"The one who blows the whistle is the real master of the game!" This statement is not an exaggeration at all, and in the game of basketball, the position of the referee is undoubtedly crucial. However, the recent referee misjudgment controversy in the Chinese Men's Basketball Professional League (CBA) has frequently erupted, not only coaches and players have been frequently punished, but also worryingly, the shortcomings and regulatory loopholes in the CBA's referee system have also been exposed. Yao Ming, chairman of the Chinese Basketball Association, has once again made it more difficult to lead the CBA on the right track, and it is urgent to deepen the reform of basketball referees.
A few days ago, Shenzhen men's basketball head coach Zheng Yonggang was punished for being dissatisfied with the referee's decision, which is the 11th person in the CBA league this season to be punished. It seems to be a trivial matter, but it has triggered a climax of public opinion criticism of the CBA referee system. The data shows that so far this season, a total of 11 people have received CBA penalty notices, including many head coaches who have led the team to win the championship, such as Adijiang and Guo Shiqiang. Most of the reasons for the punishment were dissatisfaction with the referee's decision.
At a glance, the CBA's penalties for clubs are tough and indiscriminatory. But after a closer look, a strange phenomenon emerges: the CBA's punishment and restraint of referees is almost zero. Whenever the referee makes a serious mistake or even a "black whistle", the CBA not only rarely punishes it, but tries its best to maintain the majesty of the referee. This has undoubtedly increased the clubs' dissatisfaction with the CBA, and also made the outside world doubt the effectiveness of the CBA reform led by Yao Ming.
In fact, in recent years, the level of enforcement of CBA referees has been uneven, and misjudgments have been frequent. To cite just one example, in a game between Guangzhou and Shougang, the referee inexplicably canceled a three-pointer by Guangzhou player Chen Yingjun. Similar controversial penalties are not uncommon, and it is clear that there are loopholes in this area of regulation that need to be improved urgently. There have been calls for the disclosure of referee reports and increased transparency in referee scoring, but the CBA has ignored them.
For Chinese basketball to go global, a fair and just referee system is imperative. Yao Ming once implemented a referee promotion and relegation system, hoping to optimize the referee team through a competition mechanism, but with little success. Obviously, it is not enough to rely on referees to exercise self-restraint, and it is also necessary to establish a third-party supervision mechanism to avoid excessive adjudication power and the expansion of regulatory loopholes. Perhaps we can learn from the practice of foreign professional leagues, so that clubs can participate in the performance appraisal of referees in a certain way and build a feedback mechanism.
If the CBA wants to get out of the situation of frequent disputes, it must deepen the reform of the referee system. The authority of referees, as a key force in driving the game running, cannot be questioned. However, authority is based on rules and systems, and the principle of fair competition must be followed. It is hoped that the Chinese Basketball Association can learn from the recent lessons, and by improving the referee supervision system and improving the transparency of law enforcement, the CBA will move towards a professional and standardized direction, and provide institutional guarantee for the rise of Chinese basketball.