Okay...

Now that we have the teams figured out on who is playing in the Final Four, who do you think will work the Final Four this year?

Game #1

Ted Hillary
David Libbey
Dick Cartmell

Game #2
David Hall
Mike Sanzere
Tim Higgins

National Championship Game
Jim Burr
Mike Kitts(definitely deserves this game)
Karl Hess(definitely deserves this game)

If Hall and Cartmell are not there, then do not be suprised if Ted Valentine, Steve Welmer, Ed Hightower,or Donee Gray get the nod to go to San Antonio this year.

[Edited by johnSandlin on Mar 29th, 2004 at 11:55 AM]

same old faces
 

Are there not any new officials out there deserving?

I get tired of seeing the same guys year after year.

Valentine, after the Texas game is a longshot

Libbey had a horrible game this weekend.

Burr definitly.

Hightower, no way. He sees a different game than anyone else.

The others all have a good shot

I know what you mean about new faces showing up at the Final Four, but it is safe to say the Final Four nod is a resume/tournament worked so far type of assignment from years past.

Any particular faces you think of deserving the chance this weekend?

I saw Patrick Driscoll work the Duke-Xavier game. He was not a name I was familiar with but seemed to do a good job.

My picks would be:
Steve Welmer
Jim Burr
John Clougherty
Mike Kitts
Larry Rose
Dick Cartmell
Ed Hightower
Gerald Boudreaux
Rick Hartzell
Ed Corbett

Re: same old faces
 

I agree with wanting new officials to officiate the games. The concern here is that this is for the national championship. I know that they had a first time but if these guys are clearly head and shoulders above everyone else, it shouldn't matter if they do it year in and year out should it?

HESS is my pick. No non-sense. Not flashy. Makes the obvious calls... sells the tough ones. Doesn't put stuff in the game.

NO EGO.. that i can see.

If I were a coach.. i'd want him on my game. And I don't even know the guy.

Scratch list would include Hightower. Why do people think he is good anyhow ? And i mean that seriously.. what does he do that makes him valuable ?

I'm hoping for Hess and Burr to make the final. There's no way Clougherty makes it after that 3rd foul call on Rony Turiaf of Gonzaga in the Nevada game. I think many would be in agreement that this was likely the worst call of the tournament.

Welmer didn't officiate the Elite 8. Is he still eligible for the Final 4? I hope he goes.

Some big names didn't work Sweet 16 or Elite 8 games:
Scott Thornley
John Clougherty
Duke Edsall
Reggie Greenwood
Frank Scagliotta
Charlie Range
Kerry Sitton
Jim Haney
Doug Shows

Plus, some others
Tom Nunez
Mike Scyphers
Steve Olson
Mike Stuart

Are they still in the mix for the Final 4?...stay tuned.

For Shadow and Fred,

In order to do a Final Four game, you need to have worked (or been the alternate for) one of the regional final (Elite 8) or regional semifinal (Sweet 16) games.

Only those 48 refs are eligible to be assigned to the Final Four. There are 3 crews of 3 selected and an alternate who serves for all 3 games.

Thank you Mark.

While the Final Four officials could be picked from any who worked the second weekend, the NCAA usually assigns from the 12 who worked the Regional Finals. This would make the short list as follows:

David Hall, Randy McCall, Mike Wood, Richard Cartmell, Bob Staffen, Verne Harris, Jim Burr, Tom Lopes, Donnee Gray, Mike Kitts, Olandis Poole, Pat Driscoll

I thought Hall, McCall and Wood did an excellent job in the UConn-Alabama game, but did not see enough of any of the other games to evaluate the others.

[Edited by aces88 on Mar 29th, 2004 at 03:18 PM]

We shall soon find out soon enough who got the honor given to them to work the Final Four. I have always thought Hightower has done a good job, but I do have to agree with you that have said he has went in the wrong direction of late. He does add more to the game then what needs to be there, but his resume speaks for itself.

I also agree with the choices of Hartzell, and Beaudroux. I thought the regional semi-final that Hartzell worked, he did a very nice, quiet, and consistent job through out the whole game.

How long has Clougherty been deceased?
 

He is embalmed isn't he.

He should have retired 10 years ago. He is far too old to be a referee.

