I think fans and players would put inconsistency top and I suspect it's a combination of refs being directed to adjust the calling of the game and it putting them outside how they'd naturally call it. I think that makes for more forced calls and then makeup calls or no-calls in response.

But without that direction, I think we had refs being pressured by players and coaches to let a lot go, and it made life tough for offensive players.

This is one from the half-bakery and thinking forward a few years, but I wonder if you could delegate some decisions based on contact to technology. e.g., players are wired, and any skin-to-skin contact in particular situations triggered an alert. Arm-bar in the back doesn't trigger (blocked by jersey), but hitting the arm or elbow while someone is shooting does. Combine that with streamlining penalties (minimising free throws and time taken to in-bound the ball) and perhaps that's basketball in 2030.

Yuk, Isaac. I hate the idea of wearable technology on the basketball court.

Three refs are involved in every decision on every play of any given game. At least one player makes a mistake on every play. The refs get it wrong sometimes. They are human and just (some only human, and some only just!).

As a spectator, I firmly believe that Cairns is unjustifiably ripped off by awful ref mistakes every game. The rest of you are just whingers. Looking back on the great majority of calls, I can see why it was called, and concede the ref probably got it right.

The best thing the NBL could do to improve the quality of refereeing in the sport is to appoint a referee panel, headed by someone like Bill Mildenhall, who had a great reputation as a whistle blower. This panel should constantly review the way games have been called, and set a standard for how it should be done.

Games should be called consistently, and if there are to be changes in the types of things refs call, they have to be clearly defined, using video, and provided to the clubs no less than a week before they are put in place. In no way should coaches or teams be ambushed by a decision to make more calls on a certain type of play than have been consistently called in previous weeks.

LK is all about the money, and has done a brilliant job of raising the standard of play and game night experience for the NBL. I think he needs someone to set their sights on getting the nitty gritty right. There's a lot of "attention to detail" stuff that has been missing in this iteration of the NBL. It's time that changed.

For the 'hoopsters' - the first ting is to stop thinking about the number of fouls called and whether they are 'soft' or 'hard'.

The number of fouls called will - or should - be determined by the way teams choose to play the game. A team that decides they have to 'chop it up' to negate an advantage the opposition has will [should] be prepared to pay for that with more fouls against them than the opposition they are aiming to negate.

In a physical' game there should be a lot of fouls called. In a game where both teams are prepared to try to play according to the rules, which are there to ensure a fair [not even] game, there should be many fewer fouls.

'Soft' and 'hard' fouls are also a flawed premise. An elbow tip on a shot is not a 'hard' foul, but it is a highly effective [and illegal] way of preventing a score.

The current 'biggie' overall is consistency, which I believe is compounded by the focus on subjective calls.

Calling instinctively, in line with the rules, allows as near as one can get to an instant, and most often right, decision. Having to work out whether or not to call something means the ref has to work through a process [even if it is sub-conscious] before s/he can make a decision. This more complicated process ensures more errors and delay in decision making, which with the speed of the game means many fouls are not called simply because it is too late by the time the official reaches his/her decision.

I believe the number of 'no calls', or perhaps more accurately non-calls, points to this issue. I vividly recall a recent Adelaide Lightning home game where there were multiple heavy clashes in block/charge situations with players crashing to the floor and no calls made: not because they were 'good no calls' [a terminology I have a problem with], but because the officials simply couldn't make a decision.

Refereeing is tough, particularly with coaches and players always looking to push the boundaries of what is legal, so it needs to be kept as simple and clean as possible, which means the officials seeing a lot of good basketball - so they instinctively recognise 'good' [and legal] as 'looking right' and that becomes the instinctive reference point for decisions - and being allowed [and encouraged/supported] to call the games instinctively according to the rules as they are written.

And that should result in a much higher level of consistency and more confidence in the officiating for players, spectators and even coaches.

"Clubs receive extensive video examples prior to the season that outline league directions, points of emphasis and rule changes"

Unfortunately the referees don't always enforce it and hence what Wright's complaint was in the Melbourne game.

I doubt people would think of refereeing as something that needed a lot of preparation, but it does. Refereeing games comes down to split second decision-making, however the approach to making those decisions is something that is worked on and analysed all year. Referres shouldn't be excused for making a wrong interpretation or judgement, because it's their job to work on that outside of game time.

The dire problem in years past is that there were no full-time referees, so this sitting down and nutting out what should be called and how it should be called was, I imagine, non-existent.

I reckon there have been small steps since the full-time employment of a couple refs.

"We play it rough here in Australia"

Yep, and it will stay that way until refs call by the rules instead of by this week's interpretation. That includes tech and unsportsmanlike fouls.

I get that 'with so many big bodies moving so quickly in a confined space that some contact is inevitable'.
What shits me more is the players who deliberately seek out contact, either to intimidate or to get an advantage or because they are too lazy or unskilled to avoid it.

If the NBA can reduce the amount of thuggery over the last 10 - 20 years then why can't the NBL?

Most of the NBL refs nowadays come from the BigV Level and we know how BigV refs are LOL

What kind of money do we think referees are on?

Would love to know what they do take home per game out of curiosity.

Agree with #458, no magic cure - however couple of things I'd like to see:

- More free flowing games, this season seems to be a lot of stop / start
- Make sure ref's KNOW their craft (in the cylinder?), what target levels are set, if any?
- Refs ADMITTING they get it wrong from time to time, this could perhaps include an overruling in games by head referee, but moreso a weekly review that examines contentious calls and whether the call was right / wrong and needs to be addressed.

Make sure ref's KNOW their craft (in the cylinder?)

