Madison prep writer not a fan of 3-person crews
 

http://www.madison.com/wsj/blogs/Pre...438354&ntpid=1

This is from the guy who referred to my intentional foul in an earlier conference game as a flagrant foul.

It is clear this guy sit stupid. You should not have even made him remotely popular. :D

Peace

I cannot tell from the photo, but I think that fan may have spilled his soda. Too bad it is not filmed at actual speed so we could tell.

He's talking about the lady in the red. She would have to be reacting to something that had already happened a second or so earlier, not the defender's hand on the shooter's arm. Either way, why is he shocked that calls are missed even in 3-whistle games? Does he think that NCAA, NAIA, NBA, etc. use 3 referees for sh*ts and giggles? I also love his terminology: "bench side" and "crowd side" referees.

I guess this idiot thinks these "missed" calls would be made if there were only two officials working the game. :sarcasm:

Rich, why don't you invite this moron to work a scrimmage with you next fall so he can see how easy it is?

Give us photographs of the whole game, and we'll get all the calls right.

How long do you suppose this blatant contact, which apparently didn't even affect the shot, lasted?

Sounds like quite a handicap. But maybe he stand smart.


Sorry, couldn't help myself.

"Matt Goins' photo from Thursday night's game isn't the first time a photographer has shown me a missed call, but it might be the most blatant."

Mr. Goins' camera was likely shooting somewhere between 4 and 6.5 frames per second. The shutter was open for only a small fraction of a second. A video may be helpful in showing the result of the contact. With just one frame of reference, while it certainly appears as though a foul could have been called in this situation, it is not possible to determine the duration of the contact or how it affected the shot.

Keep in mind, people in general resist change -- look how infrequently NFHS rules change. I would think that there are very few coaches in states where the 3-man system has been in place for many years -- like Ohio -- who would prefer 2-man because "the foul calls are better."

Ask the same writer the question in five years. While a number of you do not care for Mr. Robert Knight, he did have some interesting things to say about reporters, didn't he?

My thoughts exactly!!

Here ya go smart guy - here's a shirt and a whistle. Come join us and see if you miss anything. Oh yeah, nothing less than 100% correct calls is acceptable!

Why did this guy need someone else to help him cover the game?

We fear the things we dont understand!!!!!

I work this conference and did a pretty big game that was played right before this -- one of the two teams in this game was involved.

I look at that picture and think -- well, I would've held my whistle and seen if the player could play through that contact. It's obvious the contact was momentary and it didn't change the fact that the player scored the bucket. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have called a foul, either -- if the contact forced the player to change the shot, I would've likely called a foul and scored the bucket -- but the picture tells me little. The shooter could've simply blown through the contact and scored.

Yes, these players are physical. This is one of the top conferences in the state and the coaches and fans (and this writer) would be the first person to complain if we had a whistle every time down the floor. It's a balancing act, frankly, and people like this writer have no idea how hard it is to apply the Tower Philosophy in games like this. Sometimes we miss, sure, but call it a lapse in judgment, then -- it's not like we're out of position or we miss a call because we're waiting for someone else to make it.

I worked this conference 2-person. He doesn't really want to go back to that, he just doesn't know it.

Rich,
You certainly know far more about what is expected in that particular conference than I do. However, I would not be waiting with the whistle if I observed what is shown in the picture. To me that kind of contact on the arm of a shooter is a foul at any level at any time. If the player is strong enough to power through it and score anyway, then good for him and he will be getting an opportunity for a three-point play.

Some of that physical play will clean up if the officials demand it by calling such contact. Either the players will adjust and stop making such contact or they will find themselves sitting on the benches next to their coaches.

Remember, they will do what you permit.

JMO.

see if the moron will take a rules test also

You know, there's the official word, and then, there's reality. Again, it's hard to tell how long that contact was for given the quality of high speed photography.

Like I said in my previous post, if contact changes the shot in ANY way, I'm calling a foul. If it forces more effort, forces the kid to alter the angle, timing, etc., sure. I am guessing this would qualify, but I only have one still shot to go by.

I had a Tuesday night game in the conference that week and I personally had four "and one" situations.

Using one still photograph to make sweeping generalizations and an entire column, though? Shoot, the guy just might have missed the call.

Or better yet, the reporter was either lying or did not if a foul was called on this particular play or not. You cannot trust small town reporters just because they claim something to be true. There is a reason they are small town reporters and if they had any ability or knowledge, they probably would be covering something else.

Peace

Are you saying small towns aren't as important....

;)

You can tell that Rut is from Chicago (or a place like that) when a city of 250K people (and a metro area of 500K people) is considered a "small town."

That's the serious thought I had at the time. Personally, I like that size. Big enough to have everything you need, yet not unmanageable. And in my case, there's an NFL team within an hour's drive to boot.

Actually I am from a town of 10-20 thousand people. And small town papers in my state would be considered Peoria or Springfield (two of the largest cities outside of the Chicago area) which has much more people then where I grew up. And those papers tend to have very bias or slanted toward the covering schools more than a Chicago area paper that covers over 100 schools. I still read papers from the smaller towns (smaller than the two towns I just listed) and the coverage and opinions tend to be rather different when a small town paper is covering a game. In the media world, most people want to work in bigger markets because that means more money and more prestige, not much different as to how officials want to work in certain places as well. As a matter of fact, I am not in Chicago area right now. I am in my home town where I have worked at many smaller schools this past week and the coverage is completely different than a Chicago or Suburban paper.

