Has Human Officiating in the NBA jumped the shark?

Watch an average NBA game and you'll notice something:

[B]Calls are completely arbitrary.[/B]

Fouls are missed. [I]Non-fouls are called as fouls. [/I]

[I]The refs get fooled all the time by flopping and foul baiting.
[/I]

Blown calls on traveling, carrying. Completely miss off-ball WWE moves.

Having watched NBA a while,[B] it wasn't always this way[/B]. Yes they occasionally missed calls We used to watch games and refs would get it right maybe 80% of the time. [B] Now, it's a coin flip.[/B] [I]There is zero consistency and very low accuracy. [/I]

Refs have to do the near impossible of watching for so much (3 second violation, foot on the line, off-ball physicality) that it's a wonder for many years they did so well. They're shorter than the players, can't see around players in front of the ball; there's only 3 for 10 players.

[B]But it's like - now they've just given up on even trying to be accurate.[/B] I'm watching the Dallas-Denver game as just another example.

In the face of widespread blatant incompetence, NBA refs have hid behind weasel words like "legal guarding position" to give them wide lattitude to make calls; or rather to hide or obfuscate their blown calls or justify their phantom foul calls.

There's a solution. Major tennis grand slams have moved towards video footage and computer/AI.

Such a system could track everything, [B]gauge level of impact using optical tracking (hawk-eye); not get fooled by flopping[/B]. Would be able to tell a foul apart from all-ball. [B]It could give us consistency and accuracy.[/B]

15 years ago I'd say the refs are good enough. Now I'd say: move to optical tracking and let's get fair, unbiased, accurate officiating finally.

Keep the people or replace them with AI?

idk about jumped the shark, but it's certainly lost the plot. it's become too critical to a game, and as you said...without any consistency.

i used to think maybe some gambling was involved and so the mafia influenced it. but i've now just settled on how idiotic the officials are. regardless, it influences the game too much.

Legal betting has ruined both the NBA and NFL.

You don't think flopping would fool an AI ref? If anything, it would be harder for AI to determine flopping.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el;15045514]You don't think flopping would fool an AI ref? If anything, it would be harder for AI to determine flopping.[/QUOTE]

The optical tracking can examine velocity. So it will look more at mathematics as opposed to the theatrics and emotionality of the person flopping to the ground.

The biggest problem is that the league has allowed the players to actively deceive the refs for so long that the players just keep getting better and better at it and it's league wide.

I'm sure there are some players that have figured out the viewing angles from all on court officials and use their flops and flails in these positions the officials can't see at all which means the officials have to guess.

It is not possible for 3 officials to be constantly monitoring all players at all times from all angles when the players are actively trying to deceive the officials on potentially any given play.

The players have also gamed the rules as hard as they can trying to figure out how to travel without technically traveling.

The league has an honesty, integrity and a rule problem more than they have a ref problem.

The players aren't honest at all and at least part of that falls on the league office for not doing anything about it.

Start suspending players with post game reviews for too many flops. It will stop.

So just have a 4th official, maybe a 5th. They have enough money for it.

Have an official constantly review every foul call, and have teams shoot free throws at the end of the game to counteract bad calls (aka, you get called for a foul that shouldn't have been called, you get 2 free throws at the end of the game to wipe out the 2 erroneous ones.)

IDK, I just don't think AI will ever be capable for doing a better job than humans at this.

[IMG]https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZTE2ZGFlYmYtMzNjZC00ZmM2LTljMzYtNWEyMzAzZGZiNDllXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Yes or No;15045517]The biggest problem is that the league has allowed the players to actively deceive the refs for so long that the players just keep getting better and better at it and it's league wide.....

It is not possible for 3 officials to be constantly monitoring all players at all times from all angles when the players are actively trying to deceive the officials on potentially any given play.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah you may have a point. But incompetence and bias also plays a role. There's a bit more acting today, but on non-acted plays there's no consistency either.

The quality of refs isn't what it was; Adam Silver is to blame. I used to have an expectation the right call would be made with 85% certainty. I have none today. I don't even get angry anymore because the bogus calls are at least equal to the correct calls.

There's certain refs who blow the whistle for fingernail fouls [B]for certain players they apparently are fans of[/B]. I think refs would fear for their job doing that under Stern but with the Silver, [I]it's as if they don't worry about accountability[/I].

I do agree the job is highly complex. It's time for humans to serve as the biological bootloader for AI officiating.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el;15045532]So just have a 4th official, maybe a 5th. They have enough money for it.

Have an official constantly review every foul call, and have teams shoot free throws at the end of the game to counteract bad calls (aka, you get called for a foul that shouldn't have been called, you get 2 free throws at the end of the game to wipe out the 2 erroneous ones.)

