Interesting story- NCAA Womens Officials

[Jurassic Referee]

Kind of a different take in this story:

http://msn.foxsports.com/wcbk/story/5516628#

[chayce]

This is one of those articles that has a lot of truth in it but also some misinformation. Just some thoughts:

* There is a lot of competition on the women's side. If you don't believe it, just go to a couple of D1 camps.

* Officials on the top of the men's side will not do women's games. Can you say E - G - O?

* One pool of officials in a given conference will mean officials will have to learn and remember two sets of rules and mechanics.

* Until coverage areas are the same, rules are the same, and mechanics are the same, it will be a challenge to get crews on the same page.

[Texas Aggie]

The first problem with this drivel is that he doesn't support his contention that the officiating in the women's game sucks. No evidence or even examples. Just his conclusion.

Then, he asserts that the only reason women are even playing sports is because of Title 9. That suggests he doesn't think that, without the government's help, women wouldn't be capable of organizing and playing on their own. That contridicts his idea that women can and in fact do good work officiating (or playing).

To top that off, he wants the officials that, in his words, suck, to be calling the men's game as well, guessing that they won't suck if they call men's. He wants Ed Hightower, Ted Valentine, and Tim Higgins to work a primo women's game, yet, he'll scream like hell that Dee Kantner isn't working that game instead of one of the men. But I thought Dee Kantner sucked, since she's already working women's.

There's so many inconsistencies here, I got lost.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chayce

This is one of those articles that has a lot of truth in it but also some misinformation. Just some thoughts:

* There is a lot of competition on the women's side. If you don't believe it, just go to a couple of D1 camps.

I know women that are in were in their second year of officiating and have a full JUCO and D3 schedule. I know guys that have been working 10 years and cannot get a single college game on the Men's side. I do not think the issue is competition as it relates how many people are at camps. The issue is who is getting hired and why they are getting hired. It does not bother me one bit that a women official can get a D1 schedule early, but to compare her experience to a D1 Men's officials as comparable is not being very realistic.

Originally Posted by chayce

* Officials on the top of the men's side will not do women's games. Can you say E - G - O?

Ego has to do with a preference? So if I like shrimp and you like steak, it is my ego that is not allowing me to like steak?

Peace

[Dribble]

I agree with JRut...I think many women are (rightly or wrongly) pushed a lot faster than their male counterparts. A strong woman can get a women's college schedule A LOT easier than a comparable man. I've heard many women's supervisors say that they look forward to a time when it's only women reffing the women's game and vice versa. Thus, I can only conclude that some may be being put into a situation that they're not ready for.

[JugglingReferee]

Yes, it is very interesting, JR. Reminds me of the movie called Disclosure. Donald Sutherland is bent on hiring the best woman for a high-level job. When that woman fails, Donald realizes that he should have hired the best person for the job; turns out that person was female.

Originally Posted by Clay Kallam

It certainly would make sense to have female supervisors rating the refs, however, to make sure the old-boy bias doesn't unfairly discriminate against women with whistles.

Can't say that I agree to this. Why would we focus on hiring the best officials, rather than the best female officials, and not use the same process for hiring the best supervisors? Being the best supervisor includes the ability to recognize the best officials rather than the best male officials.

Originally Posted by Clay Kallam

...this would be my prediction about the officiating: In five years, there would be fewer women doing DI games, but they would be doing both men's and women's games with similar results.

I agree with this. I think that there are more female officials doing Dx games that are not as skilled as male officials not currently doing Dx games that could and would do Dx games than there are male officials doing Dx games that are not ask skilled as female officials not currently doing Dx games that could and would do Dx games. Therefore, unfortunately, there would be a higher percentage of male officials.

Originally Posted by Clay Kallam

Will this ever happen, either in the colleges or WNBA?

I agree and I agree with his reasons. It is unfortunate, however.

Originally Posted by Clay Kallam

If an official is good enough to do a women's game, she should be good enough to do a men's game; if she isn't, then she shouldn't do either.

I do not agree here. I have seen female officials keep up with female athletes but not with male athletes at the same level. I have also seen the same of male officials.

The twist is in a societal perception that women can acheive anything. Naturally, I support this, and seeing women as officials is a good thing. We need more women involved so that we can develop better female officials. Maybe this is more of a recruiting issue.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The first problem with this drivel is that he doesn't support his contention that the officiating in the women's game sucks. No evidence or even examples. Just his conclusion.

One might say he's asking for us to assume that conclusion, even if he didn't say it. Once we do that, he can then focus the article on that issue. To have to supply stats about why women's officiating sucks would be boring to most readers. Besides, in the end, it is just his opinion. He also did say that the officiating on the men's side sucks as well.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Then, he asserts that the only reason women are even playing sports is because of Title 9. That suggests he doesn't think that, without the government's help, women wouldn't be capable of organizing and playing on their own. That contridicts his idea that women can and in fact do good work officiating (or playing).

