FanHouse Referees

Today's reminder that the Tim Donaghy scandal will not go quietly into that dark night comes from Arizona. A prosecutor in Arizona is following up on an earlier request for the documents pertaining to Donaghy's case. The prosecutor was told to wait till after Donaghy's federal trial concluded before processing his request. Donaghy's been sentenced, and now the prosecutor, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, wants his shot.

The claim is that he wants to explore whether Donaghy broke any state laws during his happy go funtime dancing with betting on games he worked. But in reality, we know the real reason behind the inquiry.

There's no doubt that the real reason behind the inquiry is to discover if Donaghy admitted to shenannigans during the Suns notoriously questionable playoffs series against the Spurs in 2007. It's likely that the investigation has very little to do with actually pursuing Donaghy, seeing as how he's, you know, already in the clink. But ever since people started pointing out that Donaghy was involved in that, um ... interesting series, there have been blood cries from the desert.

As someone that was as outraged by that series as anyone, I'll still say someone should tell Phoenix that this won't put Steve Nash's nose back together in Game 1, nor will it keep Amare Stoudemire on the bench after Robert Horry cheapshot 1.0. It's done.

In the 2006 Rose Bowl Game, the Texas Longhorns were spotted 17 points when two critical plays--a touchdown and a fumble--were mis-judged by both the officials on the field and in the replay booth. It turns out that although the replay officials claimed their equipment was working, a malfunction meant that they could not get even the TV angles available to viewers at home. Someone hooked the system up to the monitor incorrectly.

Although it was of significantly less consequence, the Trojans were once again burned by a replay malfunction Saturday afternoon in South Bend. Late in the fourth quarter, as the Irish were driving to try to get on the scoreboard, officals ruled that an Irish player had made a 9-yard catch resulting in a first down. Problem was, the ball bounced off the turf and into his arms, leading Carroll to challenge the call.

Because of the challenge, Notre Dame's student section had some choice words for the USC head coach, but in the end, it turns out Carroll was correct to challenge the call.

By the end of the day, we may know how the NHL decides to punish Philadelphia's Jesse Boulerice for having Canucks forward Ryan Kesler taste-test his stick without asking first. The predictions, naturally, are pouring in. FanHouse's Jes Golbez asks you for yours, and opines that Boulerice should be out until 2008. ESPN's EJ Hradek thinks he should receive the Downie Minimum of 20 games. William Houston of the Globe & Mail actually believes it should be a 40-gamer -- not likely, unless Boulerice was also running his own gambling ring on the side. Even Kesler appointed himself junior commissioner of the NHL for a few moments and called for a suspension of "a serious amount of games," while teammate Matt Cooke set the suspension at 25.

Suspending Boulerice is the easy part; unless the NHL seriously minimizes the incident with a paltry punishment, anywhere between 20-30 games will be seen as "getting it right." The harder part is taking the next step and punishing those who have also contributed to yet another black-eye for hockey's ever-tarnishing image. That's why it's time to...

Julian Benbow of the Boston Globe has a Sunday profile of Bill McGoldrick, a 23-year-old New Englander who has landed a job as a referee with the US Hockey League. The article explains how his journey through different levels of officiating mirrors that of a burgeoning player prospect, but settles on one particular thesis: McGoldrick wasn't good enough to make the NHL as a player, so he's chosen to join the big show by coming through the ranks as an on-ice official:

Like any kid who had grown up with a hockey stick glued to his hands, McGoldrick imagined himself in skates in the National Hockey League. The farthest he made it as a player was college at Framingham State. He believes he will get to the NHL one way or another. The path for most ex-players would be coaching, or the front office, or as a trainer. But McGoldrick still wants to be on the ice.

"The reason why I want to continue to be a referee is for the same reason I grew up playing," he said. "I wanted to make it to the NHL, and that's something I know I cannot do as a player. So, being an official is the only other option really, being involved or being on the ice."

To either the discredit of Benbow or McGoldrick (or both), the article fails to disclose any passion that McGoldrick has for maintaining the integrity or enforcing the rules of the game -- you know, that boring old "referee" stuff. But it clearly frames McGoldrick's career track to NHL officiating -- and give him credit for sticking with it -- as "a dream" for an ex-player; one who'll gladly pick up the whistle if it means skating alongside talent he never possessed.

I'll gladly accept the shortcomings of my own naivety: That every rookie cop wants a chance to enforce the law, every newbie firefighter wants the chance to save lives and every referee is in it for the betterment of the game. But the reality is that some guys just like guns, some guys just like the women who hang around firehouses and some guys will jump into goon scuffles for a chance to skate on NHL ice. Not sure about you, but I despise the notion that vocations that can literally determine the outcome of a professional hockey game are being sought by star-struck ingenues who speak about the job almost as if it's like being a glorified stick-boy.

