With the winter month's upon us I'd like to get some feedback on some similar experiences you may have had on this or a similar subject.

I recently attended the Junior College National Volleyball Championships in Toledo, Ohio. My wife's team never made it to the final four and the team, including the parents of the players, wanted to blame the ref for them not getting there. So far this doesn't sound unusual and being an ump myself, I am usually flying solo when I find myself in the middle of "the officiating cost us the game" conversation.

The next morning at breakfast was when I found myself sitting with my wife and 2 parents discussing the ref's calls. I did admit that the ref did call a LOT of lift violations. He killed a lot of rallys and at times took the game away from the girls. At one time he even called a lift on a girl going up for a block!!

Anyway, the parents shifted the conversation to their daughter in high school and how the volleyball coach didn't really know how to coach in that their daughter never knew the difference until she joined a club team and realized that they actually ran plays on the court.

After hearing this I said, "So it's not only the officiating that can cost a team the game it can also be the coaching?" Well, needless to say that didn't go over too well.

Any similar experiences??

<b>Any similar experiences??
</b>

With what, putting my foot in my mouth? Sure.

Maybe it was experiences with "Stating the obvious."

Despite the reluctance on the part of parents I would say that it is a lot more prevalent that a coach costs a team the game than it is for an official to cost a team the game.

I'm sure that would have went over well with them! :D

Can I presume that you have not been married long? The reason I ask is the this is not a umpire/player question, this is a male/female question.

I betting the problem is not that you disagreed, it is the fact that you were all having a bonding moments. For the evening and much of the next morning, you were bonding with the others. Even here you are trying to keep one foot on that side of the fence, "<i>the ref did call a LOT of lift violations</i>." Whatsa matter? Scared your wife's gonna read this? <IMG src="http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/whip.gif"> (ha ha - just ribbin' you.)

And then, you mean nasty brute, you sat there eating breakfast with her and her parents, after all that bonding, and you said, "I'm not bonding with you anymore, I'm a loner and just want to point out it could be <b><i>all your fault</i></b>." (I don't care what you said, that's what they heard.)

Two choices next time:

(a)"Well you know, the ref had the better point of view and he is more experienced in judging lifting violations." and start saying this from the beginning and keep saying it.

- or -

(b)"Yeah, that official was terrible. They were the worst I've ever seen." and then stick with it.

The only problem, they will never believe you are in the (b) category again, they will always suspect that you're thinking (a). I hope you like cold cereal.

As the Seattle Seahawks said this past weekend, It was not the ref's fault we lost, even though they did not start the clock like they should have, It was our fault as we had a number of opportunities to win it and not make the ref's a part of the game.

Even if the ref was miscalling the lifting, the coach and players should have adjusted instead of letting it get under their skin..

I am quite such parents were screaming, adding to the players losing emotional control of themselves and thus really costing themselves the game.

Like in basketball with foul calls, or baseball with strike zone, or football with penelties, officials can and will dicate the pace or feel for a game, but it is up to the players and coaches to adjust to it. The team that does is usually the one to win.

Officials never "cost" anyone a game. We might make erroneous calls every now and then, but it's up to the players to win or lose their own contest.

Doesn't a volleyball game take 15 points to win? And 2 out of 3 games? What happened to the other 14 points? Every single time the "losing" team had an opportunity to score a point, the referee killed the play? That's like saying, it's the official's fault that the coin was flipped "heads" when the "losing" Captain clearly said "tails". All we officials have control over is our interpretation of rules and what we choose to call; if we have control over who wins or who loses . . . it takes a whole lot more intensity on our part. And would probably cost the "winning" team a whole lot more money.

Jerry

Officials never "cost" anyone a game. We might make erroneous calls every now and then, but it's up to the players to win or lose their own contest.

I have to disagree with this statement. I have called Little League, Babe Ruth, American Legion,High School, Junior College,and some semi-pro games in Texas for 15 years. I moved to Hawaii in 2001 and continued to call High School games. When I would show up at a game the coaches would say good a Haole. When asked why that was good they would respond you haven't lived your whole life in Hawaii and don't have the same ties to teams as local umps do,therefore Haole's tend to be impartial as all umps should be. As time went by I started seeing what the coaches were talking about. Case and point I was the base ump in a High School game in Hawaii. The visiting team was ahead 13-4 going into the bottom of the seventh. This is when the plate ump decided he wanted the home team to win because he got mad at the visiting team head coach. He quit calling strikes and walked the next 13 batters in a row. That was ten runs scored with no hits and no outs and home team wins 14-13. As the players were celebrating their victory I heard their coach tell them to shutup they did nothing to earn the victory, it was given to them. From my point of view pitchers were throwing strikes but the plate ump would not call them! I had never seen such a travesty in a game! I quit calling and will never call a game in Hawaii again!

This is an extreme examle of "cheating." What Jerry meant (I think) refers to the more common games, where the umpires officiate FAIRLY and to the best of their ability.

Shame on ALL the adults who allowed that to happen to those HS kids in Hawaii.

Had I been the coach getting that hosing from the Hawaii ump who was obviously cheating, I would have pulled my team off the field as soon as I realized that the missed calls were deliberate. I would have pursued the matter as far as I could with the Fed or whatever body governed the game.

