An ordinary CBA play-off night, but it was a controversial drama of "home court advantage" and "referee enforcement". On April 15, 2023, the Guangsha team eliminated the Shanxi team with a score of 2-1 at home and advanced to the quarterfinals of the playoffs. However, the result of this seemingly normal game has aroused questions and dissatisfaction among many fans.
What happened to make the Guangsha team's difficult victory labeled as "dishonorable"? Looking back at this key battle, it is not difficult to find that the key points of controversy focus on the behavior of Sun Minghui, the star player of the Guangsha team, and the referee's law enforcement process.
Some of Sun Minghui's "bad" behaviors, including the provocation of Shanxi foreign aid Taylor, have sparked strong criticism from public opinion. And some puzzling penalties made by the referee when dealing with these situations cast a shadow on the victory of the Guangsha team. What is the reason for the referee's mistake in law enforcement? Or is there any unknown "insider" behind the referee's decision?
Judging from the trend of the whole game, the Guangsha team did rely on its own strength advantage to finally defeat Shanxi, but this victory is obviously not perfect. A game that could have been exciting, but because of some controversial events, it was labeled as a "scandal". In this regard, we might as well analyze it in depth and find out.
Sun Minghui's controversial behavior
As mentioned at the beginning of the article, some of the actions of Sun Minghui, the star player of the Guangsha team, caused widespread controversy in this game. As the number one star of the Guangsha team, Sun Minghui is undoubtedly the key figure in this game. But what is incomprehensible is that at critical moments, some of his "bad" behaviors instead cast a shadow on the whole game.
First of all, Sun Minghui's provocative behavior against Shanxi foreign aid Taylor in the game sparked widespread criticism. The article mentioned that in the first quarter of the game, Sun Minghui first "pushed" Shanxi's small foreign aid, and then took the initiative to walk up to Taylor and carried out a provocative act of "hitting his chest".
Such behaviour is undoubtedly extremely misconductful. As a professional basketball player, you should face the game with a professional and rational attitude, rather than taking this "bad" way. More importantly, this kind of behavior is also contrary to sportsmanship and is not conducive to creating a good atmosphere for the game.
What's even more incomprehensible is that in the process, the referee made a puzzling decision. Although Sun Minghui was clearly the provocative side, the referee ultimately ruled that both sides had received a technical foul. This undoubtedly seriously damaged the interests of the Shanxi team, because at that time, Shanxi's foreign aid Taylor had accumulated three fouls and was forced to replace him early.
This kind of punishment is tantamount to giving the Guangsha team a "free help". After all, if the penalty is awarded according to common sense, the referee should give Sun Minghui, who acted provocatively, a technical foul. And it should not be treated on an equal footing with the passive Taylor, which is undoubtedly a serious mistake.
In addition to this incident, the article also mentioned that the referee frequently made some decisions in favor of the Guangsha team throughout the game. This situation has also caused dissatisfaction among many fans, who have said that there may be some ulterior "insiders" behind the "home advantage".
This "home advantage" tends to put some subtle pressure on players and referees. For example, in the face of a menacing home fan, the referee may subconsciously prefer to give the home team some "preferential treatment". Or the players of the Guangsha team, when playing at their home stadium, will also behave more "strong" and "aggressive".
In short, whether it is Sun Minghui's "bad" behavior or the referee's law enforcement mistakes, they have added many "discordant" elements to this originally fierce game. This inevitably gives people a feeling of "not honoring to win", after all, a fair and just game should be conducted in a professional and rational manner, and should not be affected by some controversial events.
Responsibility for adjudicating enforcement
In addition to the controversial behavior of Guangsha player Sun Minghui, the referee's law enforcement performance in this game has also become the focus of attention of many fans. From the previous analysis, it can be seen that the referee made a puzzling decision when dealing with the provocative incident between Sun Minghui and Taylor.
It is not difficult to find that in the process, the referee obviously made some serious mistakes. It was obviously Sun Minghui who took the initiative to provoke, but instead judged the two of them to be subject to technical fouls. This undoubtedly dealt a big blow to the Shanxi team, which was at a disadvantage, and also won a "free help" for the Guangsha team.
This penalty error not only affected the situation at the time, but also largely determined the final direction of the game. After all, at such a critical moment, a penalty from the referee may determine the outcome of the game. If the referee can make the correct decision, it will definitely greatly change the situation of the Shanxi team, and the final result of the game may be very different.
Even more puzzling is that this was not the only mistake made by the referee in this match. The article mentioned that the referee frequently made some decisions in favor of the Guangsha team during the whole game, which also caused dissatisfaction among many fans.
This situation often creates a sense of "home field advantage". After all, teams that play at home are often able to get some "preferential treatment" from the referee. This not only violates the principle of fair competition, but also greatly affects the fairness of the competition.
