Critical Officiating article from a local news paper.
 

Officiating Article by the Famous Taylor Bell

I just thought I would post this article. It caused such a stir at a meeting I attended this evening. I was wondering what others think even if you do not know all the details. I will comment later after people get a chance to read the article. There are so many things wrong with this article in the first place.

Peace

Age going up
 

I think it is funny that the age of officials is going up. We have the same problem in Michigan. While abuse can be used as the reason, in northeast Michigan our best export is our young people. In the 34 years since I started officiating the number of kids in the local school system has gone down 50%.

I have also found that people that get in now seem to think after one season you have a full varsity schedule and should be doing tournaments by year three. When I started one did not expect to many varsity games until you did at least three years JV ball, now it is possible to get games in one year.

The hardest thing I have to teach is the three leg stool approach, knowledge of rules-how rules are enforced-mechanics. I get upset when I see the trail in a three man crew two feet past half court.

That being said some of us have changed out traing methods but getting every body in our area to follows or tries to follow. I can remember doing evals on new officials, but few guys will, even if they got the person started.

Wow, some article! Where to start? Some interesting thoughts for sure.....

Games have no flow.....no finesse anymore. Who's watching these guys? Refs - making up and enforcing/ not enforcing their own rules? Refs told coaches to "sit down and shut?" (Unacceptable) Officials bigger than the game? Uniformity = consistancy (we have talked about that many times). A Ref has a really good game and blows one call, then, it equals a poor game.....

Not surprisingly, most of these statements were given by anonymous sources..... except some of the nicer comments by seasoned coaches.

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire, so there's bound to be some truth to what is said here....but, how much is just belly aching?

Seems like some coaches/admins want their cake and to eat it too, i.e. The coaches want seasoned, experienced refs who know what they're doing, until they don't like what/how they call......then, they want some younger folks to replace these guys.....but, they can't recruit younger refs because it's not worth the abuse..... A vicious circle.

JMO. Gives you a lot to think about doesn't it?
Thanks for sharing!

It's the old "Let Them Play" / "Someone's Going to get Killed" discussion.

IMO, and in general only, the coaches complain / comment more when we call a foul than when we don't. So, the coaches, overall, are asking for the more physical game.

And, 300 HS in the Chicago area (SWAG), playing 25 games each = 3,750 varsity games for each sex. I'm sure that not every game was perfectly called and that some coach was to STFU and that some official decided not to call the rules, etc.

When I stop hearing coaches and fans yelling '3 seconds' during rebounding action, I will be of the opinion that they possess some rules knowledge. I don't know who determined this guy was 'famous'. I never heard of him. Until coaches realize that they hold the key to containing rough play by substituting offending players, officials will continue to receive blame. Calling games so tightly that the rough play is 'contained' will result in complaints that the games have no 'flow'.

Those are some of my observations.

This article is a joke...not even worth commenting on.

But where did this come from?

That sure seems like a quote that was pulled out the middle of a conversation. There is no context for it.

Can we critique this guy's jounalitist style or will that offend fiasco? :rolleyes:

I thought the same thing. Either there's more to the background than is being reported here or this particular coach was answering a particularly gratuitious question from the reporter.

I like grunewar's comments. I also keyed on the paragraph he (she?) quoted:

The anonymous nature of the coaches' comments speaks volumes by itself. Is "cowardly" too strong a word? I don't know, but it seems to fit.

Where does the comment about being bigger than the game come from? How do you go from "the game is getting generally more physical" to "the officials think they're bigger than the game"? That's a coach's attitude, which I think is fairly common for some reason, and not something that is supported by a particular style of play.

Stupid comments from the coaches for the most part.

WOW!!!!

Taylor Bell is/was a well respected high school reporter for the Chicago Sun Times who retired a 7-8 years back, but has resurfaced again and does spot pieces. I always respected his knowledge especially of the history of Chicago sports, but this is really garbage with seemingly nothing but a sour grapes dig or two by a few coaches.

''But they weren't emphasized during the season,'' one coach said. ''Hopping is a rule that has been in place for a long time but hasn't been enforced. Several coaches were chastised by officials for asking it to be called. They were told to sit down and shut up because they wouldn't call it.''

In my wildest dreams, I can't imagine ANY official I've ever worked with, good or bad, telling a coach to sit down and shut up.

Ironically, I was telling another official during the season that I really saw good consistent officiating on ALL levels that I've worked this year from kids games both boys and girls to state tournament games.