Peace

I used to work in the league the writer is talking about in the Madison, WI Metro area but quit because of the assigner. This conference (Big Eight) has lost most of its good officials since the new assigner took over 3 years ago. The problem is not the 3 person system it is that the assigner has guys working varsity games that struggle with freshman games. If you put bad/inexperienced officials in a system they don't know very well they are going to struggle and it hurts everyone.

From this idiot's blog....

"but there was no whistle for the obvious foul and no opportunity for a 3-point play (click on the photo to enlarge it and check out the fan's reaction in the background to the play)."

There is no possible way for a fan to react to a no-call at this point.

I sent an e-mail to this clown and asked him to admit and correct his own mistakes in this blog story.....

the crickets are still chirping.......

Do I resemble this remark?

(The rest of my comment is being sent via private message.)

I'm puzzled by his ability to pinpoint EXACTLY when the play in question occurred -- unless it was clear it was at the end of the game. As stated, there is no way to know for sure what the fan was reacting to and its doubtful that she could react fast enough (not to mention all knowing enough) in that pic to know 1) it was a foul and 2) the officials weren't going to call that foul at any time.

I guess it comes down to the old saying... "opinions are like a$$holes, everybody's got one."

Rich, I hope you invite/challenge this guy to come and call a season's worth of games and then he "may" be able to write an informed article on what it takes to be an official.

You neglected the corollary: "... and most of them are full of crap."

Actually, I usually enjoy what this guy writes. But he couldn't be more in left field on this one. Like another poster on this thread, I have an idea what he's seeing, but it has nothing, NOTHING to do with 3 versus 2.

That was part of my point about the small town paper or media.

Last spring there was a report written about how officials were not doing their jobs properly. And instead of just quoting coaches and taking their word for their feeling, the reporting contacted the IHSA directly and at least got quotes from many sources and entities in the report. This guy did not even investigate the differences between 2 and 3 from prominent people as to if these things he was complaining about had anything to do with the 3 Person system. To me the standards of journalism were lacking.

And this is what I have seen all my life with the papers I grew up with when it comes to informational pieces from media members.

Peace

Even in national or big city media columnists will rip the officiating without trying to look at all sides of the story. We're easy targets.

I did not say they wouldn't. The article I was referencing (and posted last year BTW) was ripping officiating, but at least did some research on the subject with the higher ups. I bet this guy never asked anyone from the Wisconsin offices or an assignor as to what the problem is about the 3 Person system. He might have gotten some information about a transition period or that many officials are not as experienced to cover those games at this time. There was more information by a person commenting on the subject than there was from the person who wrote the article.

Peace

"Not only has off-the-ball contact become irrelevant..."

I actually took this guy seriously until he said this.

What an idiot.

Here is my Email to Mr. Hernandez....
 

Hello Mr. Hernandez:

I just read your sports blog/commentary online. It appears your attempting to address perceived shortcomings, or a lack of improvement, with three-person officiating crews. Note the gender-free reference, because I have officiated with highly qualified women. Nonetheless, I am thankful that in your commentary you acknowledged the crew of the "featured" game met your standard for officiating. But I have to ask "What criteria do you base your evaluation of officials?"

Let's step back and analyze your claims: "I continue to be dumbfounded by the abundance of no-calls or missed calls by the ones assigned to do Big Eight games and -- thanks to sports reporter Matt Goins of the Verona Press -- I have visual evidence to back up my claim." In your perfect world, the officials would have called the contact in this play. However, if you understand the role of the official you can allow room for judgment of advantage/disadvantage. In this play, the official let the play develop and determined the contact did not create a disadvantage for the shooter. (This concept is known as a "patient whistle") You openly admitted the shooter scored, this does not sound like an egregious error in judgment.
As follow-up to the concept of advantage/disadvantage you may need a greater understanding in evaluating "increased physical play." Are you confident that officiating crews are really that neglligent? Do you truly understand officiating to the level you can legitimately assess them? In regards to the game you discussed in the commentary, perhaps the crew missed the call (in the photo) and a few others along the way, but I am confident they were fully competent to administer the rules.I challenge you to step over to the "dark side" acquire some training and get on the court with stripes and a whistle. I am confident it will be an epiphany. I would love to see a follow-up article/blog after this experience.

My final observation, in a perfect world, writers and editors would not post an article/blog/commentary online or in print with misspelled words or other grammatical errors. Take a closer look at the last sentence of your sixth paragraph --Conference. Additionally, the first sentence of the seventh paragraph has an unnecessarily repeated word "game." One more thing, as a writer/editor, you have the benefit of time to review your decisions... sports officials need to process and act in split second timing.


Respectfully,

"Willie B. Free"
WIAA Certified Official
#200837

I am in total agreement.

And I couldn't possibly argue, either.

But again, it's not the 3-person officiating that's the root cause of this.

Maybe he's lobbying for 4-person crews. I could use the extra money.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention [email protected] is a twit.

I hope you fixed this to say "you are" or "you're" before you sent it. ;)