What is an experienced ref?

[truerookie]

I just say go out have fun, officiate, and work hard. Others are going to put you in catagory they feel like. Does it really matter whether you are experienced or good aslong as you do the three aforementioned.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by truerookie
I just say go out have fun, officiate, and work hard. Others are going to put you in catagory they feel like. Does it really matter whether you are experienced or good aslong as you do the three aforementioned.

Actually, I think that it probably would help if you were good while you were having fun, working hard and officiating. It's better than the alternative anyway imo- being bad while you're having fun, working hard and officiating.

[ChrisSportsFan]

Originally posted by brainbrian
To be experienced means you can pick up the "flow" of the game and adjust your calls accordinly so that you're not blowing your whistle everytime and enforcing everything, but that you're able to keep games under control using other means than your whistle.

Just because you're experienced at one level doesn't mean you're experienced at all levels. There are some great high school and college refs that can come down and referee a third grade game so wisely and all the parents love him. And there are some that are experienced at the lower levels but not the upper levels and visa-versa. For example I've been told by people that I tend to "stay up" in how I officiate. I call a good high school or 7/8th grade game, but I try to apply the same rules for grade school kids and mess up their games.

O contrair Brian, I believe you might adjust your calls to mirror your partner(s) but the players have adjust to you. I we all did what you suggest, then a team could come out and handcheck all night and we'd have to adjust?

[tomegun]

Experienced versus good. I will have to give that one some thought. They are often used together but I can't think of someone being described as experienced that wasn't good.

I think there are experienced officials who are happy where they are so they can have sloppy mechanics. However, I think an official must have strong mechanics in order to move up in today's game. So the mechanics don't really make or break an "experienced" official.
At some point in time an official would have probably been physically capable to gain credibility. So an "experienced" official may or may not be able to run like a deer.
Rules knowledge is important but it isn't the end all be all to officiating bliss. I personally know of one example of this.
Communication, while important, will not hold someone back if they are just that good uh I mean "experienced." There are certain officials that have reached the top of college officiating while remaining less than approachable on the court.

I think an experienced official is like a Lexus, so many things working so well together. Thinking then reacting, reacting then thinking, new rules, applications of rules, go top-side, step down, illegal screen, #34 has four fouls, TV time out on the next dead ball, block, charge, chucking the cutter, double the line, accelerated rotation, team B is playing a zone, the shot clock didn't reset, let my partner get in the game, good crew call, answer the coach, warn the coach, T the coach or make the coach laugh, walk into the play, we're in the bonus, foot on the line, in the act of shooting, traveling, hold in the post, my partner is in the tank, get the shooter, secondary defender, team A is fouling, game over. Work of art.
Putting all of that together with a crew in sync takes experience. It seems like being a good official will go hand in hand with this also.

[brainbrian]

Originally posted by ChrisSportsFan
I[f] we all did what you suggest, then a team could come out and handcheck all night and we'd have to adjust?

Yes, we'd adjust from a game that contains no hand-checks right? What's your point?

You call the same game everytime? I call a slow three point shooting game different from a fast breaking crash the boards game, I'll be the first to tell you that. Am I the only one who adjusts my calls to the game?

P.S. At least I suppose I would like to think I do.

[Love this Game]

I like where this thread is going.

When i made my post i did not think abt experienced and good, they can mean two different thing.

There are a lot of officials that have a lot of experience but are not good official.

And there are good officials that do not have a lot of experienced.

So let me think abt that question and get back.

[FrankHtown]

Having the same experience for 1000 games, doesn't mean you have 1000 games experience. After each game, if you can't say "I could have done this better, or I could have done that better," you are just reliving the same experience. If you are not striving to improve, you are not gaining experience. If a clinician points out an error you made, and your feeling is "What does he know" you are not gaining experience. You will just have the same experiences over and over.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by FrankHtown
Having the same experience for 1000 games, doesn't mean you have 1000 games experience. After each game, if you can't say "I could have done this better, or I could have done that better," you are just reliving the same experience. If you are not striving to improve, you are not gaining experience. If a clinician points out an error you made, and your feeling is "What does he know" you are not gaining experience. You will just have the same experiences over and over.

