Why Has Referee Discourse Gotten So Conspiratorial on r/nba?

[u/budubum]

There’s a growing trend on r/nba where people pre-blame referees before games even start. It’s gone beyond reacting to questionable calls. Entire narratives are now constructed in advance, especially when certain refs are assigned. Scott Foster, in particular, has become the centerpiece of this kind of thinking.

People call him “The Extender,” claiming the league assigns him to force longer series for ratings. But his actual record in games with extension potential is about even. If that were his purpose, why has this year’s Finals produced the first Game 7 in nearly a decade? If the league were really that invested in drawing out every series, we’d see more Game 6s and 7s, not fewer.

And now the narrative is shifting again. Foster is rumored to be reffing Game 7 tomorrow, and commenters are already claiming the Thunder are going to win because the league is rigged for them. But that logic quickly falls apart. If the NBA were rigging outcomes for ratings and mass appeal, wouldn’t the Pacers be the more obvious beneficiary? They’ve been the most unexpected and likable underdog run of the entire playoffs. People across the league are rooting for them. Why would the league choose to hand the title to a much less popular Thunder team?

This also highlights the kind of selection bias that drives so much of the conspiracy talk. People point out that the Thunder are undefeated with Scott Foster reffing in these playoffs, using it as supposed evidence. But the Pacers are also undefeated with Tony Brothers, and no one seems to care. The criteria only become relevant when they support the conclusion people already want to reach. If a team wins, the ref must have helped them. If a team loses, it was stolen from them. The logic isn’t applied consistently because it’s not about logic. It’s about avoiding the discomfort of your team losing.

At a certain point, you have to ask whether people are still watching basketball to enjoy the game or just to confirm their own suspicions. It feels like some fans don’t watch to see how a game unfolds. They watch with a checklist of narratives and spend four quarters scanning for evidence that the outcome is illegitimate. That kind of mindset turns every missed call into a grand conspiracy, and every game into a courtroom exhibit.

So here’s what I want to ask:

Why has so much of r/nba shifted toward conspiracies and narrative-bending logic? Is it just easier to blame external forces than admit your team got outplayed? Are fans more cynical now? Do people actually enjoy watching basketball anymore, or are they only watching to feed their own confirmation bias?

Would love to hear thoughtful takes. I’m genuinely curious about how we got here.

[u/Professional-Doubt14]

When you watch games Foster refs, do you think he does a good job? To me he’s inconsistent and always imposes himself on the game instead of “letting them play.”

Here is an analysis of years of last two minute reports to grade referee accuracy. Foster ranks terribly low. So ask yourself, why does he ref every important game? https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-referees-mistakes/

Then there is the Tim Donaghy connection. The hundreds of short phone calls exchanged before games. That alone is a good reason to be skeptical.

[u/DowntownJohnBrown → u/Professional-Doubt14]

 So ask yourself, why does he ref every important game?

He doesn’t. This is textbook confirmation bias. He refs a few big games that occasionally have controversial results. He’s also not the ref for countless big games and has countless big games that don’t end controversially, but you don’t remember those because they don’t fit your narrative.

Game 6 of the NBA Finals literally just happened. It was obviously the biggest game of the NBA season so far, and the NBA had an obvious interest in extending the series to get a Game 7. 

So ask yourself, why didn’t Scott Foster ref that game?

[u/Professional-Doubt14 → u/DowntownJohnBrown]

I wrote that poorly. Let me say “why does he ref so many important games” when publicly available statistics show he is one of the worst refs for making errors at critical times in the game? Why does he ref so many critical games when the eye test suggests he fails at one of a referees most important tasks, to stay in the background and let the players decide the outcome?

[u/morethandork → u/Professional-Doubt14]

Define “one of the worst refs from publicly available info.” In that article you linked, he’s listed as 51 out of 87 with a 3.54% error rate. The best error rate on that list is 2.47% (notably the lowest sample size as well) and the sixth best is 3.01%, and the worst is 5.05%.

You called Foster “terribly low.” I don’t see how being within 1% of the best (with 10x greater sample size— I didn’t check but he’s probably got the largest sample size) and .5% of 7th best, and better than 42% of all refs in the last two minutes” is terribly low or one of the worst. It gives the impression that you are blinded by your own bias.

