"Letting Them Play..."
 

Again, middle school games last night, two officials. Four games total, two JV two Varsity. It seemed as though both officials were content to let the kids play ball, which meant it was very physical. The crowd got a little rough, but seemed o.k. the first couple of games. As the night wore on, the officials just swallowed there whistles and didn't call anything except out of bounds. Kids were swinging elbows, pushing, traveling, just a very out of control situation which led to a few kids getting hurt and the crowd was absolutely out of control. After the game, I heard one official tell a paret, "We were just trying to let them play ball."

So here's my question, where do you draw the line between calling everything and letting them play? I'm just a rec league guy, but I've learned quickly that it's a safer bet just to call evrything the whole ball game. It may slow the pace, but there's a lot less blood.

There is not definitive answer to your question. I can say that I try to call and advantage/disadvantage game. It is hard to tell by what you are saying were the officials calling the game properly or just turning a blind eye to obvious violations and fouls. Also understand that calling middle school games can be a mixed bag and you do not see the same talent level that you would with older players. A lot of players fall for no good reason and parents and coaches want fouls and violations that are not really there. Also keep in mind that the officials (right or wrong) are not always the most experienced at that level either. Many veteran officials have moved on to other levels or have no desire to work those games (right or wrong) and it is also possible that the officials at this game did not have the grasp of calling the game properly. I am sure that was as much a factor as the other things I mentioned.

Peace

I recently watched a JV girls game. I was in the stands so I didn't have the vantage point. I was waiting for the varsity game cause I wanted to scout the varsity officials.

Anyway there was a woman ref who reminded me of Violet Palmer. (the NBA official)

She had this chip on her shoulder and was calling everything. I mean everything. Yes.. there was some contact sure, but not enought IMO to call it every time. This woman blew her whistle more then Jenna Jamison.. well anyway.. she blew the whistle alot.

She was getting bood mercelesly.

My question is.. Why??.. I notice this with alot of women officials. (not all of them) Her calls were confident and her mechanics were good, but.. very over zealous with the whistle IMO.

Also called alot of travel calls that IMO were not nessesary. The player would be catching the ball in the middle of a step. They would establish the pivot foot, and then pivot and she would call it.

Really made the game hard to watch. Thats why I try to call more blatent stuff. I'd rather be accused of swallowing the whistle vs taking over the game.

Just my 2 pennys.

Have you ever met Ms. Palmer? What was it about this official that reminded you of her, other than the fact that she was a woman?

I had the extreme pleasure of meeting Ms. Palmer at camp and I can tell you that she has no chip on her shoulder. She is confident, but does not have the "in your face" mentality that we see with a lot of male officials.

I have watched ms palmer officiate and she officiates with a chip on her shoulder. She IMO is the WORST official in the nba, and I cringe every time I watch a game with her as an official.

She may be a very nice person off the court. May be a saint. I'm just talking about on the court presence. She comes accross as if she has somthing to proove. As officials we dont have to prove anything, and I think she loses sight of that.

Its just an opinion. Nothing more.

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.

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.

If you've ever read interviews with players, they love her precisely because they can talk to her and she DOESN'T have a chip on her shoulder when they go to her. She's actually a very calming influence on the court.

Just goes to show that perceptions can be deceiving.

The trick to this level is to learn how to strike the balance.

First, it has to be your balance, not the fans'. They have no concept of balance. They want everything that their kids do to be legal, and everything the opponents do to be illegal.

Second, that balance has to be based on the rules, and not the skill level. Some kids just aren't going to make shots with or with out contact. If there's borderline contact, that really didn't affect a really bad shot, well, that's not illegal. On the other hand, if there's really nasty contact that was just because of a defender's clumsiness, well, it's illegal, even though it wasn't an attitude problem.

Protect the shooter. That's a standard judgemnt standard. Call it pretty tight on shooting, especially at the lower levels. On everything else, watch for displacement. That's a good standard for most fouls.

Third, with regard to violations, you have to be strict, so that they learn, but not so strict that the game never ends. I try to loosen the definitions a little and then call that line pretty tightly. It's not really A/D, it's "pragmatic rule-bending".

Fourth, you don't let the coaches whine you down. They may affect your judgment in certain ways, such as when they both come to you together and ask you to crack down (I've had that happen). Or they may actually ask you to call things a little tighter on their own players to teach them a lesson. But don't let their whining or complaining adjust your balance point.

Develop some phrases you can say to coaches if necessary: "Coach, hard contact like that is always a foul" "Coach, there was no advantage" "She had legal guarding position". Whatever, to let them know that you're using an objective standard, not selling the game to the squeakiest wheel.

Keep things consistent throughout a single game, but adjust your balance for each game as necessary. DOn't hesitate to discuss with partner. Don't give up doing the best you can.

Guess we must be thinking of two different Violet Palmers then because I don't see any of that at all in her officiating.

Juulie - you forgot closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "la la la la la la la la la la la la la.......". :D

Yea, I knew I forgot something. Thanks for helping....:rolleyes:

Not me...I see it in her officiating. I don't think she is the worst in the nba (rainmaker is right, there are plenty of officials waiting to step into anyone's shoes if they cna't do the job), but I think she refs like she has an attitude. That being said, I think lots of the NBA refs look like they have an attitude on the court.

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.

I don't wanna.

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. ;)

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.

lol -- your loss!

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.

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

:D 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

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.

