"Good" games vs. "Bad" games

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Ref_in_Alberta

In your area what in you opinion is the ratio of good, competitive, well played games verus bad, non-competitve, poorly played games?

I hear this topic discussed amongst officials all the time. It has become more common of late, in my opinion, to say, "this is a crap game." I think that part of it is that some (I won't use "many" here in case Jurassic is still reading) officials think that they are better than the game they are doing.

A game can be a "good, competitive" game without being "well played." A game can be "rough" while being competitive. A game can be "poorly played", yet be very "competitive". Does that make the game "bad"?

For the most part, games are what you make of them. If a game is a blowout, enjoy the talent of the superior team and enjoy the effort of the losing team. If a game is between two strong competitive teams, enjoy your night, it will be fun!!! If a game is between two average teams, it will be a competitive game -- the players are still competing hard. If a game is between two poor teams, the game can quite possibly still be competitive. Depending on the age group, the players might not know that they are "poor" teams.

Enjoy the game regardless of who is playing. Have fun while doing it.

The number of top quality games is very limited. If you are doing one of these games, enjoy the moment and work hard.

If you find that you are doing a bunch of good games, that is probably because folks recognize you as being a good official. If you find that you are doing what you think are a bunch of "bad, non-competitive, poorly played" games, well, you know what kind of officials usually do these types of games -- work to get better.