Hey, we can hope.

I always figured that Nunn, supervisor of NBA officials, was going around to various training camps trying to scare players straight. It takes a little muscle to back that up, and hopefully that’s what we’re seeing now.

The intent of Stern’s campaign to rid the NBA of grousing and theatrics is well-founded. Every call should not incite re-enactment and debate to prove the innocence of the offender – of the defender, if you will.

But basketball – NBA basketball, especially – is the most subjective of games to officiate, which puts the game more completely in the hands of its arbiters than any other sport. Next to the block-charge, balls and strikes is about as black and white as it gets.

The best officials have always been able to take the written rule and apply it judiciously with regard to circumstance. Games take on a character of their own. And good officials understand that intuitively. So what might be a foul in the first quarter of a November game being played at one tempo might not be in the fourth quarter of an April game being played at another.

And all the clinics and instructional videos and campaigns of emphasis can’t replace the value of officials who allow games to assume their own form.

But the new NBA has so roboticized its officials, a change that began about the time the great old game-callers like Earl Strom and Jake O’Donnell hung up their whistles, that they’ve put too much control of the game in their hands with this crackdown on behavior. I’m sure most NBA referees are terrific people at heart, but it wouldn’t be a stretch to guess that many of them are drawn to the profession for the power rush – and telling them they now get to zealously police the behavior of young millionaires is a dangerous thing if the health of the game is the utmost concern here.

Take Monday night. The Pistons’ game with Utah was thoroughly entertaining, both teams honoring the sport by playing hard and clean and well. Why the officials wanted to upset the emotional equilibrium of the game by handing out at least two cheesy technical fouls is unfathomable.

Rasheed Wallace brings much of the grief he endures from NBA officials on himself, but the technical Steve Javie administered on him in Monday’s second quarter gives him fodder when he suggests the league is out to get him. He thought he got fouled after making a basket and motioned as a referee would to indicate basket good, foul on the defender.

That’s about as true to what the NBA says is an acceptable “heat of the moment” outburst as it gets and – more critically – it shows up no one. There was absolutely no affront intended by Wallace at that moment.

If the NBA’s intent is to polish its image to an increasingly globalized audience, as it claims, then does it not understand that sullying the image of its marquee players by running up their technical foul totals erodes that effort? What gain is there for the league to further demonize Rasheed Wallace?

Here’s hoping somewhere in Ronnie Nunn’s top desk drawer is a secret memo from David Stern, telling him to call off the attack dogs just a little.