Those refs sucked!

Bradley Batt · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 04, 2000, 12:51am

I just want to make a comment that applies to several threads that I have read regarding the officiating in the NCAA and NIT Tournaments. While there haven't been comments such as the subject of this thread, there have been several to the effect of "that should have been called", "they should/should not have called a technical", "how can they not call that", etc.

It seems to me that the common denominator of these threads is that the people posting them are not working in either tournament, nor even at the Division I level. This isn't to say that we can't critique an official that we are watching work at a higher level, but why so much criticism? I think that it would be interesting, if one of us happens to make it to that level, to come back to these archive posts, read through them, and decide if we have changed our minds about what should or should not be called.

The officials working the tournament are there for one reason - supervisors. They are obviously doing what the supervisors want during the season, which is why they get picked to move on to the tournament.

Until I work the Final Four, I am going to reserve judgement.

Later,
Brad

jackgil · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 04, 2000, 01:18pm

Bradley -

I thought there was some criticism....but not excessive. Howver, some of the criticism was uncalled for since watching on TV is not the same as being there (how can you possibly have the view/angle of the play the ref has).

Kelly Kinghorn · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 04, 2000, 03:27pm

Brad--

You said (in a much better way than me) what I was trying to convey in y original post under the topic "NCAA Officiating". It is easy to second guess. The officals should get the plays right, but we never get all of them right.

Until I am an NCAA tournament offical, I will have nothing bu support for the guys who are there.

Bart Tyson · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 04, 2000, 04:13pm

Bradley, you are correct. Officials should never trash talk other officials. Is is good to critque, this is just another tool to learn. Example: OK to say i think the official was out of position to make the call. Or that call was out of his primary. This is where you get positive feedback. NOT OK to say, that official is terrible.

[This message has been edited by Bart Tyson (edited April 04, 2000).]

Mark Padgett · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 04, 2000, 05:29pm

quote:
Originally posted by Bradley Batt:
It seems to me that the common denominator of these threads is that the people posting them are not working in either tournament, nor even at the Division I level. This isn't to say that we can't critique an official that we are watching work at a higher level, but why so much criticism?

Until I work the Final Four, I am going to reserve judgement.

Later,
Brad[/B]

Brad - I agree totally. However, I don't give the same consideration to Billy Packer. He is the pits.

Two examples are: he criticized the officials for not calling a kick when a player's foot, which was flat on the floor, was hit by a ball - and after a free throw rebound was caught, then thrown into the backcourt and then touched by a member of the rebounding team for an over-and-back call stated "Didn't it hit the rim?".

If anybody sucks, he does.

Bradley Batt · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 04, 2000, 07:34pm

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
Brad - I agree totally. However, I don't give the same consideration to Billy Packer. He is the pits.

Like when Patillo made that basket interference call in transition and he said, "I don't know about that one!!!!"

On the replay, "Oh, maybe..."

Must be nice to sit on the sidelines and second guess everybody: coaches, players, and officials. I need a job like that

Richard Kreimer · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 04, 2000, 09:16pm

quote:
Originally posted by Bradley Batt:
Like when Patillo made that basket interference call in transition and he said, "I don't know about that one!!!!"

On the replay, "Oh, maybe..."

Must be nice to sit on the sidelines and second guess everybody: coaches, players, and officials. I need a job like that

Specially one that pays a zillion dollars.

Jeremy Hohn · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 05, 2000, 01:53am

Okay, guys I was one that passed judgement on some of our division 1 counterparts. But I still go back to one thing, and that is mechanics. I don't critique judgement because like you guys said, we weren't there. What can be plainly seen, is the calling out of the primary, and the mishandling of simultaneous whistles. I tell my young officials when I critique, that not to worry about judgement, because that will come. Worry more about being in POSITION to make the call, and as the level of your knowledge increases, it will be easy to make the correct judgement.

Bart Tyson · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 05, 2000, 10:30am

Jeremy, I think it is good to critique judgement, if done in a productive, learning foremat. officials can learn a lot from discussing particular calls.

Jeremy Hohn · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Apr 07, 2000, 06:00am

Bart,
I do critique judgement, but I do so in a productive manner telling the official why they missed that call and keep the official involved in the process. We need to keep criticism positive and with every negative give an encouraging remark as well.

Alaska Ref · #11 (**permalink**) Sat Apr 08, 2000, 02:31pm

We all know that the best place to officiate is from the bleachers! The coaches have great views of everything as well. But until we run a mile in someone else's "runnin Ref's" we can not make that call. These referees have learned to referee the dead balls, the gray area's where most of us are still in the black and white!

Have a great off season.

------------------
Don

Duck1 · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Apr 28, 2000, 05:35pm

Clearly, when given the benefit of multiple angles and slow motion, those watching the game have a different view than the zebra on the spot who is running the court trying to see through 7 foot gorillas moving at warp speed. It isn't fair to critique based upon that aspect.

However, there are instances where I think it is fair to question the official or the crew. Here are some instances:

King of the court: When one official is making most of the calls, even those where his coworkers have better vantage. Nothing drives coaches more insane than when the guy 30 feet away looking through 6 players somehow sees something that the guy 7 feet away with a clear view doesn't. (Nor should it.)

What's the pace?: When the game is being called fairly loosely ("let them play") then all of the sudden every hand check is a foul. It isn't fair to the players or coaches to not call a consistent game. This can be especially problematic if one team is called for a foul that the other team got a "no-call" because the officiating style changed.

Wrong Call: Speaking not of judgement issues, but when the facts are not in dispute and the official simply applies the wrong rule or resolution. (e.g. I was actually playing in a game where an official disallowed my basket but awarded me two free throws. He then T'd up the opposing coach for calling him on the inconsistancy).

To Err is human...: but to be errogant is bad officiating. When officials refuse to consider the objections of the players, benches, scoring bench, and even their own crew simply because to do so might require a reversal. The best officials recognize their human liabilities and consider the input from the other game participants. The worst not only refuse that open stance, but get angry at coaches and players and react in emotion rather than judgement.

The wimp: An official who afraid of a tough coach or player or croud sentiment and makes plenty of no-calls. These games can get really physical.

Well, I could go on. I certainly don't endorse questioning the judgement or integrity of officials from afar. However, I think there are circumstances where it is fair to question other aspects of the officiating.

- Duck