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

I am interested in what the general feeling is among forum members towards the harsh comments directed at color commentators and such. Bashing these guys can appear to be widely accepted, but I wonder if the majority of members view "talking heads" with far less anomosity than it might appear?

It strikes me as disingenuous to knock those who are not qualified officials for complaining about officiating, then complain about play-by-play and color analysts, when none of us are qualified announcers.

It is helpful to point out mistakes made by announcers so that others may learn from this. I'm sure that a number of officials watching games learn incorrect rules based on what the announcers say. These are the officials that don't move up and don't care to open their rule book.

I do agree with Jimgolf that bashing a profession that is probably very difficult to work, is exactly what we would like them to stop doing. If I had to ramble on about everything and nothing during a 2 hour basketball game then I am sure that I would spew out a lot of nonsense.

My 2 Cents

Most criticisms about announcers are based on rules and mechanics knowledge. I think any criticism on this level is completely fair and justified. If you are going to talk to the general public at the very least make yourself knowledgeable about what you are talking about. I do not see criticism about other aspects of their job as it relates to the technical side of their job.

Peace

Yup. That's the way I see it.

I disagree. The officials who "learn incorrect ruels based on what the announcers say" are not likely to show up here to learn the correct rule.

imo, it's a wobw. (And, yes, I can, and do, just skip the threads)

Based on the comments so far, I believe we have to conclude that such a conclusion would be WRONG.

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. :D

Just an observation, how come we don't see more referee's commentating. We certainly see players become commentators, why not a hall of fame official? We are apart of the game and I for one would love to hear from an officials prospective live.

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

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.

Ironically, I worked with an official this weekend in Vegas who just went to the NCAA and NIT tournaments. He told the two of us it is all about getting a break. He said what he calls isn't any different from what we call. If what he says is true - which I think it is - officials at the D1 level can make mistakes just like everybody else. So what are the rules of engagement when talking about those mistakes? If someone comes on this forum and says they made a mistake is that a lot different than seeing an official make a mistake on national TV and learning from it?

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.

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.

Again, I see it as a difference between discussing calls and discussing the person...I don't care what level an official is at, if they want to discuss a call, I will discuss it with them...but the people who say "that guy's horrible. I hate the way he calls a game" really get no interest from me...

There's a difference.

You're not pointing it out. You're offering "your opinion" that he "is not good." Offering an opinion does not instantly create a "fact."

We can debate all debate long whether a rule was broken or not based on what the fact (rule) states. But offering an opinion in an incredibly negative manner crosses the line IMO.

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 <B>call</b>. 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.

1) The problem is that fanboys that come here do not have the experience or knowledge to point <b>anything</b> out. And officials who have never done a high school varsity game in their lives making blanket statements about individual D1 officials, or maybe even <b>all</b> D1 officials is kinda ludicrous too imo. Again, it's not criticizing any individual call; it's about simply dumping on an official, or group of officials, for no real reason.

2) I'd never throw out a <b>positive</b> opinion. I sureasheck question some of the <b>negative</b> opinions posted here though.

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! :D

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.

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...

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?

You and Steve Welmer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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."

I thought I made it clear from my earlier posts that I was not asking any of those questions to be smart; I really wanted to know what some people thought was appropriate.
I have also said in the past that I have heard nothing but good things about Welmer as a person - which is more important at the end of the day. I have no problem with an official being able to literally make their own schedule at the D1 level - that explains how he can fit so many games in. I have also never said anything about his calls being bad calls or not having the courage to make calls. Heck, I've never said anything about how he moves on the court because I think he moves better than many other officials. IMO, he doesn't make any calls that aren't obvious from the top row and therefore should be left out of any conversations when discussing the truely elite D1 officials. Someone named Hank, and those who's opinion he trusts, agrees with my opinion. I have also said Welmer is not my least favorite official.

I don't know what you would call it, but there seems to be something wrong when someone can accept positive critism, but reject negative critism from the same source. Also, it is hypocritical to say it is wrong to "bash" an official and then talk badly about another fellow official out the other side of your mouth. If you are only drinkin the kool aid from those above you, you might miss something good from those on your level or below.

1) Oh?
http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...32#post=392632
http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...69#post=389569
http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...63#post=389563
http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...99#post=386399
Seems to me that someone posting under your name sureasheck <b>is</b> questioning Welmer's lack of balls.

2) I agree with that statement fully. It reminds me of you. You get all pissy if someone questions <b>anything</b> about Teddy V's officiating qualities, for instance, but you show absolutely no remorse at all when it comes to dumping on Welmer. I don't have a problem with anybody saying that one official is better than the other, but that doesn't mean that the "other" is a bad official and doesn't have the courage to make tough calls. Welmer wouldn't be working a full schedule in multi major conferences if the assignors for those conferences agreed with you. You can question Welmer's ability and that's certainly OK with me, but when you question his courage, you're going too far imo.

