UNBELIEVABLE!

Ref chief: Towel T 'horrible call'

3-17-04

By TODD GRAFF, Staff Writer
The News & Record

GREENSBORO -- The supervisor of ACC basketball officials said Tuesday that the technical foul charged to N.C. State's bench in Saturday's ACC Tournament semifinal loss to Maryland was a "horrible call" and that the incident was one of the reasons Larry Rose didn't work the tournament final.

Rose, the lead official for the game, called a technical foul on N.C. State with 14:56 remaining because a manager was on the floor wiping up moisture during the course of play.

"It was a horrible call," said ACC associate commissioner Fred Barakat, who coordinates the league's officials. "That's why he went home.

"Technically speaking, the call was correct. But, as I told him, on the stage we're on, with ESPN and so on, you have to use some common sense. There's no reason to punish a team because a team manager is on the court wiping up a puddle. If (Maryland coach) Gary (Williams) didn't like it, I'd say we should do the same thing for him."

Barakat said he would need to speak further with Rose before making a decision on any additional penalty.

"I think he got a pretty big punishment" by not working the final, Barakat said.

Karl Hess worked the final for the fourth time, while Reggie Cofer and Jamie Luckie each worked their first ACC final.

Rose, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday, is 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.

"According to the rule, the guy's right," Barakat said. "He did not make a mistake on the rule. So now I take it further than the rule. I told him, 'With 20 years experience, I could expect that out of (a less experienced official), but not you.' "

Rose's call came with State's 19-point halftime lead down to 53-43 and the teams coming out of a television timeout. Because N.C. State brings chairs onto the floor to conduct its timeouts, a team manager was wiping up the moisture left behind.

Rose had warned State coach Herb Sendek about similar delays "several times," according to Barakat, and called N.C. State for a violation of NCAA Rule 10-11, which comes under the heading of Bench Restrictions.

"They were warned during the course of the game that their chairs were out there too long and that they were wiping up the floor too long," Barakat said. "Larry had warned them a couple times, and I think Larry got a short trigger."

Maryland turned it into a four-point possession with Chris McCray hitting two free throws and John Gilchrist scoring on a layup. The possession led to a 10-0 run and certainly played a part in Maryland's 85-82 victory.

"They were on the rocks; it didn't help," Barakat said. "It took the wind out of their sails. They were making a run back. After they had thrown the ball all over the place, they had just started to regain their composure and whack, that came."

Asked whether he thought, given the situation and nature of the violation, it was one of the strangest calls he's seen, Barakat said, "Yeah. It was totally out of context."

Barakat said he spoke with Sendek about the call, although that didn't constitute an official apology from the conference. Sendek declined to comment on the incident Tuesday.

"He appreciated the call," Barakat said. "It was very positive. But there was nothing he could do about it."

Wow . . . . . just wow.

So here's another situation where a ref applies a rule correctly and is punished.

Why on earth would they pay $1000 for a ref if they're just going to intentionally set aside the rules that they are there to enforce.

Common sense would say not to bring the chairs on the court, or to make sure your done wiping the floor before the second horn.

If they don't want it called, take it out of the rulebook.

my two cents.

[Edited by ref18 on Mar 21st, 2004 at 09:54 PM]

Well that was some kind of display of professionalism, eh?

Makes me think twice about EVER working in the ACC!!

Spineless.

Z

I could go either way on this. It does say that he warned them several times so I guess he was in the right, but (and I didn't see the game) was the act of wipping the floor delaying the game? Just seems a little unnecesary.

This isn't about the call.

This is about the head of one of the most prestigious officials conferences in all of the NCAA Division I PUBLICLY trashing one of his members.

I don't care what the call was, or what game it came in. Absolutely inexcusable behavior.

I have been brought up in the reffing world so to speak with assignors that would rip me a new one when I messed up for the purpose of helping me get better. Maybe not rip a new one, but nonetheless it stayed right there and not all over the world. Right or wrong call to make in the sitch. Who cares??? But let's at least stand up for one of my favorite ethical principles of reffing...Don't critize another referee openly and in public. Now maybe this idea doesn't apply to administrators in the ACC, but then again maybe that's why I don't really care for the ACC. (Not really why I don't like them, but it doesn't help their cause with me.)

