Shaq vs. Stu Jackson

In what seems to be a rather disturbing development, Shaquille O'neal has seen yet another regular season foul upgraded - after the fact - to a flagrant foul.

The NBA has specific rules on acquiring flagrant fouls - either 1 or 2 points is assessed for each flagrant foul, accrue 5 points or more over the course of a season and the player must serve a one game suspension.

Due to this policy and its levying against Shaq, the Diesel seems to think that Stu Jackson, NBA Vice President and the NBA official in charge of such oversights, has an agenda against him.

Now, this has been chronicled elsewhere in other articles as simply Shaq complaining about refereeing and the double standard in which they call the game. Players are not allowed to use a double-forearmed method for defending players in the post, but instead are allowed to place a hand on the offensive player. Yet, when Shaq turns into a player who is defending him - and he flops - Shaq is called for the foul.

Your textbook refereeing conspiracy theory you hear from every star player at a given time on any night.

Or is it?

It has been my observation that Shaq is one of the hardest players in the history of basketball to monitor from an official's standpoint. Is he initiating contact or reacting to it? Is it his natural strength and size that is creating spacing for him - legally - or is he simply abusing the system?

That said, there does seem to be a double standard in effect here.

Ask yourself, why is Stu Jackson - who I am sure has better things to do - reviewing Shaq's play with a microscope only to overturn normal fouls into flagrant fouls? In fact, these are fouls ruled by NBA referees as de facto fouls - why the need to upgrade them into flagrants?

What needs to be called into question here in the secrecy with which the NBA goes about this process. Bring it to light. Because operating in an ivory tower somewhere under a shadow only enhances Shaq's points about their being an agenda here. Who is demanding the NBA to look at these incidents and what is their motivation for them?

This latest issue must be illustrated here. After beating the Chicago Bulls 85-84 on March 18th, a foul by Shaq on Andres Nocioni was ruled a flagrant on March 22nd.

Four days later.

Sure, the NBA is a bureaucratic beast and subject to the inefficiencies and pitfalls of such an animal. But is it a coincidence that the Heat won that game, and won it by one point and then the foul was upgraded?

Again, who complained? What was the motivation in this instance? For getting it right?

In a closely contested contest like that one in Chicago, wouldn't the referees feel it necessary to call a flagrant foul in order to properly officiate the game? Because a flagrant foul would have served the Bulls' cause and certainly would have given them a better chance at pulling out a win, instead of suffering a tough loss.

If that is the case, then perhaps the NBA referees are not doing such a good job after all and Stu Jackson is merely correcting what his officials missed.

But that opens up a whole new box from which Pandora could escape (which, incidentally was a jar by the way...).

So, Shaq will lock horns with Stu Jackson. He will denounce Jackson as inept and threaten to take his job once he retires. Fines will ensue, a cease and desist mandate will be handed down from the NBA offices. In fact, ominously, the NBA is 'reviewing' the comments already. (Expect the ruling in 4 days time...)

There is much at stake here, believe it or not. The integrity of the executive office, the accuracy of the NBA's officials, and even the reputation of Shaquille O'neal. Is he merely another NBA star complaining about officiating? Or does he have a beef?

On the one hand, there does seem to be an agenda in hand as issuing the flagrant does not help any team - neither the Bulls nor the Heat.

Yet, on the other hand, Jackson demonstrates a mistrust in his own officials to call a game.

Either way, it doesn't look good.