I'm As Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore ...
 

You may, or may not, have heard about a website called, "60 Seconds On Officiating" (ref60.com). This website started about two, or three, years ago as a great idea. It appears to be run by two very bright, knowledgeable, officials, Tim Malloy, and Billy Martin. Their website is viewed by over 39,000 coaches, and officials, in 70 countries around the world. IAABO is listed as a partner on their website. Periodically throughout the season, and even in the offseason, they will post information about a particular situation, and try to explain the rules, and interpretations, behind the situation. This information is emailed to subscribers, at no cost. Sounds pretty good. Right?

Well, not quite. I have found the information that they post to be very informative, and about 99% correct. And that's the problem. Not 100% correct. Just 99% correct. For some reason, maybe due to a lack of personnel, or financial resources, occasionally they let an incorrect statement "slip" into their explanation of a specific situation. Maybe they don't realize that with over 39,000 viewers, that they have a responsibility to make sure that the information that they post be as accurate as possible. Many internet users believe, incorrectly, that anything posted on the internet must be true. This is true for the population in general, and is probably true for officials, especially rookie officials, or inexperienced officials.

A few days ago "60 Seconds On Officiating" posted a situation entitled, "Be Technically Correct". It was an article about how to handle a technical foul charged to a player between periods, and it was well written, informative, and 99% factual. The problem was that the first sentence stated, "The sound of the horn and the official's whistle are heard to end an uneventful first half of play in an NFHS contest". My problem with this was that I had never seen any mechanic, either NFHS, or IAABO, that stated that an official should sound his, or her, whistle at the end of an "uneventful" period, and by uneventful, I mean no complicating last second shot, foul, goaltending, basket interference, etc., in the last few seconds of the period.

I offered two posts asking about such a mechanic, and asking for a citation, either NFHS, or IAABO, that suggested that a whistle must be sounded to end all "uneventful" periods. I even suggested that such a mechanic might be correct "When in Rome ...", that is, accepted in a local area, but that this was not an accepted mechanic in national, or international, organizations, such as NFHS, or IAABO.

Here's what happened to both of my posts:
"This comment has been deleted by the administrator."

http://www.ref60.com/index.php/baske...#idc-container

You guys must know me by now. I was not impolite in any manner. I was not sarcastic. I did not insult anyone. I did not call anyone names. I even mentioned that I would accept a "local mechanic" as correct, and yet, this is how I got treated.

1) Is this anyway to moderate an officiating forum website?

2) Can anyone find me a NFHS, or IAABO, mechanics manual citation that states that a whistle must be sounded to end all "uneventful" periods?

Comments?

Note: I don't want to complicate matters, but I'm posting this on the Basketballrefs.com Forum in addition to this forum. "60 Seconds On Officiating" will occassionally post on the Basketballrefs.com Forum, but this Forum seems to be a lot busier, and I wanted to get a wide range of comments.

1) Yes. It's up to the site to moderate it any way they feel like. I agree from your description that they were kinda...well....over zealous maybe in your case, but that is their right, right or wrong.

2) I can't.

As you know, Billy, I also disagreed with a couple of their articles after being pointed at them. They did issued incorrect rules interpretations. What I also noticed in that site is that the people who write and post the articles will not come back to defend or even discuss those articles when people disagree with them. Their doing that isn't helpful when it comes to their credibility imo.

You know what? I used to really like that website.

I read a lot and posted a lot.

But now, you have to login to read their articles.

Then, when you post, you have to login again for EVERY post.

That bugs the hell out of me!

I asked about it and they told me that's the way the site is setup.

Well, that's just stupid.

Therefore, I don't read anymore and I don't post anymore.

I wouldn't give that site much thought considering the following was posted at the bottom of that play you linked to:

:confused:

What did that site in for me was the Resumption of Play debacle.

Yeah that was a good one.

Billy:

I have just finished my paper work from my midnight courier run, and I think that I just might mosey on over to that website sometime this week and register and then they will see what JR would describe as on over zealous response, ;). I am going to be a naughty boy and Santa won't bring me anymore whistles to play with. :D

MTD, Sr.

Another boo-boo
 

Their recent rules test had this marked as TRUE..

"May move 3 feet in either direction (sideways) or backwards as far as available"

I worked with a guy last season who saw this crap as GOSPEL.

Anyone can set up a website and pretend to be an expert.

I bet you know of somebody that'd love to contribute an article regarding when the ball is at the disposal of a team after made basket, eh?

What a coincidence. We were talking about the same person. Shows up with a binder with printouts from that site. I just ignore, ignore, ignore....

Wow...go figure.

Like the guy you cited when you posted his referee signals video from youtube?

Symbols. Referee SYMBOLS. LOL.

Oh, yeah!