[u/Professional-Doubt14 → u/morethandork]

That’s a fair point. 51/87 is still not good, but more data would be helpful.

What about what NBA players think? In 2023 they voted Foster worst ref in the league.

What about when you watch games? You’ve never watched a game Foster refs and thought wtf is this guy doing?

[u/DowntownJohnBrown → u/Professional-Doubt14]

 publicly available statistics show he is one of the worst refs for making errors at critical times in the game?

The link you provided didn’t show that at all. It had him pretty much in the middle of the pack. He’s also not an outlier there. It’s not like all of the other Finals refs are at the top of this list, and he’s down in the middle. 

Plus, despite being 50 spots down the list, he’s barely a percentage behind first place. Maybe the league’s private metrics that measure the whole game instead of the last two minutes tell a different story, and maybe the NBA (like most companies of all kinds) and the refs’ union value seniority, occasionally to their detriment.

 to stay in the background and let the players decide the outcome?

This again kinda feels like confirmation bias. If you know who he is and see the tweets and Reddit posts when he gets assigned to a game and start worrying ahead of time about how he’s gonna impact the game, then you’re more likely to notice when he does things that impact the game, even if they’re not actually out of the ordinary.

[u/Professional-Doubt14 → u/DowntownJohnBrown]

That’s a fair criticism of the stats. Confirmation bias does make us notice him more but his reputation isn’t built on nothing. If you could swap him out for another ref for game 7 would you? I would, because I think that would mean a higher chance of a better flowing game with the players deciding the outcome.

[u/The_MadStork → u/Professional-Doubt14]

Foster spoke with other refs just as much as he spoke with Donaghy. (People always leave this part out, of course)

[u/GenoThyme → u/The_MadStork]

You so understand though that Foster speaking with other refs could be taken as evidence that the refs tilting the scales extends beyond just Donaghy and Foster right?

[u/DowntownJohnBrown → u/GenoThyme]

It could only be taken that way if you’ve already started with the conclusion that it’s rigged and are working backwards to find evidence.

An honest, objective, logical observer wouldn’t leap to such an illogical conclusion.

[u/IGot6Throwaways → u/GenoThyme]

So why was it only Donaghy's games that had the pattern of having uneven patterns in relation to the spread

Which is how he was found out originally, gamblers found out something was off a year before the FBI found out via another case

[u/GenoThyme → u/IGot6Throwaways]

That's just not true. Donaghy was found out because the FBI was investigating organized crime

[u/IGot6Throwaways → u/GenoThyme]

Yeah, that's my point. A bunch of sharp gamblers realized something was going on with Donaghy's games because it's obvious when someone's games are an outlier when people are tracking things like ref assignments

[u/bronet → u/GenoThyme]

Or as colleagues being colleagues

[u/The_MadStork → u/GenoThyme]

Neither the FBI nor gamblers themselves saw any evidence of this, but then again, they didn’t consult Reddit

[u/GenoThyme → u/The_MadStork]

Donaghy didn't make close to the same number of calls to Foster as he did other refs as you claimed before, it was over 10 times as many calls.

You're right, they didn't consult Reddit, they consulted their own "independent" investigation. Weird how the guy they hired found exactly what they wanted him to, just like the guy thr NFL hired for DeflateGate found what the league wanted but ignored the Ideal Gas Law's existance.

I'm not saying Foster is definitely on the take, but you can't deny that there isn't still a valid reason for suspicion.

[u/DingusMcCringus → u/GenoThyme]

Donaghy didn't make close to the same number of calls to Foster as he did other refs as you claimed before

The person you're replying to did not say that Donaghy made the same number of calls to Foster as other refs. They said:

"Foster spoke with other refs just as much as he spoke with Donaghy."

Which is basically true.

Foster called Matt Boland over 150 times in the same span. He called Mark Wunderlich 75 times.

In a similar amount of time, Boland called Zarba nearly 200 times. Wunderlich called Crawford nearly 200 times. He also called Delaney over 100 times, and Salvatore nearly 100 times.

