USA Today invites fans to vent at this site

[ShadowStripes]

Sorry if someone has posted this already, but I read it this morning. Zilgitt gives us some initial lip service about how hard the job of officiating is, and then rips all the controversial calls from the tournaments. And since he mentions this website, maybe we'll see an uptick in "fanboy" traffic. Enjoy...

Blowing the whistle on shoddy NCAA officiating

Referees impact every game.
One way or another, either by calling ticky-tack fouls or letting most things go.

What coaches, players and fans want from basketball officials is consistency. That's what all refs strive to achieve. It just doesn't always happen, and few things in a game infuriate like inconsist officiating.

A preface: Let's get this out of the way now. Officiating is a difficult, thankless job in which calls must be made instinctually in a split second. Without knowledge of a particular situation, refs don't have agendas, don't carry grudges and don't have it out for a particular team, coach or player at the college level.

There were many questionable calls and no-calls in NCAA basketball tournaments — men and women. That's to be expected in intense, consequential basketball games.

It just seems there were more controversial calls (or no-calls) at crucial moments this year.

The topic has stirred up debate on sports radio, on the sports pages and on http://www.officialforum.com, a Web site for referees and interlopers to discuss issues.

Referees should be subject to criticism just like players and coaches. There's no reason officials should be off limits.

There was the controversial call on Baylor at the end of the Tennessee women's game in which a ref called a foul on a Baylor player with two-tenths of a second left in a tie game. It was a perfect time for a no-call. Instead, Tennessee made two free throws and won the game.

In the Nevada-Gonzaga men's game, Gonzaga's Ronny Turiaf picked up two fouls in the first five minutes and his third — a questionable charging call — with 11:07 left in the first half. The call seemed to coincide with the momentum Nevada had seized. It was an instance where the ref seemed to be caught up in the action, intentional or not. Everything went Nevada's way, including the calls.

(A note about charging calls: It is the most difficult call to make. But there are too many charging calls when the offensive player with the ball drives to the bucket and jumps and the defender slides into position (as the said offensive player jumps) underneath or near the basket. Charging should not be called in those situations since the offensive player cannot change directions in the air and the defender wasn't in the spot when the offensive player started his move. A ref whistled Kentucky's Kelenna Azubuike for such a charge in the Wildcats' loss to UAB. College should adopt a rule similar to the NBA where charging is not called inside the arc in the lane, near the basket.)

Who wanted to watch the UConn-Duke men's semifinal game with Emeka Okafor on the bench for the final 16:04 of the first half with two fouls? The second foul was a cheap touch foul in which Okafor had his arms straight up, and Duke's Luol Deng initiated contact.

The Duke-UConn game had little flow it, due in part to the 44 fouls called. Let them play. There is contact. It's basketball. It can be physical. But refs need to do a better job of determining when contact is worthy of a foul and when it's not. The play with Okafor and Deng would have been another perfect no-call.

While the call did not influence the men's title game between UConn and Georgia Tech, the foul on the Yellow Jackets' Luke Schenscher as Ben Gordon attempted a three-pointer was a marginal call.

Mistakes will be made. Players make them. Coaches make them. So do the refs. I'd rather see the refs let them play rather than ruin the game by calling everything.

Fans don't tune in to see a ref hit Okafor with two fouls in the first four minutes. If they're legit fouls, call them. But it's not the ref's job to be the show.

The intentional foul call on North Carolina State's Marcus Melvin against Vanderbilt should have just been a foul. What he did was no worse than a defender intentionally fouling a player at the end of the game just to stop the clock and play the free-throw game. Intentional fouls are called rarely in those situations, though it's far more intentional than what Melvin did.

Then, there's this report out of Texas from the Longhorns-Xavier men's game. Brandon Mouton fouled out with 2:09 remaining.

Mouton wanted an explanation from referee Ted Valentine. According to Fort Worth's Star-Telegram, this is the exchange:

Mouton: "Mr. Official, could you please tell me what I did wrong on that play?"

Valentine: "Shut the [bleep] up, man."

Mouton: "Relax, man. Everything's all right. I thought it was a loose ball. I know I had both arms extended going after the ball, but I didn't think I impeded his progress. Can you tell me what you saw?"

