Defending the announcers

[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.