The other refs should have turned their shirts inside out :D

Seriously, that should not be put in the public by the supervisor. By rule he did nothing wrong. Opinions about the call may vary but the lack of professionalism by the supervisor is just wrong.

I am in shock and awe.

You see this in football season all the time, where they say that on further review, the refs missed one. This case is a bit different, but at the same time, if this isn't the way they want the game called, then Barakat should be free to explain it. I was in the car at the time this occurred and I can say that the MD announcers were extremely confused about what had transpired. so it is not unheard of for the head of officials in a major conference to explain his view of a call in a major game, especially if the call was controversial or out of the ordinary.

If you ref in one of the most televised conferences and collect that paycheck, you have to expect to get second guessed. And there are multiple responsibilities here. This isn't HS basketball, this is major college, major money. The rules are a little different with respect to assigners and officials. Not quite the NBA, but not rec ball either.

Coach, what would you do if your boss told the nation you did a terrible job?
The NBA does not do this. College conferences (most of them) do not do this. High school (that I know of) does not do this.
It is different when someeone is suspended for something like not admitting an inadvertant whistle (it happened). That assigner did not come out and say it was a terrible call. They took care of it and moved on.

Coach, read the article. He didn't second guess him. He didn't explain his view of the call. He blasted the guy, completely blew him away! There is no excuse for that. If he blew the call, then you make a public apology and move on. But you don't blow him away in the media.

OK, the horrible call quote is over the top I guess. I should have read it less quickly. You can say someone made an error without the extreme language. But I don't expect that the league will be silent in these cases either.

As for the NBA, their reffing seems to be the least accountable of any major pro sport except possibly hockey, which seems to have a little officials club. The NFL does it best, which is odd, because they are the only non-full-time officials.

Hockey officials rock. The league has jerked them around. Bettman neds to be kicked out of position.

Youare wrong here, the NBA officials are the most scrutinized officials in all of professional sports. They are held more accountable than any sport for their calls.

NBA officials ARE the most scrutinized, but it shows in public the least.

I think that if you have a major sport, with nationally televised games, calls at times need to be explained, and silence is not the best option. I guess that is why most observers feel that the scrutiny is not there, because the league will not own up to anything with respect to its officials. Players and coaches in that league are publicly accountable, refs should be as well. It goes with being on the big stage. and I think the lack of openess hurts the league in terms of credibility.

Oh, really, when was the last time you heard a AD, publicly trash the coach for a bad play call? When was the last time you heard a coach publicly trash a player for a bad shot? I can see it now; player takes a bad shot, makes the shot, then the coach gets on TV and trashes the player for taking the bad shot.
I have to disagree with you on this one, caoch.

I'm not following you here coach.

Occasionally the NBA issues statements that a particular play was handled properly, or a particular play was not handled properly and some action is to be taken. This is pretty much SOP for all leagues, pro or not.

What else could the league do for the sake of "openess"?

Agree with Barakat's analysis, don't agree with his lengthy discussion with the media. All that needed to be said to the media was "In retrospect, the call, while correct by rule, might possibly have been avoided."

We are held to the highest standard
 

First things first, I'm quite sure that the ACC Director of Officials is quite upset over losing the opportunity to use Rainmaker in his conference. That will teach him a lesson!!!!

Secondly, the tradgedy in all of this is: How did the rest of the game go??? He may have called a tremendous game, obviously he's a Top Flight ref; but all we'll hear about is this one call.

My guess is, however, that losing the ACC Final will be the end of his punishment and he'll be back in place next year.

Officiating is competitive, you have to choose which battles to fight. Do you want to be right, or do you want to work??? This was an unfortunate situation, I bet the manager felt horrible; but without having seen the game - the T probably wasn't necessary.

And here I thought that's what we were there to do - call the game correctly.

Now, that being said, we're also there to make sure the rules are enforced so that neither team gets an unfair advantage. Whether or not the "violation" itself was a big deal or not, I don't know - I didn't see it.

