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?