Uncalled Cheap Shots

[Brad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

This isn't my first rodeo.

No one really knows, because when others have asked you sidestep their questions about your experience.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Brad

No one really knows, because when others have asked you sidestep their questions about your experience.

Because the second you talk about your experience here, there are people ready to shoot you down, saying you're not good enough, or you didn't make varsity or college ball fast enough.

I've grown weary of citing my experience as justification for my opinion. It seems that, too often, when someone gets tired of arguing the merits of a specific topic, they turn to "well how much experience do you have?" as a way to end the conversation.

The number of games someone has officiated, or the length of time it took someone to get to a certain level many times has very little to do with one's rules knowledge, or ability to handle stressful game situations.

I can understand and respect if that makes my opinion of less worth to you, but that's just the way things are.

[Rich]

The problem with experience is that you have a lot of officials with one year of experience 15 times and others who have a lot of great experiences in many fewer years of officiating. It's not always a terribly good indicator of ability or performance.

And yet, when the (stuff) hits the fan, I want someone with me who's experienced some bad situations and had to work through them. Surprise is an official's greatest enemy.

I didn't work my first varsity game until my fifth season of officiating and it probably took eight years before I worked a full varsity schedule. Moving to a new location every few years can stunt the progression of officials who are considerably better than me and it certainly affected me. Different locations have different needs for officials, so if it took you 2 years to reach varsity, fine -- if it took you 10, so what?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The number of games someone has officiated, or the length of time it took someone to get to a certain level many times has very little to do with one's rules knowledge, or ability to handle stressful game situations.

I would agree with the part of this statement dealing with rules knowledge - many times newer officials are "in the books" way more than some of the experienced officials.

But the last part of this statement is just silly...of course the number of games one has worked will have something to do with their ability to handle situations that come up in games. The more a ref has "been there, done that" the easier weird situations are to deal with.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I hear what you're saying. The majority of the post you just quoted wasn't directed at you specifically.

I was not responding to you based on what you said to me. Not all comments are about you personally. I know that is something you have struggled with, but everything is not because you said it. This is an open forum and often people comment on the general tone or comments that they feel should be addressed.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I would agree with the part of this statement dealing with rules knowledge - many times newer officials are "in the books" way more than some of the experienced officials.

But the last part of this statement is just silly...of course the number of games one has worked will have something to do with their ability to handle situations that come up in games. The more a ref has "been there, done that" the easier weird situations are to deal with.

On top of that, I can't remember when I see situations like this happen in a preliminary game. The varsity game is "the game that counts" in many areas and when there are situations that show up on YouTube it's invariably the varsity game or the college game that's there.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was not responding to you based on what you said to me. Not all comments are about you personally. I know that is something you have struggled with, but everything is not because you said it. This is an open forum and often people comment on the general tone or comments that they feel should be addressed.

And I wasn't responding to you based on what you said to me. So take some of your own advice for once.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The number of games someone has officiated, or the length of time it took someone to get to a certain level many times has very little to do with one's rules knowledge, or ability to handle stressful game situations.

But that's just not true. Generally, officials who have reached the college level have a greater breadth of experience and knowledge and know the rules better than your average high school official. There's even a greater difference once you start talking about Division I officials.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Because the second you talk about your experience here, there are people ready to shoot you down, saying you're not good enough, or you didn't make varsity or college ball fast enough.

I've grown weary of citing my experience as justification for my opinion. It seems that, too often, when someone gets tired of arguing the merits of a specific topic, they turn to "well how much experience do you have?" as a way to end the conversation.

The number of games someone has officiated, or the length of time it took someone to get to a certain level many times has very little to do with one's rules knowledge, or ability to handle stressful game situations.

I can understand and respect if that makes my opinion of less worth to you, but that's just the way things are.

I have yet to see someone get shot down here b/c they are "not good enough" or didnt advance to a certain level fast enough. Frankly, that comes across as pure BS.