Re: How long has Clougherty been deceased?
 

There are old referees but none as ignorant or misinformed as you.

And would you please enlighten us as to the officiating credentials that you possess that will allow you to critique and evaluate Burr's performance? What is the highest level that you have officiated at, and how long have you been doing it? And following that, please let us know EXACTLY what calls that Burr wrongly made, and EXACTLY why they were wrong.

I await your answers too.

Mark,

It was a rhetorical question. I guess I wasn't clear. Just making a point that a lot of "big names" went out early this year.

I see no one wants to stand up and give an account for their opinion of Jim Burr. Good comments Jurassic Referee.

Jurassic -- I think you may have been a little over the top on your commments.....By you logic, there should only be talk of middle school/feeder, high school, and maybe some small college games because that is all anyone in here officiates (I'll admit there may be some DII and DI officials in here). By that logic I can't talk about politics (never held elected office), can't talk about movies (not a member of the Screen Actors Guild), and will have to stop complaining about Don Denkiger's horrific call (in favor of the Royals against my St. Louis Cardinals) at first base in the '85 World Series (never been a big league ump).

You more accurate point is to explain or provide details of their complaints. But, as we learned in the Baylor-Tennessee women's tourney game, different officials see/call different things. Very rarely does an official make a call that clearly didn't happen.

Jeff, no one's objecting to the expression of personal opinions. But those opinions shouldn't be the basis for judgment, such as "terrible call" "too old" "doesn't have a clue" (this last is from another thread). Refs have every right to disagree, and often do, but every ref also has the right to have his work respected and treated with dignity. To imply, as some have over the last several days, that a ref is incompetent, or biased, or temperamental, is harsh and unwarranted. The only people who can do that are that ref's assignors, and even then only in private. JR is objecting to the completely emotional and uninformed criticism of refs by people who don't know what they're talking about. That's what a lot of us are kinda hot under the collar about these days.

I agree with Juulie completely. To say that an official is horrible and you have never been on that level is and can be interpreted as complete jealousy. We will get older one day and we will have our time to get criticized if we are good enough. But to do it here is such a cowardly way to do it. Tell that to the individuals face, do not come here and tell the world you are much better than an official that has multiple NCAA Finals and Final Four appearence when you cannot even do D3 yet. And until you get there, you really do not have credibility yet to make those complete accusations.

Just my two cents.

Peace

Found out this morning that NCAA has announced who will work the final four, but only the officials from last weekend and the officials selected know.

NCAA is enforcing a strict privacy policy this year because of the continued risk of gambeling on college sports. We will not know until we watch the games Saturday night and the final on Monday night.

Someone needs to tie the top of the bag tighter...Some of the cats have been let out of the bag... this is a quote from a Denver Sports Columnist, Jim Armstrong. It is from today's Denver Post. Now it will remain to be seen if these are correct but here is the quote.

"For a city that isn't particularly interested in college hoops, Our Town sure produces a lot of big-time officials. To wit: Three local refs will be at the Final Four - Dave Hall, who'll be working the whistle during one of Saturday's semifinal games, and Verne Harris and Randy McCall, who'll work their first national championship game Monday night. McCall is the athletic director at Cherry Creek High School"

FWIW

Even though, it was suppose to be kept a secret...I think that this is a no win battle the NCAA and all high school associations are going to continue to go through when trying to keep it a secret about the officials selected for the championship games in specific sports all across the country.

It's pretty tough.

You have to figure that these guys have to get time off from work. Then they have to tell their families they'll be gone. Work with the travel agency to get tickets, etc.

As Tom Clancy says, the likelihood of a secret getting out is proportional to the number of people who know squared.

I could not agree with more Mark. Trying to get everything worked out to travel for championship game assignments means news is bound to get out one way or another.

So....

Do we know yet who'll be working this weekend?

I think that all we know for sure is:
(a) the guys working there will all be solid, excellent officials.
(b) some stupid dexterhead of a fan will show up here and tell us how bad they were.

:p
No kidding, eh.

I'm kind of hoping to see Clougherty in one of the three games. The guy could be my grandfather, and he can still flat out ref.

Cartmell and Hillary have been solid too, IMO.