But I'm in agreement that if you think the guy should have let it slide, you tell him in private. You can't rip him publicly and then say "Oh, sure, he did his job correctly, but I didn't want it done correctly. I wanted us to look good on ESPN."

If I was the official involved, I'd probably keep my mouth shut. But I'd never, ever forget.

Plus, Larry Rose apologized afterwards and said if he had to do it over again, he would not have blown the whistle.

from the Raleigh News and Observer:

Rose regrets making call
By CHIP ALEXANDER AND LORENZO PEREZ, Staff Writers


ACC basketball official Larry Rose offered an apology Wednesday for the technical foul he called against N.C. State during the semifinals of the ACC Tournament in Greensboro.

Rose called a delay-of-game technical on the Wolfpack with 14:56 to play in the second half Saturday against Maryland. State led 53-43 when the call was made but later lost, 85-82. The technical came following a television timeout, when a Wolfpack manager left the bench to wipe up a wet spot on the court as play was about to resume.

Fred Barakat, the ACC's supervisor of basketball officials, had scheduled Rose to referee the ACC championship game Sunday. But then Barakat replaced Rose with another official.

Rose had called the ACC title game nine previous times, the most of any official currently working for the league.

Rose, contacted Wednesday, said he was "surprised" by Barakat's decision not to let him officiate the championship game.

Asked about the technical, Rose said, "Legally, by the [rule] book, I was right. But if I had to do it all over again, I would not do it.

"I'd like to apologize to the whole N.C. State community and the whole N.C. State organization."

The Pack sets up folding chairs on the court in front of the bench area during timeouts for its huddles. As the timeout is ending, team managers take the chairs back to the bench area and use towels to clean the floor.

NCSU had been warned by the officials in the Maryland game and urged to clear the court quicker after timeouts. The technical foul was called for "unauthorized personnel leaving the bench during a live-ball situation."

Maryland scored 10 straight points after the technical to tie the score at 53. State senior Marcus Melvin said the call gave the Terrapins, who had trimmed a 19-point halftime deficit to 10, "another burst of energy."

NCSU coach Herb Sendek said Wednesday that he had discussed the situation with Barakat but refused further comment.

"I'm not in the position to comment on any of the officiating," Sendek said. "I have had a conversation with Fred Barakat. That's all I'm at liberty to say."

Barakat, an associate ACC commissioner, told The Greensboro News & Record that Rose made a "horrible call" and needed to use more common sense. Barakat noted Rose had warned NCSU several times about delays after timeouts during the game but said Rose had a "short trigger."

Barakat, in an interview Wednesday, would not discuss whether Rose will face further discipline for the call.

"We made a decision -- [Rose] did not work the final game," Barakat said. "Whether we'll do more than that will be handled internally."

In other words "This time I won't hang my man out to dry in the media."

Hawk coach, when the NBA officials blow a rule they get out the check book. I think that will get anyone's attention. I don't know if other leagues do this. If this would have been a NBA official they would have turned the shirts inside out. The call was correct. He had warned them. I can understand him not making the call but why is the burden on him more so than the team? What if he made the same call in his first game this year? Do you know that the players are supposed to be seated also? I have seen two officials address this during a game, Donnee Gray and Dave Libbey. Maybe more have done it but I know plenty haven't.

On another subject, I noticed that there weren't many officials doing the second round that jump around, peak and lean. Most of the guys working the second round games on my TV looked very relaxed and worked for angles. Besides tugging on the pants once or twice or 100 times they just stand there and officiate.

I personally feel that Larry Rose took the blame for something the conference should have taken care of before. During media time-outs, teams should be ON THE BENCH, not on the floor. Perhaps Fred Barakat needs to have a meeting with conference officials before next year starts to let them know the rule can and will be enforced.

I have to disagree with you. EVERY play in EVERY game and EVERY call that EVERY NFL official makes is scrutinized. EVERY crew receives reviews of their calls from the league office EVERY week. They meet EVERY Friday night and Satuyrday to discuss the previous week's game, review the tape and the league reviews. Also, the head of NFL Officiating appears on NFL TV EVERY week and explains calls that were made the previous week, even so far as to say if a call was wrong. Finally, it's not unusual for 3-5 NFL officials to be released after EVERY season.