And I saw plenty of palms/carry calls during state tournament games. I attended or officiated approximately 10 tourney games and believe me, it was emphasized.

I'd like to extend an invite to Mr. Bell to attend Tom O'Neil's camp to open his eyes to the level of instruction and scrutiny most officials go through in the effort to self improve.

This piece is out of the Geraldo Rivera school of journalism.

It's one long, unsubstantiated, anonymous, incoherent rant and rave. It just strings together complaints from some number of random coaches. There is little, or mostly no, context for any of the comments. There is no data to back any of it up. There's no objectivity; not even a pretense at being unbiased.

In fact, whenever this writer quotes a source with a positive opinion, it's quickly followed with a statement about how that person "admitted" or "conceded" points the writer is trying to make. The only named sources get set up as straw men for the unnamed sources.

This piece of journalism, IMHO, wouldn't get a passing grade in any journalism 101 class. It's little more than typical sports writer cry-baby ranting.

Maybe Mr. Bell has a grand-daughter playing now and felt his little princess got totally roughed up, not to mention completely screwed because the big, bad officials let her completely unprincipled opponents get away with "obvious" hops, palms, and three seconds? :D

Same story, different state......coaches say the same thing in this area, but it not printed.

Sounds more like a difference in journalistic standards.

Ok, this article does touch on some truth in officiating. It may not be totally accurate but there is some truth to it.

Hell, you can identify that by some officials who frequent this very forum.

1). How they don't like a rule!

This problem does not just exist in Ill.

I will go as far to say that it has been said you will call what assignor(s)/supervisor(s) want you to call if you want to progress or work. It's that want the article is touching on.

Waiting for the blast!!

I can only speak for myself, I've never had an assignor tell me what to call other than rules.

That's only true in southern California, the Magical Land Of College And Above. In SoCal, all officials have a full varsity schedule in their first year and are ready for D1 college games by the end of their third year.

It's true, it's true........

That's because they have 98 hours of classroom training every year.

It's just as true.

Change the word "officials" to "coaches" and the story would have much more credibility. What I would like to see on this topic is a chart showing the correlation between coach's complaints and their winning percentage. Gee, I wonder which way that would be skewed? :p

Ok,I can live with that. In the article, how many of those hoppings, palmings/carryings, displacements are viewed as game interrupters by
official(s).

Here's the appropriate question. How many of those "hoppings, palmings, etc." were examples of the coaches not knowing the details of the rule. Example, how many times do you see a legitimate jump stop on the perimeter by a 3-point shooter? I see it quite a bit. Even had that followed (or preceded) by an actual travel I called on the other end. Coach complains, but he's wrong.
How many times does a coach thing displacement is another word for "over the back?"
How many times does a coach want 3 seconds called when it's not appropriate (by rule, not interp)?

Finally, how many of these might simply be missed calls (as in, with so much going on, officials didn't catch something) rather than blatant and purposeful disregard for various rules?

Now, if you call 3 seconds when the post player has a toe on the free throw line....

What is a "game interrupter"? Please define it.

Snaqwell, you have identified some valid points. I agree some not most have to do with coaching. What strikes me as odd is we(some officials) look for a reason not to admit we are wrong (some not most) of the time and we do a terrible job in communicating that to coaches.

The funny thing about the article is how there is the criticism about the IHSA and evaluating officials.

First of all the IHSA does not assign officials to any regular season game. In Chicago for the most part, if you work any game in any conference, a conference assignor/supervisor likely gave it to you. In other words each coach can complain, praise, ask for clarification on any play or send a tape to that supervisor. I know I have had people complain about something I have done and I heard about it from the supervisor. And coaches and schools have the ear of every supervisor that I work for. You cannot complain to the paper when you do not even know who to talk to in the first place. All the IHSA does is license officials and assign officials for the post season. And at least on the Boy's side the IHSA has to only pick about 190 officials across the state, and if there is someone that does not want to work in the post season, there are more people that make themselves available.

