Showing posts with label officials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label officials. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Contrast greater than just opposite coasts

There is a long list of things that Boston did differently than Los Angeles.

No excuses.

No whining about officials. From the coach or the players.

No bad knees.

No bad ankles.

No bad shoulders.

No travel issues.

No family issues.

No overwhelmed bench.

None of that would be an issue for the Celtics on the way to their 17th Championship.

They played hard. They supported their teammates. They got big contributions off the bench, grossly outscoring the Lakers bench. They played with intensity and pushed the Lakers around, imposing their will like champions, while the Lakers looked to the officials for charitable handouts.

They played the Finals as though they had found the fountain of youth after looking, at times, through the preliminary rounds of the playoffs like they were old.

The Lakers played as though they were expecting to be handed the championship - from their coach and the top of their roster to the last player off the bench. The Celtics played like they wanted it, like they could taste it. It didn't stop with the Celtics' Big Three - at times Rajon Rondo, Eddie House, James Posey, Leon Powe, and PJ Brown all came up big at some point whether rebounding, working the ball to the open shooter, or putting the ball in the hoop.

The bottom line - Boston came through when it counted.

No one on the Lakers can say the same.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Spin control

The NBA is in full spin control and David Stern is sounding more and more like Roger Clemens in relation to the latest allegations from Tim Donaghy. Stern has been all bluster and no substance, attacking the character of the accuser while sidestepping any real comment on the claims themselves.

My guess is that Stern would like this to go away....probably as much, if not more than the NFL wants Arlen Specter to go away.

The problem is part of Stern's reasoning.

Sterns recent comments about Donaghy -

"Because a convicted felon said something about his colleagues in order to lower his time away, am I worried about that? I'm worried that someone is out there saying it, but you're the one who will either deal with it or not as part of the media. We've been as open and transparent as we can be...But we'll stay with it, and we have no doubt that Mr. Donaghy is the only one here that's guilty of criminal activity."

Those are made all the more interesting in light of this quote from 2006 when Donaghy was still on the league's payroll - "
I think we have the best officials, the best-monitored officials, the best-developed officials in all of sports."

They have "the best-monitored officials" in all of sports? Yet a majority of the officials were, at the time, in violation of the league's gambling policy, and they knew nothing of Donaghy's violations?

Now Stern expects us to believe the denials the league is issuing?

That's the height of arrogance.

Of course, considering Donaghy's claims, in essence, are an indictment of Stern, he's going to deny the claims. Stern is telling us that the league has been transparent, and that the feds have found no violations beyond Donaghy's - but can anyone out there tell me exactly what the Feds were investigating? Were they investigating the league, or were they investigating Donaghy? Because if it was just Donaghy, it was out of the purview of their investigation, it was not an investigation into what other officials may have been doing. What did the league even investigate? Gambling?

What has really done by the league to look into this? I know they found that a whole bunch of other officials violated league rules and then were given a free pass. Hell, Stern suggested changing the rule to accommodate the violators. So why should I believe Stern on this? I mean, that could be construed as a payoff - a free pass in exchange for the silence of the violators...assuming that Donaghy is indeed telling the truth.

There are a lot of reasons that you could give for Donaghy lying about this, but Sterns reasons for possibly putting the fix on games has to do with a league whose net worth is in the billions. A lot of money is a lot of motivation to make sure the league continues netting maximum profits - and max profits are definitely not Sacramento making the finals over the Lakers.

Once again - I'm not saying I believe Donaghy. But I am saying that I don't think Stern is any more credible than Donaghy, and that Donaghy's claims have to be given at least enough weight to merit an investigation, if for no other reason than to put this to rest once and for all.

As for Stern - he might want to consider NOT taking a page from the Roger Clemens playbook on this one.

And let's just note - if an independent investigation reveals Donaghy to be correct - let's start talking about the validity of Phil Jackson's genius and post-season record.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Composure

When I coached I was adamant with my kids - don't bitch about the officiating. Period.

I didn't want to hear it, and the officials sure as hell didn't want to hear it. I used to tell the kids that complaining about the officiating was the coach's prerogative - because, while annoying, I could live with it if I garnered us a 15-yard penalty. If one of my players cost the team by getting a 15 called on him for complaining to an official, then he was getting benched.

I only note this for Rasheed Wallace's skewed grip on reality as demonstrated in his profanity laced tirade about the called penalties and people flopping all over the place in Wednesday's game.

It's funny in as much the Pistons were regularly mugging Paul Pierce and not getting called. The refs gave the Pistons a gift flagrant against the C's P.J. Brown early in the game. The Pistons went to the line for 38 foul shots to the Celtics 30.

