Hot threads

[stripes]

It is interesting to me as I have read through a couple of the "hot" threads of the last few days that many of us refuse to look at other people's opinions as valid. I believe that we have a need to be right and want others to back us in our opinions, but we, as a group, are too willing (IMO) to castigate others when we don't agree. I understand that sometimes things are written that are confusing and we want clarification, but lots of times we beat the horse long after it is dead.

Now, I am not naive enough to believe that we will come to agreements all the time and on all subjects, but peolple have presented valid arguments for two sides of debatable issues. My observation has been that officials who call the majority of their games at the HS level and below, like a more strict interpretation of the rules and those that call the majority of their games at a level above HS like a more liberal interpretation of the rule book.

Now, which one is right? IMO, it depends on where you are calling your games. Eli made a good point about "safe" calls. You can make a call and be safe, but you can pass on some of these calls too. The thing I believe we need to do is read what is written, consider who it is written by and then look at their view and ask ourselves if we can use this information in our game.

So, what is the point of this ramble? We don't need to convert others to our way of thinking. We don't have to agree, but we don't have to be disagreeable while we do it. This board is a great forum to share ideas and philosophies--so let's do that, share.

Merry Christmas to all!

[DrakeM]

Amen to that!

[ChuckElias]

Here's my two cents on why the hot threads have been so hot lately. I've been on this board for about 4 months now, and I've been on McGriff's board for -- I would guess -- about 5 seasons. I have come to know and respect certain posters b/c of their rules knowledge, or b/c of their ability to offer suggestions for dealing with coaches, or simply b/c of their sense of humor. These people have built up a huge amount of credibility in these two "communities". And when I disagree with them, we both go dig in the rulebook and try to find some support for our positions.

But within the last two or three weeks, we've had 3 guys (Eli, bpf, and crew) come onto this board and tell all of us wannabees that we all need to start thinking differently if we want to move up. crew's first post on this board was riddled with "interpretations" that were in total conflict with the rulebook. TH right took him to task. But it didn't help. These guys have no credibility with anybody on this board, and yet want to help us by getting us to disregard rules or taking advice that is simply bad for most guys. Even when the majority of us are proven right on national TV, all we get is "Did you ever think that maybe he missed the call?"

I'm not going to sit here and say that these guys shouldn't post. I'm not even going to ignore them, I'm going to keep reading their posts. But they've got to be confronted when their interpretations are blatently wrong. Especially b/c we've got newer refs on here trying to figure out how to ref. If they follow the advice of these three guys, they will get nowhere fast. It may be good advice for the pro circuit, but we don't have too many of those refs on this board.

Chuck

[Mark Padgett]

Certainly, I echo the sentiment expressed by others in this thread regarding repect. The main reason I stopped posting on the McGriff board was because of the mean-spiritedness (to coin a word) that is prevalent. Since this board is actually monitored, I don't see that here, plus of course, the registration aspect helps prevent that.

Guys (and Juulie), let's all keep taking the high road and conduct ourselves as professionals so we can continue to utilize this board as a learning tool for all of us.

If you want to engage in personal attacks, either go to the other board, or join a chat room for howler monkeys (coaches).

[Spaman_29]

I also must add some remarks to this post. I have only been a member of this forum for less than two months, but I have found it quite rewarding and sometimes disappointing. I like when officials do state their case and back themselves up with the rulebook. I also wonder how literal some rules are applied. When I read that an 8th grade game is being worked and the uniform is a big concern I have to wonder how many games the official has been working. Yes, you are there to enforce the rules and maybe some states are stricter than others, but for heaven sakes, let the kids play the game and worry about being in the right spot at the right time.

I also agree that the higher the level that you officiate the more liberal you like the rules to be. Because you generally need all the wiggle room you can get at times.
Something that I really don't see too often is that of having fun. I feel that most officials started because they wanted a little bit of a challenge, and it turned out to be a little bit exciting for them. Or they have an ego that needs fed and they couldn't find any other way. May I suggest law enforcement.

I personally officiate for the thrill of the game. I am somewhat dismayed at how some officials are content where they are at. If you are not doing something to move then I think that you need to question what you are doing and why.