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. :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This whole post became a blur after I read that someone thinks Violet Palmer is the worst official in the NBA. That just goes to show that some people don't even know what they are watching when they claim to be officials. I have never met her, but I don't recall anyone saying anything bad about her off the court and she is a playoff official on the court. I can immediately think of a few NBA officials who are obviously worse...if you know what to look for.

Whatintheheck are "strategic" calls?:confused:

I can assure you that this would have happened regardless of what the officials called. You just would have been there longer and shot more free throws. I've never seen a jr. high team respond to what the officials are calling, other than with replaced players who usually continue what's happening.

I've had jr. high games with more than 40 fouls called and one with as few as 4 fouls called. Nobody's injury has ever been healed by the whistle blowing, and in my experience, the roughest games are the ones with the most foul calls. One thing rarely has anything to do with the other. But sometimes you have to keep blowing regardless; other times, there's no reason to blow.

As far as the crowd getting out of control, yelling is not out of control. Were they throwing stuff? Coming on to the court? If so, then yes, they were out of control and that should have been dealt with. Absent that, there wasn't a crowd problem.

It is funny how we tend to see many of these things the same way. I was thinking the exact same thing. I stopped reading after I heard that quote.

Peace

I don't have an opinion on Palmer because I've rarely seen her and also because I haven't got the foggiest idea of what a good NBA official is and what a bad one is due to the league's officiating being so screwed up. However, I disagree with both statements you've made here. The worst ref isn't always fired. If you are going to have any ranking system, someone will be last. How many NFL Referees (white hat) are fired every year or two? Few, if any, because the position is filled with people that are so damn good, even numbers 16 and 17, by rating, are well thought of. If they fired the worst, there's never be any new official make it past a year or two.

Second, I do think a big motivation for her initial hire was politically based, and they COULD still be keeping her for that reason. Perhaps they do believe she is one of the better ones, but your statement here isn't necessarily true.

The NBA is an entertainment venue first and a competitive professional sports league second.

Why is it such a big deal that I dont think she is very good??

ok.. so maybe I went overboard with the worst official remark, but I just dont think she is very good compared to many of her conterparts. Its just my opinion. (which has been known to be wrong from time to time.)

I'm just starting out, so you may be right.. also I havn't seen one of her games in a while so I'll have to watch again and see if she improved since.

That being said.. I know of a few other official who agree with my opinion on violet palmer. One of them being a very seasoned official and has been reffing for almost 40 years.

I'm not the only one...

Well, 10,000 people who agree with you don't mean you're right... it also doesn't mean you're wrong, though...

Since it's just an opinion, you could probably word it like this...

"I don't like Violet Palmer. I wish they'd get rid of her. I don't think she is very good."

And don't be afraid to change your mind. Maybe after you've been reffing some more you'll see things differently. You just never know.

Whether you like it or not, you have not been around or been in enough wars to know what a good official truly does or does not do at this point. You have a right to your opinion and the right to say it. But I think the fact this is your first year, talking about the ability of an NBA Official is probably not a good idea. I am sure there other others that might have an opinion about her that is similar, but there are not officials that are in that class you hear saying that. And I rarely hear a bad word about her from players and she almost never seems to be at the forefront which seems to be things people like in an official. I do not even think I am qualified to say she is the worst official in the NBA. All I am is a HS and semi-college official.

Peace

Point taken...

Well, yea, but if she'd been the worst for as many years as she's been there, I doubt she'd have lasted.

But new officials don't stay at the bottom year after year. They either move up or they go out. I expect it's the same in the NBA.

Definitely a political decision at the beginning. BUt there are other people who they could put in to fill the PC needs. If Violet Palmer wasn't good, she'd be gone. She's moved up, she's well spoken of, she's in place. All because the NBA thinkx she's good.

This is true because the NBA let go of the only other female official because of poor performance.

I've been researching this and found that little nugget. ;)

One time, my team was playing a game. For some reason, the officials did not want the players to play. So every time the players from either team would start to play, the officials would blow the whistle and call some type of violation. The only time the officials did not call anything was when they missed an inbound violation, and A1 held the ball without dribbling at half court, and the other 4 offensive players and 5 defensive players stood motionless. When A1 got tired and A2 tried to take his place, the subsequent bounce pass was deemed a basketball manuver, so a violation was called. I was left with no choice but to yell at the officials "let them play!!!"

True story...

Incorrect. It means that we are in control; but we do not control the actions of the players or the outcome of the game. We are in control of the game at all times.

These two paragraphs are a complete mess. There are lots of lower level games in which you can make calls with whatever expectations you want, and the players do not adjust. You have to keep blowing the whistle and you don't ever get a flow. Your expectations have little impact on the game. You have to continue to call the game, regardless of how well your expectations are met.

Secondly, it is clearly NOT the worst thing to over-call in a messy or rough game. I don't even know how you could think such a thing. You just got finished writing that you should call fouls until the aggressive players go to the bench -- but don't over-call.

If you have a game that is overly-aggressive and the players are not responding to your "normal" calls, then you MUST over-call. Call everything until they play basketball or until they sit. Then you can go back to your "normal" game.

Hardly.

While it may make the crew look slightly inconsistent, it absolutely sends the message that the way the game is being played is unacceptable.

There's more to this story than what you posted.

I'm guessing it's a unique skill to be able to type with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek.

What is too early? If you're talking about a split second, change the call. You have never started to make the wrong signal and had to change it?
Not that big a deal. Better to change to the right signal than to stick with the wrong call.

Yup, and this particular coach is well practiced in this art.