The media is at it again.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Actually, I feel somewhat qualified to comment on the sports media since I used to be one. In fact, I would bet there are more officials who used to (or still do) work in the media than media people who used to be officials.

Yup. Very good point, Mark. Count me in as one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It's funny to hear this board rant and rave about the media just as "fanboys" come here and rant and rave about officiating.

JRut is making a sweeping generalization about the media based on one failure by one reporter.

Maybe you guys should try finding a journalism message board and see if you receive a similar greeting that "fanboys" get when they come on here and run their mouths about things they know nothing about.

First of all I am not making a sweeping generalization about anyone. I am stating that if facts and information is what is held to a higher standard for media people, then why can't they pick up the phone and call someone to find out what the origin of the situation that is called a "try out." Not only that, they could call former NBA Officials or the NBA directly to find out how the system works. And you would think with the way the recent gambling scandal took place, I really would like to check this out before I went on the airways and internet or paper before I started stating things that are not facts. Not only would it not be hard to find out but the information is a phone call away or just do some research on the internet like many of us here do to find out all kind of officiating information. I am sure if someone over this site was contacted or if NASO people were contacted, they would gladly lead a reporter in the right direction. If these individuals know so much about why someone is drafted or who is on the trading block, you cannot have a conversation with the NBA as to where the officials come from that become apart of the NBA staff? Or better yet how the NDBL hires their officials and how they are integrated into the NBA. It is not like the information is top secret and held away from the public. Heck we talk about it all the time here.

Also this is not the only example of this kind of misinformation that is talked about on this site. There are many references to articles in multiple sports and by different reporters and the lack of understanding of basic officiating information is astounding. These media people even quote coaches about officiating and they do not fact check basic claims of procedures or practices in conferences or leagues. If a Presidential Candidate says something that is slightly untrue the media picks at and dissects every minor detail. But if someone in the sporting world says something, the media barely fact checks or even checks the credibility of the information that is said. And then they perpetuate the same myths over and over again when clearly some of the information is a phone call away.

Peace

[mightyvol]

Surprise, surprise.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all I am not making a sweeping generalization about anyone. I am stating that if facts and information is what is held to a higher standard for media people, then why can't they pick up the phone and call someone to find out what the origin of the situation that is called a "try out." Not only that, they could call former NBA Officials or the NBA directly to find out how the system works. And you would think with the way the recent gambling scandal took place, I really would like to check this out before I went on the airways and internet or paper before I started stating things that are not facts. Not only would it not be hard to find out but the information is a phone call away or just do some research on the internet like many of us here do to find out all kind of officiating information. I am sure if someone over this site was contacted or if NASO people were contacted, they would gladly lead a reporter in the right direction. If these individuals know so much about why someone is drafted or who is on the trading block, you cannot have a conversation with the NBA as to where the officials come from that become apart of the NBA staff? Or better yet how the NDBL hires their officials and how they are integrated into the NBA. It is not like the information is top secret and held away from the public. Heck we talk about it all the time here.

Also this is not the only example of this kind of misinformation that is talked about on this site. There are many references to articles in multiple sports and by different reporters and the lack of understanding of basic officiating information is astounding. These media people even quote coaches about officiating and they do not fact check basic claims of procedures or practices in conferences or leagues. If a Presidential Candidate says something that is slightly untrue the media picks at and dissects every minor detail. But if someone in the sporting world says something, the media barely fact checks or even checks the credibility of the information that is said. And then they perpetuate the same myths over and over again when clearly some of the information is a phone call away.

Peace

Rut - this is one of the most outstanding posts I've ever seen on this site. You nailed it. And yes - I'm on my meds.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all I am not making a sweeping generalization about anyone. I am stating that if facts and information is what is held to a higher standard for media people, then why can't they pick up the phone and call someone to find out what the origin of the situation that is called a "try out."

Uh...yes you are. The title of the thread is "the media is at it again." You are making a sweeping generalization about all the media based on one instance you observed recently.

When the average fan makes a comment like "referees are corrupt," based on some random game they watched involving a solitary crew, that is also making a sweeping generalization. I'm not sure why you insist that you are saying something that you clearly are not.

If a Presidential Candidate says something that is slightly untrue the media picks at and dissects every minor detail. But if someone in the sporting world says something, the media barely fact checks or even checks the credibility of the information that is said. And then they perpetuate the same myths over and over again when clearly some of the information is a phone call away.

