Ref chief: Towel T 'horrible call'

[Rich]

Originally posted by CYO Butch
Of course I don't think hanging an employee out to dry is the right way to treat people, just ask William Tennet. If the collective community of this board has never experienced it in their work, it is very lucky. Crap does roll down hill, and the more visible the crap is to the public, the more likely it is to roll. I have never done it to my staff, and I have chewed out mid level managers under me who have done it to their staff. However, I have had a target painted on my back when it served my management to do so. I didn't like it, I felt betrayed, I developed some personal animosity toward the ones who did it, but I fully understand why they did it. My context was not basketball, and it wasn't the general public, but it was the same thing. I was sacrificed to get a client to believe we were taking action to help solve a problem they had. Of course, I was required to stay with that client, and ultimately got an award from them, but in the meantime, our upper management was demonstrating that they were responsive to the "client issues".
This was what the ACC was doing. They were redirecting the heat from their organization, and ACC officiating in general, onto one guy who made an unpopular call. It was not fair to him in any way, but that's life. The guy is near the top of his field, and is in a position that makes him an easy target for EVERBODY. That's the price he pays for being where he is.

And it makes it easier for him to shrug off said treatment. His history forces other assignors to disregard this one "incident." He was an easy target for this reason, too.

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by CYO Butch
Of course I don't think hanging an employee out to dry is the right way to treat people, just ask William Tennet. If the collective community of this board has never experienced it in their work, it is very lucky. Crap does roll down hill, and the more visible the crap is to the public, the more likely it is to roll. I have never done it to my staff, and I have chewed out mid level managers under me who have done it to their staff. However, I have had a target painted on my back when it served my management to do so. I didn't like it, I felt betrayed, I developed some personal animosity toward the ones who did it, but I fully understand why they did it. My context was not basketball, and it wasn't the general public, but it was the same thing. I was sacrificed to get a client to believe we were taking action to help solve a problem they had. Of course, I was required to stay with that client, and ultimately got an award from them, but in the meantime, our upper management was demonstrating that they were responsive to the "client issues".
This was what the ACC was doing. They were redirecting the heat from their organization, and ACC officiating in general, onto one guy who made an unpopular call. It was not fair to him in any way, but that's life. The guy is near the top of his field, and is in a position that makes him an easy target for EVERBODY. That's the price he pays for being where he is.

I think you may have something here. If this is the case, the assigner will make it up to the official the following year. Maybe an extra game or two.

[CLAY]

This is why I like to ref basketball, When it comes to the rules they are not the same for everybody. It depends what conference you play in, how much money you bring in, and if the game is on ESPN. The official made a call text book call and had the balls to call it. Now the ACC needs to write their own rules on the games of basketball When the game is on TV and big money is at stake. The ACC needs to make sure the officials know the new rules before the game gets started. This guy got blind sided for enforcing the rules.

We have talked about this before in the forum. The rules of basketball do not change regardless of the score,time on the clock, or who is playing who. I have had so many coaches yell how could you call that with a close game.

Rules are Rules,

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by RefSouthAlb
Rose had the final game based on his performance this year, not 6 years ago not ten. This year!!

Sorry bud, but that is not the argument you made. You argued solely based on past credentials, not a word about what was done this season. Can you even tell me which games Rose worked this year?

Specifically, you wrote that if you were a coach you would rather have Ref X who has blah, blah, blah credentials (9 of these, 5 of those, and 20 years of experience) rather than Refs Y and Z who are working their first ACC final. Then at the end you imply that Rose is a better official than the other two because of his credentials, nothing you wrote had to do with this season. Look at your quote:

Originally posted by RefSouthAlb
I guess my point is this.

If I was a coach would I rather have

"one of the league's most respected officials. He has worked nine ACC Tournament title games -- tied for second behind Lenny Wirtz' 13 on the all-time list. He has worked four Final Fours (1993, '98, '99 and 2003). He was named the Naismith Men's Official of the Year in 2002. He also is pictured in the ACC media guide with the list of ACC title game officials."

Or

"Reggie Cofer and Jamie Luckie each worked their first ACC final."

Yes they are in the ACC and can ref that game, but the perception is we didn't put the best overall ref into the title game.

If this whole scenario wouldn't have happened would Rose be the better official or would Luckie / Cofer.

