# Talk:Dick Bavetta

Sorry, but this page is full of nonsense - it could have been written by DB himself!
I've edited the first paragraph and removed the bit about him being "one of the best officials in the league" - all POV.
Pud1m 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good right now, seems neutral to me. RyguyMN 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
DICK BAVETTA REALLY, REALLY, REALLY NEEDS TO RETIRE!!!!!! NOW!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.46.195 (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 

I want to continue to press for inclusion of this.  It may POSSIBLY violate NPOV (although I'd argue that my reference on him being booed in Salt Lake mitigates this), but it CERTAINLY does not violate notability.  I maintain that it's EXTREMELY notable, was a defining moment in Bavetta's career, fed into massive conspiracy theories, and was, in fact, arguably one of the worst calls in NBA history.  To say that it was "just another missed call" and argue that "we can't include every bad call made by every referee" is fallacious, since it was by any standard not "just another missed call."  I'd like more input on this, as the decision to exclude it seems arbitrary and of itself rather POV.  The article as is reads like a Bavetta fan page, and this needs to be included for balance, if nothing else.
MahlerFan 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The controversy over the legality of Michael Jordan's final shot seems to be more notable than this shot clock violation based on the amount of press converage on the topic.  I've seen many games where the shot clock expired and a violation wasn't called or in football when the play clock ran out and no penality was called.  What's the big deal over a shot clock violation midway through the game?  What am I missing here?  This had no direct impact on the outcome of the game.  When I think of notable controversial games, the tuck rule game comes to mind or the immaculate reception. These are games where a call made an impact on the game since both instances came towards the conclusion of the game.  Saying that it fed into conspiracy theories is not a valid argument for inclusion into this article because this is merely speculation (a violation of WP:CRYSTAL) and is un-encyclopedic.  This article presents a fair view of the subject.  Inclusion of this shot clock call is WP:NPOV and would be something that an angry Jazz fan would include in a blog.  Noting that this is the #1 worst call in this Bavetta bio certainly violates NPOV.  Does he get booed outside of Salt Lake?  I don't believe so, which minimizes the notability.  What do others think? RyguyMN 22:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it can not be notable.  I strongly disagree with you that it had no direct impact on the game.  In a CHAMPIONSHIP-deciding game (there's your notability right there) that was decided by one point, a call that made a three-point difference most certainly and definitely had a "direct" impact on the game.  It doesn't matter when the call occurred.  It was a bad, proven missed call that made a point difference that would have changed the outcome.  Sure there were "many games" where the shot clock expired and a violation wasn't called, but how many of those were in championship-deciding games decided by one point?  I think that's what you're missing, quite frankly.  It's a fact that the call was missed, important, and controversial, so how is it POV?  Inclusion is merely including a fact--a notable nadir in Bavetta's career that should be mentioned along with the high points.  I fail to see how mere inclusion of a fact (it's provable that the call was missed) is POV.  I gave you a Denver newspaper that mentioned the call nine years later.  I think that a newspaper in a city whose basketball team is a primary Jazz rival mentioning the call nine years later is evidence of notability.  In essence, if this call isn't a notable part of Bavetta's career, then I guess I don't understand notability.  I think your argument that it didn't have a direct impact on the game is spurious at best.  It's simple math that it had an impact on the game.  I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere (can't cite where right now) that this call and the later one in the same game on the Ron Harper shot had some impact on the later decision to allow video review of close shot clock calls.  It really should be included.  This is MahlerFan, I think I might be logged out.
128.138.42.218 23:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bavetta didn't lose the game for the Jazz.  Your argument sounds like he is to blame for the loss, which violates POV.  Players ultimately decide the games, there's always good or bad calls along the way.  The Denver news is the first source to mention this call, so it doesn't seem to be highly notable.  Now if you want to talk 1985 World Series with Don Denkinger , that's notability.  If you can write a piece noting it was controversial, but not to blame, then go for it, but I think to note it is nitpicking.  You could go back to past Finals and note block/charge calls that went the other way where a game was decided by one point.  Should these be noted too? RyguyMN 05:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Was Bavetta among those who got busted in the 90s for tax evasion?  Some refs were exchanging their first class plane tickets for coach and pocketing the cash. I seem to remember Bavetta being involved, but I'm not sure. 
Also, in the history of the NBA, the road team wins the highest percentage of the time when the game is ref'd by Bavetta.  I should find a source for this stuff...
Smackalot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.35 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 

No, Bavetta was not part of the tax evasion scandal during that time.  Also, just because Bavetta is known for a high road team victory percentage doesn't provide any meaningful conclusions.  There are other factors involved as well like a weaker talented home team playing a more talented road team.  Any conclusions draw is mere speculation. RyguyMN (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
IAC, IIRC, Earl Strom was the ref you most wanted calling your game if you were the road team. I've heard players say this on talk shows and the like, but I don't have any documentation one way or the other as to whether players believed it or if visiting teams really did statistically significantly better with either Strom, Bavetta, or someone else blowing the whistle. I'm sure someone has done research on this that can be linked and included in a relevant article, though. 67.170.199.175 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dick Bavetta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Overall this article is good, and seems to be neutral. However, there are a few things I'd like to see fixed:

Ref #14 doesn't seem to work. Plus, the sentence that it refs doesn't seem to be useful in the article anyway. Fix the ref or remove, I'd prefer the latter.
It's a rather short article given how many games he's officiated. A general increase of information would be nice, though not mandatory.
"Bavetta's most memorable game occurred during a 1980s nationally televised contest between the Philadelphia 76ers and Boston Celtics..." Any chance on a specific date?
I'll put the article on hold. Upon this stuff being fixed I'll pass it. Wizardman 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the first point. For #3, the date is not given in source.—Chris! ct 06:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll look through the article again shortly, and either pass it or note more issues here. Wizardman 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
After a second look through, I'll pass this article as a GA. Wizardman 00:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's his kiss with Charles Barkley?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.196.157 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dick Bavetta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112232157/http://www.nbra.net/Default.aspx?tabid=243 to http://www.nbra.net/Default.aspx?tabid=243
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001944/http://www.runnersworld.com/article/printer/1,7124,s6-243-297--11839-0,00.html to http://www.runnersworld.com/article/printer/1,7124,s6-243-297--11839-0,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dick Bavetta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080104211547/http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/blineburyf121395.htm to http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/blineburyf121395.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)