Somewhere today I read part of a series on the inside life of a NBA ref today… and in the story it talked about how the refs meet before the game and talk about the teams… the players… the history they have… the players who have a hitch in their FT shooting… who has a history of traveling etc… What bothers me about that is that it has the potential to be highly influential and biased. Say they sit down and talk about Przybilla setting moving screens. First off… the choice to focus on one player or another’s play to crack down on already influences the game before it starts. You know no one *ever* had a conversation to focus on Kobe’s traveling etc… Secondly… if they see two different players do the same thing they are much more likely to call the violation on who they talked about before the game even started. Lame. I wouldn’t mind if the focus was on activities… not players… i.e. illegal screens… or traveling… but when you start looking at the players and talking about the activities… perception starts to create reality. We have all seen incidents where player A is getting called for something that player B isn’t. These pre-game meetings could have a lot to do with it.
It doesn't bother me, do you prepare for a presentation at work or do you walk in disorganized and speak from the hip? It might work for a few % of people but most couldn't execute under those circumstances.
Remember Jake O'Donnell and Clyde? Sheed and a few refs? esp. garrotson? "Wack, you're gone!" REfs aren't neutral, they have agendas at times....at least a few of them.
