Being a referee in any sport is hard. They’re in that dimension where they’re never rewarded for doing a perfect job but when they screw up one time they’re ripped to shreds for it. It’s especially prevalent in the major American sports because you people love to rip a referee.
In the world of the NBA and referees, things have been a little testy. With the introduction of the L2M or “Last 2 Minutes” Reports, everybody can now see where the referees screwed up at the most significant time in any basketball game. There have been constant pressure on the NBRA, especially in the Playoffs where every game matters and now the referees are just about done with it.
The NBRA have recently presented a manifesto of sorts, giving reasons to get rid of it, key questions/concerns about the report and if it stays, what the NBA should put along with it.
First up. Reasons to get rid.
Reasons to End L2M Reporting and Other “Transparency” Measures
• Transparency does nothing to change the outcome of the game.
• Transparency encourages anger and hostility towards NBA ofcials.
• Focusing on ofciating statistics encourages stat-oriented, versus game-oriented, ofciating. It is in the best interest of the NBA and its fans to encourage and develop game-oriented referees that balance game flow and fair play.
• Efforts to promote transparency have encouraged the idea that perfection in ofciating is possible. Perfection is neither possible nor desirable; if every possible infraction were to be called, the game would be unwatchable and would cease to exist as a form of entertainment in this country.
• Transparency has been misused as a catalyst by some teams to mobilize fans against the ofcials in an attempt to coerce more favorable treatment.
• While the goal of transparency was to promote understanding and credibility, there is no evidence that progress against these goals is being made.
Before we continue, i remember when all the talking heads wanted something like this and now that we have it, we realise it doesn’t do anything. Classic case of the grass always looking greener on the other side.
Now onto the questions and concerns the NBRA have.
Key Concerns/Questions About the Current Process
1. Who in NBA Referee Operations is evaluating the game footage and writing the initial L2M reports, and what are their qualifications?
2. Who at NBA League Operations is actually reviewing and editing the L2M reports, and what qualifications do they have to evaluate and change the reports prior to their being released? What is the reasoning behind those changes?
3. Are the reviewers applying the same league-directed guidelines and instructions related to rules interpretation as the referees on the court are?
4. Why does NBA League Operations have the final word on reviews? Why can’t those decisions be challenged?
Now I assumed that when they create these reports they talk to the referees of that game about it or at least the report goes through the NBRA for their stamp of approval. Clearly by the concerns they don’t do that.
So the NBRA are clearly asking for the report to go but they have also offered some alternatives that will help them if the NBA reject the abolishment of the L2M.
Recommended Process Reforms (if NBA continues L2M reporting)
1. Increase L2M Process Transparency
Identify the individuals reviewing and editing reports and reveal their qualifications to do so. Only people with extensive ofciating experience should be in a position to review on-court decisions.
2. Interpret Rules Consistently
Referees are instructed by the league on how to interpret the rules, and it is critical that L2M reporting follow those same interpretations. It is not uncommon to see L2M review comments contradict directions/guidelines given to the game ofcials.
3. Establish An Appeal Process
L2M reports represent only a single perspective on a particular play, and those judgments are not infallible. A forum to question/challenge an L2M report decision will encourage dialogue that will enhance fan understanding and ensure that everyone involved benefits from valuable learning and insight.
I think an appeal process is definitely needed. I assumed that was the case in the first place. How can you introduce a report that critiques somebody’s ability to do their job and whatever is said they have to accept it? That’s not right. Personally I don’t think there’s any point for the L2M reports. It’s just a table nitpicking every error the refs make. They’re human, deal with it.