I don't know what Title 9 says, but take a quick poll amongst yourself, family, and friends. If in that poll women's athletics are watched more than men's athletics, I bet that group's viewing statistics are in the minority. People in general watch male athletics more than female athletics. I think this is consistent whether or not T9 was in place. I don't see the contradiction you mention.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

To top that off, he wants the officials that, in his words, suck, to be calling the men's game as well, guessing that they won't suck if they call men's.

Are you not assuming that the ability required for any men's game is higher than all women's games. If so, is this true? I dunno.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

He wants Ed Hightower, Ted Valentine, and Tim Higgins to work a primo women's game, yet, he'll scream like hell that Dee Kantner isn't working that game instead of one of the men. But I thought Dee Kantner sucked, since she's already working women's.

I think you are stretching here.

[TerpZebra]

As a young (27 y/o) male who works NCAA Women's, I'd like to add my $0.02.

If you think it's only women who advance higher in women's basketball, you are sadly mistaken. Take Eric Brewton. He has been ref'ing D-I basketball for 6 years, and recently refereed the Final Four. Most importantly, he did a darn good job of it!

NCAA women's basketball puts the best officials on the court, regardless of sex or age. If you can referee, you will advance.

A male friend of mine was picked up last year in the ACC after only 1 year in a small D-I conference.

Also, any notion that those female referees who are at the top can't referee is completely bogus. Just about every D-I woman I have worked with, puts my skills to shame. I actually contend that they have to work harder than the men, because of the perception that women might not be able to referee.

I thought the overall point of the original article was a little ridiculous, mainly because it is 2 completely different games being played. Not only are there different rules and different court coverage; men and women play different styles of basketball. Some contact in the men's game which is not a foul, would be a foul in the women's game. It is hard to make that transition every night.

[Dan_ref]

Hold on here guys. Here's the introduction to his article, there is not 1 single thing that I do not agree with.

Note he does NOT say title ix is the only reason women play sports - he says if not for title ix sports men would still have a stranglehold on scholastic sports. Note he does NOT say that women officials are not as good as men officials - he says the best women are as good as the best men, only difference is there are many many more men officials to go around and that means there are many more at the highest levels. If you believe that (and I do) then his solution IS obvious: spread the best equally between the woman's game & the men's game. Whether that will happen or not is an entirely different discussion. I happen to believe it will be a looooong time before that happens, if ever.



If not for the prodding of feminists, Title IX would never have been applied so broadly, and women's sports as we know it today simply would not exist. Without the kick in the butt from the feminist movement, girls probably still would be playing the six-person version of the game, and boys and men would have continued their stranglehold on the pleasures and benefits of athletics.

At the same time, though, the feminists pushed hard for the use of female officials - but settled, sadly, for having women referees only for girls' and women's games. (Yes, Violet Palmer is still in the NBA, but more on that later ...) Partially, this is because there aren't that many female officials, and partially it is because of a continued male bias against females in sports.

So the system that has developed at the college and professional levels is bifurcated: There's one group of officials for women's games, and another for men's. (In high school, there may be one association assigning games for both genders, but some refs don't get the call for boys' varsity games, and (surprise, surprise) those refs are often female. They might be good enough to get assigned to a girls' varsity game, but when the boys play, they're nowhere to be found.) The group doing women's games contains women's officials; the group doing men's games do not.

Now for a brief aside: Because there are many fewer female officials than male officials, and because there is a very real push to get as many women as possible doing college games, female refs are promoted quickly. The result is that a woman doing a Big 10 game, say, has much less experience than a male counterpart doing a men's Big 10 game, and also has much less competition to get the gig. In other words, she doesn't have to be as good, relatively speaking, as a comparable ref on the male side, and she doesn't have nearly as much on-court time.

Does this mean female officials aren't qualified? Of course not. The best female officials are just as good as the best male officials - there just aren't as many of them, and they are spread very thin in the women's game. And when those elite officials aren't working games, the female replacements aren't as experienced as similar male replacements on the other side of the game.

The solution? Simple, and a logical extension of the feminist movement in athletics that has proven so successful up to this point: Combine officiating associations at the collegiate and professional level.

[rockyroad]

Interesting article...on one hand, I agree with some of his points. For anyone to say that men have an equal chance of "moving up" the D1 ladder as a woman does is naive. I've been there - and been told flat out "You are better than them, BUT..." . I have watched assignors hire female officials with one-tenth (or less) the experience of myself and others, and tell us "I have my reasons". Are there great female officials - absolutely! Are there great male officials working the Women's game - absolutely! Are there officials who don't belong at that level - absolutely! (On both the Men's and Women's side, btw).

On the other hand, it's pretty silly to say we should have the same pool of officials doing both sides...the games are different. Yes the men's game is faster, played above the rim, etc, etc...but in a lot of ways, it's easier to officiate. Physically it may be more demanding (altho reffing a good Women's game where the score is in the upper 90's for both teams is exhausting), but mentally it's not. I have had to "fill-in" for officials (granted, this was D-2 and D-3) in men's games, and the game was much easier to officiate - the fouls were way more obvious, the advantages gained were way more obvious, etc...on the other hand, I had a d-1 men's official have to work a Women's d-2 game with me several years back ( he works Pac-10. West Coast, and Big Sky) and his comment afterward was "That was the hardest game I've reffed in years. You have to make a decision on every single play." The games are just different...

