why is it when "we" officials work a great game

[BEAREF]

this topic is from a forum in minnesota....some of the comments are, in my opinion, just plain stupid...but make for entertaining reading. I'm interested to see if any of you have opinions about them.

copy and paste this into your address bar...

Minnesota-Scores.net Forum • View topic - Why is it when "We" officials work a great game...

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by BEAREF

this topic is from a forum in minnesota....some of the comments are, in my opinion, just plain stupid...but make for entertaining reading. I'm interested to see if any of you have opinions about them.

copy and paste this into your address bar...

Minnesota-Scores.net Forum • View topic - Why is it when "We" officials work a great game...

or just click it.

[just another ref]

There is a reference in the thread about officials having a bias against private schools. From my perspective, it is more like private schools have a bias against officials.

[bas2456]

I'll tell you what, if an official is officiating for glory and recognition, he's in the wrong business, plain and simple.

Of course it's nice to hear compliments, and they come every once in awhile, and usually from the winning team. Sometimes they catch me so off guard, I can't even muster a "thank you".

They say that you know a game is well-officiated when you seemingly don't even notice the refs are there. The game has a certain rhythm to it, and the refs are part of that rhythm. If the rhythm is disrupted, that's when people start complaining about the officiating.

I know when I've called a good game, and that's all I need. I could care less what the players think.

I take pride in getting better as an official.

[zm1283]

I'm working a few days of the home school national tournament like SWMOzebra posted last week. I did three 16U boys games on Tuesday. After all three games, players from both teams came up to us and shook our hands, thanked us for working their game, etc. Coaches were really good, fans really good for the most part. Not all experiences are bad.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by bas2456

They say that you know a game is well-officiated when you seemingly don't even notice the refs are there. The game has a certain rhythm to it, and the refs are part of that rhythm. If the rhythm is disrupted, that's when people start complaining about the officiating.

Anyone who says any of those things really doesn't have a clue about officiating.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Anyone who says any of those things really doesn't have a clue about officiating.

I don't have a clue? Are you kidding me?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I don't have a clue? Are you kidding me?

Yes, if you actually believe those original comments.

Peace

[bas2456]

The game of basketball has a rhythm unlike any other game. Baseball is slow, football is too choppy, but basketball has rhythm and flow. What's so wrong about my comments

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I don't have a clue? Are you kidding me?

Well when you said "they say" I thought you meant "they" and not "I"....but I guess if you actually believe that then you really don't understand officiating.


"They say that you know a game is well-officiated when you seemingly don't even notice the refs are there."

That is just wrong. Many times the officials must take actions which will make them be noticed. That thought is just a myth spread by fanboys.

"The game has a certain rhythm to it, and the refs are part of that rhythm. If the rhythm is disrupted, that's when people start complaining about the officiating."

Originally Posted by bas2456

The game of basketball has a rhythm unlike any other game. Baseball is slow, football is too choppy, but basketball has rhythm and flow. What's so wrong about my comments

I'm not even sure what the rhythm of a game even means. But I think you are talking about officials sounding their whistles many times and stopping play. Some games have lots of fouls and/or violations; in order for the game to be officiated properly the officials will have to break the rhythm many times.

Stop worrying about noticing officials. Many times they will have to do things which will make them be noticed. Stop worrying about rhythm of the game. If there is a foul then call it. If there is a violation then call it.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Well when you said "they say" I thought you meant "they" and not "I"....but I guess if you actually believe that then you really don't understand officiating.


"They say that you know a game is well-officiated when you seemingly don't even notice the refs are there."

That is just wrong. Many times the officials must take actions which will make them be noticed. That thought is just a myth spread by fanboys.

"The game has a certain rhythm to it, and the refs are part of that rhythm. If the rhythm is disrupted, that's when people start complaining about the officiating."




I'm not even sure what the rhythm of a game even means. But I think you are talking about officials sounding their whistles many times and stopping play. Some games have lots of fouls and/or violations; in order for the game to be officiated properly the officials will have to break the rhythm many times.

Stop worrying about noticing officials. Many times they will have to do things which will make them be noticed. Stop worrying about rhythm of the game. If there is a foul then call it. If there is a violation then call it.

OK so the wording of this "myth" is a bit wrong. Did you not read the part where I said the refs are a part of the rhythm? Foul/violation is called, and the ball is put back in play.

The fact of the matter is, if the refs do a good job, then the game will have a much better flow and rhythm.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bas2456

The game of basketball has a rhythm unlike any other game. Baseball is slow, football is too choppy, but basketball has rhythm and flow. What's so wrong about my comments

Basketball might have a flow. There is nothing that says there must be flow. There is nothing says that we are solely responsible for that flow. If you have to call 100 fouls because the teams are doing illegal things, then you have to call a 100 fouls. Good officials recognize when they need to stay out of the way and when they need to get involved a lot.

BTW, Football can constantly move if you have the right teams running the ball and keeping the ball in bounds. Baseball can go very fast if everyone is swinging a pitches or the pitcher is throwing strikes. There are no absolutes in sports and this is why your comments do not show knowledge whom ever they come from.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bas2456

The fact of the matter is, if the refs do a good job, then the game will have a much better flow and rhythm.

The officials that called a foul at the end of a game in Ohio (in the thread where the school wanted an apology), had his name in the paper and had the schools asking for an apology, all for what looks like on video the proper call. If that call had been made in the middle of the game no one would have said a word. The fact that the call took place with seconds in a close game meant he will likely forever be remembered. That official did not ask for that moment, he had to step up to the challenge and call what was proper.

Peace

[bas2456]

BTW, Football can constantly move if you have the right teams running the ball and keeping the ball in bounds. Baseball can go very fast if everyone is swinging a pitches or the pitcher is throwing strikes. There are no absolutes in sports and this is why your comments do not show knowledge whom ever they come from.

Peace[/QUOTE]

If, if, if, if. Look I'm not saying you're wrong, what I'm arguing is that basketball is a more definite flow.

There's always exceptions to every rule.

We're getting away from the original point of the article though. Officials shouldn't be looking for glory.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bas2456

We're getting away from the original point of the article though. Officials shouldn't be looking for glory.

This is a very telling statement on your part. I do not recall that anyone mentioned or suggested that you had to look for glory to be noticed. And that is why I said people that make that statement really do not understand officiating. And I gave an example where an official was simply doing his job and he was noticed for what was seen by some as a negative thing. And it did not appear that he needed or asked to be glorified for making the right call.

Peace