This is absolutely false. The one thing that makes this web forum useful is that you can pretty quickly notice who has experience and knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. In any web forum, it pays, as a newbie, to lurk for a while and see how things "work" before diving in head first and thumping your chest, without earning some respect yourself. Maybe this is your way of trying to earn some respect, but your years of experience (and at what levels) in officiating and rules knowledge define your credibility here. Not when and where you played - that's virtually irrelevant. Credibility is everything in this forum.

Sounds pretty much like all of us at one point or another.;)

Basically we have a poster who - compared to many of us - is fairly new at this, and is wanting to share his/her deep thoughts on the issues of officiating. Some don't like the new people expressing their opinions and so they fire back. Others of us just smile and remember ourselves 10, 15, 20 years ago and don't get all worked up over it.

Lots of experiences could help you be a good official
 

I agree that having played basketball at the level you are officiating may be helpful.

Playing experience helps since you understand the game from that perspective. Simarly, experience in the followiing roles and an understanding of what they want from officials would also be helpful.

Coach
Athletic Director
Assignor/Evaluator
Scorekeeper
Timer
Officiating other sports
Officiating other levels of play

Parent
Teacher
Preacher

EMT
etc.

However, all people really care about is whether the official is professional and good/fair/consistent. The experiences that shaped that official are just background.

Any opinion expressed is going to get scrutinized. All of us have had our comments dissected and scrutinized. Put your big boy or big girl pants on and get over it. And you can be a veteran here and still have people go back and forth about your opinions. We really need to stop being so sensitive all the time.

Peace

No doubt having experience in playing the game helps understanding the rules, but you don't need to be in HS or College game to learn that, any games should give you some insight.

But i seriously doubt there's any refs whom never played a basketball game ever.

It's like a Race Car Driver turned Mechanics, he might not know the mechanic part as well as other experienced mechanics but he has other insights gained by having previously driven race cars. Having experience of both players & ref is nothing else but a good thing. If you never dined in a fine restaurant before you probably have hard time understanding what the diners wants, sure the manager can teach you all that but nothing beats actually experiencing it & learning what a diner wants from a diner point of view. Then you'll be able to see both sides of a coin before passing judgement.

*pretty good analogy!

Don't bet on that. I've seen some enter our training program that really seem like they've just seen the game for the first time.

I believe one used to frequent the board.

Nah, despite the range of abilities of those I know, I've seen some that make the everyone I know on the board look like championship officials.

The irony of you using that word is fairly hilarious.

You do not have to play high school or college ball to see these things —*they are easily learnable, if not simply obvious from the get go.

What's better imo is when you have been in the same situation before as an official. It's a completely different perspective —*one that almost no one thinks about during their playing years.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/f.cl.ly/ite...ion_needed.png

Why are you sorry it will receive feedback? That's what this entire forum is about —*the idea that no single individual possesses all of the knowledge on any given topic, including officiating.


Clearly. Many very successful coaches at every level —*high school, college, NBA did not play or were poor players.

Since there are only two NBA referees that ever played in the NBA, I would say so. Maybe look at their performance compared to others and see how much their playing experience had an impact.

I did not play high school ball. Well, I did, on the 9th grade B team for about half a season before I quit because, well, I sucked (and, thus, got almost no playing time). Plus, I was also a year younger than everyone else and, honestly, probably didn't want it enough.

As an official I had great success — moved up in my high school chapter quickly, hired to work college ball 5 years in, then 3 years later hired to work NCAA D1 Men's (which I worked for 7 years before I took a "year off" to focus on my business and family).

So, yes, you can be successful as an official without having been successful as a player. I'm sure that your experience helps you, but not all former players make the transition to official so easily and it can be a hindrance to some. Any experience that gives you greater insight into the game is great though. So, my suggestion is put that experience to use for yourself—but don't hold it against others if they haven't had the same experience as you.

Not sure why you are using examples from your 7th grade hoop playing experience to rationalize your point. Also I"m not sure that you know the definition of "erudition"--if so you'd have understood the context in which it was used.

Now, let me turn my attention to the key issue that inheres. When I used to umpire baseball I knew that some of my fellow umps were "pitcher's umps' and some
were "hitter's umps" in terms of what strike zone allowances they accorded.
I'm a "defensive ref" because as a result of playing I know the feigning offensive sets tend to use. I don't give offenses a bias--I make them earn it.

What in the hell are you talking about? Pitcher umps?

I umpired for some years and played each of my sports in high school at some point and I have never heard of someone being a "pitcher's ump."

It is clear that you are trying to spew some wisdom to something that really does not need that much conversation. Who cares if you played, that does not make you a good official. It might help on the front end to learn some rules and understand the strategy of the game, which can help you officiate. But playing does not mean you know the game better than others that officiate it for years. Actually many that played cannot get over their mentality of being a player and instead of calling the game based on rules, they call the game based off of expectations as a player. Stop trying to convince everyone how knowledgable you are in some statements and let the collective body of work prove that over some time. And no, it will not take long to prove to others you know what you are doing. But you are certainly off to a bad start.

Peace

His point is that your efforts to show your intelligence (in spite of your claim to the contrary) and learning are backfiring. You're likely very intelligent, but you're not coming across that way. It's coming across as someone trying to use words just a bit out of her league in order to impress a bunch of strangers.

Honestly, it reads like a freshman comp paper that's trying just a bit too hard to impress the professor.

If you want to get the most out of this forum, I'd recommend a bit more moderation in your approach. You're diving into a fairly well established social group, and that's terrific.

Hitter's Umps, Pitcher's Umps, Offensive Refs, Defensive Refs, If you haven't played the game you aren't going to be very good......

Once you quit dropping the TV announcer cliche's on the group, you'll enhance your credibility.