When "talking heads" are harshly criticized on the forum, you think:

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I don't have a problem with critiquing (is that spelled correctly?) another officials call or calls - I think we all do that on a fairly regular basis in our own games with our partners (and they to us) and when watching other officials work...what I have a problem with is when someone makes blanket statements such as "That guy is horrible. He shouldn't be doing xyz level of ball", or "I can't stand xyz official - he never gets anything right." What really pisses me off is when someone who isn't at that particular level trashes others who are without any knowledge of what that league/conference has told their officials to do...asking questions about calls or wanting to discuss/argue calls is a fantastic way to learn and improve - bashing peers is nothing but a sad attempt to make oneself look better at someone else's expense - I detest that...

OK. I really want to get this spelled out and I'm not trying to be anything other than genuine.
My next question would be to find out what you would consider bashing an official. All officials are not created equal regardless of what level they work. So if someone is not as good - across the board - as someone else I don't see what is wrong with pointing that out. Additionally, if someone isn't at that officials level, would you also throw out their positive opinion about an official? Again, not being a wise A$$, just asking questions.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I don't have a problem with critiquing (is that spelled correctly?)

onelook.com says yes!
http://onelook.com/?w=critiquing&ls=a

...my kids are too lazy to use a dictionary, and now I generally am, too!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I don't have a problem with critiquing (is that spelled correctly?) another officials call or calls - I think we all do that on a fairly regular basis in our own games with our partners (and they to us) and when watching other officials work...what I have a problem with is when someone makes blanket statements such as "That guy is horrible. He shouldn't be doing xyz level of ball", or "I can't stand xyz official - he never gets anything right." What really pisses me off is when someone who isn't at that particular level trashes others who are without any knowledge of what that league/conference has told their officials to do...asking questions about calls or wanting to discuss/argue calls is a fantastic way to learn and improve - bashing peers is nothing but a sad attempt to make oneself look better at someone else's expense - I detest that...

I concur! And it is not limited to just one place. Anywhere, at anytime, it is wrong! Good discusion....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I have a serious question concerning criticizing officials' calls. Is it most people's (who are members here) belief that we shouldn't criticize a fellow official amongst ourselves on this forum? I asked that because I have seen people called some pretty low names for questioning an official's call. I know they are good, but that doesn't mean that just because they do something they are automatically right. I know everybody doesn't think they are always right, but there have been times where it seems that is the case.

Well, everybody has the right to criticize anyone else here. And anyone else here has the right to respond. And the moderators have the right to decide what criticisms and responses stay and what go.

And so it is written, and so it shall be.

I don't think that it's about criticizing any official's single call. We understand that there isn't an official anywhere at any level that won't blow a call every now and then. It's more about the posters that are doing nothing but questioning an official's integrity or fairness, or are simply just denigrating another official by intimating that official lacks the balls to make big calls, for instance.

Well, if they are questioning an official's integrity or simply just deriding that particular official, then fair is fair imo. They'd better be prepared to get the same back. I can think of one regular poster here, for instance, that is on a constant campaign to denigrate a fine D1 official, for some reason or other known only to himself. He's almost fanatical about it.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by tomegun

The only people who would care to hear an official announce a game are probably other officials or that officials family.

I beg to differ. I think a lot of fans would welcome hearing the exact rule code we are bound by at that point in time in a game. I also think your view of an official commentating a game is limited. The official doesn't have to limit his talk to just the official or the rules of the game. Anything or any topic within the sport is fair game. Maybe it's a rule that we are not allowed to talk publicly about the sport we officiate, however, a coach can be a commentator, a player can be a commentator and not have to worry about crossing any line of impropriety. Why can't an official? I bet there are some personalities out there that would be great commentators. I mean, we follow the players just like everybody else. We follow the coaches, we follow the game. I think the right person could do a great job and even create a 2nd career for us to get into once our days of running are done. Thinking outside the box.

I bet the real reason officials don't make commentators is because of us. We are too uptight as a group, we have to be right, and this pressure from within would force the official turn commentator to shut it down, imho.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It doesn't take a qualified anoouncer to recognize they their lack of rules knowledge. Criticizing their bashing of officials and lack of rule knowledge has nothing to do with their ability to call play-by-play or add color to the game.

Further, while some don't like Pecker and Vitale, they does not necessarily mean they do a bad job calling the game. That's more of a personality dislike.

IOW, you've totally missed this point.