Easily the most scrutinized of all professiaonl officials.

It's no different than the NFHS rule that now allows teams to move out onto the floor for timeouts. What NC State did was not contrary to the rules. They are allowed to do that. They just have to have the floor cleared before the second horn.

And I can tell you that EVERY call that EVERY NBA official makes get scruitnized as well.

Sitting with an NBA evaluator during a NBA game is the most enlgihting experince anyone could ever do. Everytime a whistle was blown his pen was moving ... The official - his postion and hte call.. questionable "nocalls" are marked. now - as soon as the game is over they're at the locker room door recieivng a digital tape copy of the game. They'll go home and review the entire game, every call, from every avail angle and determine weather or not the call was within the guidelines set by the NBA. An official has to be 85 to 90% correct in a game to maintain thier current ratings.

The Call
 

I can not believe how upset people are on this board because a boss decided to discipline his employee. What other job is this not allowed to happen in? Gee lighten up everyone.

Re: The Call
 

Not too many bosses go on national television to discipline employees, especially not when those same employees work on national TV all the time. Even when a newscaster or someone like that screws up royal, a lot of the discipline happens behind closed doors, and then there's a little statement that is very non-harsh. I mean, even Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson's bosses didn't call what happened during the Superbowl a "terrible thing" and apologize for their bad judgment and the seamstress who didn't knot her thread properly didn't even get named. So it does seem a little out of line for one call in one game with one bad (if it was so bad) decision to be publicly singled out and harshly impugned.

Re: The Call
 

BBallCoach,
No, that's oversimplifying.
It's the method.
It's the public humiliation... for following a rule.
The boss is saying the rules change for specific unwritten reasons. The boss is saying the NCAA rules should not be followed.
The boss is saying the rules are fake, the NCAA is fake.
Then, in order to keep his job, the employee publicly backs it all up to show the game is fake.
This is distressing.
mick

Re: The Call
 

When you screw up at work, do you get ripped apart in the national media?

Do you get fired if you produce one widget that isn't to exact tolerance specifications?

Most importantly - are you in a job that is hemorraging respect already, and your boss says something to bring the level of respect even further down?



Dick Bavetta had a great one in his NBA game the other night. No call, player is ticked, says to the broadcaster (while going into the lockers at the half) that the refs have been calling like the end product of bovine males. Player comes out, apologizes, and starts talking about respect for the players and the game. Bavetta stops him and just says "How about you get some respect for what I'm doing out here?"

Priceless ----- just priceless.

Re: The Call
 

And in what other job does an employee get punished for following the rules? It's not as if he whacked the bench on the first time -- he warned and warned. Now the teams will rightly think they can do whatever they want during a timeout.

The equivalent would be suspending an employee for showing up for work on time.

This is as bad as the Pine Tar situation in 1983. The umpires did what they were supposed to according to rule, and they were fed a poop sandwich.


--Rich

Re: The Call
 

Another coach who manages to misunderstand the situation.

It goes like this, the official followed procedure, and gave out a technical foul as specified in the rules. The "boss" disciplining this ref is like a boss discipling the person who made the most sales in a month. The ref followed the rules, and did everything correctly, he gave warnings again and again. The manager was delaying the game by being on the court after the second horn. That can't happen. So he enforced it, and yet is punished. I think this would be a great situation for the NCAA to stage an NBA style protest. This ref was unfairly disciplined, and i hope he goes after the supervisor with a lawsuit for defamation.

During one of the NCAA tournament games this past weekend there were people wiping up the floor while the ball was in play at the other end of the court.

[Edited by gostars on Mar 22nd, 2004 at 09:48 PM]

Common sense says you don't penalize a team for wiping up the floor, regardless of who made it wet.

You expect black and white application of rules from a rookie, not a veteran. Why are we out there, to make the game go better or cause problems?

Re: The Call
 

BBallCoach, what would you think if this article appeared in your local paper?


