There are some people to whom's opinion we should consider.

If they're proven to be successful in their field, perhaps using transferability of skills, they'll be successful in other areas, even those with not as much experience as others with more focused training.

Take Mark Cuban. He's a smart guy. How do we view his take on officiating?

What do you think of this article?

http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/6314322554475298/

Edit: what happened to the thread where johnny2325 (or whatever) asked a math question, to which the answer is 70?

[Edited by JugglingReferee on Mar 27th, 2005 at 07:01 PM]

I think Cuban raises some legitimate points, but many come out of a lack of understanding of the job of an official. Cuban argues that if the game were called completely by the book that there'd be less controversy. Of course, as judging by his use of "over the back" he and the majority of the fans don't know the rules which is why they have to contextualize calls that they don't quite understand. Also, Cuban's illustrations about giving a team that was fouled the ball OOB rather than calling the foul are oversimplified.

Because he's smart in some areas, we should give credence to his very uninformed view of officiating? That's like looking to Shirley McClaine for spiritual advice, or to Richard Feynman for marriage counselling. They are both brilliant in their areas, but definitely not so wise in other things. Cuban has his strengths, sure, but I'm not sure evaluating officials is one of them.

I think if I started talking about his business and what he does not know, he would have every right to question my knowledge of his business. Cuban just thinks he understands things he obviously does not. He seems like a nice guy and I did meet him one time at a party in Dallas, but he is just as unformed as most outsiders are.

My contention is that coaches and players do not really want us to use the letter of the rules. How many times when an official makes a call and they officials are accused of making the game about them? They want the rules called to the letter when it benefits them. When it hurts them, they claim we do not know our job. If that was the case any debate from a coach about a judgment call would be a technical foul. I know that would not go over well.

Peace

Someone needs to get Mr. Cuban a copy of Earl Strom's book.

Earl's opinion was that "The fans are there for Sports entertainment not to watch a parade to the free throw line."

NBA officials are incredible if one just considers the speed of the game and the size and abilities of the athletes involved.

Besides Shaq is gonna miss that free throw anyway - right?

I've read Earl's book a couple times and for the most part, I liked it. But if the game calls for a parade to the FT line, then you better darn well call those fouls; or you'll end up with something a lot worse than a parade.

Art McDonald (assignor for the D2 CACC) told us at camp to call fouls at the end of the game. Not make them up, but call what's there. Don't hold off the whistle to let the players decide. Call the disadvantage and let them have their shot to win the game from the line.

Just offering another angle.

Cuban is a businessman. He is incompetent in other areas like reality shows (his was one of the worst ever) and in evaluating officials.

He is biased towards his team like any other "fan." (He's an owner AND a fan). He has no clue about officiating.

Z

Chuck,

How would you have called the last shot in the UK/MSU game? Foul?

This is the best part. At the bottom of the page is the following

Reader Comments
This entry is not accepting comments.


If he had any balls, he would let people comment.

Just throw some words out there and then go hide. Nice.

Forward this thread to TubbyRules ;)
 

I encourage any referee here to work their next game using the "a foul is a foul" principal. I will then take comments from the players, coaches, and fans that attended the game as to how they liked the game called. The only comment a referee will have to anyone who complains is that a foul is a foul, or I call it by the book.

The book, by the way, even states that referees should evaluate contact and then make a call if one is required. Cuban should put on some stripes and give it a try. Of course he must start with 5th grade girls games ;)

[Edited by icallfouls on Mar 28th, 2005 at 03:05 PM]

If you realy wanted to speak to Feynman about your marriage you would need someone like McClaine to contact his spirit.

My take on Cuban: he's a rich powerful guy used to getting his way. As an owner he's entitled to his opinion & he's even more entitled to try & move the game in a direction he wants to see it go, and he certainly does seem obsessed with the officiating. But it doesn't look like he's getting much support for his ideas from the other owners and the league. IMO that was a very interesting article and he does make some very good points...although the only people I hear saying how difficult Shaq is to officiate are announcers and fans.

Somehow this reminds me of the MLB strike zone. It took MLB a long, long time to get their umpires to call the strike zone by the book, as opposed to the egg shaped zone all those umpire types were calling. When asked about it the umpires would just smile & say we do it the way we do it because we do it that way and players would never adjust and pitchers would never adjust and we know best. But now they've got these machines in MLB ballparks grading each & every pitch called based on the book strike zone.

I just have some comments:

If Mark Cuban or someone like him said we did a great job officiating games would we still say it doesn't matter because he doesn't know about officiating or would we lap it up like thirsty dogs?

I can't remember which one but I have heard a NBA official say it is difficult to officiate Shaq. Just think how many foul shots he would shoot a game if "a foul is a foul" or whatever.

Off topic slightly: How many wins would Roger Clemens have if he had Greg Maddux's strike zone? I would say at least 25 more. :D

I think the no-call was appropriate there. The defender was trying to back off, the contact seemed pretty minimal, and most importantly, it didn't disadvantage the shooter. The try was attempted without any displacement, or hindrance of the shooting motion; and the shooter landed cleanly.

So I agree with the officials' no-call there.

Ever heard of the /. effect?

Yea, good one! But my point stands. I admire the heck out of Richard Feynman, but he sure didn't "get" women. That's okay, but my point is, it's just not true that because someone is very good at one thing, he or she is very good at everything else.