While it is clear that many announcers do not have a thorough knowledge of officiating practices and the rule books, the criticisms posted here have not been limited to their rules knowledge. Saying someone was wrong about a rule is not the same as saying he's a jerk or should be fired.

Check out the recent Billy Packer thread, "Sick of Billy Packer?" and read some of the responses and suggestions.

I would guess that rules questions probably take up no more than 5-10% of the announcer's time on the broadcast, but seem to be the major criteria in this forum to determine whether an announcer is good or not.

Maybe he has a high Q rating or great timing or can remember old stories that illustrate the continuity of the game's history?

BTW, I'm not a Billy Packer fan by any means, he's just the easiest target to find in a search.

[rockyroad]

The problem I have with Packer and Raftery is that they try to pass themselves off as "experts" on the rules and officiating...which they obviously aren't. But they - especially Packer - feel free to comment on the officiating and pass judgement on wheteh it was a "good" call or a "bad" call, even to the point of throwing in officiating phrases they have picked up, like "he was out of position" and others...when they start trying to pass themselves off as experts, they open themselves up to criticism from some - for others (like me) the mute button on the remote is the perfect cure...

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Check out the recent Billy Packer thread, "Sick of Billy Packer?" and read some of the responses and suggestions.

As a relative newcomer to the forum, it has stood out to me over the past year that harsh criticisms of someone like Packer seem devoid of an understand that "we are in a glass house" criticizing 'Packer and the like' unless we have some big-time broadcasting experience. I would think the "talking heads" would be treated with a bit more ambivalence by officials - we overlook ignorance everytime we step on the court, so why should we let their ignorance be so inciteful?

Of course, from a rules-based point of view it is amazing that the networks do not see the value of ensuring that sound advice about the rules is not immediately at hand!?! Most of the berating on this forum, though, seems therapeutic without much chance of actually affecting a change; in fact, an outside observer reading the criticisms posted here would most likely think it is best to avoid having the thin-skinned volatility of an official near the broadcast! No one yet seems to admit that the venting is therapeutic, so the venom that gets posted is real?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

. I would think the "talking heads" would be treated with a bit more ambivalence by officials - we overlook ignorance everytime we step on the court, so why should we let their ignorance be so inciteful?

That's easy to answer.

These characters are paid thousands and thousands of dollars to provide play by play and color commentary. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to study the rules and gain a better understanding of how to apply them. Billy Packer has been broadcasting games for over 35 years. At some point, you would have thought that he would have purchased a damn rule book. But I'd bet a game fee he doesn't own one.

Further, they pass on their ignorance to millions of viewers, making the job of every official more difficult. We don't face people with that type of power "everytime we step on the court."

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

While it is clear that many announcers do not have a thorough knowledge of officiating practices and the rule books, the criticisms posted here have not been limited to their rules knowledge. Saying someone was wrong about a rule is not the same as saying he's a jerk or should be fired.

I'm not a morning radio talk show host but I have an opinion on Don Imus and his statements from last week. It has nothing to do with how well he performs his job on a day to day basis.

Check out the recent Billy Packer thread, "Sick of Billy Packer?" and read some of the responses and suggestions.

And again, most of those are based on his inability to properly analyze rule situations and posters personal dislike for him. I don't see anyone saying, "He walked on Nantz as he was trying to make a point during the Georgetown timeout," or "Packer doesn;t have a strong enough voice for color commentary." Those would be criticisms of how he does his job as a broadcaster.

I would guess that rules questions probably take up no more than 5-10% of the announcer's time on the broadcast, but seem to be the major criteria in this forum to determine whether an announcer is good or not.

No, it's a major criteria in determining whether he knows the rules of the game or not. How can one truly discuss a play intellitgently if he doesn't know the rules that govenr the situation.

Maybe he has a high Q rating or great timing or can remember old stories that illustrate the continuity of the game's history?

Perhaps he can. But that doesn't have anything to do with the issue above.

BTW, I'm not a Billy Packer fan by any means, he's just the easiest target to find in a search.

Perhpas that's becuase he is presently one of the most prolific kicker of the rules.

[Adam]

If a news caster gets on TV and starts spewing incorrect nonsense regarding certain laws, you can bet lawyers, police, judges, etc. are going to criticize this particular newscaster. When media personalities start making statements that are factually incorrect, they invite criticism.
If I, as an official, were to take a moment in the middle of a game and offer financial advice to one of the coaches based on my limited tax experiences as an official, an accountant could legitimately call me onto the carpet.