I don't agree with a lot of this. Sometimes, unfortunately, evaluators don't know what they are talking about. I think you will always have something you could do better the next game. When I have the perfect game I'm going to quit and I don't think I'm going to be quitting any time soon. I also don't think striving to improve relates to gaining experience. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. Can you explain further?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by tomegun

I think you will always have something you could do better the next game. When I have the perfect game I'm going to quit and I don't think I'm going to be quitting any time soon. I also don't think striving to improve relates to gaining experience.

If I'm reading this correctly, both you guys are pretty much basically saying the same thing. Fwiw I agree with both of you too.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by tomegun

I don't agree with a lot of this. Sometimes, unfortunately, evaluators don't know what they are talking about. I think you will always have something you could do better the next game. When I have the perfect game I'm going to quit and I don't think I'm going to be quitting any time soon. I also don't think striving to improve relates to gaining experience. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. Can you explain further?

I agree with FrankHtown. I think what he's trying to say (and I always seem to get in trouble when I do this, but here goes anyway), there are people that get to a level and stay there, no matter how many games they do. They don't want to get better; maybe they think they've done their 1,000 games and now they're "experienced". I might be closer to 1,500 games, and I'm still looking for input from other officials, clinicians at camps, supervisors, etc. Part of becoming more experienced is learning what information to use and what to discard. We've all had the situation at camps where one clinician tells you one thing, and you go to the next court the other clinician will tell you the opposite. Experience teaches you to just nod and say "Ok", rather than saying "But, so-and-so told me..."

I don't think the number of games alone determines experience, as much as what you do with the knowledge gained. So, I would think striving to improve, along with applying that knowledge, makes you a more experienced official. That's how someone with 500 games might be a more experienced official than someone with 1,500 games. Also, I think "experienced" and "good", might be two slightly different concepts, but I think they are related.

[tomegun]

OK, I'm understanding a little better now. Maybe it was just too early.

I think experienced and good go together when you are talking about the positive qualities of an official. On the other hand, if an official has been doing games for 15 years and isn't very good I think you would only use "experienced" with a smirk on your face.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
If I'm reading this correctly, both you guys are pretty much basically saying the same thing. Fwiw I agree with both of you too.

Feeling a little less curmudgeonly today?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
[/B]

Feeling a little less curmudgeonly today?

[/B][/QUOTE]There is a fine line between curmudgeonly and insanity.

And I'm a-walking it today.

[JRutledge]

The bottom line to this entire discussion is this is our own opinion at play. I know of guys that have worked a very long time that I do not respect or never will respect as officials. I mainly feel that way because these officials do not keep up with the changes and hold on to things they did years ago. This will be my 10th year and every year something has changed and I had to adjust. If I ever get to the point that I cannot improve, I will need to stop working games.

I have also been to camps and had clinicians there I did not respect as well. This usually happens at the high school level and guys who are telling you things based solely on their individual knowledge, not what is advocated by anyone but them. This discussion is not much different than the one we had several years ago about the rules knowledge vs. presence debate. Some people are always going to believe that working a certain amount of games are key and others will think that working a certain amount of years makes the difference (or whatever issues you might have within this topic). Experience from my point of view can only take you so far. You have to have some talent to go along with that experience. Some of the best officials in this country do not have a lot of experience before they were picked up at the highest of levels. Michael Jordan was a very good player at a very young age at his career. Just look at LeBron James as well. These players just get it. There are other players that had similar experiences and did not understand the game or their role ever. Experience is one thing, but you have to be good as well.

Peace

[Goose]

I look at it this way.

Many people in the trades, let's say contractor-builder for example, are experienced, but that does not make them necessarily good. Anyone that has contracted or bought a new house can validate that all builders, even with the same experience are not equal, i.e. good.

One can be experienced, but not good, whereas, you cannot be good without being experienced.

Now, I don't care how "good" someone thinks they are with only a few years under their belt. It takes time AND experience to become good. Officiating is like many other professions where experience is needed. The more you work, the more you see and experience. A younger official might be good (good mechanics, good movement) but what is missing are the years of experience. They can't possibly have seen as much as the more experienced, and that IMO is the missing ingredient.

Like I said, you can be experienced and not be good, but you cannot be good and not experienced.

goose