Let’s talk about...referees

MELBOURNE (Paulo Kennedy's View from Downunder) - While criticising referees is done all around the world, in Australia it is somewhat of a national pastime, regardless of the sport being played.

Some of the TV commentators who cover the NBL seem to spend more time analysing the refs than they do the game!

Fans make the repeated and global cry that the refs “ruined the game”, or say it was a good game “despite the refs”.

Of course, refereeing is serious business, and it is sad – given the parochial and emotional nature of sport – that a little more considered debate can’t be entered into.

In recent weeks in the NBL the referees seem to have made a decision, whether conscious or not, to call the game a bit tighter.

For those who haven’t seen it, the NBL is a quick league with an average score of around 168 points a game. Teams are happy to challenge size and bulk with speed, versatility, perimeter shooting and intense on-ball defence.

Because of this style, common in Australian junior teams but not prevalent in the NBL until recently, reffing has evolved a certain way.

To keep the game flowing and spectators entertained, the “advantage” call became commonplace on slight fouls. This has a lot of benefits for the flow of the game, particularly in the open court, but one very big downside when not executed correctly.

Initially, only foul calls that would stop a player gaining a clear advantage were waived on. But over time, this evolved into advantage being paid because a foul didn’t disadvantage the offensive player.

As you can imagine, this opened up a lot of leeway for defensive players to harass their opponents, knowing many of their indiscretions would be overlooked.

Combined with Oceania refs tendency to favour the defence in the charge/block situation, it meant defenders could play ‘in your face’ defence with an intensity offensive players couldn’t match.

But a few weeks ago things changed; not massively, but enough to notice. Borrowing from their European counterparts, the NBL’s zebras began calling arm and hand contact far more technically, and rewarded defenders less often with doubtful charge calls.

Most importantly, the advantage rule has been applied the way it should be – when it allows the offence to continue a situation where they have an advantage.

What’s the point of all this?

Well, when done well it has made the NBL cleaner to watch, with scoring up to nearly 171 points a game, but turnovers down from 30 a game to 24 in that three-week period. 

This shows just how important refs can be in shaping the product on the court.

After all, basketball is still a game trying to reach its enormous potential in the world market. While it is a clear number two behind soccer, there is still a lot of ground to make up when it comes to attracting fans.

One area where the international game would benefit from a concerted change is allowing refs to pay advantage more in the open court, where it really can be of benefit to both the attacking team and the spectacle.

Playing in the open court is every bit a legitimate tactic as playing half-court basketball, so I think it is crucial teams are allowed to play this way should they wish.

Which FIBA games do neutrals talk about most? The likes of Spain v France from this year’s Eurobasket, USA v Spain from Beijing, and Greece v USA in Japan in 2006. What did they have in common? They were fast, high-scoring affairs.

In sports around the world referees are called upon to judge players’ intent, and basketball officials should be given more freedom to do this when fouls are used blatantly to slow the game down.

If they have no impact on the attacking player, allow play to go on. If the foul deliberately prevents the player from continuing in transition, apply an appropriate penalty.

The question to ask is ‘could the defender realistically have made a legal defensive play from the position they were in?’ If not, unsportsmanlike foul.

While a case can be made that each foul adds up and can be a penalty later on, the number of teams who employ this tactic shows it is a price they are happy to pay.

Spectators seeing the stars’ skills in the open court more often will help basketball flourish. If a defence is good enough to slow their opposition to a half-court game legally, fair enough.

But the cynical fouls need to be gotten rid of. The current method gives the advantage to defensive teams when their opponents try to run. The reward is often just a side ball, whereas the risk is a costly turnover.

Is an offensive team more likely to take a risk pushing the ball if they know the interpretation of the rule is on their side? I think so. 

Is it opening a can or worms? Some would say yes.

Is it worth trialling, to see if it better showcases some of the great things our sport has to offer? Definitely.

Paulo Kennedy
FIBA

FIBA’s columnists write on a wide range of topics relating to basketball that are of interest to them. The opinions they express are their own and in no way reflect those of FIBA.

FIBA takes no responsibility and gives no guarantees, warranties or representations, implied or otherwise, for the content or accuracy of the content and opinion expressed in the above article.