Welmer out...

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

[26 Year Gap]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

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".

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1)
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.

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.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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?

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

True.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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?

I'm saying that to watch tape simply to look for reasons to denigrate another official is not the correct use of the evaluation process.

In this case you're watching tape only to aid you in your quest to dump on Welmer. It has nothing to do with training anybody or helping Welmer become a better official.

Again, just so that you don't misconstrue anything that I've said, that's my opinion.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

1) You didn't answer my question. Have you broke down Welmer's game on tape?

2) 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.

3) 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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Well to be honest, the NCAA uses tape to show many bad examples of officiating and also uses it to eliminate people out of the tournament. There is a reason many big name officials only worked one round or none at all in the NCAA Tournament last year.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I think your position on the NBA is no different than what Tommy's opinion is on Welmer. You have an opinion and I think your position on the NBA is really not accurate. For one the NBA is not nearly as physical as college. I think the reason is they have fewer officials to monitor and they can get a handful of guys on the same page or they will find someone else to do it. I also used to be a fan of the NBA but I am not, but it has nothing to do with the officiating. It has everything to do with the style of play for me. But to say that it is so physical is just not true in my opinion. Actually they call a lot of slight contact fouls that you do not see even called at the college level by the big timers. And some of the worst traveling calls or non-traveling calls I see are at the college level.

Again this is my take on your comments, but that is your right to feel that way. I just do not think what you say is totally true. I think a lot of people buy into the media hype of the NBA and that is fine. I just think that perception is not true.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually they call a lot of slight contact fouls that you do not see even called at the college level by the big timers.

Again this is my take on your comments, but that is your right to feel that way. I just do not think what you say is totally true.

And I respect your right to have your take also. Some of it I personally agree with and some of it I don't.

With regards to the red-highlighted statement above, I basically agree with that also. But in my opinion NBA officials do not call this type of play consistently. I see it called...and then I see it no-called.....and I see one official calling it and another official letting rape go. It's the inconsistency in calling contact in the NBA that I personally just can't figure out. And I ain't the only one. I think that D1 officials are more consistent within their conferences in calling contact. That said, there is a disparity from conference to conference also, and it's been that way forever.

Jmo also, Jeff.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I haven't looked at tape of Welmer. However, after attending several camps and watching tape with my friends it doesn't take a lot of time to tell when someone is officiating by the seat of their pants and when someone has a tried and true method of getting plays right.

Sorry if I'm not willing to drink the Welmer Kool-Aid. I will leave that to you.

[tomegun]

Rut,

While what you are saying is totally true, you are nearly 3,000 posts shy of the credibility to post it.

Of course, I'm being totally sarcastic!

It is par for the course. I have an opinion and I'm dumping on an official. JR has an opinion and it is made to seem as though it came down from the heavens.

All I ask is this: tell me why Welmer is an elite college official and I'm not talking about how coaches, players and an assigner feels. I say that because 1) we are known for giving credibility to what a coach and/or player says when it is good but not when it is bad and 2) the assigners who assign the last games, the tournament, have never thought highly of him.

Could someone make an argument comparing him to officials like Jamie Luckie, Les Jones, Hal Lusk or Pat Adams? I just don't think he compares.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Rut,

While what you are saying is totally true, you are nearly 3,000 posts shy of the credibility to post it.

Of course, I'm being totally sarcastic!

It is par for the course. I have an opinion and I'm dumping on an official. JR has an opinion and it is made to seem as though it came down from the heavens.

All I ask is this: tell me why Welmer is an elite college official and I'm not talking about how coaches, players and an assigner feels. I say that because 1) we are known for giving credibility to what a coach and/or player says when it is good but not when it is bad and 2) the assigners who assign the last games, the tournament, have never thought highly of him.

Could someone make an argument comparing him to officials like Jamie Luckie, Les Jones, Hal Lusk or Pat Adams? I just don't think he compares.

Maybe not, but that makes me question how Hightower has been so successful in the tourney and Welmer hasn't even gotten a sniff of the Final Four. I'm just curious what the powers to be see in Hightower that they don't see in Welmer.