"Letting Them Play..."

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Speaking as a woman official and having seen and interacted with many male and female officials, I'd say the problem here is that you're mis-interpreting what you're seeing. In my experience a lot more women have good reason to have chips on their shoulders than actually do. I'd you're seeing something that seems to you like a chip but isn't really. Are there women with chips on their shoulders? Sure. But I'd say "most women" is too many.

I suggest you work with some of these women and get to know them personally so that you can judge their work as you know them, too. Might make a difference in how you see things.

And with regard to Ms Palmer, if she were the worst ref in the NBA, she wouldn't still be there. THey've got a number of very good women refs in their D league, and they certainly don't need to keep her for political reasons. There are plenty of people who could step up and fill her shoes, if she couldn't.

I will work with any and every body. Honestly I'd rather work with a woman official with somthing to prove then half of the male officials who are just collecting a check.

I was just making an observation and nothing more.

ps... I didn't say most.. I said "a lot" Wording means alot so please quote me correctly.

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Right. She doesn't have any MORE attitude than a lot of men. You've gotta have some kinda something to be an NBA ref. Personally, I think a lot of us aren't used to seeing that in women and it looks odd or unpleasant to us. But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Some of us just need to get used to it.

That could be...

But I've seen other Women refs who dont come accross that way at all.

Dont get me wrong... there are quite a few male refs that have that "holier then thou" attitude too. This isn't just a woman problem. I probably notice it more when women do it though.

I'm sure its part of the perception.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't wanna.

lol -- your loss!

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

That may be but the NBA has been disagreeing with you since 1997. In fact they disagree so much that she's now getting play off games.

As for your original post... usually JV games are officiated by JV officials. They have some learning to do whether men or women. But I cringe whenever I hear an official say he doesn't want to "take over the game". That's what we're there for.

I disagree.. we are not there to take over a game. Just call it. Most of the experienced officials that have mentored me in my very young career have stressed two things....

1. Dont leave your whistle in your mouth on a jump ball...

2. Have a patient whistle. Wait for what your seeing to unfold before you make the call.

ex. I was calling a game on sat, and b1 comes up to a1 and goes for the ball to force a jump ball. In my mind I anticipated that and called the jump ball. I should have waited the split second cause b1 just after my whitsle rolled up on top of a1 trying to wrestle the ball away. Clearly a foul, but.. I had already called jump ball too early. I called it on contact not pos.

The woman ref that I saw on sat night doing the jv game was making the same impatient calls, but she was consistently doing it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

ps... I didn't say most.. I said "a lot" Wording means alot so please quote me correctly.

Okay so how many is "a lot" compared to "most"?

Here are some rather vague quantity terms -- rank them in order from least to most.

a lot, some, most, a few, almost all, many, the vast majority, a couple, plenty, not very many, several, a minority

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

The woman ref that I saw on sat night doing the jv game was making the same impatient calls, but she was consistently doing it.

more likely due to inexperience than gender, as Dan pointed out. Not a chip on the shoulder, just an overly anxious whistle. She'll learn to relax a little, just as many of us -- male and female -- have.

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay so how many is "a lot" compared to "most"?

Here are some rather vague quantity terms -- rank them in order from least to most.

a lot, some, most, a few, almost all, many, the vast majority, a couple, plenty, not very many, several, a minority

ok.. you asked.

from most to least...

almost all
most
the vast majority
half of
many
plenty
a lot
several
some
A minority
Not very many
a few
a couple

hows that for a ranking... I added a half of so you can get an idea of placement.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

I disagree.. we are not there to take over a game.

If the officials do not control (take over) the game who does?

I really have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with this question.

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

If the officials do not control (take over) the game who does?

I really have no idea what the rest of your post has to do with this question.

Dan.. I think we have different view on "taking over" Controlling a game within the confines of the rules is not taking over a game in my eyes. Its policing a game.

We guide and enforce the guidelines, but there are alot of... unwriten rules when it comes to this.

One person on this board said that if we called ever contact we saw on the court games would last days. That is taking over the game. When you call every thing you possibly can just cause you can. IMO.

I've never seen any good varsity officials do that. They always are patient and precise with the whistle.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

I disagree.. we are not there to take over a game. Just call it.