Peace

Do you have specific examples of this or are you just spouting off?

In other words, if I watch you ref a game and I say "boy, Rut really made a bunch of bad calls today and it cost Illinois High the game," I better have some specific examples of what I'm talking about and not some sweeping generalizations, because that's all your posts have contained up until now.

[Adam]

Not sure if you can read this from up there on your high horse, but....

Rut did not make a sweeping generalization. "the media are at it again" can easily be backed up by specific examples of goofs in the media. Hell, he could have easily said "ESPN is at it again...." For examples of officiating and rules misinformation, one need only look Doug Gottlieb's body of work. You can add to that Coach Knight, now that he's in the media; and most other former coaches for that matter.

Just do a search in this sight for Doug Gottlieb and you'll get your "specific examples."

Finally, when a fan comes in here and asks about a specific ruling, we are pretty accomodating with rule information. We've even been known to indicate an official may have (gasp) missed a call. What we really don't take lightly, however, are accusations of general incompetence from fans and/or inexperienced officials or accusations of cheating.

BTW, if you want a specific example, you could either look at the Georgetown game from last year where everyone said the ref missed an obvious travel when replays showed it was, at best, debatable. Or, all the talk about the marginal, possible missed OOB call on the shot that may or may not have gone over the backboard before going in.

Couple years ago there was a correctable error in the Iowa State/Kansas game down in Lawrence. Refs handled it by the book, which looked like a screw job in favor of Kansas. Local commentator went off, saying there's no way they would have done it that way if the game was in Ames or if the roles had been reversed. I emailed him and told him the rules were followed, and that the officials would have been reprimanded for doing it any differently.

His response, in essence. "I don't care what the rules say, I think they would have done it different if the home team wasn't the one benefiting."

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not sure if you can read this from up there on your high horse, but....

Rut did not make a sweeping generalization. "the media are at it again" can easily be backed up by specific examples of goofs in the media.

It can be, but it wasn't. It was "backed up" by one isolated incident. It was then backed up by more vague references to "media people" getting information from "coaches" and not doing some sort of due diligence in researching something. I'm not even sure what because that part of Rut's post was so incredibly vague it was hard to grasp.

You only have to visit this board a handful of times to know that when some "fanboy" comes on here and calls out officiating as a profession with precious little more than an isolated incident and makes a sweeping generalization about basketball officials as a whole, said person is going to have a lot of pissy posters demanding for the "fanboy" to either shut his piehole or provide some specific back-up for his statements.

It's just funny how, when the tables are turned, the standards are different.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by fiasco

..... not some sweeping generalizations, because that's all your posts have contained up until now.

Hmmm....sounds like a sweeping generalization to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Uh...yes you are. The title of the thread is "the media is at it again." You are making a sweeping generalization about all the media based on one instance you observed recently.

If it was a generalization then I would not have given a specific example.

Originally Posted by fiasco

When the average fan makes a comment like "referees are corrupt," based on some random game they watched involving a solitary crew, that is also making a sweeping generalization. I'm not sure why you insist that you are saying something that you clearly are not.

I guess I am missing the point you are making. Because when fans come here and make statements, we usually require specific information or specific situations. And I do not get upset when a fan says "Referees......." Maybe you do not read this board that often when I and others ask for a specific play or situation. And what does that have to do with me anyway? My post is not about what fans may or may not say? Sounds like this is your issue.

Originally Posted by fiasco

Do you have specific examples of this or are you just spouting off?

All you have to do is turn on CNN, MSNBC or Fox and you can see some form of scrutiny. I am not trying to turn this into political conversation, but Clinton was ripped apart for here claims in Bosnia. Obama is ripped because he talked about positions he took before he was in the U.S. Senate. McCain was ripped for his positions on the war and even some comments he made that were not accurate about where Al-Quada located in and out of Iraq. And any statements to defend themselves or clarify their positions the media went after all of them about their positions or explanations.

Originally Posted by fiasco

In other words, if I watch you ref a game and I say "boy, Rut really made a bunch of bad calls today and it cost Illinois High the game," I better have some specific examples of what I'm talking about and not some sweeping generalizations, because that's all your posts have contained up until now.

