*Data does not include Friday games.
You know there’s drama when I am numb to the fact that the Raptors have a losing record on a super important road trip. Perhaps, we’ve all accepted the Play-In as the ceiling, and whatever happens until then is meh.
There are graver concerns afoot. Injustice abound. The Raptors hapless victims.
JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL.
THE RAPTORS MUST PREVAIL.
Let’s roll.
(I ramble, so there’s 4 things this week.)
1. Bench Clarity
Dear God, it’s nice to have some depth. And, a functional rotation to boot.
Is this what it feels like to have a job and a house?
Maybe I gotta rethink things a bit here.
Consistency and its comforts. So nice. (So fleeting.)
Toronto’s finally getting a taste of it. The bench has been a horror show. Distrust, DNPs, empty stats, 10-dayers, 2nd rounders, G-Leaguers, endless failed attempts to conjure any semblance of “a rotation”.
It looked grim.
The issue has been numero uno since pre-season. Plenty of blame to go around: poor roster construction, failed expectations (Birch + Banton + Flynn + Thad), injuries (Pascal + Precious + Otto Porter Jr. + O.G.), Nurse’s starters-only ivory tower, and so on, and so forth.
Lost amid the yelling factions pro- and contra-Jakob Pöltl-trade was the simple resolution of the team’s rotation. Out went an inactive player (Birch) and in came a starting lineup base layer. Peace of mind finally coming off the pine.
Guard depth was/is Toronto’s biggest problem. No point guard to fill Freddy’s boots. No shooting. No ball creation. Nada.
Gary – as I have demanded for 8 months now – provides the relief. A sixth man role he was destined for (Lou wrote about that this week). Alongside him, Bash Bros, Chris Boucher and Precious Achiuwa, carving out the 8-man rotation.
They were still a guy short. I thought – along many other fans – Jeff Dowtin might steal that 9th spot – especially, as he continues to comfortably own the G-League. Nurse, surprise, surprise, opted for an experienced veteran and better shooter in Will Barton, over Dowtin. A decision, I’m not convinced by yet (#5).
The statistical change has not been that significant. Since O.G.’s return, the bench scores a point more than it did prior (before Wednesday’s game). Still, you can see and feel the balance.
Boucher and Precious cannot carry an offensive load. Their marauding, chaotic styles succeed with a reliable offensive backbone. With Gary and Pascal or Scottie, the two fightin’ forwards have free reign. Slide Barton in as a floor spacer and irregular driver, and a reliable rotation arises.
In only 45 possessions, the core 4 of Gary, Boucher, Precious, and Barton are in the 100th percentile in point differential per 100 possessions. (For what it’s worth, in 24 possessions of Dowtin in place of Barton, the group has similar success.)
The knock-on effect of guys like Christian Koloko and Malachi Flynn out of the rotation and Thaddeus Young reduced to a nice-to-have-when-matchups-call-for-it also settles much of the bench tumult.
It will take some time to see how sustainable this group can be – spoiler: might not be – but based on the juice squeezed from this stone of a bench it’s a timely, and sudden, creation.
2. Here We Go Again
Of course, I write #1 and then the opposite happens on Wednesday. Ineptitude arising like Easter Monday for shitty bench scoring.
It’s not like the newfound bench “core” has been spectacular. Something was cooking, though; a foundation forming. On Wednesday, it all went to shite. Nurse bailing on them like a panicked sailor.
Precious hops on to the floor and regresses to post-Lowry trade levels picking up 3 quick fouls (Oren Weisfeld has a good piece on his up-and-downs.. In comes Thad – -7 in 5 minutes…Gary goes 0/6 in 12 minutes of play. And, Boucher, who played well offensively (9 points + 6 boards in the first half) had another untrustworthy showing on defence.
Come the third, Nurse’s over it. Trent comes at his regular interval, but Precious arrives much later. And Boucher, effectively, misses the entire 3rd subbing for Pascal 3 minutes later than standard (0:47 left in the 3rd).
To Nurse’s “credit”, the cupboard was bare. Barton was a late scratch, Jeff Dowtin left at home in Mississauga, and Malachi officially “Nursed” out. Dowtin was needed in this game. Someone to match and slow the energy of Terrance Mann, for example.
