Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by iamaref
GREENBOOK..
I AGREE 100 PERCENT... I'm not sure what exactly you were refering to. But, the part about the own agenda.. CORRECT.
The official.. "hall" I think.. blew his dag on whistle EVERY SINGLE time there was ANY contact. No advantage disadvantage.. he just saw contact and blew.
Not to mention his mechanics.. duck, weave, head bop.. If he were getting the calls right.. THEN maybe OK.. But, jeesh.. duck weeve.. and all that.. and then just guess.. cuz there is contact. WOW.
Final Four.. wow
|
You need to change your name to "iamabackstabber". I don't believe that you are a ref.
|
I had my finger on the quote button for a couple of minutes thinking about this.
JR, I agree with you to some extent. I don't think any of the officials had a terrible game. There might be things they could have done differently but that's life. I feel kind of bad for Orlandis because it will be harder for him to recover than Hall and Hillary. What I don't agree with, and I've stated this on other posts, is all the jumping around. There are several derogatory words that come to mind when I think about it. I will just leave it at does not look good and isn't needed.
JR, do you realize that a short statement from you turns many others against this poster? I don't know how many officials you've worked with that post here but to me it seems to be a small group that support each other's comments due to an internet friendship based on the number of posts someone has made. There are so many factors that play a part in the first post someone makes that ability to officiate and especially if someone is a good person or not should not be doubted. I've seen several posts by many people here and what I think of them as an official I've kept mostly to myself with one exception. Really I don't know how good anyone is. I could guess but I don't know for sure. I have seen probably two people on this board in person and one of them probably doesn't know about it and I've met the other (nevadaref) but I don't think I've seen him work. I just don't get some of the comments "________ is a good official" unless you've seen someone work. A book official doesn't make someone a good official on the court and what we are doing is talking about scenarios and haveing a glorified pre-game. It helps but it is not the determining factor to say someone is a good official unless you've seen them work.
Should this have been in the "what I dislike" thread?