When Giannis Antetokounmpo fouled out in the second overtime of Game 3 of the Eastern Conference finals, the Milwaukee Bucks’ defensive intensity noticeably waned.
Without their big guy, the Bucks eventually succumbed to the Toronto Raptors, who cut their best-of-seven series deficit to 2-1 with the win.
It may have been an unlucky whistle for the Bucks, who were playing like a team on the verge of a sweep, but it wasn’t a bad call.
In fact, it was a well-officiated game. The refs missed some calls, as is inevitable in a 48-minute pro game, but never to a one-sided degree.
Due to the nature of basketball, every game can hinge on how the officiating staff calls the action. What the Bucks do from here on will be determined at least in part by the refs.
In the Game 3 loss, the officials let the players play, and the result was a great game, where each possession of the ball was big. Hard-nosed defense is the hallmark of playoff basketball.
Over the years, favorable home-court whistles have been known to be another feature of the playoffs.
Suspicions had been raised during he 1970s, before the league grew into the cashed-up behemoth it is today, that playoff officiating was conducted such that each series would continue as long as possible. In simple arithmetic, more games spelled bigger gates and more television ad revenue.
Then came the 2002 Western Conference finals, which was all the proof that many observers needed to illustrate that the league is rigged. The huge-market Los Angeles Lakers defeated small-market Sacramento in seven games, thanks to a Game 6 win in which they shot 27 free throws in the fourth quarter. That showdown, which enabled a Lakers win in Game 7, has been referred to as the most questionably officiated game in league history.
A quote from the commissioner around that time, David Stern, did nothing to discourage the notion of rigged outcomes. Asked who his idea of which teams would be a “dream final,” Stern said, “The Lakers vs. the Lakers. I’d by lying if I told you there wasn’t a special fascination with the Lakers.”
Despite long-held perceptions of shady dealings, and despite the conviction of one of its veteran referees — Tim Donaghy, who went to prison in 2007 for fixing games — the league has survived. The NBA’s continued success suggests that the game is bigger than any peripheral hanky-panky, and that the wobbly ship of past referee failures has been righted.
But recently, in a moment of “if it ain’t broke, fix it anyway,” NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced that he wants a half of the league’s newly hired officials to be women.
For good measure, he added that he’d like to see an equal proportion of women hired onto NBA coaching staffs.
The coaching-staff part isn’t especially troubling, although teams should hire whomever they want to hire. Apart from a few rare exceptions, coaches and assistant coaches don’t affect nearly as many outcomes as do the players they coach.
But why the sudden cry for female refs? What’s wrong with the best candidate available, regardless of gender? (For simplicity’s sake, gender in this instance refers to one’s original XX or XY packaging, and not any of the newer, customized designations.)
We have yet to see the day when grade school superintendents plead for more male teachers, or hospital administrators clamor for more male nurses.
But let’s forget that and pretend that every occupation requires an even split along every demographic, and that there are no jobs naturally suited to one gender more so than another.
In any event, the NBA future may involve better-qualified referees getting passed over for a job due to the latest iteration of inclusion run amok. Got it.
At this rate, when the league presents the trophy to the champion, it may want to be sure that every other team gets one, too.