After four NBA Finals games played between Warriors and Celtics, some players from both teams found fault with the quality of the services offered by the referees. Long questioned by ESPN, the chairman of the referees committee Monty McCutchen returned to the process of selecting officials who whistle during the final stages. Spoiler: it’s very very strong.
This has been a subject for a very long time that crystallizes a lot of tension during the NBA Finals. The quality of the refereeing is (very) often not the primary reason for a team’s defeat, contrary to what many might express on social networks in particular. Now, it must also be recognized that certain facts of play at a moment X or Y of the meeting can give rise to questioning as to their treatment by the refereeing body. Even with the use of multiple cameras, some contacts still seem to escape the vigilance of the gray shirts. To explain the why and the how of things, Monty McCutchen – vice president of the NBA delegate to the commission of referees – gave a long interview to Tim MacMahon from ESPN. On the program, many interesting explanations on the methods of selection of referees. From the start of the season to the end of the Playoffs, the zebras are constantly evaluated on the basis of their whistles and their omissions.
“The selection process is the same for all of the Playoffs. We repeat the operation with each new round. We are a committee of six ‘experts’ including Joey Crawford, EF Rush, Mark Wunderlich, Bennett Salvatore, Bernie Fryer and myself [d’anciens arbitres]. I use that term casually, but we’ve dedicated our lives to officiating and we’re deeply involved in it. We have worked hard on the objectivity of our judgments.
We organize a percentage [pour classer les arbitres] and the teams. The league’s analysis department too. They are independent reviewers. They are not former referees, they are specialist reviewers, they review all whistled and unwhistled fouls from each referee for the whole season, thousands and thousands of decisions per person. In the end, all that gives us 36 names in the first round, then 28 in the semifinals, 20 in the Conference finals, and 12 in the NBA Finals. –Monty McCutchen
Ok, for selection, it’s selection, because the NBA is obviously determined to be able to count only on its best elements to referee during the last series of the season. The classification that emerges in the end is also of the precision of a Swiss watchmaker, since the percentages will be close to the four decimal places following the comma. In certain cases involving such tiny differences, the head of the referees explains that discussions are underway to decide collectively who will be the lucky one.
“If there is a difference of 0.008 in the ranking, we discuss it as a group. This means the analytical team and my team, since logically the franchises are not invited. Our President of League Operations Byron Spruell and Vice President of Basketball Operations Joe Dumars are also attending. When two referees are very close, we decide on the intangible contribution of each candidate. »
The point raised by McCutchen is very interesting. Beyond the qualities of pure analysis of the game, a referee is also asked to show human management of situations. We have already seen it during certain NBA Finals meetings in the past: poorly explained decisions can contribute to heating up tempers… and once a player loses the esteem he had for the refereeing corps, good luck to go and explain his fault to him on a fault. The same goes for the end of matches under tension, because of the score and the stake. It is in this spirit that the selection is also made taking into account the ability of each to manage hot moments.
“You can’t be at this level missing a lot of fouls and hoping that your strength of character and courage will take you over the top. As experts, we need to know where people will be comfortable, whether they will be able to show up in the fourth quarter or in overtime, because the decisions are very difficult to make and the pressure very important. Some referees handle this pressure a little better than others, and we need to reward that. We need to develop those who can’t, and they won’t be able to have the best opportunities until that’s the case. »
Stuff a white-hot Draymond Green in Game 7 of the NBA Finals? You have to be well hung on the one hand, and show a steely mind on the other. The same goes for the coaches, who of course have the mission of preserving their players by stepping up to the plate on arbitration issues, even if it means taking a hit. Steve Kerr, for example, knows how to get fired up when things don’t go the way of the Warriors, and Ime Udoka can do the same in the same scenario on the Celtics side. It is therefore essential to know how to react in a spirit of conciliation, but also to show cold firmness if the words exchanged go beyond the framework of a conversation between players in a basketball match. It’s all a matter of precise judgment and, let’s be honest, if it’s very easy to criticize behind our screens, it would obviously be much more complicated, on the other hand, to take the whistle to explain to Dray or Pat Beverley that he made a mistake. .
Whistling a foul is both very simple and very complicated, especially when what is at stake is nothing less than an NBA title for one of the two teams. Faced with the importance of the meeting, the NBA must send its best elements to ensure the smooth running of things. With these details from the boss of the league’s refereeing, we are now comforted in the idea that this is indeed the case.
Source : ESPN