Same old consequences. Raptors collapse late in the third, Nurse refuses to make the usual rotations to try and stem the tide, they don’t, and everyone’s pooched for the late run in the 4th.
This is what happens when A. no bench is developed and relied upon; and B. no rotation is settled and enforced. Failure happens. How that affects confidence, production, growth, and coherence is on the coach.
I don’t care if Precious had a bad half. He needs to go back at the same time in the 3rd. For his own good – anyone with shaken confidence needs a few lifelines from coach – and for Pascal’s who is, suddenly, again, logging more minutes than he should and showing the fatigue. Boucher who was fine, suddenly, misses the entire 3rd.
And, what happens? Zubac comes early in the 4th, Nurse refuses to match with Pöltl, I guess to give Boucher more time, and Zubac feasts on the lesser Raptor frontline. Consequences, consequences, consequences.
3. Litigating the Tech
I have a penchant for the meticulous breakdown of rules and regulations. So shall we? (Yes, I’m writing this like a factum.)
I. The Law
There are plenty of stipulations in the NBA Rulebook enabling a Referee to call a technical foul. Those that could relevantly justify the one Scott Foster called on Scottie Barnes include:
A. An official may assess a technical foul, without prior warning, at any time. A technical foul(s) may be assessed to any player on the court or anyone seated on the bench for conduct which, in the opinion of an official, is detrimental to the game. The technical foul must be charged to an individual. A technical foul cannot be assessed for physical contact when the ball is alive.
B. A maximum of two technical fouls for unsportsmanlike acts may be assessed any player, coach, trainer, or other team bench person. Any of these offenders may be ejected for committing only one unsportsmanlike act, and they must be ejected for committing two unsportsmanlike acts.
…
D. A technical foul shall be assessed for unsportsmanlike tactics such as:
- Disrespectfully addressing an official
- Physically contacting an official
- Overt actions indicating resentment to a call or no-call
- Use of profanity
- A coach entering onto the court without permission of an official
- A deliberately-thrown elbow or any unnatural physical act towards an opponent with no contact involved
- Taunting
E. Cursing or blaspheming an official shall not be considered the only cause for imposing technical foul. Running tirades, continuous criticism or griping may be sufficient cause to assess a technical. Excessive misconduct shall result in ejection from the game.
F. Assessment of a technical foul shall be avoided whenever and wherever possible; but, when necessary they are to be assessed without delay or procrastination. Once a player has been ejected or the game is over, technical fouls cannot be assessed regardless of the provocation. Any additional unsportsmanlike conduct shall be reported by e-mail immediately to the League Office.
Context + Subjectivity
Before I go all Letter of the Law, two caveats.
One, despite the rules, Referees, ultimately, make subjective calls. Evaluating a single call based upon the black letter rules is only so effective and probative.
Two, a Ref may make the right call, according to the rules, but in the grander context of what is being called, the when, how, at what point of the game, and whether it’s according to a principle of fairness is also important. I.E. “makeup” calls and their awfully unprofessional existence.
II. The Incident
Here’s the footage:
Refs call a foul on Pöltl – a weak one at that, very weak. Speculation only, but it sounds like Scottie reacts by saying, “Yooo, you’re cheating, bro.” Scott Foster, hearing, I assume based on his post-game interview, Scottie’s exclamation, awards Scottie a technical and, subsequently, throws him out of the game.
When asked about it, Scottie explained that he was simply talking to himself:
Scott Foster, in the post-game, said he ejected Barnes for “using verbiage that which directly questioned the integrity of the crew.”
III. THE DISCUSSION
Okay, so we have the rules. We have the incident. And, we have the “reasoning” provided by both parties. The NBA’s last two-minutes report does not address the issue; the NBA, therefore, implicitly, supported the ejection.
A. CONTRAVENTION OF THE RULES – TECHNICAL FOUL
Based upon the NBA Rules, the technical called on Scottie Barnes by Scott Foster was valid. Barely.