IDK, I just don't think AI will ever be capable for doing a better job than humans at this.[/QUOTE]

It's not just volume though.

[QUOTE]IDK, I just don't think AI will ever be capable for doing a better job than humans at this.[/QUOTE]

That's what they said about Hawk-eye and professional tennis. First, the non-slams like Indiana Wells used it; players and fans both agreed it was better. Then US Open slam did, and the rest have followed with the dastardly French only accepting it more than a decade later.

AI (Computer Vision) has taken off. Think the self-driving cars from Waymo that now make up something like 20% of all taxis in San Francisco. They can detect minor tire fragments on the road. They can do so in fog. They can gauge the impact of side collisions.

It would be very easy for them to make accurate traveling calls for example. The poor ref is looking at the ball, looking at physical contact, etc. - I'm surprised if he can clearly do all that and also count steps and accurately gauge the gather.

Basketball would be harder than AI serving as a tennis line judge, but it's possible (I'm not 100% where the technology is; the problem is the research involved would fit a narrow use-case and only be so profitable; whereas Hawkeye may be used for tennis but it's detection tech is also usable for mainstream uses such as mechanical research etc).

The league (via Second Spectrum) uses multiple cameras per stadium to track all players + the ball on every frame; 25 frames per second.

They already use AI for the Last Two Minute Report and more ("According to a 2025 report, leagues increasingly use computer vision to support “referee evaluation and replay support,” processing video footage frame-by-frame to supply data that helps reduce human error and speed reviews.")

I always thought the solution was to just let the guys play and allow 80% of all incidental contact. Would solve flopping and ref baiting at least.

Basketball is a contact sport so I don't know why these players are so coddled and you're not allowed to touch them. It's the only sport where the playground game is more physical and tough than the professional game. When you play pickup ball you just know you're going to get whacked, especially if you try and drive to the lane. You don't cry about it. You call your own fouls but only when it's really obvious.

Like I said I feel like 80% of the fouls called in the pro game wouldn't be called on the playground. That's the way the game should be. I'm not saying it should be like football but there should be some level of physicality to be expected. I definitely think there should be room for more bruising in the paint.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15045717]I always thought the solution was to just let the guys play and allow 80% of all incidental contact. Would solve flopping and ref baiting at least.

Basketball is a contact sport so I don't know why these players are so coddled and you're not allowed to touch them. It's the only sport where the playground game is more physical and tough than the professional game. When you play pickup ball you just know you're going to get whacked, especially if you try and drive to the lane. You don't cry about it. You call your own fouls but only when it's really obvious.

Like I said I feel like 80% of the fouls called in the pro game wouldn't be called on the playground. That's the way the game should be. I'm not saying it should be like football but there should be some level of physicality to be expected. I definitely think there should be room for more bruising in the paint.[/QUOTE]

Thing is what draws people to watch the NBA vs a YMCA pick up game is the sheer talent.

The minute you allow significant physicality, you diminish the talent. I could pick out 5 guys in the gym I go to and if you rarely called fouls, they would probably beat a lot of talented players with sheer force.

With all the physicality, lots of shots will be missed and people like high scoring. That's why no one watches a pick up game unless they have to.

Guys like Steph and KD would probably be gone.

Would be curious if a league like this would have viewership; people claim they want more toughness in the NBA, but give it to them, and they might change the channel on a 72-68 snoozefest - full of bumping people off balance while they try to lay the ball up.

Line judge in tennis is incredibly simple compared to reffing basketball, but I get what you're saying.

[QUOTE=bdonovan;15045732]Thing is what draws people to watch the NBA vs a YMCA pick up game is the sheer talent.

The minute you allow significant physicality, you diminish the talent. I could pick out 5 guys in the gym I go to and if you rarely called fouls, they would probably beat a lot of talented players with sheer force.

With all the physicality, lots of shots will be missed and people like high scoring. That's why no one watches a pick up game unless they have to.

[B]Guys like Steph and KD would probably be gone. [/B]

Would be curious if a league like this would have viewership; people claim they want more toughness in the NBA, but give it to them, and they might change the channel on a 72-68 snoozefest - full of bumping people off balance while they try to lay the ball up.[/QUOTE]

Lol no they wouldn't. You don't think those guys would dominate every playground and every rec league in the country? :oldlol: I'm pretty sure they can handle normal basketball level physicality. No one is tackling them to the ground.

Like I said I'm not saying basketball should be like football, obvious fouls and hard fouls should still be called, but that's not what we're witnessing. When teams and players are integrating foul chasing and ref baiting into their standard approach, that signals a huge problem to me. The game should be decided by offensive or defensive prowess, not who can manipulate the rules to their benefit or trick the referees.