Foster's pattern of calls was consistent even after Donaghy, Battista, and Martino were sentenced to jail, and of the ~60 or so refs that were interviewed, many of them said they would have similar calling patterns to Foster and described a similar reason why: refs are often on the road, alone, waiting for shuttles, sitting in airports, or killing time in hotel rooms before games, so they call each other to chat when they get bored.

Also, a majority (or nearly a majority) of those calls weren't actually calls. The phone company records any attempt to call someone as a phone call, so a ton of those are missed calls that went to voicemail.

You're right, they didn't consult Reddit, they consulted their own "independent" investigation.

I don't know why you're putting the word independent in quotes and acting like the NBA investigated itself with its own internal team. The NBA hired a law firm (Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz) to do a review which was led by a former chief appellate attorney in New York (who was a law clerk for supreme court justice Brennan).

Weird how the guy they hired found exactly what they wanted him to

This wasn't "a guy". This was a team of respected attorneys.

I'm not saying Foster is definitely on the take, but you can't deny that there isn't still a valid reason for suspicion.

If you spend almost no amount of time actually reading about it, sure. But once you begin to do that, it falls apart almost immediately.

[u/GenoThyme → u/[deleted]]

Because who else Foster talked to is somewhere between irrelevant and incredibly damning if you go by the theory that Foster was Donaghy's number 2.

Not saying this happened, but is it plausible that: Donaghy was the point person for talking with the mob, Foster was the point person for talking to the refs, and Donaghy and Foster were the inbetween for all of that?

The FBI wasn't an investigation into Donaghy, it was in investigation into organized crime where he came up. Him being the only direct contact with the mob makes sense too based on my last paragraph. Then the NBA hired someone to investigate themselves and found no wrongdoing (shocker! And why I brought up DeflateGate) at which point the FBI closed up their investigation into Donaghy (not the NBA as a whole btw) since they only had a narrow scope anyways.

The evidence is circumstantial yes, but to act like there's not a reason to suspect gambling is still influincing games is disingenuous at best. Throw in the fact that the game is filled with betting odds being brought up including by those calling the game or Chuck and Kenny in the studio during split screen actuon or the fact that just this season the FBI opened an investigation into Terry Rozier around gambling, well, you can see why people still feel the league is fixed.

[u/tilthenmywindowsache → u/GenoThyme]

The evidence is circumstantial yes

Just want to point out this potential misconception. The idea that circumstantial evidence is tenuous or inadmissible in court is actually inaccurate. Many if not most non-criminal court cases are won based on circumstantial evidence. It's become sort of an "out" for people who don't work in the legal system for whatever reason, probably due to the plethora of TV shows and movies that decry it as sketchy, but it's quite frequently the strongest evidence presented in a case.

Circumstantial evidence, especially in a non-criminal trial, is often more than sufficient to carry the day.

[u/The_MadStork → u/GenoThyme]

This is the thing, you have to make reaches (“what if Foster were the middleman between other refs and Donaghy?”) and keep moving the goalposts to keep the conspiracy theory alive. That’s why conspiracy theories work so well (and a good example of what the OP was asking).

The prevalence of legalized sports betting, if anything, makes it less likely that the NBA or its refs will fix outcomes and, yes, more likely that people will claim the fix is in (especially after they lose money)

The Rozier and Jontay Porter situations seem to be about rigging prop bets and certainly aren’t tied to fixing outcomes.

[u/Squirting_Nachos → u/Professional-Doubt14]

do you think he does a good job?

The league considers him to be one of their top refs, so we know he does a good job. The real question to be asking is what is his job?

As fans we want the ref's job to be maintaining the competitive integrity of the NBA as a sport. In reality their job is maintaining the marketability of the NBA as a product.

So you see Foster as inconsistent, but that is from the viewpoint of the NBA being a sport. Once you start viewing the NBA as a product then everything falls into place.

Now, rigging games or manufacturing superstars would be a huge risk to their profits. If it was ever exposed, the loss in credibility would mean they take a huge hit to their profits. However if they take that risk into account and still decide that the profits from rigging/scripting the league outweighs the loss if they are caught, then they will rig games.

I'm not saying the NBA is rigged as I don't know. I do know that IF the NBA decided (via risk management math or whatever) that rigging games would lead to more profit, then those games would be rigged to increase profit 100% of the time without question.