I hope that the younger officials will listen, learn the rules, but most important -- learn how to apply the rules. That is why you need to officiate at the lower levels. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong in the lower levels. IMHO, The higher you go the easier it is to officiate. So stay the course, push your way through the politics, and grow some thick skin.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by stripes
It is interesting to me as I have read through a couple of the "hot" threads of the last few days that many of us refuse to look at other people's opinions as valid. I believe that we have a need to be right and want others to back us in our opinions, but we, as a group, are too willing (IMO) to castigate others when we don't agree.

What? I totally disagree! What are you talking about? Are you crazy? Who cares what you think?!!!!!

Just kidding stripes!!

Merry Christmas to all!

And to you and yours as well. I hope Santa brings you a brand new whistle!

[Tim Roden]

A little bit of controversy can be fun. A lot of contraversy can be negative. I still post on both boards since Yaw, and scott don't come this direction and I like engaging their opinions. I learned a simple little rule that if we all remember we can get along better.

In Theory, theory is the same as practice, but in practice it isn't.

[hooters]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Here's my two cents on why the hot threads have been so hot lately. I've been on this board for about 4 months now, and I've been on McGriff's board for -- I would guess -- about 5 seasons. I have come to know and respect certain posters b/c of their rules knowledge, or b/c of their ability to offer suggestions for dealing with coaches, or simply b/c of their sense of humor. These people have built up a huge amount of credibility in these two "communities". And when I disagree with them, we both go dig in the rulebook and try to find some support for our positions.

But within the last two or three weeks, we've had 3 guys (Eli, bpf, and crew) come onto this board and tell all of us wannabees that we all need to start thinking differently if we want to move up. crew's first post on this board was riddled with "interpretations" that were in total conflict with the rulebook. TH right took him to task. But it didn't help. These guys have no credibility with anybody on this board, and yet want to help us by getting us to disregard rules or taking advice that is simply bad for most guys. Even when the majority of us are proven right on national TV, all we get is "Did you ever think that maybe he missed the call?"

I'm not going to sit here and say that these guys shouldn't post. I'm not even going to ignore them, I'm going to keep reading their posts. But they've got to be confronted when their interpretations are blatently wrong. Especially b/c we've got newer refs on here trying to figure out how to ref. If they follow the advice of these three guys, they will get nowhere fast. It may be good advice for the pro circuit, but we don't have too many of those refs on this board.

Chuck

chucky,
get nowhere fast? eli-27 or 28 yrs old.-wnba,nbdl,sec system. bpf and crew???? i dont know. but eli sure has gotten nowhere faster than you! you can put that in your pipe and smoke it.....you old fogey

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by hooters
Chucky,
get nowhere fast? eli-27 or 28 yrs old.-wnba,nbdl,sec system. bpf and crew???? i dont know. but eli sure has gotten nowhere faster than you! you can put that in your pipe and smoke it.....you old fogey [/B]

Whoa,Larry,what does Eli's experience or position have to do with anything?Eli is entitled to his opinion,just like anyone else on this board.That's the only free ride that he,or any of us,gets.We all have the right to agree or disagree with his opinion.That doesn't make anyone automatically right or wrong.Chuck thought Eli and Crew were 100% wrong on their insistence that there was only one way to call a certain situation.A lot of other posters,including myself,also thought that Crew and Eli were dead wrong in this instance.This doesn't mean that Chuck,or anyone else,will automatically disagree with Crew or Eli on another topic.It does mean that Eli is subject to the same standards as the rest of us.If you think that I am going to automatically agree with everything that Eli says because of his experience,better think again.Conversely,that goes for Chuck,too,or anyone else on this forum.I'll make up my own mind,thank you!I'm not anyone's groupie!
--From Jurassic Referee,old fogey at large.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 21st, 2001 at 03:48 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Tim Roden
In Theory, theory is the same as practice, but in practice it isn't.

This deserves the Post-Of-The-Month Award!!!

[JRutledge]

I think many people spend most of their time here worried about what others think. The reality is that most of us are from all over the country. Unless you are like Bob Jenkins and I, you might not even be in the same area and work together. And even the fact that I know Bob J, does not mean that we share the same experiences or have to share the same experiences to get onto the court.