[M&M Guy]

Hmm, I thought it was a well-thought out article that had a number of good points.

First point - he didn't come right out and say the officiating sucks. If you read the first sentance, he says that is what everyone else is saying. And, that is what everyone else says on the men's side as well. I don't think anyone here can argue the fact that's the perception, right or wrong. Calls are scrutinized much more now than they were even 10 years ago, and the bad calls are magnified due to increased TV coverage, slow-mo instant replay, etc. He also mentiones the rhetoric is more heated on the women's side. I don't think anyone can dispute that either.

Second, Title IX exists not because women don't know how to organize and play sports, but because schools were operating as businesses and not paying for and providing those sports. If I have a product that brings in thousands, and in some cases, millions of dollars (i.e. men's basketball and football), I would do everything possible to keep that revenue stream. While on the other hand, if I have a product that costs money to produce and sell (women's lacrosse, swimming and diving), I would probably drop those products. Title IX tells the schools they need to provide the same opportunities for men and women regardless of the cost or income involved. My business sense doesn't agree with Titile IX, but my sense of fair play does. Clay's comment is the feminists didn't go far enough in supporting and promoting Title IX when it comes to female officials. The game needs more female officials; it's just that when they are found they are promoted quicker (and therefore less experienced than the equivalent men's official), and they are limited to only working on the women's game. If they are a good enough official, why can't they work the men's games as well? And, conversely, if the men's officials are good enough to work, why aren't they good enough to work women's games? That's what Clay says:

Will this ever happen, either in the colleges or WNBA? No, because, on the men's side, the sexism of the coaches and athletic directors would derail it early on; and no, because on the women's side, female officials have it too good right now, and so do their supervisors, so there's no way they would want to give up what they have in order to advance the cause of the sport as a whole.

But it is important to remember that there is a way to improve the quality of officiating in women's basketball, and all it takes is eliminating the bias in favor of female refs on the women's side of the sport. If an official is good enough to do a women's game, she should be good enough to do a men's game; if she isn't, then she shouldn't do either.

The players and coaches deserve no less than that, and neither does the sport.

It was a good article, and promoted a novel idea. Will it happen? Probably not. Is it worth considering? Probably so.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by TerpZebra

As a young (27 y/o) male who works NCAA Women's, I'd like to add my $0.02.

If you think it's only women who advance higher in women's basketball, you are sadly mistaken. Take Eric Brewton. He has been ref'ing D-I basketball for 6 years, and recently refereed the Final Four. Most importantly, he did a darn good job of it!

I think you need to go back and read what was said or what others said. No one said that male officials cannot advance in women's basketball. I know I did not say that. What I said it was easier for female officials to advance much quicker in the women's game as compared to officials trying to advance in the men's game. I am not at all disputing the fact male officials working women's basketball cannot advance very fast at all. Either way there is example after example after example of officials on the women's side getting hired in a much less period of time than on the men's side. For one the women's side of basketball has one or two assignors for an entire region of D1 conferences. Where I live there is only one person that assigns any D1 conference you can think of in our area. If I wanted to work in the Big Ten, Conference USA, Mid-Con, MVC and the MAC, I am going to have to attend different camps and be seen by each assignor to get hired in each of these conferences on the Men's side. If I want to do the same thing on the women's side, I can attend one camp and I will be seen by the only person that assigns all these conferences. It is just not the same process or the same expectations.

Peace

[Snake~eyes]

First off, I don't think working women's game has to do with ego for most people. I enjoy the men's game better. I like watching it better and I like officiating better, has nothing to do with ego.

I stopped reading this article when talked about merging men's/women's officials. That's just stupid.

[SMEngmann]

Originally Posted by Snake~eyes

First off, I don't think working women's game has to do with ego for most people. I enjoy the men's game better. I like watching it better and I like officiating better, has nothing to do with ego.

I stopped reading this article when talked about merging men's/women's officials. That's just stupid.

Hear hear. I agree, I simply enjoy the men's game a lot more than the women's game, and I think merging the officials is a bad idea. The games are too different. I personally feel I can officiate a much better men's game than a women's game and I can relate better to the coaches and players on the men's side.

In terms of advancement of female officials, I think it is clear that there's a fast track in the women's game, and that advancement generally in women's basketball is easier simply because the pool of applicants is smaller and access to assignors is easier as JRut adeptly pointed out.

One thing that is lost here is that there are no structural limitations preventing female officials from pursuing opportunities in the men's game, if a woman wanted to work college men's, she can attend all the camps, be seen and try to get hired. Of course the climb would be uphill and given the fast-track in the woman's game, it's easy to see why there are no women in the men's game. Of course, this is the week when Violet Palmer has broken into the NBA playoffs as well, so good luck to her and it's clear that some women can officiate at the highest levels of the game. Period.