Sitton would be a great choice!

BK,
You fishin' or umpin'?
Where you been?
How 'bout dem Boys!!!!
mick

GT/OSU
Tim Higgins, Jim Burr, and Donnie Gray
Duke/UConn
David Hall, Ted Hillary, Orlandis Poole

[Edited by Nevadaref on Apr 3rd, 2004 at 10:48 PM]

Third for GT/OSU is Donnee Gray.

Thanks Mark.

not necessary to work the elite 8
 

Out of the six officials that worked the two games tonight in the Final Four, 4 worked Elite 8 games and the other 2 last worked in the Sweet 16.
Ted Hillary and Tim Higgins are the two who went from the Sweet 16 to the Final Four.

Anyone know who is the alternate official on the Final Four? He was probably sitting at or near the table, but I just don't seem to recognize the faces not on the court very well.

Who???
 

Who was the official in the Duke/UConn game that looked like a throw back to the 70s NBA? He would bend down and really be demonstrative. He also called out of his area a lot. A couple of times as the C he was so high, the Trail had to look at the L to make sure he was not out of position. He had the crew confused a couple of times.

Who is he?

David Hall

Whats the Scoop?
 

Whats your eval of him?

listening to sporting news radio and david hall is getting blasted by the media. the guy goes on record to say he is horrendous and very uncapable. i get a kick out of these guys that think they are the greatest officials in the world who have never worked a game. i will say this though, it wasnt one of hall's better games. we have all been there.

mighty

Re: Whats the Scoop?
 

my eval is that he was working the final 4.....

Re: Whats the Scoop?
 

Personally, I thought this crew (especially Hall) called it too close. Lots of fouls away from the ball that didn't seem to have a major affect on the play.

There were times during the game when I thought that would start to let them play a bit more, but it seemed like there was never any flow.

Having said that, take my opinion for what it's worth. I have one year of college experience. For me to criticize these officials is like Britney Spears criticizing Mozart.

Jay

PREDICTION!!
 

My prediction is that we will again be getting more posts within the next coupla hours telling us how bad the officials were tonight.All of these posts will say:
1) Even though I'm a just a disinterested viewer......
or
2) I am also an official <b>but</b>......

Wait and see.

:rolleyes:
This kind of stuff really makes me wonder.

The "cardinal rule" included on every NCAA officiating bulletin is "style of play will not dictate officiating". I assume this also extends to a conference's alleged style of play. The Duke-UConn game had A LOT, repeat, A LOT of physical play. Given the teams' recent history and tournament rivalry, the game was a train that could have easily jumped the tracks.

I saw very few, pretty close to NO foul calls that were not legitimate fouls. The only one I wondered about was Duke's 2nd last possession, where the guy drove, got stripped, and fell to the floor. They replayed it, but the camera was blocking out the area of contact. So I guess we'll just have to trust the lead official and his measly 20-30 years of NCAA experience, and God knows how many tournament and final four games.

For crying out loud, if the officials pass on calls, we're blind, dumb, and incompetent. Then a crew comes out, officiates a game CONSISTENTLY, and we hear the typical coach/fan dumb comment "HEY REF, LET 'EM PLAY".

This is why we officials are so quick to shake our heads some of the time - it's because you people can't make up your (Dexter)ing minds!

Exactly!! The game was officiated fairly, equitably and consistently. Officiating WAS NOT a factor, no matter what Coach Whineya$$ says..

I am an official too, but that pass that LSU made to Tennessee sent shivers down my spine, because I, again, saw Larry Bird intercept Isiah Thomas's pass about 20 years ago.

Consistency
 

During the play that led to the fifth foul on one of Duke's big men, Okafor stepped into the lane and clearly initiated contact,DISPLACING the Duke defender to gain a positional advantage.When the Duke defender tried to get around Okafor, he made contact that was MUCH LESS than the contact that was INITIALLY IGNORED.The T.V. replay confirmed this.
Did this lack of consistency in refereeing the offence and the defence, in one play at the end of the game have an impact on the outcome of this game ? I believe it did.
Do you remember the play ? What was your read on it ?

Re: Consistency
 

:rolleyes:

My read is that Duke fans whine as much as their coach. Which is <b>constantly</b>.