Consistency is non existent.its funny the league says they want to encourage more movement yet this is the only league I have seen players get rewarded for taking a charge on a player running the lane... is that even basketball? There often seems to be two sets of rules where one team is called for minimal contact and the other can get away with significant contact. Often the interpretation and above changes in the next half. I find it really frustrating when they pull some off ball call, or minimal contact that doesn't effect the play where it really feels they are searching for the call to make a point and then they miss a blatant contact from behind or in the side of a player mid air attacking the basket.

Lastly more often than not in a one in one situation the player with the ball has the advantage, not here we call ridiculous charges, players have feet in the air for crying out loud, how dis they have position? Yes this includes many charges wildcats have taken.

The KISS principle is needed.

Why should offensive players be able to barrel over defensive players just because they don't have the ball?

I don't think it's a basketball play, and it goes against the notion of opening up movement in the game.

I don't mean a player standing 10m in front, I mean very last second stepping in front unexpectedly to take a "charge"

And if they have a foot in the air it is more often than not a good indication that have not afforded the player with the ball time to avoid contact

...what?

Every year minor changes as directed by the ref's supervisors create major changes.
Today’s NBL Refs have been told not to communicate with players during play phases such as warnings such as don’t hold, get your hands out etc. Historically "Ref Talk" kept the game flowing. Now there are endless fouls that many fans and commentators complain about.
In their endless wisdom the supervision wants to limit playing advantage/continuation giving the referees limited decision making.
In an earlier post the need for game officials involvement in pre game meetings plus
post game meetings and written reports. Time consuming yes, robots under the thumb, heading that way?

A charge call is reliant on:

Timing
Distance
Defense right/wrong
Offense right/wrong

You still need to allow the offence a chance to avoid the contact ( time considering their distance from the defender) unless the defence is moving backwards, then they should obviously have an opportunity to avoid the contact.

Simply put you are not allowed to launch yourself in front if a player moving at full speed and draw a charge. They need to be afforded in effect an opportunity to avoid the contact.

Are you sure J isn't Shane Heal. He also shares the same deluded understanding.

The basics are established legal guarding position then who get there first with the defence moving laterally to rewards.

My source is a current high-level official, who is yours? Maybe thaybdeluded understanding is the rule.

Yep distance and time don't apply, it sure used too. It does however affirm my suggestion that if a player still has a foot in the air it increases the likelihood that they had not yet established legal guarding position as that requires two feet on the floor initially.

Not sure i like this interpretation but I can roll with it.

That's why I said I can roll with it! Can you read?

Yep distance and time don't apply, it sure used too.

It does however affirm my suggestion that if a player still has a foot in the air it increases the likelihood that they had not yet established legal guarding position

FIBA have appointed 4 Australian referees to the 1st round of World Cup qualifying. Scott Beker, Michael Aylen, Vaughan Mayberry and Chris Reid.

Its all about consistency.

If you call a foul on the visitors, call the same thing on the Wildcats.

Well done anon. Chastise someone who goes to the effort to re-check their understanding and then acknowledges that their interpretation was wrong. I would think the purpose of a discussion is to improve everyone involved's knowledge, that often occurs through conflict, at least initially.

"The rule is the rule. Whether you can roll with it or not makes no difference. "

"Next time you enter a discussion maybe have an understanding of the subject matter."

Please take you own advice and next time you respond please try comprehending what a statement means. "I can roll with it" obviously implies acceptance.

I have refereed, I have completed my level ones, I haven't kept it up to date (clearly) I will back myself in until proven other wise (appreciated) and continue to speak up because thats how we improve our knowledge and understanding as a collective. If you want to silence people unless they are so called "experts" like yourself then in my humble opinion you can Fuck Off.

Has a go at someone for arguing the wrong interpretation of the rule, then has a go when someone accepts the correct interpretation...

I feel the experienced referees have no accountability and therefore don't care.

Aylen is the perfect example. Last finals series he made 3 absolute howlers (Jacobsen getting tackled with a no unsportsmanlike foul being called, Matt Knight pushing the ball at Trice's head no unsportsmanlike foul, Drmic being called for a flop instead of recieving 3 free throws). All 3 could have changed the result if he called them correctly. If it was any other professional league that referee would not have done the Grand Final. However in the NBL it doesn't matter how the experienced referee has performed throughout the year or in the previous final they will still get the grand final.

A recent example of Aylen not giving a shit is in the Cairns vs Wildcats game where a fight broke out. The video link below shows the start of the fight at 18 seconds in and it is not until 17 seconds later Aylen decides to make some effort to control the situation. Fast forward to 2:22 to see a better view of him doing absolutely nothing. That is apparently a referee with what 20 years experience in the NBL as well as Olympic experience. If he decides he doesn't care that is his choice however he could show he cares for his referee collegues. The female referee did her best to stop the situation but due to her size could have faced a dangerous possibility to her health however Aylen just walks over whenever it suited him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo6RTkzcUpA

The sooner referees like him are out of the league, the sooner it can finally start to move forward. Until then it will just stay the same.

I wish the NBL would talk more about the software they are using to log ref performance, I have heard on the grapevine each ref receives a cut of their game with incorrect, correct, and missed call info. All used to generate performance discussions weekly (word is too many below standard gets you panel demoted, e.g. earning less $$$s, hence some dummy spits/walkies from those who considered them above reproach). From all accounts, refs boss Butler was an obsessive about self review, so good to see him using that to improve the quality of the current output.

That was a shocking lapse. Plus how about the entire Nine commentary team's bias against the Roosters - it was if they all had money on the Raiders.

At least NBL Round 2 isn't going to seem so bad now after watching a NRL shitshow in terms of officiating and broadcasting.