Sometimes "just call it" means "call everything" in order to get the game back under control. That might be called taking over the game. In a game like the one in the original post, it's better to over-call than under-call. You can't just "let them play", as the title of the post says, because they clearly aren't going to play -- they're going to club each other to death.

In those games, you have to call MORE rather than less until the worst offenders are out of the game or the players get the message and rein it in a little. It depends on the particular game, not the level of the game.

[Bearfanmike20]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Sometimes "just call it" means "call everything" in order to get the game back under control. That might be called taking over the game. In a game like the one in the original post, it's better to over-call than under-call. You can't just "let them play", as the title of the post says, because they clearly aren't going to play -- they're going to club each other to death.

In those games, you have to call MORE rather than less until the worst offenders are out of the game or the players get the message and rein it in a little. It depends on the particular game, not the level of the game.

Yes.. I do agree with that. If they are getting to a slug fest you have to reighn them in but I guess I perceive that as controlling not taking over.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

Dan.. I think we have different view on "taking over" Controlling a game within the confines of the rules is not taking over a game in my eyes. Its policing a game.

We guide and enforce the guidelines, but there are alot of... unwriten rules when it comes to this.

One person on this board said that if we called ever contact we saw on the court games would last days. That is taking over the game. When you call every thing you possibly can just cause you can. IMO.

I've never seen any good varsity officials do that. They always are patient and precise with the whistle.

Well again I don't know what a patient whistle - or even what you see varsity officials do - has to do with this discussion. But let's leave it at this: what most would call poor officiating you call "taking over". My view is different - good officials take over as soon as they hit the floor.

[Junker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Well again I don't know what a patient whistle - or even what you see varsity officials do - has to do with this discussion. But let's leave it at this: what most would call poor officiating you call "taking over". My view is different - good officials take over as soon as they hit the floor.

I agree with Dan. One thing I always talk about when I run the pregame is that we are calling our game and the players are going to adjust. Now, what that game looks like can depend upon the level of basketball, but we know how to adjust.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Bearfanmike20

Dan.. I think we have different view on "taking over" Controlling a game within the confines of the rules is not taking over a game in my eyes. Its policing a game.

We guide and enforce the guidelines, but there are alot of... unwriten rules when it comes to this.

One person on this board said that if we called ever contact we saw on the court games would last days. That is taking over the game. When you call every thing you possibly can just cause you can. IMO.

I've never seen any good varsity officials do that. They always are patient and precise with the whistle.

The officiating presence -- ie rules, guidelines, The Game -- should take over the game and be in control. That's what makes it a Game. The person in the body needs to be an official though, and not an individual. There's a time for the officiating presence to crack down and take over, calling everything to get the game back where it belongs. There's never a time for an individual to assert his/her own 2x4 personality and call everything because "that's just who I am".

For the officiating presence to take over is good and right. for the 2x4 personality to be an ooo is not good, not right.

[TheOracle]

The term or idea of "taking over" a game indicates that you have to control what is happening. That attitude will clash with players, coaches, and fans on occasion, which will generate a lot of negative emotion. That is just bad for the game, period.

There are times when the game gets messy, and calls need to be made to set the expectation that basketball needs to be played and some kind of flow established. More often than not, when the most aggressive players go to the bench with foul trouble, the game miraculously cleans up.

The worst thing that can occur in a messy part of the game is to overcall. The game got a little messy for a reason. Players got hyped up. Some non-calls or passes got players upset, emotional, or gave them the impression that they could get away with aggressive play. To fix that, strategic calls must be made to show everyone what the expectations are.

The biggest mistake less experienced officials make is to blow a whistle that doesn't need to be blown, because that cannot be fixed. Your partners cannot help in that situation. And if a crew or officials starts overcalling to "take over" a messy game, that does very little to reset or reinforce the expectations of what is acceptable. It makes the crew look inconsistent. And a large majority of the time, if the aggressors or disruptive players remain in the game, the game stays messy, flow is not established, and everyobody gets frustrated--officials included.

Officials are there to manage the game, to make sure that players and teams do not get an unfair advantage. I may tighten up on aggressive players to help the flow of the game, but never do I think about "taking over". That's when disasters start.