Valentine: "This isn't the NBA."

This isn't an indictment on all refs. Or even a majority. It's an indictment on the inconsistency that plagues college games.

***

Jeff Zillgitt writes about sports for USATODAY.com. You can send him feedback at [email protected].

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ShadowStripes
Sorry if someone has posted this already, but I read it this morning. Zilgitt gives us some initial lip service about how hard the job of officiating is, and then rips all the controversial calls from the tournaments. And since he mentions this website, maybe we'll see an uptick in "fanboy" traffic. Enjoy...

Is there anyone here who could write a decent rebuttal of some kind? Sheez, Louise.

[TPS2859]

Ya, I can!
Untill one wears the strips, he/she has no clue what it is like to make a split secound call on what we SEE. How many times does the t.v. have to play it back in sssssllllowwwwww mmmoottttiiiooooonnnnn to see if the ref got the call right? Or I like the one "two secounds on the clock, that call should not have been made". WHAT, why should the clock affect when we should or should not blow the whistle!

Its so easy to be an arm chair coach, and now an arm chair ref.

To me, if one wants to ***** about the country you HAVE to vote. Sooo, if you want to ***** about the ref's, GET YOUR STRIPS and give it a try!

TPS, Amen to what you said. Get the stripes on if ya wanna *****! I think someone ought to turn the tables on him, write about bad writers. GASP! We're not qualified! DUH!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by TPS2859
Ya, I can!
Untill one wears the strips, he/she has no clue what it is like to make a split secound call on what we SEE. How many times does the t.v. have to play it back in sssssllllowwwwww mmmoottttiiiooooonnnnn to see if the ref got the call right? Or I like the one "two secounds on the clock, that call should not have been made". WHAT, why should the clock affect when we should or should not blow the whistle!

Its so easy to be an arm chair coach, and now an arm chair ref.

To me, if one wants to ***** about the country you HAVE to vote. Sooo, if you want to ***** about the ref's, GET YOUR STRIPS and give it a try!

Well, I suggest you start by spelling things correctly. It does give more credibility to your content.

But I think Dan or Dexter, both of whom have a great deal of writing experience, ought to have a go at a cogent, snappy rebuttal. We could all sign it, and send it to USAToday as a group.

[footlocker]

Sounds like he's upset that the teams he picked in his pool didn't win. Oh, and certain players were not given star treatment by the officials. Bull$h1T!

I'm tired of this trend. Why is it that during the NFL off season all the news about players has to do with players on trial for this and that. OJ was freed. Now Kobe and Williams are working on circumventing the system too. This is not a subject over. However, this jack@$$ writer proposes that Okafor and other stars be treated differently than average players. Nice message to our youth. When you are really good at something, authority figures will defend & protect you when you are in the wrong. We have deflected responsibility. Kentucky, Gonzaga, Baylor... losing was there fault. Refs decided. Laughable.

[wizard]

Someone should invite him to go to classes, get certifiied, and do a season of games. Maybe he'll realize that he doesn't have the ability to look at a play from 3 different angles in slow motion, then finally make his decision.

[Andy]

Some comments on this moron's "observations":

Originally posted by ShadowStripes
Sorry if someone has posted this already, but I read it this morning. Zilgitt gives us some initial lip service about how hard the job of officiating is, and then rips all the controversial calls from the tournaments. And since he mentions this website, maybe we'll see an uptick in "fanboy" traffic. Enjoy...

Blowing the whistle on shoddy NCAA officiating

Referees impact every game.
One way or another, either by calling ticky-tack fouls or letting most things go.

Referees simply call what the players do. The players impact the game.

What coaches, players and fans want from basketball officials is consistency. That's what all refs strive to achieve. It just doesn't always happen, and few things in a game infuriate like inconsist officiating.

This is crap...what coaches, players, and fans want is for all the calls to go their way.

A preface: Let's get this out of the way now. Officiating is a difficult, thankless job in which calls must be made instinctually in a split second.

You acknowledge the difficulty of the job and the fact that officials get ONE look, from ONE angle, at real time speed, then proceed to second guess several calls after viewing the play in slow motion, probably two or three times from various angles.