Answer seems clear to me.

I just called you on arguing the past not the present. You may even agree that the present is more important since you changed that basis of your argument in your second post.

Originally posted by RefSouthAlb
If Rose wasn't the same or better official he was 6 years ago, he wouldn't continue getting games at this level.

That is simply not true. It has more to do with political factors at that level than continued improvement or maintaining ability. The sad truth is that all officials degrade with age. John Clougherty is a good example, he is working the NCAA tourney this season and he is quite old. Is he out there because he is the same or better compared to 6 or 10, or even 20 years ago? No, but he is giving it up soon, and he is probably getting a thank you. I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the NCAA final. There is a period of time after an official has proven himself and risen through the ranks (done through ability and hardwork), in which he rides the wave for a while. The coaches know him, the assignor is comfortable with him, and he has credibility. Politics, in other words, carries him for a while as he begins the ride down. Eventually every official hangs it up.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Sorry bud, but that is not the argument you made. You argued solely based on past credentials, not a word about what was done this season. Can you even tell me which games Rose worked this year?

Specifically, you wrote that if you were a coach you would rather have Ref X who has blah, blah, blah credentials (9 of these, 5 of those, and 20 years of experience) rather than Refs Y and Z who are working their first ACC final. Then at the end you imply that Rose is a better official than the other two because of his credentials, nothing you wrote had to do with this season. Look at your quote:

I just called you on arguing the past not the present. You may even agree that the present is more important since you changed that basis of your argument in your second post.

That is simply not true. It has more to do with political factors at that level than continued improvement or maintaining ability. The sad truth is that all officials degrade with age. John Clougherty is a good example, he is working the NCAA tourney this season and he is quite old. Is he out there because he is the same or better compared to 6 or 10, or even 20 years ago? No, but he is giving it up soon, and he is probably getting a thank you. I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the NCAA final. There is a period of time after an official has proven himself and risen through the ranks (done through ability and hardwork), in which he rides the wave for a while. The coaches know him, the assignor is comfortable with him, and he has credibility. Politics, in other words, carries him for a while as he begins the ride down. Eventually every official hangs it up.

I think Clougherty is a bad example for you to use. I would want him on my game any day of the week, even in his mid to late 50s.

[Nevadaref]

You may want him, but you wouldn't argue that he is THE best official that could be on the game would you?

Think for a brief moment exactly why is it that you like him? Are your reasons similar to what I wrote above? Been around for a long time, familiar with him, know what he calls and doesn't, name recognition, paper resume of what games he has worked, etc.

Do you know him personally? Do you feel comfortable talking to him?
Or do you think that he gets a higher percentage of calls right than other D-I officials?
Is his game management clearly better?
Is it court presence?

In short, I am not saying that he is not a quality official, but I am challenging you to pinpoint what it is specifically that make you want him on your game.
Rich, I think this is an interesting question and really would like to hear your thoughts.
Thanks.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
You may want him, but you wouldn't argue that he is THE best official that could be on the game would you?

Think for a brief moment exactly why is it that you like him? Are your reasons similar to what I wrote above? Been around for a long time, familiar with him, know what he calls and doesn't, name recognition, paper resume of what games he has worked, etc.

Do you know him personally? Do you feel comfortable talking to him?
Or do you think that he gets a higher percentage of calls right than other D-I officials?
Is his game management clearly better?
Is it court presence?

In short, I am not saying that he is not a quality official, but I am challenging you to pinpoint what it is specifically that make you want him on your game.
Rich, I think this is an interesting question and really would like to hear your thoughts.
Thanks.

I don't think you can ignore history and reputation when deciding who the best person is to work a game.

Has Clougherty lost a step? Probably. However, his experience and reputation count for something.

Now, having said all that I said about wanting Clougherty on my game, would I assign him? I don't know.

I think every Final Four and championship game should have at least one official (I'll call him the U2) that has never worked a game AT THAT LEVEL. How else do you build a "staff" that has experience?

The U1 should have worked at that level before, but not often enought that people talk about how often he's been there.

Let the R be the guy with a lot of experience. So whether it is Higgins, Clougherty, Valentine, etc., I'd only have one of those really experienced guys work in each of the 3 games.

--Rich