Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Quote:
Originally posted by drinkeii
Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
There is a world of difference between mindlessly assuming the official on the floor is always right and understanding that your behavior as an official is always being observed and choosing not to act in ways that berate other officials publicly. I disagree with officials on the floor quite often, in rec., HS and college games. In any game I watch I'm critical of calls that are made. It's part of learning by observing others. But I calmly continue watching the game without indicating what I think.
I have also learned over the years that if I talk to the refs about specific situations, they'll often enlighten me as to something I missed in my observations. After all, they're 6 feet from the call and I'm 60 feet. They have an angle, I have a seat in the stands. Sometimes they'll tell me that they passed on that call for a very valid reason, and I have an opportunity to learn more about officiating philosophy from officials who are better than me. And yes, occassionally they'll admit that they kicked it or weren't in position to see it.
No, we're not perfect. Yes, most of us are trying to get better. No, it's not a secret society where we're expected to uphold each other no matter how dirty the deed. Yes, we are expected to hold our tounges when a commrade screws the pooch. No, that's not at all unreasonable. Yes, it is professional behavior.
And drinkeii, maybe it's time you set the rulebook aside and became more a student of the philosophy of the game. While it is important to thoroughly understand the rules of the game, it's more important to understand how to (and when not to) apply them. The rules exist to serve the game, not the other way around.
|
As I have always said - you can't play a game without rules. You can't have a game without rules. The rules are there to serve the game, but you can't play the game without them. And in basketball, there is way too much leeway (in my opinion) in how those rules are "interpreted", or calls are "passed on", even though it was a clear case of a rule being violated.
When you have a team down by 30-40, and someone on the lower team travels, and it is a minor thing, yes - i would consider that something to pass on. But in my opinion, when players do what they are supposed to do, according to the rules, and they are penalized for it, that is a problem - because the officials are more concerned with game flow than administering the rules. This leads to the current situation where players and coaches don't know the rules, and those that do, don't have any kind of advantage because the refs make a conscious decision to favor "the spirit of the game" over the actual rules which govern it.
How would olympic sports be if they decided that the officials for sports could just do whatever they felt would make a better game, instead of actually following the rules as written?
We see what this did to the NBA - in general, the game is run as "What makes a good show for the fans?" rather than actually having rules that are followed consistently. Travels happen all the time - but since they're followed by flashy plays, they get ignored, teaching younger kids that that kind of behavior is acceptable.
Again, more venting...
|
First of all, different sports are officiated differently. But as far as Olympic basketball, I'm sure you'll find the same (or greater) consideration of advantage/disadvantage, the same (or greater) reluctance to T coaches when they could be handled without the T and the same (or greater) disdane for calling three seconds needlessly.
Look, I don't mean to pee on your parade. But when your stated examples of officials general disregard for the rules are not automatically T'ing assistant coaches for standing, not calling three seconds, and the seemingly lax enforcement of traveling in the NBA, that sets off all kinds of red flags.
|
And what kind of red flags are those? Are you saying that these situations, which the rules specifically state are to be enforced, are not? And I don't mean seemingly lax... if you watch, many of the players take a full 2 1/2 to 3 steps (not jump-stopping...) on their way to the hoop, with no travel call. The NBA doesn't allow any more steps than any other level of basketball for traveling. It just doesn't make a good game for people to watch... but I don't remember High School or Gradeschool basketball officials being hired to make a good game - we're there to make sure no one gets hurt to the best of our ability, administer the rules as stated in the rules, cases, and by our interpreter, and to let the game flow - IMHO, in the order I stated them.
It sounds like you're saying we're not supposed to enforce the rules - I picked some things that some officials have flat out stated they will not call. How can you be an official for a sport, with defined rules, cases which clarify those rules, and an interpreter saying what needs to be called, and just say "Nope... I'm calling what I want, when I want, regardless of what they say... if I personally disagree with a rule, I'm not enforcing it."
It reminds me of when I had braces. I did what I was told, and ended up having to wear them longer because I did what I was told, and they told me what to do based on most of the kids with braces not doing what they were told. I did what I was told, and I was penalized for it. If we have rules, if we have cases, if we have an interpreter saying "This is how we're supposed to do it", how can you support an official who chooses to ignore all three, and do their own thing?
__________________
David A. Rinke II
|