Without knowledge of a particular situation, refs don't have agendas, don't carry grudges and don't have it out for a particular team, coach or player at the college level.

There were many questionable calls and no-calls in NCAA basketball tournaments — men and women. That's to be expected in intense, consequential basketball games.

It just seems there were more controversial calls (or no-calls) at crucial moments this year.

The topic has stirred up debate on sports radio, on the sports pages and on http://www.officialforum.com, a Web site for referees and interlopers to discuss issues.

Referees should be subject to criticism just like players and coaches. There's no reason officials should be off limits.

Who said that officials were off limits? You can bet your last paycheck that the officials in EVERY NCAA tournament game were observed by qualified personnel (meaning - not you) and their performance was thoroughly dissected and appropriate feedback was delivered.

There was the controversial call on Baylor at the end of the Tennessee women's game in which a ref called a foul on a Baylor player with two-tenths of a second left in a tie game. It was a perfect time for a no-call. Instead, Tennessee made two free throws and won the game.

The time on the clock has nothing to do with what constitutes a foul and what does not. Why is nobody questioning the actions of the Baylor player which led to the official calling a foul?

In the Nevada-Gonzaga men's game, Gonzaga's Ronny Turiaf picked up two fouls in the first five minutes and his third — a questionable charging call — with 11:07 left in the first half. The call seemed to coincide with the momentum Nevada had seized. It was an instance where the ref seemed to be caught up in the action, intentional or not. Everything went Nevada's way, including the calls.

(A note about charging calls: It is the most difficult call to make. But there are too many charging calls when the offensive player with the ball drives to the bucket and jumps and the defender slides into position (as the said offensive player jumps) underneath or near the basket. Charging should not be called in those situations since the offensive player cannot change directions in the air and the defender wasn't in the spot when the offensive player started his move. A ref whistled Kentucky's Kelenna Azubuike for such a charge in the Wildcats' loss to UAB. College should adopt a rule similar to the NBA where charging is not called inside the arc in the lane, near the basket.)

Before giving your opinon next time, learn the rule. The defensive player needs to establish position before the offensive player leaves the floor, not before the offensive player "starts his move".

Who wanted to watch the UConn-Duke men's semifinal game with Emeka Okafor on the bench for the final 16:04 of the first half with two fouls? The second foul was a cheap touch foul in which Okafor had his arms straight up, and Duke's Luol Deng initiated contact.

In your opinion, once again probably after watching the play several times in slow motion replay.

The Duke-UConn game had little flow it, due in part to the 44 fouls called. Let them play. There is contact. It's basketball. It can be physical. But refs need to do a better job of determining when contact is worthy of a foul and when it's not. The play with Okafor and Deng would have been another perfect no-call.

Earlier in this article, you said that you want consistency from officials. This game was the picture of consistency from the officials and you are still griping! Can't have it both ways!

While the call did not influence the men's title game between UConn and Georgia Tech, the foul on the Yellow Jackets' Luke Schenscher as Ben Gordon attempted a three-pointer was a marginal call.

Mistakes will be made. Players make them. Coaches make them. So do the refs. I'd rather see the refs let them play rather than ruin the game by calling everything.

The refs only call what the players do. If the players don't foul, the refs won't call it.

Fans don't tune in to see a ref hit Okafor with two fouls in the first four minutes. If they're legit fouls, call them. But it's not the ref's job to be the show.

This is an NBA philosophy. College ain't the NBA.

Then, there's this report out of Texas from the Longhorns-Xavier men's game. Brandon Mouton fouled out with 2:09 remaining.

Mouton wanted an explanation from referee Ted Valentine. According to Fort Worth's Star-Telegram, this is the exchange:

Mouton: "Mr. Official, could you please tell me what I did wrong on that play?"

Valentine: "Shut the [bleep] up, man."

Mouton: "Relax, man. Everything's all right. I thought it was a loose ball. I know I had both arms extended going after the ball, but I didn't think I impeded his progress. Can you tell me what you saw?"

Valentine: "This isn't the NBA."

This isn't an indictment on all refs. Or even a majority. It's an indictment on the inconsistency that plagues college games.