Most likely, Scottie’s complaint would fall under any one of the following:
D.1. Disrespectfully addressing an official
D.3. Overt actions indicating resentment to a call or no-call
E. …continuous criticism or griping may be sufficient cause to assess a technical.
Technically, Scottie disrespects the official and contravenes D.1. And, in theory, violates E for “continuous criticism or griping” – according to what Scottie admits to as having a dialogue with the Refs over missed calls, though, nothing abnormal.
This, of course, is where much of the subjectivity and context is important. Most players “continuously criticize” over the course of the game. Most often, that line is crossed when it is constant, emphatic, and/or vulgar. The number of hands thrown in the air, rhetorical yells, staredowns, etc. in a game that don’t get call are multitudinous.
From what we can tell, Scottie’s expression was mild considering what we see and hear on a daily, gamely basis.
Ultimately, Scottie did act in a way that would, by strict interpretation of the rules, constitute a technical foul. The problem is, I would guess, so did most of the other players involved in the game. The egregiousness is in the timing and hastiness in which it was rewarded.
Remember, rules E + F.
E. …blaspheming an official shall not be considered the only cause for imposing technical foul.
F. Assessment of a technical foul shall be avoided whenever and wherever possible;
In other words, whatever the transgression, it has to be pretty bad. Simply, “blaspheming” [LOL to the use of that term] is not enough, nor should T’s be handed out willy-nilly just because some feelings were hurt.
B. CONTRAVENTION OF THE RULES – EJECTION
The ejection was egregious and beyond the spirit of the rules and their scope.
Ejecting players are justified similarly to the rules addressing technical fouls. A player may be ejected for “excessive misconduct” or for committing one unsportsmanlike act. The aforementioned rules, including D.1., D.3., and E constitute unsportsmanlike acts.
To be clear, there is no stipulation stating that a player “directly questioning the integrity of a referee”, as Scott Foster reasons, can be ejected. Such a declaration would fall within the realm of “disrespect”, but not in any excessive way.
The real analysis comes in the spirt of the rules. There are two guiding forces balancing the awarding of technicals and ejections.
One, the subjective and implicit discretion granted to the referees to decide when and where to use technicals and ejections. And, two, the exceptions found in E and F cautioning referees to award technical fouls and ejections, with extreme restraint.
Presumably, because an ejection is more severe in nature and, typically, requires two technical fouls, an ejection after only one technical would require an extreme contravention and demand even greater and more stringent restraint in use.
There is no rule forbidding the challenging of a referee’s integrity. Therefore, Foster had to construe Barnes’ comments as disrespectful to award a technical. To then construe that disrespect to the level of an ejection is well-beyond the principles of judiciousness and restraint.
IV. THE CONCLUSION
A referee is afforded the discretion to award technical fouls when they feel that a player has disrespected them. Similar discretion is provided for ejections. However, referees’ discretion is qualified by the onus of avoiding technical fouls whenever possible and by the rule that simple blaspheme or swearing is not enough to constitute a technical.
In other words, Foster’s actions, in both the technical and ejection, were, technically, justified by the rules; however, the expectation to avoid both wherever and whenever possible, makes the ejection egregious and excessive.
4. The Referees + The Rule of Law
Man, that was a spicy 72 hours.
It took me a full day to recover from that whole Denver meltdown. Last time I was flabbergasted like that, Joey Crawford tossed Tim Duncan for laughing at him…FROM THE BENCH.
I’m still a bit sore.
Generally, I get it. Reffing is hard. Damn hard. I empathize. No referee is or will be perfect. It’s the nature of the job.
It’s like medicine. We go to doctors expecting 100% diagnosis, prognosis, and recovery. Unrealistic. The success rate is much, much, much lower. Not any fault of doctors, but of the level of science, the lack of accurate information afforded them, and, let’s face it, a lack of resources. The expectations we place upon doctors artificially inflated. Perhaps, a defence mechanism. I digress.
We hold Refs to a somewhat similar stringent and unfair standard. The algorithm, from our perspective, is simple. Refs have a set of rules: they uphold those rules, ward against the transgression of those rules, and enact penalties to rectify those transgressions. Easy.