Athletic Director: "Horrible game"

By TODD GRAFF, Staff Writer
The News & Record

GREENSBORO -- The AD of XYZ High School said Tuesday that the game coached by BBallCoach in Saturday's Tournament win against ABC High School was a "horribly coached game" and was the reason BBallCoach didn't coach in the rest of the tournament.

BBallCoach, the Head Coach of XYZ High School, coached his #1 seeded team to a one point win against the #16 seed in the tournament, a team that hasn't won a game all year. XYZ was a 40 point favorite over ABC.

"It was a horribly coached game," said athletic director I. Hired Amoron, who hired BBallCoach. "That's why he was sent home.

"Obviously, we won the game. But, as I told him, on the stage we're on, you have to be able to beat a team that hasn't won all year and who you're a 40 point favorite over by more than 1 point!" There's no reason to punish a team because a coach can't coach."

I. Hired Amoron said he would need to speak further with BBallCoach before making a decision on any additional penalty.

"I think he got a pretty big punishment" by not coaching in the rest of the tourneament, Amoron said.

BBallCoach, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday, is one of the league's most respected coaches. He has won nine Tournament title games -- tied for second behind I. M. Wunderful's 13 on the all-time list. He has coached in four State Championships (1993, '98, '99 and 2003). He was named the League Coach of the Year in 2002.

"The team won the game," the AD said. "But he just didn't coach the game the way I thought he should, even though what he did may be acceptable among coaches. But to win by 1, I told him, 'With 20 years experience, I could expect that out of (a less experienced coach), but not you.' "

Amoron said he spoke with the team about the coach, although that didn't constitute an official apology from the school The players declined to comment on the incident Tuesday.

"They appreciated the talk," Barakat said. "It was very positive. But theyunderstand that I had no other choice."

That's not the issue.
 

Without regard to whether the call should have been made or not, Barakat is an IDIOT for making these types of comments about an official.

Agree with Bktball, public discussion by those in authority is uncalled for.

Re: The Call
 

Just piling on: Discipline is fine. Public excoriation is not fine, no matter what job you're in.

Hawks Coach -- I'd have to strongly differ with your opinion of the accountability of NBA Officiating. At each NBA game there is an Officials Observer in attendance (they get paid about $25k for the season - not a bad "gig", huh?). They are required to file a report, w/in 24hrs. of the game,with the league office. I have worked small college games w/ the person based in Chicago; that's how I have this insight. He told me that he uses a system to note every time the whistle blows - who blew the whistle, time of game, reason, etc. After the game, he is given a DVD of the game that he can review on his NBA-provided laptop to take a second look at questionable calls/non-calls. The entire game crew actually reviews the game in the locker room before leaving the arena. The Observer, as well as the game officials, are required to take online rules tests and view game situations on a regular basis.
I believe there are 3 (maybe 4) "mentors" from the league office that are assigned to work with officials to create development plans for individual improvement (areas such as: conflict resolution, leadership, mechanics, communication, etc.). All league staff have Blackberry devices to immediately communicate needed updates or rule interps.
This is the first year of this comprehensive evaluation program. There was an article 2-3 months ago in Referee Magazine that also included some details about the new program. I certainly think it is quite impressive.....

All right already. I am wrong on the scrutiny, but I still don't see the public face that the NFL gives, as cited by Tony.

As for the comments, yes the horrible is over the line, as is any public humiliation. However, saying how they want a rule enforced, and expecting refs to understand how a rule is expected to be enforced, especially one like this, is not as over the line as some of you seem to think. This is not the same as just throwing out the entire rulebook. The delay rule is there for resuming play after a TO, but obviously the ACC does not want to push this issue to the point of a T in the circumstances as they occurred - ACC semifinal, national TV, etc. Maybe they don't even want it on a VA-Clemson regionally televised Wednesday night regular season game - but certainly not in a game of this magnitude.

It is not clear that a major advantage is gained by the team violating this technicality, and clearly not cleaning the water up would be a bad solution (and would that have resulted in a T?). Other delays, like keeping the ball from the other team after a made basket, have a serious impact on the game. Media timeouts are long enough anyway that 15 extra seconds isn't going to win or lose anybody a basketball game. Players probably are sick of listening at that point anyway, so the advantage goe to UMD!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef


"I think he got a pretty big punishment" by not working the final, Barakat said.

