Critical Officiating article from a local news paper.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I doubt BITS disagrees that ability should be paramount. He's simply stating that politics are always going to exist in any system so you have choices - you can either do your best to work within that system, or you can refuse to do so and try to change it. If you think a system is patently unfair, then don't work there or try to change it. But if it doesn't change to your benefit, you can be pissed about it, but that won't get you more games.

I thought BITS' statement was spot-on in that all systems exist for reasons - some good and some bad - and if you want to work the best and most games, the way to do that is to figure out how to work within that system.

If you simply can't because you believe it is immoral or unethical - more than just a PITA and less than fair - then work somewhere else or work to change it. But just *****ing about the "old boys club" won't get anything done but let you project your disappointment on someone else.

Most of these "buddy clubs" you talk about simply aren't as bad as you make them out to be. Do you often have to network and abide by rules? Yes. Is that bad? I don't see how.

I haven't been officiating a long time, and I've been exposed to a couple different setups. They each are different and they each have their own politics/challenges. But each system has one belief in common: officiating is about more than just calling the game. It's about being dependable, being cooperative and working well with your other officials. These are things that some call "politics." Many who understand this are simply tired of hearing the whining.

Thank you. I could hardly have said it better.