Of course, it’s not. Like doctors, there’s a lack of science (many of the calls are subjective in nature); there’s a lack of accurate information (things happening amongst massive people in an instant); and, there’s a lack of resources (though, that may be soon to change).
We should lay off more than we do. Refs are allowed to be fallible. In turn, we ask for diligence. To adhere to principles centered around professionalism. When they do not, there’s a problem. Sometimes, a big one.
Like other professions, there are three general ways to suck at your job. Poor preparation/technique/skill, negligence, or malicious intent. All three will get you fired. Some prosecuted.
And, here, I arrive to what happened in Denver and in the post-game of the Clippers game.
The NBA oversees Referees. It develops, hires, and regulates them. No regulatory body is perfect. The NBA definitely is not.
They’re particularly protective of Referees. Understandably, so. Open criticism could lead to teams litigating calls, demanding removals, challenging end of game results, and so on. With fallibility inherent to refereeing, there is little incentive for the NBA to transparently address it.
The two-minute report a paltry offering. Particularly, when you get something like the Nuggets report addressing one singular, irrelevant play amongst minutes of controversy.
But that does not mean Refs are immune to scrutiny. When a professional standard is not upheld, the regulatory body overseeing it must act. We see this with players, often. Technical fouls, fines, suspensions, and the like, are instruments admonishing unprofessionalism on and off the court.
Referees should be held to a similar standard or, arguably, a more stringent one. They are an extension of the NBA. Neutral parties responsible for upholding the game’s rules. Any regression from that responsibility should be firmly and transparently resolved.
Scott Foster’s actions, for example, were egregious. The unwarranted technical and ejection in combination with some questionable – and, perhaps, emotionally affected calls – at the end of the game warranted an investigation. Or, at least, some commentary from the NBA.
(If that were LeBron, and he had fallen to his knees like he was having a seizure after being ejected, the Referee Association would probably commence 30 days of mourning).
I have less of an opinion with the refereeing and the Clippers game. But something isn’t right. In 6 games officiated by Ben Taylor, Freddy has received techs directly from Ben thrice. Fred’s only had 8 all year.
It may be a coincidence; it should be thoroughly investigated.
In both cases, Referees, arbiters of an elite competition, bound to uphold the rules and the spirit of those rules, appeared to be failing their duties. In one case, we saw it. In another, we smelled it.
Outcomes of the games aside – Raptors are likely winning that Nuggets game; Freddy claimed his T in the Clips game “changed the course of the game” – Referees holding personal grudges or abusing their powers is unacceptable.
The problem, I acknowledge, is the circularity of it. Referees are extensions of the NBA; the NBA their judge, jury, and executioner. To punish, is to punish oneself.
The NBA is a profiteering entity with a vested interest in upholding the appearance of a fluid, impartial, entertaining game of basketball. Reality or otherwise. Protecting bad/corrupt/egotistical Referees tows the narrative along. TrueHoop’s Henry Abbot talks about this conflict of interest and the power dynamics of Referees and players more eloquently than I.
When the regulatory body does not act, it is, typically, on the public to demand recourse. In the NBA’s case, it was Freddy’s tirade following the Clippers loss. A much needed venting; a much more needed sober discussion of what we all see and, as fans, are obsessively concerned with.
Freddy was, ultimately, fined $30,000. Not bad considering the maximum is $50,000. Feels like a bit of an admission of guilt by the NBA. A makeup call if you will.
In turn, Freddy apologized.
Regardless, Freddy’s tirade was a pleading to the NBA for resolution. He’s, most certainly, not alone.
Beyond the complexity of the NBA as a business, this is an issue about egos and interpersonal relationships. Something, that rules and regulations can never truly hammer out. From the NBA’s perspective, they don’t need to, so long as the NBA remains relevant and entertaining.
Problem is, when Referees fail to do their job – from egos, from vendettas, from ineptitude – it makes the League much less enjoyable. It detracts from the elite skillsets and complexity of the game. That’s bad for business.
So maybe Silver and Co. should listen to Freddy and heed his concerns rather than obtusely slap him for 30k. Or, maybe, they should slap Ben Taylor and Scott Foster with the same charge. Just a thought.