This isn't even a new problem, it's just gotten worse. Truth be told there was always a "bail out" factor when it came to officiating that I didn't appreciate. How many times do you see a player intentionally go up with it under the basket knowing full well he's going to draw contact and go to the line? Sorry that's bullshit to me. If you're swarmed under the basket and you don't have an open look, you should be forced to pass out of that situation. The fact that you can just go up with it and draw unavoidable contact and get rewarded with free throws goes against the spirit of the game if you ask me. The defense closed in and forced you into an uncomfortable spot. They shouldn't be punished for that. That's not basketball. That's not how any kid in America grew up playing.

All our lives we heard coaches and analysts argue during crunch time... "Drive to the lane and hope for contact..."... sorry but that's bullshit. You should not be rewarded for just driving to the basket and hoping for a blind prayer. The defense SHOULD be within their rights to physically stop you if they're making an honest defensive play and contesting the shot.

Quick story. I was in the 6th grade. Substitute teacher was in for a day. Cool guy, was talking to us about sports. I said my favorite sport was basketball and he laughed, so did some of the other boys in the class. He said "Basketball? That's not a real sport.."... and then proceeded to talk about football. Obviously he was joking but in hindsight I can see where he was coming from. And this was during the 90's when the game was way more physical than it is now.

There's a sort of pink elephant in the room when it comes to the way the game is officiated. The fact that you can't touch the other player and get punished for it makes it feel like a baby's game sometimes.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15045782]
How many times do you see a player intentionally go up with it under the basket knowing full well he's going to draw contact and go to the line? Sorry that's bullshit to me. If you're swarmed under the basket and you don't have an open look, you should be forced to pass out of that situation. The fact that you can just go up with it and draw unavoidable contact and get rewarded with free throws goes against the spirit of the game if you ask me. The defense closed in and forced you into an uncomfortable spot. They shouldn't be punished for that. That's not basketball. That's not how any kid in America grew up playing.
[/QUOTE]

It's hard to disagree with that example. It's really if the offensive player initiates the contact through an unnatural motion. You can go up in traffic and it's up to the defense to contest without hitting you, but if you launch yourself into the defenders or shoot in a bizarre, unnatural manner to cause contact, it shouldn't be called.

20-30 years ago, refs had no problem distinguishing a foul bait like that. Today they do have a problem. It's not just acting ability has improved. The refs are undisciplined and unaccountable (except for the last 2 minutes of the game).

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el;15045745]Line judge in tennis is incredibly simple compared to reffing basketball, but I get what you're saying.[/QUOTE]

I was reading today what detection tech the Waymo robotaxi has: lidar, radar, ultrasonic sensors (like a bat's echolocation), thermal imaging. It costs $110K per car. You can 'see' in every sense- heat, sound, reflection. Using cameras, radar, laser.

In my earlier post, I point out how the NBA is already using computer vision to evaluate human refs and their mistakes.

According to AI, the tech for AI refs is 5-10 years away. The hawkeye tech from tennis is already there.

"[B]These could be automated right now with near-perfect accuracy:[/B]

Out-of-bounds calls (computer vision is excellent at line detection)

Goaltending / basket interference

Shot clock & game clock violations

Foot on the line (2 vs 3 points)

Defensive 3-seconds

Backcourt violations

Whether a ball was blocked or tipped

[B]2. What’s close but not perfect yet (~3–5 years)?[/B]

These require better body-tracking, collision mapping, and intent estimation:

Off-ball contact (pushes, grabs)

Charge/block decisions where players collide at angles

Travel detection

Illegal screens

AI can track bodies extremely well today, but the NBA standard would require:

millisecond-level joint tracking

reliable force estimation

context understanding (e.g., “was this enough to be a foul?”)

Readiness level: ~70%.
Expected maturity: 3–5 years.

[B]✅ 3. What’s the hardest and furthest away (~5–10+ years)?[/B]

Calls requiring intent, degree, and context, like:

Whether contact “affected the play”

Flopping vs legitimate reaction

Whether a swipe was on the ball or on the arm

“Marginal vs illegal” contact

Continuation calls ("and-one" judgment)

Flagrant-hood (reckless vs unnecessary vs excessive)

These require semantic judgment, not just detection.

Today’s AI is improving fast at physical reasoning, but to reach NBA consistency:

needs highly accurate force estimation from visual data

needs deep behavior modeling of players

needs to understand basketball context, not just physics

Readiness level: ~40%.

Expected maturity: 5–10 years for raw technology to be good enough."