Let em play
 

I watched the Duke Uconn game last night and I came to the internet to see what other people thought of the officiating. This is the first time I have seen your web site and this is probably the only post I will ever make. I almost turned the game off at about ten minutes in the first half because it seemed clear officials had their own agendas. Most who watched the game felt officiating had a negative impact. Only a few media writers dealt directly with the issue and coaches and players have pretty much stuck their heads in the sand. This might seem like a good thing for officials, but this blatant hand wringing could lead to problems for officials down the road. After reviewing posts to this site it is disturbing to see people charged with blowing the whistle are unwilling to discuss the decisions that had a greater impact on the game than anything the players did. There was a plethora of imaginary fouls called and an abundance of fouls ignored. How can a body with duties to interpret and enforce rules be opposed to a review of the way rules are applied. The officiating however disruptive was impartial.

GREENBOOK..

I AGREE 100 PERCENT... I'm not sure what exactly you were refering to. But, the part about the own agenda.. CORRECT.

The official.. "hall" I think.. blew his dag on whistle EVERY SINGLE time there was ANY contact. No advantage disadvantage.. he just saw contact and blew.

Not to mention his mechanics.. duck, weave, head bop.. If he were getting the calls right.. THEN maybe OK.. But, jeesh.. duck weeve.. and all that.. and then just guess.. cuz there is contact. WOW.

Final Four.. wow

Re: Let em play
 

That's interesting. I decided to stop reading your post a few sentences in.

Unlike you, I acted on my decision.

Enjoy the baseball season fanny boy.

And what are <b>your</b> qualifications that would enable you to intelligently discuss the officiating in any game with us? The fact that you've <b>seen</b> literally hundreds of games? Go to Google and punch in "fanboy fantasies". You'll find all kinds for morons just like yourself that'll be quite happy to tell you how bad the officials are,were, and will be.

Go be with your own. Shoo! Shoo!

I do not agree at all with your questioning of that official's integrity. To say that any official came into a game like this with a pre-determined agenda is ludicrous.

Edited to remove personal slur, to which I have apologized below.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 5th, 2004 at 06:55 AM]

Jurassic..

You know ..

When you reply to people.. you are validating that they are there... and that there comments affect you. IF you think they don't have anything worthy of saying.. you know what...

JUST LET IT F____ GO...

I think that we should be attacking the opinions of what people say. And NOT the person themselves... cuz you know what .................... we.. you.. knowone... knows anything about that particuliar person.

I'm smart (I think.. LOL).. I officiate.. and I'm moving along in the business. But, i think it is ridiculous and sends a clear msg that YOU, in fact, can be rattled !
that you have to make a point.. to tell someone ELSE how wrong they are.

The only reason I'm sayin this.. is cuz I see it all throughout comments in this board.

If you are a true ref.. you can suck it up... and accept that your opinion is not necesarily accepted by all. And that you can just move along.. as if nothing happened.

Does anybody know for sure who is working tonight's championship game?

Yup, I'm a true ref. And I'll stick up for other refs <b>every</b> time someone attacks their integrity instead of their skill level. Which is exactly what <b>you</b> did! True refs never do that. You, Sir, are not a true ref!

You can tell me that that official's judgement was bad, he didn't hustle and was out of position, he lacked people skills, he wasn't experienced enough for that game, etc., etc., etc. That doesn't bother me. But when you start talking about someone officiating a game according to a pre-arranged agenda,you're basically saying that the guy was cheating. Well, that's completely wrong for any official to say something like that about a fellow official. That's my opinion, whether <b>you</b> like it or not.