The next thing I found funny about the article and the coaches that seemed to not have a problem, Dorothy Gaters of Marshall won another state title in Girl's basketball. I believe that was her seventh title and first in the new 4 class system. For those that do not know Gene Pingatore of St. Joseph is the same coach that was in the movie "Hoop Dreams" and has won a state title as well. The ironic thing about this article for me is the fact that I had his team in the Regional where he was upset by less talented team in the Regional Championship game. I also work in his conference and have had him probably about 5 times and he has likely not said 2 words to me about calls. I even saw him speak when he received an award from an official's group I belong to and he said that he does not waste time yelling at officials because when coaches do it becomes a distraction to his coaching the kids. In the game I had him that ended his season, he did not yell at us about anything and in the paper said how his kids were not ready to play and that he did not get them ready to play.

And what I really found funny is the claim that "Coaches have to attend rules meetings before the season." The reality is that is not true. All that is required by the IHSA is each school has to be represented at a rules meeting. There is no requirement that each coach must attend those meetings. Usually what happens is a school sends the first time coach who is an assistant on the freshman B team to fulfill the IHSA requirement. And when the season starts it is not uncommon to run into head coaches at all levels that have no idea of the rules changes or POEs that are talked about. A great example of this is the uniform rule that required the jerseys to be white. The IHSA sent out a remedy to not give Ts for every illegal jersey as the rules require and we have known for 3 years this rule was coming. Or the coaches are unaware of the specific points the IHSA wants like an emphasis on coaching box enforcement and when the season starts and you tell a coach to stay in the box they look at you like your head spun around 360 degrees and you turned a different color.

I am also sure there are officials that have told a coach or two to "sit down and shut up." I would be very naive to think that has never happen. Actually I worked with an official that told a coach to "Shut the F up." But this was an old time veteran that time has past and still gets games from certain people only because he has been around. He does not get the best games, but he still works because no one makes a big time fuss. That being said, that is the only time I have heard an officials say that to a coach. And when a coach complains about certain rules or calls that should have been made like traveling or a foul (What is hoping BTW??) they coaches do not even know the rule. For example if they want a travel called, they will say things like, "He cannot get one and a half steps." Or the coaches will ask for traveling on inbounds plays (which happen to me this year).

It just sounds like a bunch of coaches complain because they do not know how to coach and it is easy to blame the officials rather than their ability or the talent they put on the floor. This article was so absurd on many levels it was laughable.

Peace

Jurassic Referee, you have been around for a hundred years. I believe you have an idea on what the term means. However, I will entertain you. a "game interrupter" are calls which by some officials view have minimal impact on the game and can be passed on.

No more so than a 3 second call or a travel or a BI. Just the rules.......

Speak for yourself Kemosabe. I have no problem telling a coach I missed something.

I don't have a clue what the term means...mainly because I have never received a rational explanation or definition.

What calls are you talking about when you say they have minimal impact on the game and thus can be be passed on?

JR,

Come on now. I realize you cannot stand the comment, but to act like you have no idea of the comment is kind of silly now. ;)

You might not agree with the term, but do not act like you have no idea what is meant by it. I have seen you make this dance for a few years now. And if you are expecting one definitive answer about what this term means is not very realistic. There are a lot of comments people make that we might not completely agree with, but do not act like you have no idea what it means.

Peace

Jeff, so far I've received about 3 or 4 different explanations of what a "game interrupter" is supposed to be. There seems to be different explanations, for some reason.

I also have <b>never</b> received an answer to as to what call that we make <b>isn't</b> a game interrupter. Every time we blow the whistle, we interrupt the game, stop the flow, whatever.

So yes, I really am not sure exactly what a "game interrupter" is supposed to be. And I have yet to have anyone that uses the term give me a definition of it that is plausible.

As near as I can tell, a "game interrupter" usually occurs when someone happens to disagree with a call that you just made.:)

A game interrupter is any valid/legitimate call you made but your supervisor/observer/evaluator says you should have passed on. ;)

It's true, it's true......:)

Seriously!

Sounds like a pretty good definiton to me! Or maybe this is a better way to put it: "A game interrupter is any call made by a partner that I don't think was a good call." Had that one thrown at me a few times.

As far as the article goes - it's more whining by someone who sits in the stands and has absolutely no idea what we as officials are attempting to do and accoomplish during a game. But the mere fact that they sit there and watch a bunch of games from the stands gives them the knowledge and credibility needed to criticize the job we do. The mere fact that he supposedly found some coaches who agreed with him lends tremendous validity in his mind. Not worth the paper it was written on - imho.

