Womens championship game

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by deecee

He might take things too far often but I agree with his sentiment. Many groups cry so hard for equality that they then start to over compensate in their benefit when they are finally given what they have fought/complained/whined/cried/argued about.

I am also sure that the officials that worked the game were deserving but you cannot cry for equality and then completely go the route that serves your group best when it fits your need(s). You just can't have it both ways. Yes, it frustrates me and no I don't have to like it.

So your, and Nevada's, issue is that black and women officials "cried" to get more opportunities and assignments, particularly for games involving majority black and female participants respectively, and where they were typically underrepresented AND now you feel (or are crying) they are overrepresented at the expense of qualified non black female officials? And you're somewhat angry about it?

I can understand that perspective but IMHO it's short sighted and misplaced.

[deecee]

No more misplaced that then games with predominantly white athletes get mostly to all white officials. What you are defending is affirmative action. Which I think is a bunch of baloney.

For the record I am not white, nor am I black or Hispanic. Its like saying that being a Black, female, and gay is hitting the genetic jackpot in officiating.

If the deciding factor over who gets selected is race/ethnicity/gender then that's just hog wash. I would like all qualified officials to be entered into a lottery and 3 names selected at random, and 1 for the alternative. However large that pool be is up to the deciding bodies. But it's not more short sighted and/or misplaced then going overboard with ones new found freedom/equality at the expense of exactly what they were fighting in the first place.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by deecee

No more misplaced that then games with predominantly white athletes get mostly to all white officials. What you are defending is affirmative action. Which I think is a bunch of baloney.

For the record I am not white, nor am I black or Hispanic. Its like saying that being a Black, female, and gay is hitting the genetic jackpot in officiating.

If the deciding factor over who gets selected is race/ethnicity/gender then that's just hog wash. I would like all qualified officials to be entered into a lottery and 3 names selected at random, and 1 for the alternative. However large that pool be is up to the deciding bodies. But it's not more short sighted and/or misplaced then going overboard with ones new found freedom/equality at the expense of exactly what they were fighting in the first place.

I do defend affirmative action and would welcome an intelligent debate on the policy, not that this is the right forum for that. And since you thinks it's "baloney" and "hogwash" I'll just agree to disagree with you on that here since I doubt it would be a constructive conversation. If being being black, female, and/or gay is hitting the "genetic jackpot" in officiating then I'm sure there are other areas in life that go the other direction on that. I can think of a few.

That said, doing the bolded would run into the same problems. The grievances would just move to deciding who makes up the pool of "all qualified" officials.

Officiating and evaluating it is very subjective by nature. There will always be multiple considerations to be made in assigning games. And there will always be people who are bothered by, and disagree with those considerations. Whether they are related to race, gender, sexual preference or other things such as personal relationships, connections, or even who and what people use to judge/determine who is qualified. And the validity of their judgement itself.

And that is where I think the words of Rich are wise. In controlling what you can control and not whining about others.

Of course, there are times when "whining" is justified (depending on your perspective). Fortunately, in those instances it usually works itself out. Unfortunately it can take a long time to do so.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

No more misplaced that then games with predominantly white athletes get mostly to all white officials. What you are defending is affirmative action. Which I think is a bunch of baloney.

The majority of officials I see are white in the first place. You do not have to make a case for more white officials wnen most of the officials offiating almost everything are already white. And this could be the case in just about any level and any sport. And in basketball the sport is dominated at least on the Men's side with African-Americans. We need Affirmative-Action to prove that we can excell in basketball officiating, while dominating in other aspects of the sport? Give me a break!!!

Originally Posted by deecee

For the record I am not white, nor am I black or Hispanic. Its like saying that being a Black, female, and gay is hitting the genetic jackpot in officiating.

If the deciding factor over who gets selected is race/ethnicity/gender then that's just hog wash. I would like all qualified officials to be entered into a lottery and 3 names selected at random, and 1 for the alternative. However large that pool be is up to the deciding bodies. But it's not more short sighted and/or misplaced then going overboard with ones new found freedom/equality at the expense of exactly what they were fighting in the first place.

No one said it was the deciding factor. But let us be frank for a second. Many but not all for sure whites often do not even want to go into certain communities for their sterotypes and so-called assumptions about certain communities. I hear it all the time when I have been assigned place and my white counterparts have more negative things to say than I would. As if I feel comfortable to go to certain communities, but I never complain. At least at the HS level I have no problem with people that can handle the sitaution as an official and not worry about other things while going to officiate. Unless we are employees, no one can really make us go anywhere. And if I was assigning I want officials that can handle the issues in that game that might take place. That is why I have openly said that the 2A state finals the offiicals appeared to be totally overmatched as they did not seem to address the extra-ciricular activity that took place in that game. And I am sorry, three rural officials was not the answer. Heck they all could have been from Chicago and white and that would have been better than what was working that game because I did not see officials aware of the underlining situations that could arise. And yes, players and coaches talk to their "own" differently than they do other races or even genders.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The majority of officials I see are white in the first place. You do not have to make a case for more white officials wnen most of the officials offiating almost everything are already white. And this could be the case in just about any level and any sport. And in basketball the sport is dominated at least on the Men's side with African-Americans. We need Affirmative-Action to prove that we can excell in basketball officiating, while dominating in other aspects of the sport? Give me a break!!!