I had my finger on the quote button for a couple of minutes thinking about this.
JR, I agree with you to some extent. I don't think any of the officials had a terrible game. There might be things they could have done differently but that's life. I feel kind of bad for Orlandis because it will be harder for him to recover than Hall and Hillary. What I don't agree with, and I've stated this on other posts, is all the jumping around. There are several derogatory words that come to mind when I think about it. I will just leave it at does not look good and isn't needed.
JR, do you realize that a short statement from you turns many others against this poster? I don't know how many officials you've worked with that post here but to me it seems to be a small group that support each other's comments due to an internet friendship based on the number of posts someone has made. There are so many factors that play a part in the first post someone makes that ability to officiate and especially if someone is a good person or not should not be doubted. I've seen several posts by many people here and what I think of them as an official I've kept mostly to myself with one exception. Really I don't know how good anyone is. I could guess but I don't know for sure. I have seen probably two people on this board in person and one of them probably doesn't know about it and I've met the other (nevadaref) but I don't think I've seen him work. I just don't get some of the comments "________ is a good official" unless you've seen someone work. A book official doesn't make someone a good official on the court and what we are doing is talking about scenarios and haveing a glorified pre-game. It helps but it is not the determining factor to say someone is a good official unless you've seen them work.
Should this have been in the "what I dislike" thread?

Should this have been in the "what I dislike" thread?
[/B][/QUOTE]Nope. Legitimate comments. Upon further review, "backstabber" was not a wise choice on my part. I apologize for my usage of that term. I can't apologize for the rest of it, though. As I said, I don't have a real problem if someone gives their honest opinion of an official's ability. I do have a problem when someone questions that official's integrity. That's just wrong, imo.

I'll be glad when this thing is over, so we can get back to normal. I am so tired of these fanboys.

Further, there's no reason for an official on this site to question an official's integrity, simply based on what he "thinks" he sees on TV. Quite honestly, I couldn't care less whether such a person ever posts again or not. It's even worse than listening to Mike & Mike this morning, who I previously enjoyed listening to. "When did these guys get together and decide that they we going make a mockery of this game?"

Sad day.

Any one of us "sitting" at home and watching tv should realize a couple things.

1: how many times have we talked about howler monkeys, fans or anyone else not having the same angle on a play as we do on the floor...well guess what it works that way from the couch too..Those guys on the floor have the best look at the play.. From the replays I saw of Reddick going to the lane, I can see nothing that says there should or shouldn't have been a foul. There wasn't a whistle so evidently no foul.

2:how many times have we talked about howler monkeys, fans or anyone else not having put in the time and effort it takes to be an official. Well here we go again, it is the same thing from the couch. Those guys working the final four certainly didn't go to footlocker and buy a shirt and some slacks from JCPenny on the afternoon of the game, and show up and get chosen from a random lottery. They made it due to hard work, and an evaluation process that occurs throughout the tourney....

I guess what I am trying to say is they certainly deserve the benefit of any doubt that anyone has. They most certainly should never have their integrity challenged. I for one thought that the game was pretty well officiated. Everyone is giving Hall a bad time about the way he was moving on the court...I see him alot out here, he does that a lot of the time and evidently the powers that be like the way it works for him.

Jurrassic..

I was not implying that the officials "cheated". I was merely sayin that they had there "own agenda" in call selection. Maybe trying to control the game to much. Not by any means cheating... or tryin to affect the outcome.

The answer to the question (from a couple of pages ago) -
"who is the alternate offical at the table" - is J.D. Collins. He has had what I would call a "meteoric" rise in this years' tourney (similar to Olandis Poole). He worked the East Rutherford NJ Regional Semi - Pitt vs. OSU. I believe it was his first Regional game in his career. He is from the midwest; works the Mid-Continent (Conf. Champ. game), Horizon League, Missouri Valley (Conf. tourney quarter & semi game), and Big Ten.

He may have the best "gig" of all.....he gets to sit courtside for all 3 Final Four games (and therefore doesn't have to deal w/ coaches/fans *****in' about calls) and will have plenty of time to check out San Antonio's best golf courses.............

As table personnel myself, I have to agree.

Of course, the alternate often helps out on replays, CE's, etc. - but its worth the free ticket.

That's a better explanation of what you meant. At least now it's discussable, imo, whether we agree or not.

What we don't know, and probably never will, is what direction these officials were given before the game. These guys are usually pre-gamed by one of the NCAA officials' supervisors on things that they should be aware of, or problems that they might face. I don't know whether any of these guys had done any previous Duke or UConn games, but the usual procedure is to try and have fresh faces out there, if possible. Somebody might have said before the game- "look guys, there's been too much contact let go with these 2 teams, and we want you to clean it up. Make 'em play ball". If that's what happened, then that's the NCAA's agenda and not the official's agenda. I just can't see solid, experienced and very capable officials like these guys going into any game with their <b>own</b> pre-conceived ideas of how they're gonna call the game. I think that, at this level, the officials usually let the game come to them, and not vice-versa. That's why I personally don't like judging individual performances.