Wallace is only the tip of the ice-berg.

Detroit has made it to six consecutive conference finals. They've been there before. Which is what makes Wallace's teammates whining about the pleasantries between him and Kevin Garnett before and after each game puzzling.

While I'm sure they think they're trying to set an attitude throughout the team - all they're really doing is creating (at least the appearance of) a rift in the locker room.

Do his teammates really think that Wallace isn't playing his ass off from tip to horn? Do they expect him to put up Kevin Garnett numbers? Do they think that he should be able to completely neutralize Garnett? Garnett, the defensive player of the year, hasn't been able to neutralize Wallace.

The things happening in the Pistons locker-room are not indicative of a team that thinks it's going to win. Rather, it's indicative of a team looking for a scapegoat...reasons why they lost, rather than preparing for a game to win.

Don't get me wrong. I still feel as though Detroit is an extraordinarily dangerous team to the Celtics, and that they have a very good chance of winning given the fact that the Celtics have demonstrated time and again in these playoffs that they just don't have the cajones to go for the jugular when they have their opponents' backs to the wall.

But this is ridiculous.

Through every level of athletics I have participated in, I have had friends on opposing teams - youth, high school, college, club. On every level I have talked to those people before and/or after the games. Sometimes I've gone and a had a beer with them afterwards. Never have I gone easy because they guy I was against was someone I knew. If anything, I've typically been more intense if I've been matched up against a friend.

And I'm not getting paid.

I have a hard time believing that Wallace might be going easy on Garnett just because they're friends.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Shut up and play...and ruminations on the potential Santana trade

This has been a tiresome week for me.

I live in Whine Country in Maryland.

I watch the boards and read various articles about the NFL games for several days after the games end on Sunday and Monday. For weeks I have heard fans of other teams bitch and moan about the lack of class of the Patriots. This week I have heard, both locally, and nationally (mostly in interviews with Ravens) how the officials took the game from them (thankfully the national press has pretty much said what follows here...well, with the exception of my sentiments on Samari Rolle).

To that, I answer the following - since Belichick took over, you have never heard players blame each other for any of their losses (Peyton Manning, I'm looking at you), you have never heard the Patriots blame the officials (Ravens, I'm looking at you). The team has gone longer than any other team in the NFL without a player arrested (Bengals, Redskins, Cardinals, Bears, Dolphins, and...well the rest of the NFL, I'm looking at you). The team hasn't had any assistant coaches get into trouble on their own time (Detroit, and Arizona). As a matter of fact, other than Belichick being named in a divorce proceeding and the tragedy that took Marquise Hill, the Patriots are pretty much in the news for playing football.

As for the Ravens and their fan base, the idea that the refs took that game from them is patently ridiculous. While I have made many of the following points elsewhere myself, I would like to thank Peter King for the following summary of the end of Monday night's game -

• New England ball, fourth-and-1, Baltimore 30, 1:48 left, Baltimore up 24-20. At the last second before the snap, Baltimore defensive coordinator Rex Ryan calls timeout. The play went on, with Baltimore stuffing Tom Brady for a loss and, theoretically, that should have been New England's last gasp. One problem.
Only the head coach is supposed to be able to call time on the sidelines. But in
this case, the league has interpreted the rule on a last-millisecond timeout call that the side official cannot be responsible for seeing whether it's the head coach or another coach who calls time. So it's technically legal for Ryan to have called the timeout, and the league's point is the head coach is responsible for controlling his bench. In this case, Brian Billick has to be responsible for his sideline, and when Ryan calls time, the burden is on Billick to accept the call because it happened on the Baltimore sideline.
• New England ball, fourth-and-5, Baltimore 13, 55 seconds left, Baltimore up 24-20. Brady retreats to pass. From the right side of the line, tight end Ben Watson runs downfield into the end zone, with nickel back Jamaine Winborne riding him tightly downfield. Once Watson gets past the 8-yard line, it's illegal for Winborne to have anything but incidental contact with Watson, but he clearly has an arm on him well past the 8, and all the way into the end zone. Maybe the call should have been holding, maybe the call should have been illegal contact, but it was a legitimate call, not a ticky-tack one. Winborne impeded Watson's path.
The back judge, Billy Smith, called holding, a five-yard penalty and automatic
first down. I would have called illegal contact, but both penalties have the same impact, which is to give the Patriots a first-and-goal at the Baltimore 8. Great guts by Smith to make a call in that atmosphere.
• New England ball, first-and-goal, Baltimore 8, 50 seconds left. Brady throws to the left corner of the end zone for Jabar Gaffney, who catches the ball in front of his body with both hands while getting both feet down. During the time he gets both feet down, Gaffney moves the ball in front of him but never takes either gloved hand off
the ball and never juggles the ball. It is ruled a touchdown, and there is a booth review ordered by replay official Dale Hamer. The play is reviewed by ref Walt Anderson and confirmed. Let's remember what replay is: It's to be used to overturn a call only if there is indisputable visual evidence that the call is wrong. There's no way you can look at this play -- and I've seen it 10 times, in slow-motion -- and say there's clear evidence he didn't have control of the ball.
• Baltimore ball, second-and-10, Baltimore 45, eight seconds left. Kyle Boller throws a Hail Mary to the 3-yard line, and, in the middle of the scrum, Baltimore wideout Derrick Mason puts his hands on Patriot cornerback Asante Samuel's shoulders and pulls Samuel down. Mark Clayton makes the catch and is tackled at the three. There is no flag. Big mistake. There certainly should have been offensive pass interference ... but even if that was the call, it would not have changed the outcome. Because the clock expired, and the game can end on an offensive penalty, the game would have been over without the Ravens having another chance to score.

