the very least have computer assisted umpiring, and maybe something like tennis's challenge system with a set number of (unsuccessful?) ball/strike challenges (maybe just one or two) an inning per side.

(01-13-2014 02:08 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:39 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:24 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:08 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 01:05 PM)Stammers Wrote:  This is the core reason why home teams, and teams with superstars historically get favourable treatment from refs.

That's a completely unfounded statement. Pretty much on par with the rest of what you say.

It is exactly right.

Based on what? Your enlightening omniscience?

Interesting that someone who responded the way you did, would ask this question. Pretty much on par with the rest of what you say.

You have yet to mention a basis for this assumption of cheating or bias without rambling on like a goon. Are you going to answer the question or just continue clamoring around?

(01-13-2014 01:18 PM)tmoneyinmphs Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 12:18 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 09:01 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Refs have an effect on EVERY game. It's actually part of the game, b/c it moves so quickly, and they normally don't have the benefit of replay for most plays.

The refs helped us against Louisville with that non-existent goaltending call. On the road. I don't see anybody here complaining about that one. All you can do is hope your team plays well enough to overcome any inevitable mistakes by refs.

The refs were definitely in our favour the entire game at Louisville without taking into account the completely bogus goaltending call. Nobody is talking about the missed 3 by Hancock that would have tied it. I THINK they whistled it because it hit the top of the backboard, but it didn't...and Louisville came down with the rebound.

I totally disagree. No one will call a perfect game, but there is no good reason to believe the refs helped the tigers beat louisville. The game was decided by the players on the floor.

(01-13-2014 12:30 AM)Stammers Wrote:  The games that stand out for me the last few years...

Refs Screwed Us:
2013 Louisville
2009 Georgetown
2006 UCLA
2009 Missouri
2007 Ohio State
2006 Duke

Refs Helped Us:
2006 Gonzaga
2013 Michigan State
2014 Louisville

Bad Calls:
2008 Kansas, Hightower missing the out of bounds play
2007 Ohio State, Dorsey picking up 3rd foul early in 2nd half

Good Calls:
2009 Tulsa, Incorrect out of bounds call when Dozier last touched the ball

Sorry, but i don't buy it. Those games were not just won or lost due to refs. I will admit that i didn't like the calls in the 2006 ucla game or the 2013 louisville game.

I'd say the Hightower "mistake" in 08 played a pretty big part in the loss.