Defending the announcers

[canuckrefguy]

It just occurred to me how this is a sign that the MSU/KY game was VERY well-officiated. THIS is all we have to talk about!!

[TriggerMN]

Oh, and one more thing. It's spelled, "Azubuike."

If you're going to ***** about others mispronouncing it, at least learn how to spell it correctly.

Pot, meet kettle.
Kettle, pot.

[Mark Padgett]

As a former radio announcer, I can tell you it's inexcusable for an announcer to repeatedly mispronounce words in his or her area of "expertise".

As to sports announcers doing this, I have to admit I don't take it a seriously as our President always saying "nuke-u-ler".

Probably the two most mispronounced words I hear on an ongoing basis just in the business world are "realtor" (it is not "ree-lit-er") and "jewelry" (it is not "ju-le-ry").

Also, Juulie is not pronounced "Joo-ooo-ly" but is correctly pronounced "Fish-net".

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by TriggerMN
If you're going to ***** about others mispronouncing it, at least learn how to spell it correctly.

Back off, Trigger.

a) I'm not getting paid multi-millions to spell his name correctly, so this isn't a pot,kettle thing, see?

b) I've only seen it like maybe twice. I never knew the fellow existed until this week. That doesn't compare with how much time and attention an announcer should give to being sure he (or she) treats all people (and their names) with simple human courtesy.

c) Why are you so defensive about this? Are you the alter ego of Verne Lundquist? (I'm fairly sure I've gotten that spelled right, but if I don't, I apologize.)

[canuckrefguy]

Juulie,

Trigger was a bit harsh, but the comment was fair.

It's one thing for us to start hacking on Nance, Packer, and the others for being ignorant of the rules and passing it on to the public.

But when we start posting comments like yours, we have no more credibility than the "fanboys" we like to chase out of here.

Go back, take another look at your post, and imagine it was someone commenting on an official they saw. How do you think it would look? And what do you think your reply would look like? We can't have it both ways.

Commentators are not above criticism, but after a point, the criticism doesn't seem too fair.

Just my $0.02 (or $0.0015 US)

[LarryS]

In general, I agree that announcers add to the confusion/ignorance of basketball rules. However, this weekend I actually heard an announcer get one right...man I wish I could remember his name to give him proper credit.

A PC foul was called on a drive to the hole. Announcer said something along the lines of "Great defensive play. [Player name] had established legal guarding position and is allowed to move backwards to maintain position. It is often confusing to viewers to see that call made because the player is not standing still. That was a great play and a good call."

So there is a least one person working the games on TV that knows at least one rule.

[Almost Always Right]

Originally posted by LarryS
In general, I agree that announcers add to the confusion/ignorance of basketball rules. However, this weekend I actually heard an announcer get one right...man I wish I could remember his name to give him proper credit.

A PC foul was called on a drive to the hole. Announcer said something along the lines of "Great defensive play. [Player name] had established legal guarding position and is allowed to move backwards to maintain position. It is often confusing to viewers to see that call made because the player is not standing still. That was a great play and a good call."

So there is a least one person working the games on TV that knows at least one rule.

Far be it for me to give credit to any of the talking hair-dos but it was Raftery who made this statement. He does seem to be the "best" out of all them.
AAR

[Edited by Almost Always Right on Mar 28th, 2005 at 10:31 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Juulie,

Trigger was a bit harsh, but the comment was fair.

It's one thing for us to start hacking on Nance, Packer, and the others for being ignorant of the rules and passing it on to the public.

But when we start posting comments like yours, we have no more credibility than the "fanboys" we like to chase out of here.

Go back, take another look at your post, and imagine it was someone commenting on an official they saw. How do you think it would look? And what do you think your reply would look like? We can't have it both ways.

I strongly disagree. When Packer criticizes an official, he does so from complete ignorance. When I criticize Packer, I'm not working out of ignorance. I've studied English, language, public speaking, and debate. He's never studied the rules. I've DONE a good deal speaking both scripted and extemporaneous, and I can tell you that I know at least enough to say that Packer doesn't do a good job. I'm not being a fanboy who just wants to be on the winning side all the time. I'm speaking from experience, study and background. I think a better comparison would be if someone like my commissioner (who's never been an NCAA ref, but has studied and practiced reffing for over 50 years) were to criticize one of the NCAA refs. Yea, Howard's an amateur, but he knows a lot. If he said an NCAA ref was wrong about something, I'd listen. I've never been a national sports announcer, but I can tell you that his mistakes are beginners mistakes, and should not be allowed on national TV. I do have some idea what I'm talking about.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I strongly disagree. When Packer criticizes an official, he does so from complete ignorance. When I criticize Packer, I'm not working out of ignorance. I've studied English, language, public speaking, and debate. He's never studied the rules. I've DONE a good deal speaking both scripted and extemporaneous, and I can tell you that I know at least enough to say that Packer doesn't do a good job. I'm not being a fanboy who just wants to be on the winning side all the time. I'm speaking from experience, study and background. I think a better comparison would be if someone like my commissioner (who's never been an NCAA ref, but has studied and practiced reffing for over 50 years) were to criticize one of the NCAA refs. Yea, Howard's an amateur, but he knows a lot. If he said an NCAA ref was wrong about something, I'd listen. I've never been a national sports announcer, but I can tell you that his mistakes are beginners mistakes, and should not be allowed on national TV. I do have some idea what I'm talking about.

WHOA! Sounds like somebody's got their fishnets in a wad!

Actually, I agree with Juulie (as always). Packer is interested in one thing - promoting Billy Packer - not being accurate.

OK, two things - add promoting the ACC.

