You cut me so deep.

1. He makes a lot of money and I can't fault him for that one bit.
2. He is well liked by coaches and players.
3. From an officiating standpoint he just isn't that good. His calls are just a little less obvious than what Stevie Wonder or Ray Charles would call. I'm talking about from a scientific standpoint, which is where the game is going.
4. With Dale Kelly losing some conferences and his injuries, he may never make it back to where he once was. I wonder what Curtis Shaw thinks of him. At any rate, I don't think he will be hurting for money if he hangs them up right now. I think he also runs and/or owns a golf course or two.

Bull pucky. You personally just don't like the guy. And you've shown that personal bias on here many times over the years. There's nothing the matter with that; you're entitled to your opinion. But why not just man up and admit that you don't like him rather than getting into nonsense like "scientific standpoint" and "where the game is going".

Not very believable imo, Tom.

Have you ever watched him on tape and broke down his game? If you do that and still feel the same way we just have different opinions. But, if you really look at his game I don't think you will disagree. There are many officials in D1 who have got by for a long time on their personality and a feel for the game. Officiating has been moving from an art to a science for a while and John Adams is furthering this cause. Welmer is just one of those guys. Hank Nichols and NCAA evaluators must agree with my opinion and that is why he doesn't advance.

I don't go with the crowd and in this case, Welmer is popular among officials. But to say he is opposite of what I said is wrong. As a sports fan, UNC basketball is another area where I don't mind going against the crowd. UNC has had more talent than UCLA with considerably less success. To me, great recruiting and good - not great - coaching is the cause. Maybe off topic, but when UNC and Duke get beat like they have been lately it warms the cockles of my heart. :D

Most of the time when I speak up about Welmer it is when someone mentions him as a great official. That, in my opinion, is bull pucky.

I will say this. There is something wrong with a system that has Welmer working 100 plus games a year and always on TV working the big games, and not working deep in the NCAA tournament. I am not saying this is because Welmer is bad, just saying something is wrong with a system that allows a person to constantly work but is not seen as good enough to work the tournament.

Peace

1) Yup, and I think that Ed Hightower and Ted Valentine are "one of those guys" too. Personality and a feel for the game is part of what makes all of them good officials. Hightower is starting to labor when he runs also. But all three of those guys can still do a helluva good job imo. Hell, take away their personalities and feel for the game and I personally don't think that they'd be anywhere near as good as they are.

2) And right there was the point that I was trying to make. What you think about Welmer is only your opinion. That doesn't make it fact. And if you feel that other officials are great even though they might share a lot of Welmer's attributes, hey, that's your opinion also and that doesn't make it a fact either. Personally, I'd hate to see the "art" part of both Valentine's and Hightower's game diminish; I don't think that either would be anywhere near as good as they are now if they went by "science" alone.

I just kinda find it funny that you'll take any opportunity that you can find to crap on some officials but you absolutely worship other guys and would never admit that they might be....well... human also.

And that's my opinion.

To me, it will be a sad day when the D1 officials become the nameless, faceless robots that 90% of the NBA officials are. And I absolutely put Hightower and Valentine in the same class as Welmer. And yet, they've been in the Final Four countless times while Welmer has been shut out. Gee, I wonder why that is?

A guy I worked with on Friday used to run the clock at Iowa games. He has met all 3 in numerous pre-games and said all three treated them very well. I don't think they counted tugs, though.

Agree completely, Rich. And I also think that there is a lot of "art" involved in good officiating at any level. And that includes high school.

There's a lot more to making the right call than just "making the right call".

Two weeks recovery? Pretty good. I've had people say anywhere from 3 -6 weeks. I don't carry much weight and I think it's pretty mild so you've given me hope that I can start at least jogging in two weeks.

When have you ever heard me say anything about Hightower or Valentine that indicates I worship them? What you read was me saying they have a lot of their antics after they blow the whistle while Hall and Thornley jump around during play.

