May 4,
2005: NBA Covers Up by Lashing Out
By Ahchie
There
has always been speculation in the past regarding the integrity of the officiating
in the National Basketball Association. Certain veteran stars have always
seemed to get the benefit of the calls. Charles Barkley, in particular, was
notorious for this. He would commit obvious fouls and rarely get called for
them. My thought has always been: If you are such a great player, what do
you need the benefit of the calls for? Or do you only do well because of the
referees’ favor?
While this has been the status quo for as long as I can remember, there has also been talk through the years of the league wanting certain big-market teams in the finals. That conspiracy was never more evident than the game six fix between the Kings and the Lakers in the 2002 Western Conference Finals.
Players and coaches are not allowed to question or criticize the officiating. If they do, they get fined. Supposedly, referees are diligently reviewed and graded by the league, but it is all done behind closed doors. The league and referees never come out and admit to making a mistake, and they will certainly never acknowledge that they screwed up over and over in favor of one team over the course of an entire fourth quarter, game, or playoff series. When teams, players, and coaches do complain, they are portrayed as crybabies by the media.
Now we have a coach (Jeff Van Gundy) who is saying that the league issued a directive to referees to gun for a player (Yao Ming) because an owner (Mark Cuban) complained to the league. The league’s reaction is the most telling sign of all. Commissioner David Stern slapped a $100,000 fine on Van Gundy and made it clear that if he continues with the conspiracy talk that he will be kicked out of the league. Is this the proper way to deal with an accusation of favoritism? To basically hit the accuser so hard and threaten his job to such a degree that the accuser has to back down? Stern is wielding his considerable power to use Van Gundy as an example to dissuade others from making noise in the future. Stern’s reaction is an indicator that perhaps there is much more to this story, and that he will do whatever it takes to make sure that whatever deep dark secrets there are will stay that way. While Major League Baseball has a buffoon for a commissioner, the NBA seems to have a tyrant for theirs.
And
how strong was Van Gundy’s accusation anyway? All Van Gundy said was
that a referee told him that playoff refs “were looking at Yao harder
because of Mark’s complaints.” That does not mean that Van Gundy
is saying that the referees are purposely calling phantom fouls on Yao just
for the sake of calling fouls. It does mean that he feels that Yao is being
officiated inappropriately and that they are paying more attention to him
only because someone (Cuban) complained loud enough that Yao was getting away
with things on the court. Even though referees should be calling games fairly
and consistently on both ends of the floor, and not be focusing on one player
more than others, it is entirely plausible that the league would let its officials
know that they should pay attention to things they may have missed in the
past. It just seems that Van Gundy’s assertion was far tamer than the
reaction it elicited from Stern, showing that Stern and the league are far
too defensive and sensitive when anyone even remotely hints at the c-word
(conspiracy). Simply put, the defensive and extreme reaction by Stern makes
the league look suspicious.
While Van Gundy should stick to his guns, even if it costs him his job, chances are, in order to make this all go away nice and neatly, Van Gundy will have to backtrack and say he made up the story, even if he didn’t, or that he was misquoted and things were taken out of context, or something similarly humiliating. That’s what Stern wants. Then things can proceed like before: people will continue to quietly wonder and suspect, Van Gundy will be forced to dutifully serve a suspension, and the league will continue whatever it is they do to influence the outcome of games, the playoffs, and the finals. To his credit, Van Gundy has not backed down…yet.
Stern says probe will continue once Rockets done
DALLAS
-- The NBA fined Houston Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy $100,000 -- the largest
amount ever for a coach -- on Monday, a day after accusing officials of targeting
center Yao Ming this postseason and saying Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban
is to blame.
While Van Gundy laughed off the penalty and Yao offered to pick up half the tab, the matter jumped to another, far more serious level. Commissioner David Stern called the fine "an intermediary step," adding that an investigation will continue once the Rockets finish their playoff run.
He said further punishment is possible, even implying that Van Gundy could face a lifetime ban.
"If he's going to say things like that, he's not going to continue in this league," Stern said. "If the attitude reflected in those comments continues to be public, he's going to have a big problem with me as long as I'm commissioner."
After the Rockets' 103-100 loss to the Mavericks in Game 5 Monday night, Van Gundy called Stern's statement "interesting." But the coach stood by what he had said.
"I didn't see anything wrong with what I said," Van Gundy explained. "But certainly, obviously, for a statement like that to come out, he obviously differs. … That's all right."
Stern said the league is both furious at what Van Gundy said and that he refuses to divulge the official he claims told him that referees "were looking at Yao harder because of Mark's complaints" to the league office.
"This is the first case I can remember when an allegation has been made and the perpetrator hasn't cooperated," Stern said. "At this time of year, there usually is a craziness in the land that has to do with referees as coaches jockey for position. This one, in our view, set a new low for that. That's why the fine is what it was and that's why the investigation is continuing."
Van Gundy got himself into trouble by telling three reporters at the team hotel in Dallas on Sunday night that a referee not working the playoffs called him after the Rockets went up 2-0 and warned that Yao was mentioned in an online evaluation from supervisor of officials Ronnie Nunn.
Van Gundy added that because Cuban "has been hard on" the league and officials, "he's gotten the benefit."
"I didn't think that really worked in the NBA, but in this case it has," Van Gundy said.
He stood by his complaints Monday and said he's made many of them privately to the league all season.
"I said what I said. I believe what I believe and I've seen what I've seen. They've got to do what they think is right," Van Gundy said. "I would watch all of [Yao's] 20 fouls with anyone. And I would have no problems making my case that he's not refereed appropriately. I stand by that."