In only speaking for myself, when I referenced people "having not done this long enough" it was a response to you suggesting that these may have been the only actionable plays by #34. I say that because after you have seen enough games you realize that players like #34 and situations like the one on video don't just materialize out of thin air or happen in a vacuum.

Sure there are situations that can't be avoided or that catch you off guard. And sure, a kid who has been fine all game might suddenly commit a dangerous play out of nowhere. Which is why I said earlier that I agreed with you to a point about players ultimately being responsible for their actions.

However, once those actions are committed officials have to respond accordingly. The video evidence here is VERY CLEAR to me that these officials did not respond in an appropriate fashion. And again, that's why this video is now being used as a training resource for several associations that I'm aware of in different parts of the country.

Experience is important in that it is IMO the best teacher you can have. I'm not the most experienced guy in the world and I'm here to learn like most everybody else. But I have had enough experience to know that the way the officials handled what was seen on tape did not rise to the level of competency that I would demand from myself or my partners in a similar situation.

We've all had situations we can learn from whether they happen to us or through observation. These guys just happened to have a bad situation caught on tape and the video went viral. On that night they were incompotent and I have no reservations whatsoever about saying that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Because the second you talk about your experience here, there are people ready to shoot you down, saying you're not good enough, or you didn't make varsity or college ball fast enough.

If I am not correct you are working in your first year of varsity and only have 8 years of experience. I can conclude from that you have not been the "man" in many of those games with officials that have more experience than one year varsity experience. So directly or indirectly that matters as I have very few times seen a guy with your experience have an understanding of multiple aspects of the game yet. There are always an All-Star around, but that does not mean that is very common in the officiating world, usually you need a little more seasoning to get that full understanding and even when you get that, you know that there are others that have experienced things you have not. The more I do this, the more I realize what more I need to know about a game to prevent problems.

Originally Posted by fiasco

The number of games someone has officiated, or the length of time it took someone to get to a certain level many times has very little to do with one's rules knowledge, or ability to handle stressful game situations.

I think you are totally wrong on this front and here is why. Many rules situations are not learned until you experience them. And the more experience you have the less you worry about certain things taking place. When I started there were things I though of that now I laugh that I even worried about. Also rules knowledge also involves knowing what the rule changed from and why it changed. Many of the things we talk about here have been discussed by rules bodies or state interpreters ten times over and that adds to understanding how the game is to be called or how and when certain rules apply. You cannot read that out of the book and understand why a rule was changed or what the intent might be. And some can work more games at higher levels during the off-season than just what you do in real games.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

And I wasn't responding to you based on what you said to me. So take some of your own advice for once.

The reality is that you have focused on me and what I have said to you, but others see you in a similar light. And this is why many are commenting on your words now.

And there is a huge difference between you and I and I am not talking about years of experience. I am not offended by a single word you said to me in this discussion.

Peace

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The number of games someone has officiated, or the length of time it took someone to get to a certain level many times has very little to do with one's rules knowledge, or ability to handle stressful game situations.

Really? Then what does it have to do with? Don't you think someone's rules knowledge and their ability to handle stressful game situations is a very large factor in the number of games they are assigned and the level they work? I would think those are both integral factors in advancement. If you disagree, then what factors do you think contribute to advancement up the ladder?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by fiasco

If I told you, I seriously doubt it would have any impact on how you view me, so what's the point?

You underestimate me then. Everyone should have the ability to change their opinion of someone. Now stop being your name and answer the question.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

...their ability to handle stressful game situations is a very large factor in the number of games...

The higher you go the more this applies. Calling fouls and violations is the easy part. Once you get to a certain level everyone is pretty much on the same page about what a foul is.

What do you do to keep the sh!t from hitting the fan and how do you respond if the sh!t does hit the fan?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

but others see you in a similar light. And this is why many are commenting on your words now.

It's also why some are not commenting on those same words.