time out after made basket Question

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Nevada's response in this thread, beginning with post #8, second sentence is a good example. Todd Pen in post #7 said, " .... I do not understand your post ...". Which in turn led to a personal, demeaning and confrontational response from Nevada. (I apologize to Nevada for calling him out but the post(s) within this thread serves as a good example of what I was referring to.)

I disagree. Nevada's 8th post was, as I pointed out, brief and pointed. However, it was hardly confrontational. A bit presumptuous ("likely have never…."), but it was an assumption made from reading a lot of similar posts from disgruntled athletes who merely wanted to be proved right in their indignation towards the evil referee who screwed them out of layups and free throws.

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Many. Only the second paragraph of my post was I referring specifically to my experiences/observations of this forum. The remainder of my post is my overall observations of officials since I became involved in officiating. So, some comments are things that I have heard, some are what I have read. I don't see a need to mine through old posts to "prove" that these types of things have been said or written. I remember them as quoted or with using similar words with the same meaning/context.

You shouldn't have to mine threads for very long if it happens "many" times. If you're referring again to Nevada's post, it is most definitely not a rhetorical jab aimed at silencing criticism. It was merely an explanation for why he had posted the rule in full.

Originally Posted by jmaellis

IMO this type of attitude is a discredit to all officials and reinforces already negative stereotypes that officials are unapproachable and/or unwilling to acknowledge their own shortcomings.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How's the air up on that high horse of yours?

Originally Posted by jmaellis

I was sharing general thoughts and my personal observations of some officials; you respond with an insult. If you want an example of the type of conduct that I referred to in my post ... look no further than a mirror.

You were making a judgment on how the attitudes you feel you have observed are "a discredit to all officials." It may not have been intended as such, but it came across as holier-than-thou and judgmental. Hence, "high horse." I'll take criticism any time, as long as it's constructive. Your post may have been cathartic, but….

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree. Nevada's 8th post was, as I pointed out, brief and pointed. However, it was hardly confrontational. A bit presumptuous ("likely have never…."), but it was an assumption made from reading a lot of similar posts from disgruntled athletes who merely wanted to be proved right in their indignation towards the evil referee who screwed them out of layups and free throws.

So the guy was a d!ck. How does:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My post wasn't suggesting anything. It was simply informing you of precisely what the rule is.

Clearly you didn't know, and likely have never looked at a rule book, but as you had the sense to ask, I thought that I would help educate you.

help promote a mutually respectful relationship between those indignant, disgruntled athletes and the referees? It doesn't. It makes the problem even worse.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You shouldn't have to mine threads for very long if it happens "many" times. If you're referring again to Nevada's post, it is most definitely not a rhetorical jab aimed at silencing criticism. It was merely an explanation for why he had posted the rule in full.

Let's be honest, the tone of Nevada's post was meant to confront and demean the OP.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You were making a judgment on how the attitudes you feel you have observed are "a discredit to all officials." It may not have been intended as such, but it came across as holier-than-thou and judgmental. Hence, "high horse." I'll take criticism any time, as long as it's constructive. Your post may have been cathartic, but….

I think it only comes across as judgmental to those who might have felt that their conduct is being judged. Those attitudes and conduct that I talked about are a discredit to all officials in general, but not necessarily to any individual referee. Referees, as a group, are no different than, for instance, law enforcement officers, attorneys and other professionals in positions of responsibility and authority whom the public (or the playing public) public expect to take the high road. These professions suffer from the "bad apple" analogy when the behavior of some within their ranks is less than appropriate.

I recently heard (I don't remember where) a father telling his teenage daughter that it's important to do the right thing; but what's most important is to do so when the right thing is not necessarily the easiest or most comfortable thing to do. As it relates to this conversation, it may be harder to just dismiss less then constructive criticism; but in the long run wouldn't that be better than engaging in a protracted pi$$ing, the end result of which just adds to an already negative opinion that one may have of officials, an opinion and experience he is likely to share, undoubtedly leaving out his own negative conduct. Granted, there may be some personal satisfaction in engaging somebody like Todd Pen, but it certainly doesn't do anything for officials as a group.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True, that is the post which started it, but you have highlighted the wrong sentence. What set me off was the attitude conveyed by his first words. I've put them in blue. As I have previously responded, all that this guy cares about is declaring that he was right and the ref was wrong. He still doesn't understand the rule with any depth, and doesn't seem to care about learning that.

The purpose of this forum is to increase our rules knowledge and thus better ourselves. It is not about proving that someone was right and someone else was wrong. There is no self-improvement there. That is merely pointing out the mistakes of others. (Of course, I do that myself some. However, it is mostly done in good fun, except in the case of Old School.)

To set the record straight, it wasn't wonderful of me to smack the OP, but here is why I did so.
My VERY FIRST POST in this thread was post #6, which consisted of nothing more than simply posting last season's NFHS Interp on this issue. In response to that "Mr. Perfect" displayed his I'm-still-right-and-the-ref-is-still-wrong attitude. He didn't even bother to take into account the extra information provided or that the official may have had a good reason for granting the time-out a bit late such as was pointed out by CLH, the initial responder, when he commented that perhaps the request was properly made, but the official couldn't get play stopped quickly enough or maybe was late recognizing the request and wasn't going to penalize the team for his tardiness. (On the other hand, perhaps this guy had Old School as his referee and he really did just make up his own rule! )

Anyway, I reacted to the attitude coming from "Mr. Perfect", who I still believe doesn't have any serious rules knowledge, by demonstrating to him that he also makes his share of mistakes and shouldn't be focusing on those of others. Thus the irony of his misspelling the word "gall" was particularly sweet.

The belief by the players, coaches, and spectators that it is unacceptable for the officials to be anything less than perfect has become particularly irksome to me. The human element is an integral part of sports. Mistakes will be made by all involved INCLUDING THE OFFICIALS. This needs to be accepted as part of the excitement of sporting contests. Otherwise, we could just plug the stats into a computer and award the trophies based on the print-outs.

Completely understood. But really, what you're saying when all the fluff is boiled away, is that you were offended by what he said. He was a d!ck so you became an even bigger d!ck. Not to mention that you took advantage of what is probably an inferior mind.

My whole point was, and still is, the conduct and behavior of a few negatively reflect upon the group of a whole; whether that conduct is broadcast via an Internet forum or if it is said in a small gym. People see it, hear it and repeat it.

Should we, as officials care? I think so, but other will undoubtedly have a different opinion.