In this regard, many fans have said that there may be some "insider trading" or other ulterior reasons in the referee's law enforcement process. This speculation, while not conclusively proven, cannot be completely ruled out.
Of course, we can't jump to conclusions about this kind of speculation. However, if you carefully analyze the overall trend of this game, it is not difficult to find that the "problem" of referee enforcement does exist.
First of all, it is not difficult to find that in the case of Sun Minghui obviously provoking Taylor, the referee made a puzzling decision. Although Sun Minghui was the one who provoked the party, the referee awarded both of them a technical foul. This kind of verdict not only seriously damaged the interests of the Shanxi team, but also affected the direction of the game to a large extent.
Secondly, the article also mentioned that the referee frequently made some decisions in favor of the Guangsha team throughout the game. This situation has undoubtedly heightened the suspicion of "home field advantage". After all, in a fair and just game, the referee should strictly enforce the law and should not be biased because of the factors of the venue.
Moreover, these controversial decisions not only caused a strong reaction at the time, but also largely determined the final outcome of the game. After all, in a tight playoff game, the referee's decision can often mean the difference between victory and defeat. If the referee could have made a more fair decision, I believe the final result of the match would have been very different.
In general, the referee's enforcement performance in this game has undoubtedly become an important reason for people to question the victory of the Guangsha team. Whether it was Sun Minghui's "special" penalty when he provoked Taylor, or some penalties in favor of the Guangsha team in the whole game, it raised questions about the "fairness" of the referee.
In the face of such doubts, referees, as enforcers of sports events, should bear their due responsibility. They must not only strictly enforce the law and maintain the fairness and justice of the game, but also handle all kinds of controversial events with a professional and neutral attitude. Only in this way can similar controversies be avoided to the greatest extent possible and a wonderful sports feast can be presented to the audience.
The suspicion behind the "home field advantage".
As mentioned earlier, in this CBA play-off match between Guangsha and Shanxi, the referee frequently made decisions in favor of the Guangsha team, which also caused dissatisfaction and questions from many fans. Some people believe that there may be some ulterior "insiders" behind this "home advantage".
It is not difficult to find that in some important sporting events, the team playing at home can often get some unexpected "help". For example, some of the referee's decisions tend to favor the home team, or the cheering of the fans will give the home players some psychological advantages.
This "home field advantage" will undoubtedly affect the fairness of the game to a certain extent. After all, in sporting events, we should be looking for fair competition, not relying on some uncontrollable factors to win.
So, what is the reason for this "home field advantage"? Some people believe that there may be some unknown "insider trading." For example, the organizer or the team may use some special means to influence the referee's enforcement. Or the strong cheering of the home fans will also put a certain amount of psychological pressure on the referee, thus affecting its impartiality.
Of course, although such speculation cannot be conclusively proven, it cannot be completely ruled out. After all, we do hear similar rumors quite often at some important sporting events.
However, if such "insider trading" does exist, it will undoubtedly seriously damage the credibility of sports. After all, a sporting event is supposed to be a fair and just stage for players from all walks of life to play to their heart's content. If it is affected by some improper interests, it will not only make the audience lose the pleasure of watching, but also seriously discourage the enthusiasm of the participants.
Therefore, as the organizer of sports events, as well as referees and other law enforcers, they should always maintain a high degree of vigilance and sensitivity. They must not only strictly enforce the law and maintain the fairness and justice of the game, but also always be vigilant against possible problems such as "insider trading" to avoid this situation. Only in this way can sports events truly become a fair, just and open stage, so that spectators and participants can enjoy pure sports fun.
Sun Minghui's "bad" image problem
In addition to the above-mentioned referee law enforcement issues, some of the "bad" behaviors of Sun Minghui, the star player of the Guangsha team, in this game have also become a topic of widespread discussion.
First of all, it is not difficult for us to find that Sun Minghui's provocative behavior against Shanxi foreign aid Taylor in the first quarter of the game caused strong dissatisfaction among people. The article mentioned that Sun Minghui first "pushed" Taylor hard, and then took the initiative to walk in front of the other party and make a provocation of "hitting his chest". Such behaviour is undoubtedly extremely unprofessional and misbeneficial.
As a professional basketball player, you should face the game with a professional and rational attitude. And this "bad" way should not be taken to provoke the adversary. This is not only against sportsmanship, but may also lead to some unnecessary conflicts and disputes, affecting the normal progress of the game.
What's even more puzzling is that in the process, the referee made a puzzling decision. It was clear that Sun Minghui was the one who provoked the party, but the referee judged both of them to be technical fouls. This undoubtedly dealt a big blow to the Shanxi team, which was at a disadvantage, and also became a "free help" for the Guangsha team to win.
Such a penalty was undoubtedly a serious mistake. Because according to common sense, the referee should give Sun Minghui a technical foul for the provocative behavior, and should not treat him the same as the passive Taylor. This mistake not only affected the situation at the time, but also largely determined the final outcome of the game.