Bob and I, do not even work for all the same assignors or always do the same levels. I respect Bob greatly, especially the fact that he connected me to some good people in the Chicagoland area when I moved, and also when I finally worked with him last year for the first time, he was every bit as good as what he portrayed here. But I am sure that does not apply to everyone else here all the time.

Look, I have officiated in Illinois, but in two completely different areas of the state. And I even have worked one sport in two states. I have belonged or currently belong to at least 6 different officials associations during my career. I learned early on, that you follow the ones that you respect, and look the other way with the officials that you do not. Unfortunatly we do not have the benefit of working with most officials here, so we have to go with what they say.

I have had spectators tell me that I was the "best official" they have ever seen and some that have said I am the worst. I take much of that advice like I do with the people that feel the same way about me here.

We are never going to please everyone, and if you try you will go crazy.

Jesus Christ during his life was one of the most feared and hated individuals in his community that had the chance to witness or speak to him. I really do not think that if you believe in the goodness of Jesus and that Jesus died for your sins, you should be caring about what people think or how different those opinions are different from yours. If they had the nerve to crusify Jesus, what do you think they will say about those that have different views or opinions.

If everyone in this world could agree, Bin Lauden and the Christian community with many other Muslims throughout the world would be seeing eye to eye on the world and how God fits into that.

Julie, I think you have good intentions, but we are never going to get people with vastly different experiences on the same page. It is just not going to happen that easily.

God Bless

[eroe39]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

But within the last two or three weeks, we've had 3 guys (Eli, bpf, and crew) come onto this board and tell all of us wannabees that we all need to start thinking differently if we want to move up.

Chuck, I certainly never called anybody a wannabe and I have the utmost respect for high school officials. I loved reffing high school basketball and actually miss it. I am not trying to big time anybody with the info I post. You certainly have the right to disagree.

These guys have no credibility with anybody on this board, and yet want to help us by getting us to disregard rules or taking advice that is simply bad for most guys. Even when the majority of us are proven right on national TV, all we get is "Did you ever think that maybe he missed the call?"

I feel like you are getting too personal on this forum. Your telling me that everybody on this board thinks I have no credibility. Please speak for yourself. I certainly do not feel my advice is bad for officials. I am not trying to poison the officiating community. You say you are proven right because of one play that Andre Patillo called a foul from lead across the paint that the slot passed on. I still have not seen this play, but you cannot prove an entire case on one play. I could look through the archives of tapes and find several plays where a foul is not called on that type of play. This does not prove anything. Andre is not some GOD whereby all officials must imitate every call he makes. He is human like all of us and subject to mistakes.

But they've got to be confronted when their interpretations are blatently wrong.

My interpretations are blatently wrong to you, but they are my opinions. You have your own interpretations and that's fine.

If they follow the advice of these three guys, they will get nowhere fast.

I believe I have helped several people rise in the officiating ranks, including my roomate Tommy Porep who was hired in the CBA last year and is also a DI official and Tony Horton, a.k.a. crew, who refs DI basketball as well. We three constantly talk basketball and watch tapes and critique each other's games. We are ruthless to each other when we critique as well as that is the way you get better, to be brutally honest with yourself and accept criticism.

[bossref]

Hey guys, I'm responding from afar.
West Coast (used to ref hs, jc, and small college).
Stopped working organized ball for personal reasons.
Now just work rec ball and don't miss the politics.
I work year round and instruct as well.
No point yet, but wanted to say that I was not welcomed very warmly IMO to this board when I first posted.
Seems some assumed I was a rookie, when in fact I've been
calling for about 30 years.
Please don't scare people away with your attitudes.
Give new posters the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe even you old farts can learn something by listening.

"Those of us who know it all
are bothered most by those
who think they do."

Merry Christmas from sunny San Diego

[stripes]

Originally posted by eroe39

I feel like you are getting too personal on this forum. Your telling me that everybody on this board thinks I have no credibility. Please speak for yourself. I certainly do not feel my advice is bad for officials. I am not trying to poison the officiating community. You say you are proven right because of one play that Andre Patillo called a foul from lead across the paint that the slot passed on. I still have not seen this play, but you cannot prove an entire case on one play. I could look through the archives of tapes and find several plays where a foul is not called on that type of play. This does not prove anything. Andre is not some GOD whereby all officials must imitate every call he makes. He is human like all of us and subject to mistakes.

