Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
There are some people to whom's opinion we should consider.
If they're proven to be successful in their field, perhaps using transferability of skills, they'll be successful in other areas, even those with not as much experience as others with more focused training.
Take Mark Cuban. He's a smart guy. How do we view his take on officiating?
|
Because he's smart in some areas, we should give credence to his very uninformed view of officiating? That's like looking to Shirley McClaine for spiritual advice, or to Richard Feynman for marriage counselling. They are both brilliant in their areas, but definitely not so wise in other things. Cuban has his strengths, sure, but I'm not sure evaluating officials is one of them.
|
If you realy wanted to speak to Feynman about your marriage you would need someone like McClaine to contact his spirit.
My take on Cuban: he's a rich powerful guy used to getting his way. As an owner he's entitled to his opinion & he's even more entitled to try & move the game in a direction he wants to see it go, and he certainly does seem obsessed with the officiating. But it doesn't look like he's getting much support for his ideas from the other owners and the league. IMO that was a very interesting article and he does make some very good points...although the only people I hear saying how difficult Shaq is to officiate are announcers and fans.
Somehow this reminds me of the MLB strike zone. It took MLB a long, long time to get their umpires to call the strike zone by the book, as opposed to the egg shaped zone all those umpire types were calling. When asked about it the umpires would just smile & say we do it the way we do it because we do it that way and players would never adjust and pitchers would never adjust and we know best. But now they've got these machines in MLB ballparks grading each & every pitch called based on the book strike zone.