Jurrasic

Good point !

So who will we see tonight? Clougherty, Libbey, Cartmel?

Crew not on same page
 

The problems that happened in the UConn game, if you felt that there were problems, were not because of the abilities of the officials involved in the game. They are all very deserving officials. The problem was that for some reason they were not on the same page as a crew during that game. Any time that the crew is not in synch, it will make for a game that has problems.

This can be a very difficult situation to fix during the course of a game, especially when you have 3 strong willed and strong minded officials in the game. Nobody likes to think that the way they are calling the game is not the best way for that particular game to be officiated. However, in order for the game to be called at it's highest potential, egos must be set aside and happy mediums found in order that all officials are calling the game using the same basic criteria. This might mean that certain officials need to tighten their selection, or it might mean that they need to allow certain things to happen without whistles.

This clearly did not happen during this game.

Verne Harris, Randy McCall, and I don't know the 3rd :D
well I don't know any of them but I know who two of the three will be :D

Coach K
 

I find it amusing to here that Coach K wasn't so complimentary towards the officials after the UConn game. Why? Because the game wasn't called to his advantage?

The semifinal game was called no differently than the week before vs. Xavier. Both games were called tight. In the Xavier game, it effected the Musketeers more because of lack of depth behind Myles. In the UConn game, the roles were reversed. Duke's bench couldn't match UConn's.

In the postgame interviews, a reporter asked K about his team's "collapse". Coach K replied with "Obviously, you didn't see the game."

I beg to differ. :)

Coach K and Duke have been picked on a lot recently. They are like the Yankees/Braves/Cowboys of college basketball. It is just too bad. People don't like loaded teams that seem to have an advantage all the time and have the "best coach." If Coach K wants to get people off of his back he needs to quit crying and win his last game of the year! There have been the comparisons to Wooden and Dick Vitale always defends him by saying times have changed. Times have changed but there are three things that will never change and Coach K has two of them in common with Wooden.

Wooden was considered the best coach of his time. Coach K is too.

Wooden got more talent than other teams. Coach K does too.

Wooden used that talent to win a number of championships as expected with his talent. Well Coach K, you will probably be the pre-season number 1 for the millionth time!

Cry me a river!

Another 2 cents...
 

As officials, I think we are all entitled to our own opinions about how each of the officials are doing in their respective tournament assignments. Being officials and performing this avocaton ourselves gives us that right. That being said, I also agree that we absolutely are NOT entitled to question any one of these officials' integrity! We as officials should know, if we do not have our integrity, then we have NOTHING!!!

When I used to watch games, I would always try to pick out the missed calls the officials would make...professing "I would have called it differently!" Then, I grew up a bit. Now, instead of always trying to find fault with an official's call, I try to find a reason to defend and explain how an official called something a certain way. My first jump is to DEFEND what the guy/gal called. I often say to myself...or whoever is watching with me, "I can see why s/he would call it that way..."...even though I may not agree with it.

Now, all this being said, I have seen a few whistles/scenarios in the past few games that I simply cannot find an explanation for why a certain play was called...or no-called...the way it was. I think we all have issues with some of the calls being made. I see nothing wrong with explaining and/or discussing our differences in opinion as long as we respect these officials for the levels to which they have progressed...and as long as we never question their integrity!

Re: Another 2 cents...
 

Agree completely!

Thanks for all the info, Jeff. Very nice.
I do think that Orlandis has an "r" in his first name, though. Of course, I could be mistaken.

Re: Re: Whats the Scoop?
 

Yeah Buddy, thats why I was surprised to see his style in the Final Four.

I think his style is very different and would lose points in an eval, thats all.

well that wasn't his first final four he worked a championship game in 2000 I believe...not sure on the year...

True, but when talking to Woodee you can't go back that far in time. He would have only been about 12!

Okay!!
 

Okay, Mr Hall is a good official who has worked big games.

BTW, I was only 16 in 2000 :)