Criticism of officials

[TravelinMan]

Everytime caref opens his mouth he proves he is not an official and definitely not a big game official. Let's cut the bs. Top officials or for that matter top players don't go around bragging about their accomplishments. Who is your assigner? What conference or division do you officiate in? Could you be more specific. Maybe then I would believe you are a varsity official. I can give you names. It's your behavior that is making it hard to believe you are an official.

[rulesmaven]

I think alot of how the commentators and fans and coaches view the calls depends on what's gone on before. If those two fouls had been called on Okafor in the second half, I don't think the outcry would have been as severe, because by then it was clear how the game was going to be called. The refs stayed consistent. We all have seen games where Okafor would have gotten by with the first foul -- the second one really needed to be called in my opinion. But it's not like they called that one and then had a more generous view of incidental contact later in the game. For all the griping about the commentators, though, I thought Packer eventually did make a good point -- the players were not adjusting to the way the game was being called. What mystifies me about that game is that there's all this talk about how the officials "ruined it," but from my perspective, this "ruined game" may have been one of the most exciting of the whole year in division 1. Why nobody credits the officials for that bugs the heck out of me.

After watching a tivo replay of the game, I thought the officials did a really nice job. I like the no techical on Okafor; good discretion there, just as I like the no technical on Krzyzewski's profanity laced "you cheated us" tirade. If I had nits to pick, there would only be a few. I thought near the end of the first half, Redick may have pushed a Connecticut defender after a turnover, leading to a fastbreak basket. It looks like the official may have anticipated the play going the other way and been just a little out of position. I also thought one call that is very difficult to explain was a play where Ewing strips one of the UConn big men, and from the replay appears to get both arms and little ball. The official had great position, so maybe the replay was misleading, but it looks like something went askew there. But the point I bring it up is that, ironically, Packer and Nantz praised the play as clean, so sometimes it goes both ways with the announcers and their perceptions.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rulesmaven
We all have seen games where Okafor would have gotten by with the first foul -- the second one really needed to be called in my opinion.

Whther we've seen it not called or not, isn't really the issue IMHO. He offensive player clearly has an advantage with inside position. He's fouled as he comes down with the rebound. If he isn't fouled, he has a clean lay-up. Although I'm sure there have been times when this hasn't been called, clearly it should be.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by rulesmaven
The official had great position, so maybe the replay was misleading, but it looks like something went askew there. But the point I bring it up is that, ironically, Packer and Nantz praised the play as clean, so sometimes it goes both ways with the announcers and their perceptions.

Right -- they don't have a clue!

[johnSandlin]

True, Nantz and Packer continue to be clue less when they due commentary on television, and that will probably continue as long as they continue at their positions.

However, a couple of comments for caref...yes, it is true you are entitled to your own opinion, no body is doubting that fact. However, do not get in a habit of horn blowing, because sooner or later(more often sooner) somebody is going to blow the horn on you.

Be thankful to almighty God for each and every game you work during the regular season, post season, and all other games in the sports you work. It is a proven fact that fellow officials, coaches, and athletic directors can not stand "horn blowing" attitudes by us as officials.

Not trying to pick on you specifically caref, but just offering some thoughts to think about from one official to another official.

[tomegun]

Caref, send me a tape of one of your games. I will find a way to put it on my computer so we can all see the man work!

[d-wil]

Hello all -
I'm new to the site (1st post)...I'm also one of those "media types"...

I have, am and will be critical of referees... However, I will also laud referees for sticking to his/her guns in the face of what is, during a game, extreme pressure... Hopefully, through this site, I will become more informed and more appreciative of about the art of seeing calls at full speed and the processes that officials go through in making calls of all kinds...

With that said, I have some questions concerning the Duke/UConn game: Do any of you think the game was over-refereed, i.e. too many fouls called (44)... If so, is this because the officials are as and remain as tight as the players?... Were the reach-in calls on Sheldon Williams (three, I believe), all warranted?... Is it possible that ego was involved in the manner in which the game (or any game, for that matter) was called?...

One Gonzaga/Nevada question: Can anyone explain the fouls Rony Turiaf incurred early in the first half, then early in the second half (if they're remembered)?... As a layman, it appeared that a push by Nevada center, Nick Fazekas, had much less effect on Turiaf or Cory Violette than a bump by either of those two Zag big men, therefore the pushes weren't noticed(?), seen(?) - I don't know what... I hope someone can help with this, because the seemingly tight calls ruined the game... If I remember correctly, the Wolfpack was in the 1-and-1 with 13 minutes left in the half, and were in the double bonus for the last nine minutes of the half... By halftime Nevada shot 15 free throws to Gonzaga's four...How can there be such a foul discrepancy between two teams that are well-coached and both playing as hard as possible? (whoops, that's two questions)...

Two final questions: Are any of you in favor of making NCAA D-1 men's and women's referees full-time positions?... Would making officials full-time NCAA employees help. hinder, or have no effect on how games are called from the first game of the season to the championship game?...