It's no different than a fanboy coming here to complain about a bad call. That usually doesn't draw that much of a reaction. But if the fanboy intimates that an official made that bad call because they were favoring one team over another, then they're questioning the integrity of that official. That <b>will</b> get a nasty response here, as well it should.

That's my opinion, Tom, like it or not, on what I think is appropriate. I really don't expect everybody or anybody to agree with me. It's simply <b>my</b> opinion.

Qualified Announcer=the ability to fill dead air with noise, any kind of noise. I'd say more of us may be qualified than you think.

Touche, Old School...point taken.

Hmmm - I can say for a fact that this is NOT true.

1. Something must be wrong with my computer because those are links to posts where I said Welmer only makes obvious calls - on my screen at least. That is just my opinion - and an opinion shared by some of his fellow officials.
2. This statement makes no sense and isn't related to what I said. I'm not the one that said anything about bashing officials so I don't see how you can say I'm being hypocritical. You are making this up to be sensational without even bothering to connect the dots. Can you find a quote where I got "pissy" when someone said something about Teddy V? Teddy V's ability over the years speaks for itself. He isn't a perfect official, but he will go down as one of the great college officials of all time. Until something changes, Welmer's legacy will be 120+ games a year.

I do not think of Welmer as an official who favors one team or another. I also don't think of Welmer as a horrible official - but I sure don't see him as an elite official either.

You wanted to know what everyone thought was appropriate when it came to bashing officials. Well, I gave you <b>my</b> opinion of what I <b>thought</b> was appropriate. Your constant Welmer-bashing <b>isn't</b> appropriate <b>in my opinion</b>. It basically isn't any different than the fanboys that come here solely to dump on officials, also <b>in my opinion</b>.

You're certainly entitled to <b>your</b> opinions also.

That's not the answer that you were looking for, was it?:)

This is no less ignorant than those who thinks that reffing is just showing up with a whistle.

You are wrong again! I did not bring up the term bashing so I didn't ask what was appropriate when it came to bashing officials. If you think what I say about Welmer is bashing, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I gave my opinion of Welmer; if you consider it bashing then that is your opinion. What you consider bashing is basically me speaking up and giving my opinion when someone speaks of him as if his performance is on par with a Burr, Valentine, Higgins, Libbey and on and on. It is so convenient for you to skip over things like when I said I've heard he is a good guy, but hang on to the negative. I know officials other officials that are jerks and I wouldn't mention their names. If I actually thought of Welmer as badly as you think I do I wouldn't even mention his name.
What I get from you is the opinion that if Burr calls it then it is right or if "Joe D1" calls it then it is the right call. You seem to condemn others if they say "Joe D1" screwed the pooch repeatedly whether it is true or not. My question was asked because of this type of opinion. I did not bring Welmer into this conversation because I wasn't thinking about him when I asked the original question. You are the one hanging on to this, not me. I said he (Welmer) is supposed to be a good guy, I said he makes the super obvious calls (primarily) and I said he - IMO - isn't among the elite. The results seem to be in line with what I'm saying. Maybe you should start to drink some of my Kool Aid! :D

Maybe, maybe not. Most, at a minimum, of us talk a lot during the day, every day. We do this our entire lives. How many people walk around daily with a whistle in their mouths calling fouls?

:D <i></i>

1) How can I be wrong?:confused: I gave you my <b>opinion</b>. How can my <b>opinion</b> be wrong? Is it wrong because <b>you</b> say it's wrong?

2) See post of your's cited above. You didn't ask what was appropriate when it came to bashing officials? Someone must be posting under your name again. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

3) I don't have a clue where you get that from. I said many times that <b>ANY</b> official is going to blow a call sometimes. It's not about blowing individual calls. What bothers me is the fanboys and supposed officials that question another official's integrity or courage. I don't think that is appropriate when it comes to bashing officials. Iow, I just answered the question that <b>you</b> asked above. Again, if you don't happen to like that answer, too bad.

Do you talk daily with a microphone/headset? In front of a video camera?

Being a talker does not equal being a qualified analyst.

Nor does being a former player, former coach, etc. Yet they get the jobs, don't they?:rolleyes:

officials as announcers
 

I seem to recall Mendy Rudolph having a brief career as an NBA analyst, back in the uuhhhhh, a long time ago. I was a kid, not qualified to critique anybody
or have opinions on important matters, or to know anything significant about most things........not much has changed......but I seem to recall him saying over and over, "good call by the official," notably moreso than any other analyst before or since. Anybody back me up on this or correct me?