What you have here is Mouton's side of the story. He is allowed to speak with the media. Valentine is not. If Valentine indeed responed in this manner, it will be dealt with by his supervisors.

Jeff Zillgitt writes about sports for USATODAY.com. You can send him feedback at [email protected].

What do you all think? Should I send this rebuttal to Mr. Zillgitt? Would it do any good?

[ShadowStripes]

I suspect Jeff Zillgitt will receive a fair number of responses from officials since he makes his e-mail address available. I can only hope officials' responses are cogent and respectful. Be the better man (or woman).

[cmckenna]

Send it.... I think you did a really good job taking each section on it's own and addressing it.

[wizard]

Here's my email back to Mr. Zillgitt:


After reading your article, “Blowing the whistle on shoddy NCAA officiating”, I would like to offer you an invitation.

Go to you local officials’ association, go through their classes, take the test, get certified, and do a season worth of games. Not just one or two. You could get a really difficult or easy game and that would skew your view. An entire season. Games that mean something. Not scrimmages. Real games. It can be kids games. Doesn’t have to be high school.

Then write a follow-up. You’ll find out that safety net called “slow motion instant replay” and the 10-20 seconds to think about it aren’t available.

Am I an official? Yes sir.

Do officials ever make mistakes? Yes.

Do they take pride in what they do? You bet.

Why? One reason is also the same as for the players playing. They’re competitive. And there are plenty of officials would would love to do the top games.

The worst that could happen if you accepted my invitation would be that you would learn the rules of the game. Good luck.

[footlocker]

The differnce between a good writer and a bad writer:

A good writer writes about things he knows about. A bad writer writes about things he thinks he knows about.

Jeff Zillgitt, you are one of these.

[rainmaker]

I think the emotional approach is not going to be helpful. The first thing anyone needs to ask him is, "Do you want to discuss the reffing, or do you just want to vent?" If he wants to discuss the job the refs did and the philosophies, and accountabilities they face, then that's one thing. If he just wants to climb up on a soap box and have lots of people say, "Oooo, you're cute when you're mad!", I don't think his spewings deserve a response. My guess would be the latter. But if someone does want to give it a try, I'd suggest establishing the grounds BEFORE the discussion starts, and not just launching off into, "Un-huh" "Unh-nuh." (I have no clue how to spell those two sets of sounds!)

[wizard]

Originally posted by rainmaker
and not just launching off into, "Un-huh" "Unh-nuh."

Oh, Yeah?!? Well, my partner can beat up your partner!!!!!!

[cford]

Originally posted by wizard
Here's my email back to Mr. Zillgitt:


After reading your article, “Blowing the whistle on shoddy NCAA officiating”, I would like to offer you an invitation.

Go to you local officials’ association, go through their classes, take the test, get certified, and do a season worth of games. Not just one or two. You could get a really difficult or easy game and that would skew your view. An entire season. Games that mean something. Not scrimmages. Real games. It can be kids games. Doesn’t have to be high school.

Then write a follow-up. You’ll find out that safety net called “slow motion instant replay” and the 10-20 seconds to think about it aren’t available.

Am I an official? Yes sir.

Do officials ever make mistakes? Yes.

Do they take pride in what they do? You bet.

Why? One reason is also the same as for the players playing. They’re competitive. And there are plenty of officials would would love to do the top games.

The worst that could happen if you accepted my invitation would be that you would learn the rules of the game. Good luck.

Good points in your email. I would love to see him take you up on your challange.

The only thing I would say about your email is to be careful with grammatical or spelling errors. You have to remember that this is a writer and that he/she will be quicker to dismiss what you write if there are grammatical errors. My worst subject was English so I'm not the best to point these out but I did notice a few.

- Go to your local officials’ association

- Not just one or two. You could get a really difficult or easy game and that would skew your view. An entire season. Games that mean something. Not scrimmages. Real games. It can be kids games. Doesn’t have to be high school. This could be condensed into a couple of sentences.

-And there are plenty of officials who would love to do the top games.

Again, I am an analytical person so I'm probably not the best person to critique someones writing. He will pick apart problems with your writing the same way that we pick apart his lack of knowledge & experience when it comes to officiating.

I know that I'm knit picking but I just thought I'd help give him less ammunition.