[johnSandlin]

D-will,

A lot of officials make this full time job for a calendar year. I can name three officials that I knew of right now that have D-1 officiating as their full time job during the year.

I would not have a problem if the NCAA turned this into a full time operation for officials. I think it would actually help the game out in some respects.

I think the first respect would be the quality of officiating would get better quicker. Now mind you, I am NO way putting down the veteran officials of D-1 basketball for either mens or womens, but I think the quality of officiating would improve due to a few reasons.

The first reason being is because the officials would not have another job to focus on while trying to focus on their officiating. All they would need to do is focus on officiating 100% of the time.

The second reason is officials I think would be put under the gun even more to getting better and working harder because the standards they have to follow would be more pressed to be follow because of not having another job to worry about.

[d-wil]

johnSandlin -

Thanks for the reply...Question: Is it a myth that Big Ten and Big East officials allow the players to play a more physical game? Perhaps the better question might be, do players or officials dictate the manner in which a game is called, and how is this accomplished?

[Nevadaref]

D-wil,
Having watched the Nevada-Gonzaga game several times, I can say that the first two fouls on Turiaf were good calls. The second one was a tough one as he was trying to draw a charge and didn't quite get position. It is a bad camera angle, but it appears that he sticks his left knee out and that is the contact. So it was a block.
Now that being said, I think that his 3rd foul was a blown call. I also did not think that his 4th foul was a good one.
Lastly, I think that there was only one other foul call that was not proper in the whole game. It was in the first half as Garry Hill-Thomas drove for a lay-up and Blake Stepp stepped in creating a block/charge situation. I thought Stepp got there in time and that it should have gone the other way. In the game it was a 3 point play.

Oh, I should add that this does come from someone who is a fan of Nevada, but notice that all three calls that I criticize went against Gonzaga. I do believe that Turiaf would have made a significant impact on the game. Would it have been enough to change the outcome? I lean towards no. Nevada just shot too well that night.

[rulesmaven]

Just to chime in, I was about 25 feet from the 4th call on Turiaf. It was a foul. Despite his reaction after he had a chance to think about it, he knew it too. I could not see the stuff that happened on the other end that well, but I agree that the Stepp one was close.

The building was very loud after some of the charges on Gonzaga. I watched the refs very closely when it was getting rough -- those guys were, to borrow a line from one of the sportscenter guys, as cool as the other side of the pillow in a pretty tough environment. It was impressive.

Incidentally, Nevada was much the better team that game and the final margin was indicative of their superiority, at least on that day.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by d-wil
Hopefully, through this site, I will become more informed and more appreciative of about the art of seeing calls at full speed and the processes that officials go through in making calls of all kinds...

I hope that you will stick around. You'll gain a tremendous amount of knowledge between now and when the season starts again. You'll come to understand that some of the terms for fouls that announcers use, such as "reaching in" and "over the back," do not exist. Most feel they know the rules but very, very few actually do.

And if you ask intelligent questions, as you have done already, we'll be more than happy to discuss most any situations. Just understand that we've been inundated with fans, whining, b1tching and moaning since the start of the tourney. The come here to vent, which is not the purpose of this board. We are always here for constructive discussion.

[johnSandlin]

D-will,

No, I do not believe it is a myth at all about the physical play of the Big Ten and Big East. Both of these conferences along with the ACC and the Big 12 have been known as physical conferences in college basketball along with the SEC as well.

Your major conferences like the Big Ten, ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big East have always had the reputation of being physical conferences in basketball. You could give so many reasons as to why that is as well. So say that it is the lack of calls being made in a game. Others say it is because of the intense rivalary between some of the schools in each conference. The list goes on and on. But, I do not believe at all that what you are asking is a myth.

Now, it also does depend on the crew you have working the game as well for that plays a factor into the mix as well. For instance...if you have a U of M/Mich State game with Burr, Hightower, and Hillary as your crew...chances are you are going to be able to bang around a little bit more because of the style of these three officials.

Do I agree with the NCAA cracking down on physical play in both mens and womens college basketball? ABSOLUTELY!! How- ever, I think to a point we as officials have been taking this POE(point of emphasis) a little bit too seriously with the calls that are being made. Even with the crack down, you as an official need to let some contact go even at the high school level.

As far as the game is going to be called...to a point it can be determined by the players and officials together. First off, with the officials during the crew pre-game in the lockeroom. For me, I always tell my crews when I am the R, that we are going to let plays develop and anticipate calls during the game.

Players wise, you can tell them what you expect of them during the captains meeting. I normally tell them, you put the ball in the hole, and we(officiating crew) can stay out of the way. However, if the players start being physical, then you need to address the situation accordingly. I try to talk players out of fouls, but if they do not listen or choose not listen, then it is time to get on the whistle.

[Edited by johnSandlin on Apr 14th, 2004 at 04:49 PM]

[mick]

Originally posted by johnSandlin
For me, I always tell my crews when I am the R, that we are going to let plays develop and anticipate calls during the game.

John,
You sure?
mick

[johnSandlin]

Thanks for the catch of my typing error there Mick. English and proof reading was not my best subject in school.