Eli,

you may not have credibility with everyone on the board, but believe me there are several here who know what you can do and put stock in what you write.

But they've got to be confronted when their interpretations are blatently wrong.

My interpretations are blatently wrong to you, but they are my opinions. You have your own interpretations and that's fine.

I think your interpretations are right on. It is too easy to make blanket statements about how plays should be called. I wish it were that easy. Also, we make mistakes--all of us at all levels. I didn't see the "Andre" play and don't know what I think about it, but I have sat with very good officials and talked about plays that we are watching and we disagree about what the call should be. We all can't be right at the same time.

If they follow the advice of these three guys, they will get nowhere fast.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Disagree with this.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by eroe39

I feel like you are getting too personal on this forum. Your telling me that everybody on this board thinks I have no credibility. I am not trying to big time anybody with the info I post.

First, perhaps I could have used better wording about your credibility. I did not mean to say that you have no credibility at all. What I meant was that, in this community, this particular discussion forum, nobody knows you from previous postings, like we know TH, Rut, Bob Jenkins, etc. So on this particular forum, you have no credibility. Nobody here has any reason to accept your comments as anything other than a namedropper who likes to sound important. I'm not saying that's what you are, ok? I'm just saying that the vast majority of us here have no way of knowing that you're not. That's what I mean by saying that you have no credibility on this board.

Second, you can feel whatever you like. That's your prerogative. I'm not intending to make personal attacks. I don't think I ever called you any names. I was merely giving my opinion on the original topic. The original topic was about why things were so heated recently. The fact is that you, crew, and bpf were the catalyst for the heated threads. Your appearance on this board is when they started. You may never have used the term "wannabees", but that sure is how you sound. "Well, that may be a correct call in HS, but if you ever hope to move up, then you better call it my way!"

Additionally, I stand fully behind my comments about advising officials to rule directly contrary to a stated rule or NF interpretation. crew's first post was FULL of incorrect rules application. Not just "opinions", but incorrect application. TH's post listed out those errors and responded with rules quotations. But crew continued to propound those interpretations, and others like them. I think that's wrong, and that's all I said.

You say you are proven right because of one play that Andre Patillo called a foul from lead across the paint that the slot passed on. I still have not seen this play, but you cannot prove an entire case on one play.

True enough, but I've got a whole lot better evidence for my position (the rulebook, plus a D1 official's ruling caught on national TV) than you do ("I don't think I'd call it that way. . .").

But they've got to be confronted when their interpretations are blatently wrong.

My interpretations are blatently wrong to you, but they are my opinions. You have your own interpretations and that's fine. [/b][/quote]

Ok, Eli, this is not directed at you personally, ok? But this philosophy is the biggest load of horse manure in the last 35 years. "It may be right for you, but it's wrong for me". "It may be ethical for you, but it's morally wrong for me". "That may be true for you, but it isn't for me."

Eli, if the rulebook says "A" and someone says "Not A", that's blatently wrong. That's not "opinion"; that's a fact which corresponds to something in the actual world. If the casebook gives a play in which it is stressed that the call in a given situation is a PC foul even though the defender is directly under the basket, but someone says "you should never call a charge under the basket", that's an interpretation which is blatently wrong. He may use it and it may even be to his benefit in some cases to use it; but it's still incorrect.

This is the type of interpretation to which I was referring in my post. As I've mentioned numerous times, this is exactly what crew did in his very first post to this forum. His interpretations were blatently incorrect. In such a case, I believe that it's necessary to correct those posters, so that young officials who are trying so hard to learn the rules and applications will not be confused.

If they follow the advice of these three guys, they will get nowhere fast.

I believe I have helped several people rise in the officiating ranks, including my roomate Tommy Porep who was hired in the CBA last year and is also a DI official and Tony Horton, a.k.a. crew, who refs DI basketball as well.[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm so glad you're not trying to "big time" anyone!!

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Dec 29th, 2001 at 03:38 PM]