If I had been the BU, I would have reported the cheating to the governing body.

"Doesn't a volleyball game take 15 points to win? And 2 out of 3 games?"

You're living in the past. High school games go to 25 points, volley scoring, with a 2-point margin needed. And most states play 3-out-of-5 varsity matches. College games go to 30 points, volley scoring, with a 2-point margin needed. And play 3-out-of-5 matches.

Bob

Bob,
Actually "Rally Scoring" (not "volley" scoring) is typically used for tournament play at the High School level . . . and for some regular season games for levels other than Varsity. "The past" is actually as recent as the current season. FED still uses 2 of 3 fifteen point games for varsity matches; with rally scoring optional. I don't do college, amateur (AAU) or adult volleyball, so I'm not familiar with their rules.

The point of my discussion remained the same; regardless of the rules employed. The officials don't "win" or "lose" contests. In the "Hawaii" story . . . the home team management was just as much at fault as was the unethical official.

Jerry

Jerry:

Thanks for the correction on Rally Scoring. I had a brain block, and couldn't think of the correct term.

In California, Rally Scoring is used. Varsity matches go 3/5. Lower levels, 2/3.

As for blaming officials: In 44 seasons, I never dropped a fly ball, overthrew a base, dropped a throw, or walked 10 batters, or struck out 5 times in a game. I also never dropped a pass, threw an interception, missed a tackle, missed a block, or fumbled. I never missed 9-out-of-10 free throws in a 2-point game.

And, I don't know of any official who has. I just love it when a coach/manager/parent tells you that you cost the kids a game. Especially when they lost by 10 runs or 35 points.

Bob

The scary thing is that they're serious when they say our call cost them a 10 run game.

Thay believe that ANYTHING is possible (except that their team isn't good enough).

They believe in things like fate and momentum and Steve Bartman instead of effort and results.

tornado

Jim:

The belief that officiating does not win or lose games is based on a simple premise:

Even if a bad call allows the winning run or score in the final inning or seconds of a game, the teams had ample opportunities to win or lose throughout the game.

Dropped balls could have been caught, good pitches could have been swung at, missed tags could have been made, balks didn't have to happen and coaches could have utilized better strategy.

Teams have literally hundreds of opportunities to win or lose a game. One bad call by an official does not offset that fact.

That said, the obviously unethical umpire in the Hawaiian game went out of his way to have an impact on the game. While there's no accounting for that kind of behavior, even then he had to work hard and make numerous obvious bad calls to counter the will of the players.

Short of such intentional immoral behavior, officials do not decide contests.

And, to your question as to why officials are hired: primarily for knowlege of the rules and game mangagement and to gurantee equal treatment, good or bad, to both contestants.


[Edited by GarthB on Dec 7th, 2003 at 02:42 AM]

"Bottom of the seventh, V-2, H-0 two outs, bases empty. Plate ump calls ball four on a two-strike cock shot to the batter. Next batter grounds to second, throw makes F3 stretch, but he stays on. BU says he didn't, runner safe. Next hitter hits a long, slicing fly over the fence, inches foul. PU says it was fair when it crossed the fence.

For those who believe that improper calls did not cost the visitors the game, especially since they have no opportunity to play over them, we will simply have to disagree.

The frequency of it is far rarer than players, coaches and fans would have us believe, but the proposition that poor officiating never costs teams victories is ludicrous."

OK OK I will agree that the use of "NEVER", is stretching the truth a tad bit. But I will garantee you that the precentage of times it happens are far, far fewer than the times a team affects its own outcome. And I will use your example to show you.

Mistake 1.
"Plate ump calls ball four on a two-strike cock shot to the batter." Why was that batter allowed to get on? Pitcher failed to do his job.

Mistake 2.
"Next batter grounds to second, throw makes F3 stretch." Why wasn't it a good throw to first? Second failed to do his job.

Mistake 3.
"Next hitter hits a long, slicing fly over the fence, inches foul." Sounds like another bad pitch to me.

Now lets add this up. Players 3 mistakes Ump 1, possibly two (in your opinion). And this, in reality, is how most all of the games commence. I know your comeback is going to be. "Hey nobody said the players are perfect, their human beings too." And thats MY POINT, thank you.

Hey Garth,

This was what I was hoping to get out of my original post....a discussion in the off-season (for most of us) about something I think is quite interesting to most of us and that is whether or not our calls (good or bad) cost teams games and hopefully to get different views on this topic. We're not here to make fun of people or their experiences but rather to learn from them.

. . .we will simply have to disagree.

. . . the proposition that poor officiating never costs teams victories is ludicrous.

Jim,
What the heck have you been smoking or drinking? Two things . . . we don't "simply have to disagree." If you wish to believe that it's the officials that "win" or "lose" games . . . then you obviously don't grasp the concept of officiating; or the concept of good coaching either.