No one said it was the deciding factor. But let us be frank for a second. Many but not all for sure whites often do not even want to go into certain communities for their sterotypes and so-called assumptions about certain communities. I hear it all the time when I have been assigned place and my white counterparts have more negative things to say than I would. As if I feel comfortable to go to certain communities, but I never complain. At least at the HS level I have no problem with people that can handle the sitaution as an official and not worry about other things while going to officiate. Unless we are employees, no one can really make us go anywhere. And if I was assigning I want officials that can handle the issues in that game that might take place. That is why I have openly said that the 2A state finals the offiicals appeared to be totally overmatched as they did not seem to address the extra-ciricular activity that took place in that game. And I am sorry, three rural officials was not the answer. Heck they all could have been from Chicago and white and that would have been better than what was working that game because I did not see officials aware of the underlining situations that could arise. And yes, players and coaches talk to their "own" differently than they do other races or even genders.

Peace

I don't make any assumptions on what is reality versus what is ideal. I was just defending the position that equality is what it is, and groups that fight for equality when they get it tend to overcompensate lose credibility in my opinion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't make any assumptions on what is reality versus what is ideal. I was just defending the position that equality is what it is, and groups that fight for equality when they get it tend to overcompensate lose credibility in my opinion.

No one said a thing about overcompensating. Just saying I find no problem with 3 women official working a Final Four Championship or all African-Americans working a similar contest, when it is common place to see 3 white males work games most of the time. But when racial and gender minorities have that dynamic then it is outrageous?

Sorry, you lose me there.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No one said a thing about overcompensating. Just saying I find no problem with 3 women official working a Final Four Championship or all African-Americans working a similar contest, when it is common place to see 3 white males work games most of the time. But when racial and gender minorities have that dynamic then it is outrageous?

Sorry, you lose me there.

Peace

Whenever it's 3 white males no one bats an eye. But if it's 3 women or 3 minorities or 3 gays then something must be askew in the system and things need to be fixed now.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Whenever it's 3 white males no one bats an eye. But if it's 3 women or 3 minorities or 3 gays then something must be askew in the system and things need to be fixed now.

Nothing needs to be fixed. And I do bat many eyes when I see some crews working some games. Old, overweight, old rule knowledge, etc.. But is picking a crew to make a point (this is speculation for arguments sake) that women have made it (3 women on the game) then that's absurd. And I can tell you that women are moved up much faster and are given more opportunity because of their gender. Some are even rushed way ahead of schedule to "balance" things out.

All I want is a system (in anything not just officiating) that is more objective and less subjective. That's my pipe dream.

[Adam]

Jeff, he's saying if you happen the get three black guys or three women on a crew due solely to merit, so be it. But don't go out of the way to make it happen.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Jeff, he's saying if you happen the get three black guys or three women on a crew due solely to merit, so be it. But don't go out of the way to make it happen.

The problem is that when it happens it is automatically questioned by many as being a function of some type of affirmative action. And that thought process is no more just that someone looking at all white male crews and saying "they're only there b/c of the good ole boy system".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Jeff, he's saying if you happen the get three black guys or three women on a crew due solely to merit, so be it. But don't go out of the way to make it happen.

Each State Finals weekend there are 12 officials picked. There was not on African-American or woman picked for the 1A-2A Finals. And both classes had 2 schools that were entirely African-American in nature. Also, look what happened in the 2A title game and all the controversy. No one said a word about fairness when that happened.

Take it to the following weekend and there were 3 African-Americans and there was a big question if those 3 were qualified out of the 12. And multiple teams did not have a single white person on either team. Three teams were from Chicago. Two teams were from the southern part of the state and you could not get more than 3 African-Americans?

My point is we overanalyze the 3 and not the 9 that likely never see these kinds of teams or that type of ball on a regular basis, but the 3 were not qualified and we have to check the system?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

One would expect that the number of selected officials would, over a small period of time, tend to reflect the makeup of the population of officials within the relative group.

If the number of capable officials were split 50/50 among two demographic sets, you'd expect to see a, over a few years, a roughly 50/50 split among those demographic groups of those actually selected. It may not be exactly 50/50 but anything that skews far from that suggests preferential treatment (aka discrimination). The more it deviates from the expected averages, the more it looks like discrimination. Said more directly, if one gender/race makes up 20% of the group of officials, you'd expect that about 20% of the playoff assignments might be filled by that gender/race.

And it doesn't really matter what the makeup of the players are, they're not competing for the assignments. It is apples and oranges. There may be other reasons to make certain decisions along those lines, but that is a different matter. And if you want to open up that door, you could argue that the players don't reflect the makeup of the overall population so the players should be rebalanced to actually represent the population .

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't make any assumptions on what is reality versus what is ideal. I was just defending the position that equality is what it is, and groups that fight for equality when they get it tend to overcompensate lose credibility in my opinion.

"Get equality then overcompensate" I don't even know what that means.

I just find it funny when it's the minority (gay/black/female/etc), they are crying for equality. But if somehow the scales get overtilted in their favor, then the group that used to be in the majority (or in power) are now just merely pointing out injustices and just want everything done on merit.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"Get equality then overcompensate" I don't even know what that means.

I just find it funny when it's the minority (gay/black/female/etc), they are crying for equality. But if somehow the scales get overtilted in their favor, then the group that used to be in the majority (or in power) are now just merely pointing out injustices and just want everything done on merit.

Guess my point is being missed by many. The idea of equality is a great one, the execution of it is a myth.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

So your, and Nevada's, issue is that black and women officials "cried" to get more opportunities and assignments, particularly for games involving majority black and female participants respectively, and where they were typically underrepresented AND now you feel (or are crying) they are overrepresented at the expense of qualified non black female officials? And you're somewhat angry about it?

I can understand that perspective but IMHO it's short sighted and misplaced.

deecee's point is right on the money.

Any group that has complains about discrimination and lack of equality and fairness and is able to achieve and equal opportunity that then expects to receive preference and even is given preference is guilty of the same misdeeds that were put upon them in the past. If it is wrong in one direction, it can only be wrong when the roles are reversed. Equality is just that, it isn't revenge.