Let's also address Samari Rolle's complaint about the 53-year old former player, and official who called him "boy at least five times." The large black man whom Rolle accused, by his own admission, of having "never strapped on a helmet," in relation to what Rolle felt were bogus calls.

The more that comes out about Rolles complaint, the more it sounds like he incited the ref. Rolle claims that he was told by 110, "boy, shut up and play." Part of his complaint is that Rolle himself is 31 years old and a father of three, and "you don't call a grown man 'boy.'" To which I say, maybe he should act like a grown man and accept responsibility for his actions, and not blame the refs for his teammates screw-ups.

This will result in a talking to the officials by Goodell, but it should also result in a smackdown on the Ravens who seem to think that the officials are trying to help the Patriots by edict from the league offices.

One of the most ridiculous accusations is that the league wants to help Bill Belichick, who has pretty much become the NFL version of Darth Vader in everyone's eyes, win. It was obvious in the way the game against the Colts was officiated, and the way the officials helped AJ Feeley toss three picks, and of course the way the officials ignored an obvious penalty on the Baltimore Hail Mary in the closing seconds. If Clayton gets into the end zone, that's a potentially game changing play on which the refs blew the call. Do Ravens fans think the NFL told the refs to blow that call too?

Bottom line, they need to get their heads out of their asses and really look at how that game was called. Yes, it was poorly officiated, but it was poorly officiated on both sides. And if the second most penalized team in the AFC really thinks that the refs were quick to throw the flags on them, then maybe it has a lot less to do with the Patriots record than the fact that year in and year out they play disciplined football, and, as such, are one of the least penalized teams in the league. That might have followed the Ravens into the game more than any conspiracy by the NFL to keep the Patriots without a loss.

If they don't want the flags thrown, maybe they should try playing with discipline - hell, Ed Reed was five yards off-sides on an extra-point attempt. How often do you see that?

As for Santana, and I'm not talking the guitar legend...

I'm pretty much on record at a number of other blogs as not in favor of this trade. Johan Santana is a superb power pitcher whom I would love to see on the Red Sox for the right price. The deals as structured combined with the rumored contract demands are not the right price. Maybe if Santana were 27, it would be, but he's 29, has already pitched over 1300 big league innings, has faded down the stretch and has been mediocre, at best, in the post season.

This doesn't even take into account Santana's Fenway park numbers - 1-3 (15.2 innings) in three starts and one relief appearance with a 6.89 ERA, 12 K and a 1.85 WHIP. The only win came in the relief appearance and his last Fenway start was 5 innings with a 7.20 ERA. Part of what has hurt Santana in Fenway is the fact that he's a flyball pitcher. Those flyballs that are outs in the Metrodome are going to be doubles off the wall in Fenway.

I can't help but feel that given the fact that Jon Lester is 23, was solid in a year that he came off cancer, and put up better numbers in his first year than Santana in his first, I can't help feeling that giving the Twins Lester and three to four prospects that will likely be playing in the majors within the next two seasons, that the Red Sox are grossly overpaying ala the Vikings for Herschel Walker for a bauble they don't really need. What surprises me here is that the Twins haven't jumped on this offer, given that the Sox are currently not bidding against anyone else.

Why do I compare this to the Walker trade? I think, like Walker in Minnesota, that Santana will have limited success in Fenway, and that his propensity to give up flyballs will negate any upgrade he would otherwise represent over Lester who is likely to average 14 to 16 wins per season over the next couple of seasons (health permitting).

