View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 29, 2006, 08:30pm
drinkeii drinkeii is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 329
Send a message via Yahoo to drinkeii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Or......is it because the top guys are accepted, and when they do screw up(and we all do), most coaches will cut 'em some slack? Something that they might not do for the new face in the herd?

Jmo, but personally I've always thought that the best officials simply miss or screw-up fewer calls than the people rated below them. Of course the ability to run a ballgame and keep it humming differentiates between the good official and the great official too imo also.

Thoughts?
I think a lot of it has to do with as you get more to the upper levels, they are more concerned with making a good game rather than administering the rules. We all know NBA players constantly travel and get away with other things because they are big stars, and no one wants to see them get penalized for doing things, even if they are blatantly against the rules. I don't watch the NBA because, to me (a person who generally goes by the book as an official in three sports), it isn't real basketball. College is. They allow a lot more contact in college than I probably would, but that's why I'm not a college official.

Also, as I have noticed in discussions with fellow officials, they consider game management more important than the rules. Obvious foul, late in the game, no chance of it affecting the outcome, pass on it - that's good game management. Doesn't make much sense to me... sounds like in most cases, the term "game management" is synonymous with "modifying the rules to fit how I would like to see the game played/called". I understand the concept in terms of keeping control of the game, but when obvious things aren't called simply because they don't want to call them, something is wrong. IMHO, of course.
__________________
David A. Rinke II
Reply With Quote