[stmaryrams]

I actually heard Jim Nance using the term "ON the back" several times this weekend.

I'm sure many on this board were saying to themselves "You got it right!"

Once again kudos to Gus Johnson - what a fine job of announcing the games!

[Goose]

My son, who is a young official also wants to move into radio and TV broadcasting.

With that in mind, as we watched games, I would comment to him that what CBS or ESPN should do is hire an off camera, off mic, ex-official to whisper in the ear of the announcers the real rule or explanation when one of these situations arises.

I do know that all the announcers are encouraged to attend a beginning of the year rule explanation, but I wonder how many actually listen. To his credit, Packer has gotten better over the years, but he still sticks his foot in his mouth when attempting to explain what is going on.

So, I'm all for them hiring some ex, or even current official that can explain these situations.


goose

[Junker]

Everyone posting has very good points....WITHMUCHREGULARITY! ONIONS!! (I love listening to Raferty!)

[Edited by Junker on Mar 28th, 2005 at 11:24 PM]

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Goose
To his credit, Packer has gotten better over the years,

Two times zero is still zero.

[jbduke]

Juulie,

I very much appreciate your comments in this thread. I, too, have a great deal of respect for language, and sometimes, just for fun, I like to play armchair linguist. I have a theory (maybe half-baked) about mistakes in language like saying 'laxadaisical,' and it seems to square reasonably well with some of what you've been arguing.

Essentially, my theory is that language is like sport: you play like you practice. By this, I mean that if one practices good fundamentals of language, then mistakes made under pressure--like, say, speaking before millions of people a la Packer, Raftery, Bilas, Bonner, et al--will be those resulting from trying to do "too much." Specifically, I'm saying that the fundamentals like word pronunciation and enunciation will be there for a person in just the way he or she has prepared for them to be. If one has made a habit of good speech, then even if one gets into trouble by trying to execute an overly complicated sentence structure, the errors should be of a syntactic or grammatical nature rather than of a more rudimentary kind.
So, I'm arguing that if one says "lackadaisical" in one's everyday speech, then when one's brain goes for that word under pressure, it will likely come out correctly.

Jay Bilas was a litigator before he was a basketball commentator. An indispensible part of his job was to execute skillful use of the language. He's spent a lot of years filling his up his well, and now when he needs to dip into it, he can do so without fear of a nuculur mess-up, or misunderestimating his on-air partner's ability to cover for him.

My claim, then, is that the announcers that make the mistakes of the sort you've been picking apart in this thread are people that generally don't care that much about good grammar, syntax, or diction; because if they did, they would practice it all the time. This is why I get so frustrated with students who get upset with me when I make language corrections in math classes. "This isn't English class; I shouldn't have to worry about that here."

So in case anybody needed a proof for the old saw about perfect practice making perfect, here it is.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by jbduke
Juulie,

I very much appreciate your comments in this thread. I, too, have a great deal of respect for language, and sometimes, just for fun, I like to play armchair linguist. I have a theory (maybe half-baked) about mistakes in language like saying 'laxadaisical,' and it seems to square reasonably well with some of what you've been arguing.

Essentially, my theory is that language is like sport: you play like you practice. By this, I mean that if one practices good fundamentals of language, then mistakes made under pressure--like, say, speaking before millions of people a la Packer, Raftery, Bilas, Bonner, et al--will be those resulting from trying to do "too much." Specifically, I'm saying that the fundamentals like word pronunciation and enunciation will be there for a person in just the way he or she has prepared for them to be. If one has made a habit of good speech, then even if one gets into trouble by trying to execute an overly complicated sentence structure, the errors should be of a syntactic or grammatical nature rather than of a more rudimentary kind.
So, I'm arguing that if one says "lackadaisical" in one's everyday speech, then when one's brain goes for that word under pressure, it will likely come out correctly.

Jay Bilas was a litigator before he was a basketball commentator. An indispensible part of his job was to execute skillful use of the language. He's spent a lot of years filling his up his well, and now when he needs to dip into it, he can do so without fear of a nuculur mess-up, or misunderestimating his on-air partner's ability to cover for him.

My claim, then, is that the announcers that make the mistakes of the sort you've been picking apart in this thread are people that generally don't care that much about good grammar, syntax, or diction; because if they did, they would practice it all the time. This is why I get so frustrated with students who get upset with me when I make language corrections in math classes. "This isn't English class; I shouldn't have to worry about that here."

So in case anybody needed a proof for the old saw about perfect practice making perfect, here it is.

I think you are absolutely right. The other thing I sense from your post is that you try not to judge people based on their use of language. I think that's where a distinction needs to be made. Bad use of language isn't immoral and doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on someone's character, and I don't think everyone NEEDS to use proper language all the time. I get annoyed with some of hte slang and (basically) patois that people use, but it's not an indication of what low-lifes they are.

My concern, as I've pointed out in this thread, is that a professional with a huge salary and national standing who is using language for a living should certainly do better than Packer does. His is one case where it speaks (!) to the character, showing that Packer is lazy, arrogant and conceited. He has the chance to make the world a better place, and he chooses instead to make it worse. In other words, he's a low-life, who prefers to wallow in his filth, and tries to convince others to do the same.

Yea, that's judgment, and it's based on language, which I just got done saying I don't think is good. In Packer's case, as in other similar situations, I think judgment is appropriate. He SHOULD be paying attention to his language, and he SHOULD be using English properly. My next-door neighbor would probably have an easier time getting his hot-water fixed if his English were more standard, but there's no "SHOULD" to his case. Judgment doesn't apply to him, like so many of us on the baord, or most people in the world.