So....you've never suffered from gamus interruptus - AT YOUR AGE!!!! :D

Do you think that I'd admit it if I did?:D

Not to your assignor, but maybe on Springer. :D

A game interrupter is no more than something that probably did not need to be called. That does not apply to any one situation or call. What is actually a game interrupter is going to change from one official to another because judgment is always going to apply. That is no different than what I might call good judgment and you might call bad judgment. There is no put in the bank description that you are going to get. And I know you are smart enough to realize that. You just do not seem to like the term which is certainly OK with me. Many things in officiating are very subjective when it comes to how you enforce certain rules or what judgments you make. And how people interpret things like this is no different.

Peace

I'll go with the definition of a game interrupter as a call that someone disagrees with but is either not sure why or is too lazy to figure out why. It's not an awfully bad terribly hideous call, it's a call that for some reason just doesn't sit well with the person making the observation. IOW it's what we used to call a cop out - a word that really doesn't say what we mean. If it's your partner making the observation then it's a call that he won't call at a later point for crew consistency... IOW he's gonna hang you out to dry rather than make the same potentially borderline call he might disagree with. If it's your assigner then it's a call that he fears might get a coach thinking he needs to call him and complain about. Again, not awfully bad but a just sorta kinda borderline call that a damn good referee would never make because he knows better. And what he knows better is to not make calls his partners won't have the guts to back him up on or calls that may get him a call from the boss.

So if someone tells you your call was a game interrupter then do as JR does: ask why. And don't take "because" as an answer.

I have never heard anyone not be willing to give the "why" part of the term. And I have never heard a coach ever use this in conversation because this is not apart of there vernacular or jargon. The team is more than "I do not like the call."

Peace

I have really never heard the why part amount to more than it's a game interrupter because it interrupted the game, more or less. Whatever that means.

I too have never heard a coach use this term. I'm not saying a coach will call an assigner and say I called a game interrupter. I'm saying the coach will call the assigner and say I sucked and that he's gonna mail him the tape. And the assigner will have to look at the tape and say no, he didn't suck, but he'll waste a haf hour in the process.

btw, this is all not to say that there are not borderline calls that need to be discussed. What I'm saying is 'game interruper' is an over used under defined term that means different things to different people. IOW it is useless.

I think perhaps that the "game interrupter" thing started with a little insignificant call such as the guy in the high post with his heel touching the line 3 second call. The trouble is that it has grown exponentially in every direction. Now we hear more and more: "We don't call that." A little shuffle of the feet, a slight hesitation of the ball in the hand on a crossover, a defender's hand lightly on the hip, and then all these little things get bigger and bigger. More and more black and white areas are being replaced with various shades of gray.

"Technically, that might have been a (insert name of foul/violation here), but we don't call that." So if you and I do call that, it is dismissed with a wave of the hand and a label: game interrupter.

I think this is a pretty good take. It started as the 3-second count example you gave, or the borderline carry called while the PG was dribbling near half-court with no pressure, then it grew into the borderline foul call when the defender was beat, or the tough travel in the post when the player didn't gain an advantage, and now it's used to describe anything a coach or player or other official doesn't think should be called "for the good of the game."

It doesn't mean anything - or it means everything - but bottom line is it's a useless term because everyone looks at it differently and has a different perspective. The "concept" is fine, but everyone operates from a different definition, so it is useless in a real conversation.

Big surprise, I have a dfferent idea of "gamus interruptus". Yes, a partner or observer may not like the call, but I find that term is used when a non-obvious call is made that one team just hates, which takes time for the calling official or crew to unsuccessfully explain. That dead ball time during these situations seems to run long, and hence is an "interruptor". Doesn't mean the call is wrong. Dead ball time is usually not a great time for officials.

A bad call is just a bad call. I've never heard the game interruptor as an excuse for not saying someone thought a call was wrong. You just get the "minus" or dreaded "double-minus" on the sheet for that whistle.

You know, this one actually seems like a bad call rather than a "game interrupter." If it's borderline contact and the defender got beat, looks like no advantage to me. No advantage on borderline contact = no foul. Pretty easy to explain to a new guy why he shouldn't have called it. Use the rule book, it's pretty clear.

Bingo!:)

What the hell is hopping? :D

I have no idea. But this guy sure got his panties in a wad about it. :rolleyes:

Hopping is a game interrupter.

I stopped reading....
 

....when it said "officials are making up their own rules" and "officials think they're bigger than the game."

What a piece of garbage.

"Gannaway believes the critical officiating issues the IHSA is trying to address ... deal with the fact that officials are getting older and that qualified, young officials aren't filling the void."

