Womens championship game

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Exactly. I love when a certain group that has always been getting the opportunities are finally shut out and all of a sudden there is some "reverse discrimination." What was it when no Blacks or Women ever worked those games? And heck I still see an entire staff in many conferences that look nothing like the players, but if people were to cry discrimination there they would be wrong?

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.

[Adam]

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.

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).

Also, the counter to the point you impute to Nevada (I think you may be correct in your assessment of his point, but he can speak for himself) is that currently the men's side does not have equal opportunity for women to officiate. I have no idea whether this is true, as I have not been a woman trying to work men's college ball; nor have I really talked with any who have to get a better understanding.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Welpe]

Jeff are you essentially advocating the black officials for the black teams / conferences and the white officials for the white teams / conferences?

There are more than a few games where I'll be the only non-black person on the floor. I've never considered that a bad thing and I can't say I've ever heard a negative thing about it from players or coaches (fans are another story).

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The best games aren't played every night.

I'm playing devil's advocate here: Let's say that there is only one high school game being played in a little corner of Maine one night. That's the best game being played that night. Shouldn't the players get the benefit of the best official?

All I'm saying is that maybe there are other considerations in assigning games besides getting the best official in the best games? Maybe some assigners want to consider giving young officials some experience in a "big" game. Maybe some assigners want to consider keeping the "unwashed" happy, so that there are always enough officials to cover all the games on a busy night. Maybe some assigners want to consider saving some officials some gas money by avoiding some long road trips. Maybe some assigners want to consider race, gender, etc. as one minor consideration. Maybe others don't.

Once again, 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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

All I'm saying is that maybe there are other considerations in assigning games besides getting the best official in the best games? Maybe some assigners want to consider giving young officials some experience in a "big" game. Maybe some assigners want to consider keeping the "unwashed" happy, so that there are always enough officials to cover all the games on a busy night. Maybe some assigners want to consider saving some officials some gas money by avoiding some long road trips. Maybe some assigners want to consider race, gender, etc. as one minor consideration.

I'm fine with all of those, except the last one. The bottom line is we will never truly have equality until we dismiss the aforementioneds from consideration.

[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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Rut and I come from the same place on this one. I've dealt with this since I was an intramural official in college, for crying out loud. My boss would put me on certain games involving all-White and all-Black teams for two reasons: He felt I could handle it and I'm Black. And no, I didn't have to guess, he told me. The reason? Some of the Black teams complained they weren't getting callls from my White colleagues so he wanted that potential gripe dealt with.

Flash forward to my BV/GV life and I can tell you it makes a difference. I'm part of an organization in NYC that works rec leagues in mainly non-White areas all over the five boroughs. We see these kids from the time some of the are 6 or 7 all the way through HS. When they see us on the court in HS it's as though they're seeing a relative and there's lots of stuff they won't do or that we can stop them from doing that officials from other areas can't (I've used the line, "You know better than that" a bunch of times).

Funny story about not adapting from two years ago during a BV game. A White male from Brooklyn was sent up to East Harlem to work a game with me. He truly looked like a fish out of water in the environment, he had all kinds of trouble with the coaches (all of whom were White, BTW...he had to ring up both of one team's ACs but he waited way too long to do it) and ended up stopping a 10-point game with six seconds left because he "saw something in the eyes of the players that told him we were going to have trouble." The players - all Black - were the only ones we didn't have an issue with during the game. I think it was a simple case of him not being comfortable in the environment and I doubt he's been out of his comfort area since. He's not the norm, believe me, but an assignor needs to know who's working for him/her.

In terms of access, well, that's why that NYC organization was created 50 years ago. Non-White officials weren't getting high-level games, regardless of the race(s) of the teams involved. It has changed over the years on the public school side but not so much on the private/Catholic school side. I know guys - no joke - who have been working NCAAM ball for years who are still Frosh/JV in the Catholic leagues.

All this to say that sometimes you have to force the action in terms of race, gender, whatever even in our vocation to find some of the better people. I know it helped me last month but I also know if I'd fallen on my face I would've been SOL. My assignor is a reasonable guy but he's not into charity cases.