Did the NBA Overreact With Crawford Suspension?

It would be great if we could get robots to officiate the game of basketball, so they'd always make the right call and never let their emotions get in the way of their task.

But until then, we're stuck having humans do the job. And along with that comes the inevitable human error. Sometimes it comes in the form of an obvious missed call — the no-call on Dwight Howard's goaltend in the Knicks-Magic game, for instance, that started the ‘Bockers on their year-end death spiral. Sometimes it's more subtle, as when a ref gives Rasheed Wallace or Danny Fortson a technical in anticipation of the eruption that they're expecting to come a few seconds later.

And then once in a blue moon, a zebra just plain loses it.

Unfortunately for the NBA, that scenario happened Sunday, and, worse yet, it was in a nationally televised game between two of the league's marquee teams: San Antonio and Dallas.

Referee Joey Crawford — a 31-year veteran who is one of the league's top officials — handed out two quick technical fouls to Spurs center Tim Duncan while Duncan was sitting on the bench. The second came while Duncan was laughing, leaving the San Antonians in shock and leading to a potentially crucial loss. (The defeat assured Phoenix of the no. 2 seed in the West and home-court advantage should the Suns and Spurs meet in the second round of the playoffs.)

Apparently, that wasn't the worst part. Duncan asserted after the game that Crawford had a vendetta against him and asked him repeatedly if he wanted to fight, and other players on the court reportedly backed up that assertion. Since Crawford has a well-earned reputation for crankiness, this didn't come as a big shock to most observers. And since Duncan has an equally strong reputation for subtle, persistent whining about calls during a game, it isn't shocking that he got under Crawford's skin.

But by making it personal, Crawford went too far. League commissioner David Stern announced yesterday that Crawford would be suspended indefinitely — at a minimum, for the entire playoffs — as a result of his actions on Sunday.

Stern gave a statement saying, "Crawford's handling of this situation failed to meet the standards of professionalism and game management we expect of NBA referees. Especially in light of similar prior acts by this official, a significant suspension is warranted. Although Joey is consistently rated as one of our top referees, he must be held accountable for his actions on the floor, and we will have further discussions with him following the season to be sure he understands his responsibilities."

The "similar prior acts" Stern alluded to refer primarily to Game 2 of the 2003 Western Conference finals. In that contest, Crawford ejected Mavericks coach Don Nelson with two quick T's for standing at the scorer's table instead of returning to his bench. Reportedly, the commish was so livid afterward that he summoned Crawford for a dressing-down and swore the justice would be swift and severe if something like that happened again. Apparently, the guy keeps his word.

So what do we make of it? I'm of two minds on this one. First, there's the side of me that's pumping my fist in agreement with the league's actions. There are few things I detest more than a referee pulling a diva act and starting to act as if the fans are there to see him. Duncan alluded to this after the game on Sunday. It's about the worst personality trait you could want for an official.

The ideal referee is one whose presence goes completely unnoticed — after the game you should be talking about the players, the plays, and the coaches. We only talk about the refs if they mess up or, like Crawford does sometimes, decide they want a soapbox that day.

That said, Crawford was also a victim of circumstance here. Two factors worked against him — the timing and the league's reputation. First, timing. That this happened on national TV in a game between two marquee teams greatly increased the attention focused on Crawford's actions. One has to wonder if the penalty would have been as severe, or as publicized (discipline of NBA referees is usually done sotto voce), had this been a January game between the Hawks and Bucks and, say, Dan Gadzuric had been ejected instead of Duncan.

Of course some would argue that the reason this happened was precisely because this was on national TV — that's when the showman in Crawford takes over and he starts pulling stunts like this. (He's not the only one either — watching Bennett Salvatore work a highprofile playoff game and watching him in a regular-season snoozer is like seeing two different refs.)

Unfortunately, Crawford's timing was bad for a second reason. The playoffs are just around the corner, and no league is as prone to conspiracy theories as the NBA. The league doesn't need to provide any further ammo for the many Oliver Stone wannabes in its fan base by having Crawford to work a Spurs game in the postseason. It's not like the league can just bide its time waiting for San Antonio to get knocked out, either — this team may very well win the title.

This is doubly important in the wake of last year's playoffs, when controversial late calls decided several key games. In particular, Salvatore did a diva act of his own in the crucial Game 5 of the Finals by seemingly making every call — including blowing the deciding whistle on Dwyane Wade's lastsecond drive from a distance of about 40 feet. The outcome so infuriated Mavs owner Mark Cuban that he screamed at the officiating crew and Stern after the buzzer, earning a $250,000 fine.

So ultimately, when Crawford's situation arose this weekend, the commish did what he had to do to preserve the league's interests. I get it; in fact, I probably would have done the same thing if I had a multibillion dollar league at stake. And if this sends a message to the league's other refs to cut out the grandstanding and just officiate the game, so much the better.

But a little piece of me will always wonder if Crawford wasn't a little too convenient a scapegoat. As I said, this game will be officiated by humans for the foreseeable future, and occasionally they're going to make mistakes. While of course the goal should be perfection, I'm not sure the lack of it needs to be punished so severely.

jhollinger@nysun.com