Womens championship game

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by bainsey

If women had 100% of the female games, that means that men would be shut out, due to gender. What if a man wants to work those games?

I don't understand why someone would want to work one gender or the other, but that's all a matter of personal choice, anyway. If someone gives you grief for your choice, it's their problem, not yours.

Interesting conversation given my situation in NYS. Since boys' and girls' HS work under different codes if you're working both it's because you want to work both. You definitely don't have to since there are more than enough games to go around, at least in the NYC area.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Referee24.7

to answer the question - its Brenda Pantoja, Lisa Mattingly, and Denise Brooks who are working the game. . .

Also...the alternate was Joe Vaszily, aka, the guy who gave Geno the T for his midcourt dance against Maryland in the Sweet 16.

[Nikki]

[QUOTE=JetMetFan;890267]No ESPN360? That's the one spot where you could watch it.QUOTE]

For some strange reason I could watch the mens games on the march madness site all day, but the ESPN 360 is a blocked site at my job...must be sexism

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nikki

For some strange reason I could watch the mens games on the march madness site all day, but the ESPN 360 is a blocked site at my job...must be sexism

I think it just shows which games your IT department thought to open up so they could watch them.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by nikki

for some strange reason i could watch the mens games on the march madness site all day, but the espn 360 is a blocked site at my job...must be sexism

.jjj.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I can't honestly see what's wrong with that.

Affirmative action, value in diversity, glass ceilings, reparations. I'm not saying that I fully agree, or understand, any, or all, of these, but some people do see some value in these.

Do the officials have to look like the players? I can't answer that question, but I'm willing to listen to both sides of the issue.

For example. What if there were a little corner in some little state where 50% of the players were female, but only 10% of the officials were female. What if the assigner wanted to recruit more women as officials, and decides that the way to do it was to have a lot of females officiate the girls games, thus providing female role models for the female players, in essence, showing the girls that they can continue to be active in basketball after their playing days are over.

Now switch it around to African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Muslins, transgenders, gays, etc.

Discrimination? Illegal? Wrong?

Is the most important thing in officiating to get the best official in the best games, assigning blindly in regard to color, gender, etc.? Is it important to get a diverse group of people participating in the best game in the world, and to have a diverse group of competent officials?

For me, lots of uncomfortable questions, and not a lot of comfortable answers, especially good answers.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think it just shows which games your IT department thought to open up so they could watch them.

hmmm...maybe

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is the most important thing in officiating to get the best official in the best games, assigning blindly in regard to color, gender, etc.?

Yes.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Yes.

So. Let's see if I've got this straight. If the most important thing in officiating to get the best official in the best games, assigning blindly in regard to color, gender, etc., then the best official in your little corner of Maine should be working every single night that he is available when there is at least one high school game being played? He's the best. Right? Why assign a second best official to a game when the best is available? Why should the best be sitting at home when he's available, and there is a game being played?

There has got to be some other practical considerations besides being the best? Maybe not related to color, gender, etc., but there has got to be some other practical considerations in assigning games? Right?

Disclosure: I am not an assigner, nor do I play one on television, nor do I ever want to be one, either a real one, or one on television.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why should the best be sitting at home when he's available, and there is a game being played?

There has got to be some other practical considerations besides being the best? Maybe not related to color, gender, etc., but there has got to be some other practical considerations in assigning games? Right?

Disclosure: I am not an assigner, nor do I play one on television, nor do I ever want to be one, either a real one, or one on television.

Because who the best is will always be based on someone's opinion. And I believe who the best is for a certain game is not always going to be the best for every game.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

I know of several women that were given opportunities over men who had much more experience.

She promoted women to promote the women's game. That was her perogative to provide opportunities and promote accordingly. Some made the most of their chances, some did not.

I would say experience does not always make you a better official.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So. Let's see if I've got this straight. If the most important thing in officiating to get the best official in the best games, assigning blindly in regard to color, gender, etc., then the best official in your little corner of Maine should be working every single night that he is available when there is at least one high school game being played?

Nope. The best games aren't played every night.

But, Nikki raises a good point. If an assigner knows his crew and potential game situations well, he can assign the right crew to the right game, based on a number of factors: speed/style of play, personalities, etc. That way, you can still cover as many games with solid assignments, rather than blindly following the numbers.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

There are some who would disagree with this. At least, they would disagree with the idea that you shouldn't consider these criteria when assigning games. Rut has mentioned several times that it is helpful to have a racially mixed crew working a racially mixed game. That flies in the face of equality (although I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment).

You do get the jist of what I am saying. But I do not feel that having a racially mixed crew would still not be based on equality when in many cases the players on the floor would look like the players, coaches and fans. There are a lot of qualified officials of all colors and races that can work games. And in a sport where a certain segment in many cases dominates or are some of the better players, it would be advantageous to have officials that look like the players somewhere. And considering that rarely do I see three Black officials work two all-white teams very often (when it has happened, coaches made notice of it to the officials because it is so rare). Again that is my experience here. It might be different in other places. But I would say that Chicago and the suburbs are about as racially and socially segregated as any place I have seen in an urban area. For the record, it is not the white coaches that I have the most problems with, but that is another discussion for another day.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Probably, but I don't think that was Nevada's point. I think this is ultimately about equality.

First of all, there's no such thing as "reverse discriminaton/sexism/bigotry." It either is or it isn't. If you use race/gender/creed/color/sexual orientation/etc. in your evaluation of somone, that flies in the face of equality, period. I think we can all agree with that.

If I'm comprehending Nevada's words correctly, I believe he wants to evaluate officials as individuals, and not favor any group based on the aforementioned. I can't honestly see what's wrong with that.

Here is the thing. In the history of most situations, white males got all the opportunities to be in authority positions, whether that was politics, coaching, education unless the individuals were regulated to their group through legal segregation. And I am sure in Women's basketball there were not many women working in the early years as officials just like you did not see many African-Americans or other races officiating games. I do not think it is wrong to make sure you have a staff of people that reflect the participants. For one if you have women officiating, they can and likely will relate more to the players in the Women's game than many men. Just like if you have African-Americans officiating the players might feel like they can say things to those individuals that they would not say to other races. Right or wrong that is certainly the case in my experiences and other officials I know that are Black. Sometimes when I work with two Caucasian officials, the Black players will not even address directly the my partners, even when they call things. That is where I feel Nevada misses the boat. White males have been dominating long before now the assignments and I am sure most HS assignments that is the case in most situations and when the NCAA goes out of their way to find women that is somehow a problem. Now we can debate if those that are picked are capable to work or go through the same hoops as others, but I have no problem with them picking women to work those games. And I do not feel it is discriminatory when there are no women working Men's basketball and no women coaching Men's basketball either. If you do not like that fact, either raise the same fuss on the Men's side or work only Men's ball if you want equal opportunity. Because I think there are more than enough women that would be qualified and do just as well of a job on the Men's side. We cannot have it both ways.

Peace

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nikki

And I believe who the best is for a certain game is not always going to be the best for every game.

This is actually a pretty good point — not sure that I had ever thought about it that way.