For the most part, though, Van Gundy cracked jokes about the fallout, saying things like his wife might make him sleep on the porch. He also laughed about the fine coming from league vice president Stu Jackson, who in 1989 was coach of the Knicks and hired Van Gundy as an assistant.
"Stu brought me into the NBA so he giveth, and now he taketh away," Van Gundy said.
He teased the team's PR director, who was standing next to him, for allowing him to speak to reporters on a travel day -- "Gee, no more non-mandatory media days for me," he said -- and especially got a kick out of his fine being "double worst" the previous largest, a $50,000 hit on Pat Riley in 2003 and Phil Jackson in 2004.
"If that's the worst thing that's happened in the NBA from a coaching
perspective, so be it," he said.
As for protecting his source, Van Gundy practically rolled his eyes at his
refusal to give up his friend during his conversation with league security.
"I felt like I was in Watergate or something," he said.
When told about reporters who are facing 18 months in jail for protecting sources, Van Gundy laughed and said, "My guy would have to be on his own. I'd cut him loose."
Van Gundy clarified that his complaints aren't with the officials, but with the way officials are asked to call games -- such as having certain points of emphasis.
"Believe me, I've been blessed to make enough money that if this goes to good causes, that's a good thing," said Van Gundy, in the second year of an $18 million, four-year contract.
However,
he may not have to pay the whole thing. Yao offered to split the fee because
"coach was talking about me."
"I feel I need to do it that way," Yao said.
Cuban, who has been fined more than $1 million since buying the team five years ago, found little irony in someone getting fined for comments involving him and his pet target, the way officials do their job.
"It's nice to see someone else buying the coffee and danish for the NBA," he said.
When first learning about Van Gundy's comments, Cuban said in an e-mail that the accusations were "crazy" and "an insult to officials." He also noted that Dallas center Erick Dampier has picked up quick fouls in every game in this series.
"They don't officiate individual players differently," Cuban wrote.
Cuban said the Mavs sent the league a list of plays they thought could've been called moving screens on Yao and backup Dikembe Mutombo. He said the league responded that "nine were actually moving screens and should have been called but were not."
"So if anything, he has it completely backward," Cuban said.
Yao fouled out of Game 1 in 20 minutes. He had four fouls in Game 2, when he made 13 of 14 shots and scored 33 points, then had five fouls in each of the last two games.
Dampier fouled out of Game 4 in 18 minutes. He had five fouls in 19 minutes of Game 3.
From the Associated Press
Commissioner could have more stern words for Jeff Van Gundy
NEW
YORK - Jeff Van Gundy's dispute with NBA commissioner David Stern is not his
first, but it could be his last.
Stern is expected to meet with Van Gundy after the Houston Rockets' season concludes to determine whether Van Gundy should receive an additional penalty - incredibly, Stern isn't ruling out a lifetime ban - for claiming that an unnamed NBA referee informed him that the league would be "looking harder at Yao (Ming)" because of complaints to the league office from Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.
On Monday, Stern fined Van Gundy $100,000 - a record for a coach - after the coach refused to reveal the identity of the official. Van Gundy was unavailable for comment Tuesday, but people close to the Rockets coach said Van Gundy will continue to stand by his story even if it costs him his job.
"It's funny, reporters who use sources for their stories are saying that Jeff should either give up his source or they are writing that he made the whole thing up," said a person close to Van Gundy. "I know two things: He didn't make it up and he's not going to turn in anyone."
The same source believes Stern's feud with Van Gundy is "personal" and that it dates back to 1997 when Van Gundy coached the Knicks. Eight years ago, Stern summoned Van Gundy to his office and reprimanded him for comments he made after the Knicks' infamous brawl with the Miami Heat during their second-round playoff series.
The Knicks had criticized the league for suspending Patrick Ewing for leaving the bench area even though Ewing was standing 30 feet from the melee. The Knicks, who had a 3-1 series lead, lost to Miami in seven games. Several years later, David Robinson committed a similar sin during a playoff game but was not suspended.
Coincidentally, Van Gundy and Stern have been on the same side when it comes to accusations about league-wide conspiracies. After the Knicks eliminated the Pacers in the 1999 Eastern Conference finals, Reggie Miller said the league and its then television partner, NBC, wanted the Knicks in the NBA Finals.
In 2000, several Miami Heat players made similar comments after the Knicks won a grueling seven-game, second-round series. Former Heat point guard Tim Hardaway even went so far as to say, "no wonder they call Dick Bavetta, Knick Bavetta."
Van Gundy responded to Hardaway's criticism in 2000 by saying, "I think they are attacking the credibility of the league. In 1999 (the criticism of the officials) went without any repercussions. I don't know what the repercussions are going to be this year. I was just disappointed."
Van Gundy anticipated being fined for his most recent comments but was surprised by the severity of the fine, especially after Mavs coach Avery Johnson was fined just $10,000 for berating referee Joey Crawford after Dallas lost Game 1.
It is not uncommon for teams to lobby complaints to the league office about the way certain players are being officiated. Shaquille O'Neal is usually at the top of that list. Van Gundy was merely stating that the league, acting on Cuban's complaints, would be looking to Yao more closely when he sets screens. It was Van Gundy's contention that Cuban's constant bickering was being rewarded. He never said there was a conspiracy against Yao or the Rockets.
In fact, on the same day Van Gundy made his comments, Seattle coach Nate McMillan issued a similar warning after Kings coach Rick Adelman complained about the Sonics' physical play.
Stu Jackson, the NBA's VP of basketball operations, was not available to comment Tuesday regarding Van Gundy's case. Jackson is Van Gundy's neighbor in Westchester, N.Y., and was responsible for giving Van Gundy his first college coaching job at Providence and later hired Van Gundy as one of his assistants with the Knicks.
From the New York Daily News, Frank Isola