Karl Hess worked the final for the fourth time, while Reggie Cofer and Jamie Luckie each worked their first ACC final.

Rose, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday, is 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.

[/B][/QUOTE

So who gets punished in this case??

Yes Rose got punished, but the Final game was officiated by 2 officials working their first ACC final. They put 2 green officlas in to ref such an important game.One one hand he says 20 years experience means alot then assignes two rookies.

So because of one "questiobale by the book call" the assignor removes the best overall official available to officiate the final.

I just don't get it. We know he's going to be back next year doing the same level etc?? Why wouldn't he be kept in the final?

Probably due to that spineless evaluator.

Cofer and Natili are more than deserving of officiating the final. I wouldn't call them green.

Point taken. On the other hand, those two "green" refs are better for having done an important game. Green doesn't necessarily mean they can't do the job.

Excuse me, Luckie. Same thought applies. Those guys can officiate the big games.

Thier First tounry? how does that make them green? They've obviously been in the ACC for awhile...

I guiess 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.

Just out of curiosity... How does one obtain varsity games in your area... based on preformance or because they've been in the chapter longer?

It's not quantity, it's quality. One call does not make or break a ref.

In our area, we don't look at the last game to determine who get's the next game. WE look at the body of work over the year, development opportunities etc.

Rose's history and performance (remember he already had the last game assigned) speak volumes as to his abilities etc.

Are you a proponent that he should never get a final again because of this call. I think not.

As an aside , who did replace rose, one of the first timers or the tenured ref.

experience or ability?
 

Under your logic, an official would never work a final that hasn't done one before. So when all the guys who have worked the finals for the past 20 years are dead and gone, who will have the required experience to step in?
One has to start somewhere, sometime.
But that said, I'm sure those guys have worked conference title games before in other conferences and it was clearly their time to start getting an ACC final.
Also, have you ever thought that perhaps Larry Rose was a much better official 6 years ago when he only had 3 ACC finals under his belt? Maybe he was quicker, ran harder, had better reflexes, better eyesight, hearing, etc. A number on paper doesn't necessarily equate to a better job done on the court!

Re: experience or ability?
 

Seems we like to take everything out of context. Rose had the final game based on his performance this year, not 6 years ago not ten. This year!! Yes those guys may be deserving, but why weren't they deserving 1 month ago when the assignments were made. There was one person more deserving and that was Rose based on his performance etc. If it was the other person's time then why not be posted to the game a month ago?????

Why??

Because there was someone more deserving. If Rose wasn't the same or better official he was 6 years ago, he wouldn't continue getting games at this level.

Re: Re: experience or ability?
 

This is totally incorrect. There are many officials who qualify to work the final. It just so happens only 3 may work a game. 3, three, 1,2,3. If this game called for 2 or 4 or 6, pick any number, you can find very (the best) officials to work the game. Just because he was assigned to work this game does not mean others are not as good or better. All supervisors have more than 3 officials able to work a final.

Not saying who was right or wrong in this situation. I do remember though.. the NCAA saying.. that officials not enforcing bench decorum will not work the tournament. Isn't this bench decorum ? Also, if knowone ever calls it.. won't the teams gradually start to "blow off" the rule. This puts other teams on notice that this "could" be called, even in a big time game. So likely they won't do it. It's like three seconds... most teams no that it is not a popular call... but, they stay out of the lane.. for "fear" that someone "might" just call it.

Rose worked DePaul/UConn in the second round. I'd be willing to bet he will work again this coming weekend.

Wouldn't be the first time an official got spanked by a conference and still worked deep in the NCAA (Ted Valentine comes to mind).

--Rich

Plus, Larry worked the Iowa St./Florida St. NIT game last night, and it's my understanding that Barakat assigns those games, so I think it's all under the bridge at this point.

This is politics, not basketball
 

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.

Re: This is politics, not basketball
 

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.

Re: This is politics, not basketball
 

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.

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,

Re: Re: experience or ability?
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: experience or ability?
 

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.

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