Basketball players talk a lot about having their own individual style. It's their signature, their voice, and a large part of what gives them confidence in their roles. But rarely does a guy have a game so unique that it confuses the powers that be.

This past weekend, we found out that the league had apologized to Billy King for bogus ref-work. Now, the Boston Herald is reporting that young stud Al Jefferson was too advanced for the refs. So much so that they had the team had to break down for them just what Jefferson was going in the post:

"It's no accident that Al Jefferson [stats] has been getting called for traveling less often. The Celtics shipped video to the league to point out that some of his moves aren't illegal.

"He has an unorthodox post game, and some of the travels they were calling were (expletive)," Rivers said before Jefferson's nine-point, 10-rebound evening against the Hornets. "They weren't travels. They just hadn't seen that, and we sent enough in to prove that's not a travel. It's just unorthodox. They (the officials) really have improved on that."

I'm sorry, but that is completely awesome. Usually we think of quick, explosive guards changing the sport's vocabulary, or do-everything freaks like Pippen or Odom. But when a dude whose main virtues are big and tall can cause this kind of controversy, that makes you think the pro game is anything but played out.

If you're interested in seeing the man in action, here's a quality mix.

It's no secret that the NBA has a problem with its officials. Actually, the NFL does, too, but people love that sport too much for it to matter.

Or maybe the difference is that, without any real replay safety net, the NBA refs' authority is absolute. Their snap judgments become law, and there's very little anyone can do about it. But sometimes, all those hurt by their actions get a small moral victory. On Wednesday, the boys in stripes robbed the Sixers of several precious end-game seconds; they went on to lose to the Bulls by a single free throw. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Stu Jackson called Billy Hunter the following day...to semi-apologize:

I had a nice conversation with Stu Jackson, and we were right," King said last night before the Sixers' game against Utah. "At least they acknowledged that mistakes were made, and that's all you want. You want them to acknowledge that."

Of course, this didn't change anything, and plenty of times these screw-ups don't get acknowledged. So if anything, this seems like a well-timed political move that us mere mortals can't understand.

Also, there's a big difference between a game marred by bias, and one decided by a single mistake. Namely, teams have no excuse for things even getting to that point.

A disturbing trend arose in the NFL in Week 1. Perhaps a memo was passed around internally that the NFL didn't notify the press or fans of. But for some reason, the referees last week were obsessed with throwing flags for offensive pass interference.

That's right, offensive pass interference. Some of you may have forgotten what that is, because it is a fairly rare penalty. But I assure you, it does exist. Larry Nemmers' and Gerry Austin's crews made sure you knew about it.

Nemmers presided over the Bengals-Chiefs game, while Austin covered the Cowboys-Jaguars game. In both games, not one, but two offensive pass interference flags were thrown. In both games, both flags were thrown against the same team (the Chiefs and the Cowboys, respectively), and both were thrown within a few plays of each other. I didn't get to catch the Cowboys' flags, but the Chiefs had two flags thrown against Samie Parker, both of which were questionable. Certainly, I've seen far worse that haven't been penalized.

The most egregious flag, however, was one almost everyone saw. With 4:14 left to go in the Manning Bowl, Tim Carter was flagged with what some have generously labeled a "questionable call." There was nothing questionable about it. Nick Harper fell, and Carter paid the price. A terrible call at a crucial part of the game.

This week, the Chiefs may have suffered from a non-call, or at least Clark Judge and I thought so. In overtime, Javon Walker's 24-yard reception, after what seemed to be a push-off on Ty Law, was probably the deflating blow to a Chiefs defense that fought so hard to that point. Granted, Denver may well have been on their way to victory anyway, given the way their offense was finally clicking, but it was a crucial blow nonetheless.

What's the point of detailing all this? For me, it's wondering why offensive and defensive pass interference flags can't be challenged. Play has already stopped, so there is no continuity problem. And far too often, pass interference plays are crucial in either extending or deflating drives. They can result in big gains, or negate first downs or even touchdowns. I simply cannot think of a reason why coaches shouldn't be able to challenge a crucial pass interference flag, or why replay officials can't buzz in a challenge late in a game. As Tom Coughlin can probably tell you, that blown call can completely derail a team's drive.

The NFL has always been overprotective about their referees. The NFL does a lot of things right, but their overprotection of the referees is sometimes mind-boggling. They should be concerned about doing things right, not about protecting the referees. After all, if people doubt the outcome of games, it doesn't matter a lick that the referees are still considered untouchable.