You know who I think is good in D1? Jamie Luckie, Hal Lusk, Pat Adams and Les Jones. Also, I think Scott Foster is one of the best, if not the best, NBA official and I would hardly call him a robot.

You didn't answer my question. Have you broke down Welmer's game on tape? I wonder if anyone on the forum has. I don't have anything against his habits on the court, how he gets along with player/coaches or any of that. What I'm talking about is play calling. I'm not saying he is horrible, like some perceived "Big Dogs", but he isn't an elite play caller or even close.

Maybe we are looking at different aspects of officiating and that is why we disagree. You are also thinking I really have something against Welmer. I would take him over some officials, #cough - David Hall - cough#, any day. I actually think what he has achieved in the game is rather fascinating. To do 127 (the most I've heard of him doing) games in a season is unthinkable.

I hope you understand what my opinion is and don't think I have something personal against Welmer. I just don't think he is as good as others do.

The guys in the NBA aren't nameless or faceless to me and many other officials. Isn't the overriding theme to get plays right? That being the case, the NBA does a better job at doing that than the NCAA or high school. Mr. Rush is helping the NCAA get there, but it will take some time.

Whenever you go to a camp, the clinicians frequently talk about how they don't know if they could make it with the competition the way it is now. Officials are trained at a level higher than it used to be and the training is aimed at getting plays right NOT tugging on pants or squating when you blow the whistle.

I went to the WI/Penn State game yesterday. Valentine and Hightower were on the game. It was a very physical game, IMO. I just don't see how one can look at a tape and definitively say "this is a foul" or "this isn't a foul." While they can try to put as much science (via absolutes) into the game as they want, there's still a significant art in determining advantage/disadvantage on the fly. It's why one game, IMO, feels tightly called and another feels less so -- sometimes in the same conference.

How do we determine what's right? Welmer lets something go and someone watching tape subjectively decides that it should've been a foul? Please. Why wouldn't Welmer's subjective opinion be worth just as much -- he works the most games, after all.

It's tough, I know. How do you keep basketball a contact but not collision game and still have good flow and not blow the whistle every 8 seconds?

Are you saying watching tape has no value or less value than people give it? You do understand how much training is gained through watching tape don't you? The NBA requires it and it is becoming a bigger part of NCAA training. The move to reaching consistency from coast to coast is something many want in the college game. Is this what you would refer to as becoming robots?

I know what you mean, but certain absolutes make the game more consistent. Teams, players, coaches and officials can plan for it.

1) No, and if I ever get the urge to sit down and break down any NCAA official on tape(other than somebody I may know, like and think will appreciate it if I do give him some constructive feedback), I'm going to take something to make the urge go away. Why would I want to waste my time looking for reasons to say to the world that so-and-so is a crappy official? I'll leave that up to you, Tom. I always thought that evaluation by tape was supposed to be a positive process, not an excuse for someone to put down a fellow official. Somehow, I get the idea that your breaking Welmer down on tape might be done a little bit too subjectively.

2) Yup, I sureashell do respect your right to have an opinion. Everybody has their own opinions as to how good some prominent officials really are. I don't think that you have to denigrate a fellow official while doing so though. Note that's just my opinion.

3) And I personally completely disagree with those statements. Nobody outside the NBA has a clue whatinthehell "right" is supposed to be. Hell, I've been officiating for 50 years and I couldn't tell anybody if asked what a foul in the NBA is. And yes, I think they'll let the stars get away with traveling, etc. also in the name of the holy "entertainment. My opinion is that the NBA in it's current state is completely unwatchable. It's the WWE with a basketball. And note that 25 years ago, I was a complete NBA junky. It's just doesn't resemble basketball very much anymore in my opinion.

Hey, I agree that it certainly is your right to crap on Welmer every chance that you get. Keep on keeping on.

Oh no, I watch as much tape as I can. I try to see if there's something I wish I would've called (or not called) as well as positioning, where I'm looking, etc.

But there is a part of this that can't be reduced to an absolute -- unless we prohibit all contact, calls will always be fairly subjective.