Jim Burr

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by biz

Look, obviously Welmer is a very good official or he wouldn't get all the assignments that he gets in major Div I college hoops. That being said you cannot compare Welmer to Jim Burr because of one very simple stat....

Final Fours officiated: Jim Burr -- 15
Steve Welmer -- 0

Final Fours separate the very good from the great and the Welmer's from the Burr's

Biz, thanks for the statistic. I can agree with your assesment. I would like to repeat: contrary to what some believe, this is about officiating and nothing personal.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There are no perfect officials.

I can't believe you said that. So when we are talking about senior DI officials, all of a sudden no official is perfect. Hmmm!! I'm beginging to believe there must be something in the Kool-Aid.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by blindmanwalking

I'm not missing anything in my analogy. If these are the most athletic players in the world they shouldn't have much trouble following the rules.

Ahhh, not so fast. These young, high energy, individuals are still humans, factor in the huge amount of money on the table, and sometimes emotions and character run a little out of control. Following the rules is not a problem, respecting the rules and the authority figures around it is a different story.

Again, that's likely how NBA officials are told to call the game, I just don't like it. My preference. I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to the game.

I feel you on this, I like the college men's game the best.

I take it you have officiated in the NBA?

I wish!

[KingTripleJump]

I really like Welmer. I see him at UT games all the time.

But I do wonder why I've never seen him ref past the 2nd round in the tournament.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Old School

Watching the game tape afterwards. This is what the officials do in the NBA and I do believe they make more money. If these guys are working every game they can possibly get, they don't have time to review the game before. In the NBA, reviewing the game tape afterwards is apart of their normal routine.

I agree, these guys don't get very many plays right but they are excellent at managing the game and the big ego's. Isn't that what it comes down to, who manages the game the best? This has nothing to do with how good you are. As far as IBM is concerned, you're right, but IBM is no longer the big dog either and the reason why is, they refused to change.

Congrats btaylor64, old school agrees with you. That should tell you something about your opinion is.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Biz, thanks for the statistic. I can agree with your assesment. I would like to repeat: contrary to what some believe, this is about officiating and nothing personal.

That's a major problem for a great number of officials: being able to separate off the court from on the court. A lot of people view critique of officiating performance as a personal attack. It would be interesting to see how officials would be rated if it was only by their partners. I think most officials would struggle to give honest ratings of people they work with all the time.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by socalreff

That's a major problem for a great number of officials:

But not for officials who are truly trying to improve and move to another level. That's why we go to camp, to be critiqued; to be criticized. I agree that many officials don't want to hear an honest critique; but I would suggest that the vast majority of those people are not working to improve their officiating. I see very few people at camp who refuse to accept an honest critique.

It would be interesting to see how officials would be rated if it was only by their partners. I think most officials would struggle to give honest ratings of people they work with all the time.

My college association has each member rate each of his/her partners over the entire season. It's done anonymously and I think pretty much everybody participates.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But not for officials who are truly trying to improve and move to another level. That's why we go to camp, to be critiqued; to be criticized. I agree that many officials don't want to hear an honest critique; but I would suggest that the vast majority of those people are not working to improve their officiating. I see very few people at camp who refuse to accept an honest critique.

As a group I believe officials are among the most open to criticism people on the planet. But having to take a lot of criticism officials tend to block out the criticism that is not productive. Which is why people who generally offer non-productive criticism often think most officials do not accept ctiticism well.

But I really know very, very few officials who do not accept and welcome honest, productive criticism.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

As a group I believe officials are among the most open to criticism people on the planet. But having to take a lot of criticism officials tend to block out the criticism that is not productive. Which is why people who generally offer non-productive criticism often think most officials do not accept ctiticism well.

But I really know very, very few officials who do not accept and welcome honest, productive criticism.

Absolutely - the willingness to provide honest criticism is one of the traits I most appreciate about officials as a group. It's fabulous... even though you get the criticism delivered in all different sorts of ways/attitudes you still appreciate that something honest, important and helpful is being told directly to you!