Karl Hess tosses two NC State players

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And this was an ACC Policy, not an NCAA Policy which might be expanded now because of these types of incidents.

BTW, Curtis Shaw got rid of a mascot and did not use GM to do so. I did not see that part of the ejection even focused on and I do not recall that it hurt him either.

Peace

Don't know if this is considered in the policy, but the mascot is out there to make a spectacle of himself. He, and others, probably got a kick out of the whole thing. These distinguished alumni in the case at hand, not so much.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Don't know if this is considered in the policy, but the mascot is out there to make a spectacle of himself. He, and others, probably got a kick out of the whole thing. These distinguished alumni in the case at hand, not so much.

For a moment they were "extinguished".

[Brad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

These distinguished alumni in the case at hand, not so much.

They lost the "distinguished" part when they started acting like buffoons!!!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Brad

They lost the "distinguished" part when they started acting like buffoons!!!

I wish you were right.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Brad

They lost the "distinguished" part when they started acting like buffoons!!!

We're the video that shows this? I'd like to see it.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

We're the video that shows this? I'd like to see it.

It doesn't. It's an assumption on my part. And a good one.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Brad

It doesn't. It's an assumption on my part. And a good one.

So would that make it an 'informed' opinion or an 'uninformed' opinion?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So would that make it an 'informed' opinion or an 'uninformed' opinion?

What's your point?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

We're the video that shows this? I'd like to see it.

Any adult who admittedly spends the majority of the game harping on the referees rather than cheering for their team is, by definition, a buffoon.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So would that make it an 'informed' opinion or an 'uninformed' opinion?

Informed:

Originally Posted by fiasco

Any adult who admittedly spends the majority of the game harping on the referees rather than cheering for their team is, by definition, a buffoon.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Any adult who admittedly spends the majority of the game harping on the referees rather than cheering for their team is, by definition, a buffoon.

Ok, same adult admitted that "There were seven or eight different calls we were contesting and that no profanity was used." Is 7-8 calls considered the majority of the game?

The whole 'us' verses 'them' is a ridiculous theme, especially when it's propogated from 'our' side. Leave that to the other side. When we, as officials, jump on this kind of bandwagon, calling people names without any real evidence is silly at best. It just seems that people in our profession would, by default, pass judgement until real evidence, a detailed report, a video, something is produced to vindicate one side or the other and not go by assumption.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Ok, same adult admitted that "There were seven or eight different calls we were contesting and that no profanity was used." Is 7-8 calls considered the majority of the game?

7-8 calls is what they admitted to. How does your experience convert that into reality?

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

The whole 'us' verses 'them' is a ridiculous theme, especially when it's propogated from 'our' side. Leave that to the other side. When we, as officials, jump on this kind of bandwagon, calling people names without any real evidence is silly at best. It just seems that people in our profession would, by default, pass judgement until real evidence, a detailed report, a video, something is produced to vindicate one side or the other and not go by assumption.

I (and others) simply default to the officials until presented with sufficient contrary evidence. A guy with Hess' experience doesn't have rabbit ears, he doesn't toss "distinguished alumni" without good cause, and he doesn't go looking for trouble. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt over the guy who admits to sitting behind the table and loudly complaining about more than half a dozen calls in a single game.

Let's assume 8 calls in a 40 minute game. They're losing their minds every 5 minutes of game time? Once a game is a fan. Two or three, that's an annoyance. 7-8 (or more likely 10-12) is a distraction and a problem.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

7-8 calls is what they admitted to. How does your experience convert that into reality?

About the same as somebody admitting to an officer they've had only two beers.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I (and others) simply default to the officials until presented with sufficient contrary evidence.

So officials are innocent until proven guilty, while the other side is guilty until proven innocent. I believe that sums up your logic.....

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt over the guy who admits to sitting behind the table and loudly complaining about more than half a dozen calls in a single game.

I had an AAU championship game last Sunday. The one team's parents were sitting in a block at one end of the bleachers and were fairly loud and obnoxious, and I personally thought they were clueless to the point they had me and my partners laughing.

They were like that the whole game. Everyone else in the gym knew what they were. Only when I heard profanity over one call did I then go get game management. But that wasn't till the 4th quarter. Up to that point they had probably complained loudly over 10-20 call/no-calls.. Oh the humanity.......