So Dave thinks 1) there are not enough new, young officials coming in, or 2) the current young officials aren't good enough to take the place of older officials.

It's not about filling the void, but not having the opportunities to move up and take the games the "good ol' boys" guarantee the oldsters. I shouldn't have to wait until someone dies to move up. (Which is the case for Utah post-season, btw.)

Here is the problem, this is not Utah. And there are young officials that get opportunities all the time. The problem is there are not enough of them. The average new official is not in their 20s anymore. The trend that is being seen by the stats and associations is the fact that many people that are getting into officiating for the first time are in their 40s after their kids stopped are starting to go to college or stopped playing HS sports. It has nothing to do with "good ol' boys." I have been at this for about 13 years now and I am in my mid-30s. I run a New Official's Class and I am the youngest person in the room teaching people that are mostly older than I am. Nothing wrong with that, but someone in their 40s is not likely going to be around for 20 and 30 years.

Peace

While there is certainly some of that in there, I think of it as "too literally following the written rule and not the spirit-and-intent of the rule."

Or, "not properly applying A/D to the call"

Or, "being a plumber."

And, yes, it can be used as a crutch for not making a call, and, yes, the pendulum can swing too far to that side.

I'm glad someone finally said this. I can't say I've called a hopping violation in all of my years. I'd really like to see what the approved mechanic is.

This article is bs. How are the coaches and fans interviewed making valid points when they are using terms such as "hopping"? I suprised they didn't talk about "over the back" not being called enough. The least they can do is be informed about the rules before they get critical with officials.

Here's the instructional sheet I got at camp.

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=43726&rendTypeId=4

By the photos provided, if you look closely especially at the last photo,I think this one is the controversial hopping and flopping mechanic.

One thing I'd like to comment on. I'm one of those young officials and have been a basketball official for 3 years. I'm 27 years old. I work hard, study the rules and feel like I do a great job. Yet, I still see a lot of politics that go on. I worked a few varsity games last year and will work a few more this year but my schedule is mostly filled with JV and JH games and I'm ok with that. I'm concerned about the coming years where it seems that certain assignors and schools continue to hire based on the buddy system. It's very, very discouraging to new officials.

Three years in and your getting some varstiy games? Quit whining, you're doing fine.

Right on schedule laddy.

I'm not whining though. I'm just stating that I notice the buddy system. I'm happy with my progress, believe me. And I'm not one to get upset about what level of games I'm working, at least with the amount of experience I have. However, I can see how others can get frustrated.

If you are complaining about politics and you are getting varsity games after only 3 years, do you consider your success political or based on talent? I could make the case that you have a buddy helping you out. If I were you I would be happy that you are even getting any varsity games. There are many officials it took longer to get those games.

Peace

Politics is a reality in any organization in any part of life: work, school, dating, civic organizations, officiating, etc. I'm not talking about cloak and dagger stuff, back-stabbing others, stepping on people, or sleeping your way to the top. Though that does go on some places.

I'm talking about knowing how the "system" or "group dynamic" works, and using that knowledge to your advantage, to get into a particular group and move up within it.

The world is full of bitter people who steadfastly refuse to "get" that. You hear them whining about the "good old boy" system and how they're being held down. Most of them think too highly of their own opinions and skills to ever see that they're deficient in some area and THAT holds them back. They make sneering remarks about "sucking up" and how they'll never be one of "those guys." Really they're just unwilling to do what's needed to get positive attention from, and perhaps even build genuine friendships with, those who matter.

In my experience, people who consistently whine about "politics" either don't get how the system works, just don't like how the system works, are too lazy to work the system, believe the system simply owes them, or consider themselves "better" than the system. But all of them blame the system. It's so much easier than taking personal responsibility and making meaningful changes.

But that works to your advantage, if you're willing to work the system.

Life is politics.

Your entire post is spot-on, but this is the most true statement of all.

Basketball is the worst for politics. Football (IHSA) is most guys are 60 with 30+ years in, but I think coaches have more control on who they see on their games than other sports.

There are more basketball officials than any other sport.

There are fewer slots available per game for officials.

I think Back in the Saddle hit the nail on the head. People use "politics" as an excuse because people are not willing to work within the system.

Peace

Amen, BITS.

In ten years, I have never, EVER seen genuinely capable officials that weren't given opportunities if they sought them out - unless something was holding them back. Sometimes it was a flaw in their game, more often it was a flaw in their attitude.