As in any profession . . . there will be those that are unscrupulous. That was hardly the premise of this discussion. (The Hawaii example is hardly representative!) An official at a sporting event is no different than a judge at a murder trial. Both need to make an impartial decision based on evidence and rules. How those rules and evidence are presented is at the crux of this discussion. How the official perceives any given play only affects that play . . . not what went on beforehand or what goes on afterwards. Both the prosecution (the home team) and the defense (the visitors) need to persuade the judge (the official) that their perception of a ruling (a call) is the "truth". Not all judges are 100% correct in 100% of rulings . . . but they're elected or hired to fairly adjudicate based on their knowledge of the law and interpretations of case law and precedence. It's still up to the lawyers to prepare in advance and to present their case.


Jerry

To add to your analogy:

Thankfully umping/officiating is a bench trial because the jury of fans don't get their say. That really makes us Supreme Court Justices!

tornado

heh heh heh!

I've always enjoyed this particular topic of conversation. I remember officiating the Division 2 championship game last Spring in ice hockey and having the losing team's goalie come up to me after the game and complain about the game being about the players, not the officials. Apparently I had cost them the game!

You see, I made the mistake of witnessing, on two instances, penalties being committed by the would-be losing team. So, as my job requires me to do, I put them in the penalty box. It was horrible: the opposing team scored on both power plays, giving them a 4 to 2 lead.

So after the game the goaltender is getting in my face about my penalty calls. I simply told him that I wouldn't have called anything if his team hadn't have done anything. He started following me to my locker room, so my partner cut him off. I heard him tell the guy that we didn't cause them to lose, his anability to stop the puck cost them the game. The goalie drooped his head and walked away.

A couple of weeks ago I had the great displeasure of officiating that team again. My partner and I called 3 penalties each during the game: all on that team. They lost by one goal. But the worst part was listening to all of their chirping. Not a thing has changed amongst them. LOL! But their goalie kept his mouth shut for once. ;o)

I sometimes get caught up in thinking about how much effect I had on the outcome of a game. Leadoff batter in the sixth takes a close 3-2 pitch that I call strike 3. But was it a little inside? Didn't I call that same pitch a ball on an 0-2 count in the first inning?

Then a single and a walk. Long fly, two out, both runners move up. Long fly, three outs. Well, had I called that 3-2 pitch ball 4, the offense would have scored 2 runs and had runners on 2B and 3B with 2 out. Then, when the leadoff batter in the seventh gets a hit, I wonder whether I cost that team 4 runs.

Of course, this kind of thinking assumes that the game would have proceeded exactly as it did. And you can go crazy looking at all the what-ifs.

I remember a college game in which we were down 1, bottom of the ninth, bases loaded. Ground ball deep in the hole to F6, throw to 2B is obviously too late, one run in, speedster from 2B steaming home. Then we realize the BU has called the runner out a 2B. Did he cost us the game? Apparently, but how about other plays—not so obvious—earlier in the game that could have changed the direction one way or the other?

There's the devil in these arguments
 

Both sides of this argument have been made to the extreme on their respective, opposite sides.

This scenario is of four minor errors added together that make a tremendous difference in outcome.

Who's to say they were errors? Why is your judgement better than anyone else's? All of the officials' "errors" were made in favor of one team. I think that by itself is highly improbable.

Inches foul? How do you know? Safe? How do you know? Cock ball? Never heard of the term and personally would never use it. Sounds like a strike but how do you know?

There is one way that fans, players, and coaches know. The way they know is because that is what the umpire says.

Fans don't get to make the calls. Neither do players or coaches, or laser beams, or touch sensitive gloves or bases, or TV replays, or QuesTek. Umpires make the calls and whatever they call, that is the result. Determine games? Hopefully never.

Umpires try to see that both teams play within the same lattitude of the rules. Umpires are a necessary part of the game. Fans are not, coaches are not, any particular player is not. But an umpire is there for the entire duration of the game and hopefully makes equal decisions for both teams throughout the duration. The umpire that can make all uncontested calls is either very lucky (no close plays) or has great game management and consistency skills. The latter is what we all strive for because the game without close plays hasn't happened yet.

For an umpire every call is a decision and every call helps determine the game.

The umpire is a necessary part of our sporting contests. Hopefully the players can count on the umpire's part as being equal for both teams. Intentional bias is obviously not equal. But that is such an extreme rarity, why argue about it?

I'm starting to ramble...

Conclusion. From my perspective, to accuse an umpire of DETERMINING a game is ludicrous. I've not seen anyone yet that made such an accusation and was not somehow biased.

Seems to me that, although we do make the occasional mistake, in almost every instance the official is in better position to make the call than fans, coaches, or players.

Re: There's the devil in these arguments
 

Well, that's only because the only people that aren't biased at most games are the officials. Except some Hawaiians, apparently.

Jim Mills's example is a case where a team wouldn't have won had the incorrect calls not been made. In the scheme of things: So what? Until they remove the human element of officiating entirely, missed calls have to be played around by the teams on the field. Hopefully training and the process of selecting umpires will lessen the likelihood of missed calls, but it won't eliminate officials missing calls , since the best officials in the world occasionally miss some.

Of course, one could always argue that the missed calls in Jim's game wouldn't have mattered had the losing team put a few more runs on the board in earlier innings. But that's just as ludicrous as stringing three bad calls together to make some kind of point.