I guess you are having trouble reading, because not only did I point out the person that made the specific comments, I stated where I heard them and who said them. I also gave other examples of how the media could have fact checked the information.

Maybe you do not know what specific means. Do you want social security numbers and Tax ID numbers of all the outlets that put out the information? Would that make the example much more specific?

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If it was a generalization then I would not have given a specific example.

You attributed an isolated incident to an entire industry. That is a generalization.

I guess I am missing the point you are making. Because when fans come here and make statements, we usually require specific information or specific situations.

Exactly.

You provided specific information for the incident you referred to. Then you went on to make yet ANOTHER sweeping generalization about "media people" (which ones? what are their names and what stories did they write?) talking to "coaches" (which coaches? regarding which games?) about....you know, I don't even know about what. You just threw out some random "media people" talking to random "coaches" about nothing specifically. It would be nice if we all knew what event or story you were referring to so we could know exactly what your point was.

Maybe you do not know what specific means. Do you want social security numbers and Tax ID numbers of all the outlets that put out the information? Would that make the example much more specific?

Peace

Maybe I need to explain this in a more simple manner for you.

This board has a standard to which it holds posters. That is, if you're going to complain about something relating to officiating, you probably should have your facts straight. I think the same standard should be upheld for other professions. So, if you're going to call out the media for "many references" to reporters giving false information to readers via coaches (as referenced in your last post), you probably should have your facts straight and lay them out for all of us. Is there a specific story or coach that you were referring to in your last post or were you just spouting off about the media? I think that's a fair question.

[budjones05]

Rut,

You hit the nail on the head. If someone hasn't never officiate basketball before, wouldn't know the hard long trail, (camps, junior high ball, semi varsity, varsity, AAU, YMCA etc.) The fan's and observers think that we are just somebody who wants to work a UCLA or Georgetown game. They don't know, (and will never know) how one obtains D1 status. They also do not factor that unlike the teams they root for, or the announcers call for, that we call the best game every time we are on the court.

You can say that I'm weird, but I consider being a sport's official, part of a fraternity. The only people who could understand what we go through is another sports official. I know I'm not perfect, but if you show me someone who is perfect and I'll show you someone that isn't a official.

The media will never understand. Neither some coaches. But, before they start to judge us, be in our shoes for one quarter with two hostile coaches, crazy fans, and a tie ball game with 4 seconds left that will decide a ball game that will decide the world championship game.

You learn, you make mistakes, and you grow up trying not to make mistakes again. The media will never know until they do their research or realize we have a harder job than what they use to thought.


Bud

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It's funny to hear this board rant and rave about the media just as "fanboys" come here and rant and rave about officiating.

JRut is making a sweeping generalization about the media based on one failure by one reporter.

Maybe you guys should try finding a journalism message board and see if you receive a similar greeting that "fanboys" get when they come on here and run their mouths about things they know nothing about.

JRut is complaining about inaccurate facts being reported. If a fanboy complained about inproper rules application by an official I know I wouldn't have a problem with that.

And if JRut made his post on a media website I'm confident he could have a rationale, reasonable, and intelligent conversation with someone on that site who disagreed. Fanboys are those folks on this site who are incapable of such.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is my frustration even warranted? Or should I just chalk it up as the way it is and always will be?

Peace

Both.

If these people REALLY want to look like they understand the process and the players they would have done a nice in depth piece on how this all works.

But they don't really care about reporting, they just want to toss off snotty comments. This is nothing new, it's really simpler to say Busk is dumb, Hillary is a liar, Obama is a Moslem and the refs all suck than it is to think about what's really going on in the world, isn't it?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Both.

If these people REALLY want to look like they understand the process and the players they would have done a nice in depth piece on how this all works.

But they don't really care about reporting, they just want to toss off snotty comments. This is nothing new, it's really simpler to say Busk is dumb, Hillary is a liar, Obama is a Moslem and the refs all suck than it is to think about what's really going on in the world, isn't it?

Correct..it's all about sound bytes and 10 second attention spans. Be controversial, to justify their few minutes in the chair they can't be bland nor do they have the time.

Reflecting, we should take it with a grain of salt, consider the source and lump them into the fanboy category that we as officials have to deal with continually.

[fiasco]

Why am I not surprised. A bunch of "whistle boys" taking pot shots at and industry they know nothing about.

Lah, me