Stop making excuses.

Start making changes.

Words to live by.

You look great in those pictures Mark! It is always fun when you get asked to demonstrate something at a camp isn't it. :D

Yeah - but I should have been wearing my fishnets. :o

A2 catches a ball with two feet on the floor. Without dribbling, A2 lifts both feet [hops] and lands to reset foot position before taking a shot.
Signal: Traveling
;)

I still remember the old assignor for my board back in CT. He came to watch & speak at one of the new-member clinics, and his biggest mantra was "cream rises." Politics of course exist, but the best referees are going to be the ones getting assigned to the best games.

le

You want to move up. Here's how you do it. Be reliable, work as many games as you can, know the rules, work on your mechanics, take the good with the bad. By that I mean if you agree to work a conference don't turn a game back just because it's hard to get to. If you agree to work a conference work the damn conference. If you have to turn a game back get a qualified replacement that the assignor knows and then call the assignor. Don't cancel at the last minute. If you're sick the day before and can't find a replacement drag your sorry *** to the game and do the best that you can. Join more than one associations and attend camps. Yes attend more than one camp each season. Are there old f**ks doing games they don't belong on. Of course there is. Just remember some day you'll be the old f**k.

Why do you put asterisks in to spell folks?

In response to Back In The Saddle's self-serving diatribe in favor of the perpetual buddy club

What an absolute crock. I've been lurking for a long time, but this crock is so bad I had to remember my junk mail box name and register.

Playing good old boy politics is just an excuse for excluding people who are threatening, be it younger people, darker people or people of a different gender or orientation.

The fact is, ability should be paramount in assigning and promoting officials, not being pals. The only people who defend placing politics above ability are the people being protected by the politics. The fact is incompetent people who are buddies get favorable treatment because they are members of the buddy club.

Your answer is to join the buddy club.

Pathetic.

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.

Ah, gee, sounds like someone's bitter.

These unemployed religious gun nuts need to lighten up.

Guffaw!

I worry about the employed religious gun nuts. They can afford bullets.

But they're not bitter....

Yep. We really need to keep our eyes on the under-employed religious gun nuts who are bitter but have some income.

I'm really worried about the self-employed bible-thumping gun-toting xenophobes.

Remember now that this only applies to those unemployed religious gun nuts in Pennsylvania...out here in Washington State, the unemployed religious gun nuts just go out into the woods and pick mushrooms - so they can always afford a few bullets!:eek:

As long as they don't have an irrational hatred of foreigners they are harmless, like this guy for instance

Want to really get scared by one of those nuts? Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi77koTk8mc

If you think that decisions in just about any form of life are made where the top people based on ability alone are chosen, then you are really out of touch with life, not just officiating. And we could be talking about college admissions, industry or political elections, and who is the most qualified or has the most "merit" is not only subjective but not everyone is going to agree.

Peace

Thank you. I could hardly have said it better.

Well, gee, I guess if being asked to work with people who can't chug up and down the floor, can't see and think points of emphysis is a fairy tale, then I guess I'm bitter. Personally, I'm doing fine, but I see better officials in middle school games than in some varsity contests.

I never suggested that the non-cooperative ought to advance. But when the incompetent are protected, or people don't advance because "son/miss, you just haven't been doing it long enough, like old Fred over there" then it's politics at its worst and people who defend it are defending their comfortable status quo.

Get off your high horse. BITS never defended what you're complaining about.

Get your a$$ out there and seen by the local HS varsity coaches. Do their summer tournamnets and camps - volunteer to do them for free if you have to. Make sure they see how good you are. Then they will start contacting the assignors and asking "Hey, why isn't this stud working our regular season games? He's way better than old Fred you keep sending out."

In other words, quit the freaking whining about politics and do what YOU need to do to move up. Until then, it's all just sour grapes.

Everywhere you go, you will find there is a system of some kind in place. Some are better, some are worse. Some are blatantly protecting officials whose "sell by dates" are long past. Blah blah blah.

So what are you going to do about it? If you work in an area where The Society for the Protection of Fred run the show, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to sit on the sidelines and whine about it? Or are you going to figure out how to work within that system, flawed though it may be, to advance? Because unless you have the power to change the system, those are really your only two choices.

Life is politics.

It's easier to go on a web board and anonymously b1tch about it.

'Tis the truth you're speaking.