Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp
What is the point of this thread?
I like the posting of specific plays with video b/c it's a learning tool for everyone. And I have no problem critiquing/analyzing officials based on these plays.
But what exactly is the purpose of us as officials trying offer our opinion on the "worst officiated game" of the tourny?
|
No other point then to generate conversation and dialogue over what I assume would be some different views over a well officiated/managed game might look vs what doesn't have the same the look or feel.
I would concur with the people who stated that on their worst day most of the officials are better then me or a number of us on our best. This is not meant to bash officials. I also assume no one from the NCAA is using our opinions to determine assignments or policy so its not hurting them provided we are just talking about performance.
One of the things we strive for is consistency and common vision/understanding for how we see and interpret the game. I was simply looking to see the variety of opinions I'm sure that exist as to what constitues a very well called game vs decent. Worst might be a harsh term, relative to how good they are to me but thats not the comparison. The comparison is to the other NCAA tourney games.
What do we see as a game that is too physical or got away from officials at points? What game do we see where officials are late or making poor rotations/support for each other? We're not JOhn Adams but if through discussion we can get ourselves closer in terms of what we see as a good game and a bad game. There is more to the game and being consistent than identifying correct/incorrect application of the rules. We have huge debates on here about incidental vs intentional and adv. vs disadv. Looking at games where we discuss not just plays but the sort of game we like to see called or games we see as being too out of control can only bring us closer to common view point right?