Even though I am starting with a soccer call that is frequently called incorrectly, I figured that since the NBA playoffs are in full swing, I would start off with a picture of Joey Crawford insinuating himself into the middle of a game, whether he needed to be there or not. Joey Crawford making calls and handing out technicals just to make sure we know he is working a game is like Brett Favre throwing the ball to the wrong team. It’s his signature move, and what he does better than anyone else. The highest compliment you could give an NBA Finals official is: “he worked the whole game, appeared to call things fairly, and I hardly even knew he was there.” Those words have never been said about Joey Crawford.
The fact that he is widely regarded by the ENTIRE fandom of the NBA as an unfair jerk, yet continues to be allowed to work the biggest games, speaks volumes about how in touch the NBA front office is with its fans. Of course, they don’t care. They are making money hand-over-fist, and are doing a lot of things right…so who cares if this nimrod keeps insinuating himself in the middle of games, who cares if he would (and has) made the wrong call just to get more camera time? I am not in Crawford’s head, so I can’t verify that last comment. I can, however, tell you with absolute certainty that if he has not made the wrong call on purpose all of those times I have seen him do it, then he is not a very good ref, in terms of knowing the rules, reacting to what he sees on the court, and using good judgment. Anyway, enough about that punk.
Watching the end of the Argentina-Nigeria match this morning, I noticed the FIFA ref (don’t even care enough to look up the dude’s name) making, or more accurately, NOT making what should be an easy call, but one that is never made. It’s called obstruction, and it is basically the same thing as interference in the NHL. Soccer purists — I was a FIFA-certified official for several years and know ALL of the nuances of calling obstruction in soccer, and I realize that comparing it to hockey interference is an oversimplification. It makes for an easier explanation, so I don’t care.
Anyway, you normally see this play a few times every game, where the defender basically shepherds the ball over the end line or touch line, close enough to play the ball, which was last touched by the offense, but refusing to do so, essentially blocking the offensive player from getting to the ball and ensuring either a goal kick or throw in for his side. In the simplest explanation of the rule, in order to not get called for obstruction, the defender must to be in a position to play the ball, generally accepted as being within 3 feet. At least once per game, this rule is broken, in that the defender will be impeding the offensive player, but will be doing so at a distance of 5 or 6 feet from the ball.
I am sick and tired of this not being called. My dissatisfaction really amounts to a former official being nitpicky, but it gets under my skin every single time I see this rule ignored. The proper penalty for this call is an indirect kick, which is about the least threatening thing in soccer, at least in the normal location of these infractions. I am not sure I even have anything to add at this point, other than this: if it’s in the rules, freakin’ call it, you jerks.
If I cared enough, or had time, I could probably think of several other examples of officially widely ignoring the rulebook in a particular area, and having it be generally accepted over time, but the one that really sticks out is the basketball rebound / over-the-back / ball-out-of-bounds play. Two players go up for the rebound, with the defender having good inside position. The offensive player tries to make a play on the ball, there is some physical contact between the two players, and the ball goes out of bounds…off the DEFENSIVE player about 90% of the time. It’s a common play – it happens all the time.
The problem is the fact that about 80% of the time, the incorrect call is made. Refs have taken up the practice of calling this play with the lazy man’s approach, giving the defense the ball out of bounds. It’s a total compromise, and completely understandable, but it is also the ONLY option of the 3 possibilities (over-the-back foul called, defense ball, offense ball) that did not happen.
It is a simple call to make – either there was enough contact for the ref to call an over-the-back foul, or the offense gets the ball out of bounds. Period. Those are the only 2 options, according to the rule book, as there is nothing in the rule book about ignoring the fact that the ball went out-of-bounds off Player A because it’s a widely accepted compromise.
I am even sicker about this call than the soccer interference one, since the soccer call is truly up to the interpretation of the official. With the basketball play, I guess there are some vagaries as well, but only so much as determining if there was enough contact for a foul. But if the ball went out of bounds off the defense, and you are not calling a foul, you HAVE to award the offense the ball. Not doing do is kind of ignoring the rule book, common sense, and your own eyesight, right?
I know I shouldn’t really care about this. After all, every ref blows this call just about every single time there is not a clear over-the-back foul, so it probably evens out perfectly over the course of a game. But I just can’t let it go. It is a wrong call, and it is made only because it is the path of least resistance. One team would be mad at the over-the-back call, and the other team would be complaining about awarding the ball to the offense…but no one ever seems to complain about the call of awarding the ball to the defense, of the lack of testicular fortitude it requires.
If you think I am wrong, just put a pen and pad next to you on the couch for Game 5 between the Lakers and Boston on Sunday night. Put a check mark on that piece of paper every time that call is made. Just for fun, you can also put another check mark every time the refs could have, or should have, called an “over-the-back” foul on a rebound. It’s just a shame how infrequently that is called anymore. I wonder what it would take for NBA refs to start calling it again — my guess would be one of the league’s top 5 big men and top 10 meal tickets (Howard, Bosh, etc.) to miss a full season because of a surgery necessitated after a play during which there was not even a foul called.
This column is not exactly on intellectual footing with our normal fare on the blog, so I will hurry up and make it stop. Suffice it to say that these refs are ticking me off.
Popularity: 1% [?]
fellow lefty is taking over the tennis world. However, 2 short years ago it appeared that Rafa Nadal may go down as another shooting star; a player that burns brightly for a while and then is snuffed out just as quickly. Even this year before the French Open, there was a scare that Nadal would never be the same. After playing brilliantly in the earlier rounds at Rome, he nearly lost to Earnsts Gulbis (#40 in the world at the time). It turned out to just be a bad day, but it got me thinking about so many careers that had so much promise and even great success but we will never know how good they could have been. Woulda…coulda…shoulda. 