Power pitchers who begin to develop elbow problems like Santana has been exhibiting begin to show significant drop off in numbers between the ages of 33 and 35. Given Santana's demands, I can't help feeling that in four years that the Sox would be paying $20 to 25 million per year and dealing with the same situation that the Mets did this year with Pedro Martinez - paying gobs of money for a guy who couldn't get off the bench until late August due to injury.

And none of this takes into account the domino effect of paying Santana obscene gobs of money in spite of the fact that he's nowhere near the post-season pitcher that Beckett...or for that matter, Lester is.

Given the way last year's JD Drew signing went down, it feels like Theo has become enamored of another shiny bauble that the team doesn't need, and is bidding against himself in an effort to get it.

I understand not being able to do Lester straight up for Santana, even Lester and one player, but Lester and three seems too much for a team that doesn't actually need Santana. Don't even get me started on Buchholz or Ellsbury, neither of which I think should be included in any deal for the Twins ace.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

On the brink...

Of a Rocky Mountain winter...

The problem with Cinderella stories is that at some point the clock strikes midnight. Somewhere in Colorado a bell tower has chimed for the eleventh time, the twelfth chime is only seconds away.

The Rockies' offense showed signs of life for the first time during the World Series last night. Unfortunately, for the second time in three games Colorado's pitching didn't show. Through three games, Colorado has scored a total of seven runs to the Red Sox 25.

With Jon Lester on the mound, the Rockies have their best chance of taking a game from the Sox...but only if they get the pitching performance from their starter and bullpen that they got in game two. Otherwise, the celebrations will begin from Abington to Yarmouth.

It will be the second time this decade that the Sox will have won MLB's championship - the only team that will be able to claim multiple World Series wins since the start of the century in 2001. It gives me a warm fuzzy that the Sox will have won two titles since the last time the Yankees won one - and boy is that franchise looking dysfunctional right about now.

For Yankees fans that think next year is going to be the year, get a reality check - they are carrying an aging, prone to break-down, erratic first-baseman/DH in Jason Giambi. They have a left-fielder in Johnny Damon who's another year older and also having his share of health problems, they might have issues retaining their best catcher in Posada who had a career year heading into free-agency. The Bronx brain-trust plans on pulling Chamberlain out of an already undermanned/overworked bullpen and into the rotation - and all of this is just the tip of the ice-berg.

Get used to the following term in New York - rebuilding.

As for Colorado - there's a lot of young talent over there. If this year wasn't just the serendipitous convergence of career years, the Rockies should contend for some time to come. Like a bad horror film villain, they'll be back.

Lateral movement on the brink of defeat...

This has to be seen to be believed...Division III Trinity U. puts the nail in the coffin in the last 30 seconds for one helluva come-back.

Stern problems on the brink of irrelevance...

David Stern has officially sunk the NBA to a new level. After years of issues and accusations about games being fixed to get the best match-ups in the play-offs and finals it has come out that more than half of the NBA's 56 officials have violated the league's anti-gambling statutes.

Stern's reaction? He has decided that the rule is too out of date and needs to be changed.

Rather than remove the doubt that he could have up to 30 officials that might have been involved in fixing games, Stern has decided he wants to accommodate the officials' collective penchant for visiting casinos. Then to compound matters, Detroit Piston center Rasheed Wallace hits the press with the following rant -

"I still don't think they (Cavaliers) beat us, we beat ourselves," Wallace said. "And I think we also fell victim to that personal NBA thing where they are trying to make it a world game and get (television) ratings. They wanted to put their darling in there (the NBA Finals) and they did, and look what ended up happening.
"This game ain't basketball anymore, it's entertainment," Wallace said. "It's starting to get like the WWF. There ain't no real wrestling anymore either. It's all fake."

Yeah, this has been a good off-season for the NBA (note the sarcasm). After managing the league to unprecedented popularity in the 1990's Stern is now managing basketball into the ground - above and beyond the image problems caused by players like Allen Iverson, the infamous Portland "Jailblazers," and the thugs involved in the incident in Detroit a few years ago (author Jeff Benedict, writer of the book Out of Bounds: Inside the NBA's Culture of Rape, Violence & Crime, said in 2004 that 40 percent of NBA players have criminal records - that's two players out of every starting five in the league, not including the bench). This is who the NBA is trying to market to people who have to pay on average $51.00 to get a seat to a game.

Not exactly a great group to market to the people that can afford half-a-C-note to go see a game (and that doesn't even include parking, so think more like $70.00, $75.00 per game).

What do you suppose the over-under is on when the NBA starts to feel like the NHL?