NBA - Chris Paul Criticizing a Female Official

[BillyMac]

"Paul got his technical when, after a Cleveland free throw, the Clippers were attempting to inbound the ball quickly, but Holtkamp stepped in and Paul questioned her."

Why does the official have to handle the ball after made free throw?

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Maybe he was not, but it was very dismissive of her. Not sure he would have said that if she was a male. So he set himself up for that one if that is not what he really meant.

Peace

He was dismissive of the rookie OFFICIAL...not HER. He has to use the personal pronoun in order to be grammatically correct. Would you feel the same way if he said: "This may not be for IT"?....

The official is a rookie who called an un-warranted T and was criticized by a player....what else is new - happens often...

btw - for those who are gender sensitive, making a "big deal" out of something that isn't a "big deal" doesn't mean that others are making it a "big deal"...YOU are the only ones making it a "big deal"!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Paul got his technical when, after a Cleveland free throw, the Clippers were attempting to inbound the ball quickly, but Holtkamp stepped in and Paul questioned her."

Why does the official have to handle the ball after made free throw?

it was not after a free throw. it was after a turnover and one of the Clippers snatched the ball from her

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Paul got his technical when, after a Cleveland free throw, the Clippers were attempting to inbound the ball quickly, but Holtkamp stepped in and Paul questioned her."

Why does the official have to handle the ball after made free throw?

It was a turnover off a bad pass by LeBron, not after a free throw.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Paul got his technical when, after a Cleveland free throw, the Clippers were attempting to inbound the ball quickly, but Holtkamp stepped in and Paul questioned her."

http://www.spin.ph/basketball/news/c...echnical-fouls

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

it was not after a free throw. it was after a turnover and one of the Clippers snatch the ball from her

Originally Posted by AremRed

It was a turnover off a bad pass by LeBron, not after a free throw.

Like Abraham Lincoln said, "Don't believe everything that you read on internet".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

He was dismissive of the rookie OFFICIAL...not HER. He has to use the personal pronoun in order to be grammatically correct. Would you feel the same way if he said: "This may not be for IT"?....

The official is a rookie who called an un-warranted T and was criticized by a player....what else is new - happens often...

btw - for those who are gender sensitive, making a "big deal" out of something that isn't a "big deal" doesn't mean that others are making it a "big deal"...YOU are the only ones making it a "big deal"!

I think he was just dismissive of her. I do not think it is about being sensitive of gender, but an recognition of the fact that in the world of sports which is often male dominated, males dismiss women's roles in sports and have for years. I have worked with female official only to have that male coach say something about the person in mainly gender classifications. It happens in other areas of our sports/officiating like race, height, weight, athletic size all get mentioned and now we are to think her gender could not be mentioned as a way to dismiss her ability? I would have not problem if he had said something only about the call, but he mentioned "This might not be for her." I do not hear NBA players make those kinds of comments publicly about any officiating rookie. For one they will get fined if they say anything about an official negatively.

Those can disagree, but I feel he was dismissing her because she was a woman.

Peace

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Like Abraham Lincoln said, "Don't believe everything that you read on internet".

Those that watch the NBA would recognize the situation: turnover after a recent stoppage in play (meaning there would be no subs) and a low clock. I've seen refs grab the ball and give it to the players right away within a couple seconds, which is much faster than your average ceremonial throw-in. Apparently CP3 got impatient this time.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think he was just dismissive of her. I do not think it is about being sensitive of gender, but an recognition of the fact that in the world of sports which is often male dominated, males dismiss women's roles in sports and have for years. I have worked with female official only to have that male coach say something about the person in mainly gender classifications. It happens in other areas of our sports/officiating like race, height, weight, athletic size all get mentioned and now we are to think her gender could not be mentioned as a way to dismiss her ability? I would have not problem if he had said something only about the call, but he mentioned "This might not be for her." I do not hear NBA players make those kinds of comments publicly about any officiating rookie. For one they will get fined if they say anything about an official negatively.

Those can disagree, but I feel he was dismissing her because she was a woman.

Peace

I don't think we can really know if it was rookie or female or just calls that irritated him. Nor do I think the fact he said soemthing tells much -- mos NBA players are smarter than to talk about their dismissive feelings about refs, as they don't like the fines. Were I to guess, I would guess that it was the calls that bothered him, and the fact that she was a rookie and a woman both made it a bit easier for him to feel he could dismiss her. And I would guess he honestly believes it has nothing to do with her being a woman -- or he could just be a misogynist pig.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Jealousy....typical HS association backbiting towards officials who choose to rise to upper levels of officiating.

HATERS GONNA HATE

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think he was just dismissive of her. I do not think it is about being sensitive of gender, but an recognition of the fact that in the world of sports which is often male dominated, males dismiss women's roles in sports and have for years. I have worked with female official only to have that male coach say something about the person in mainly gender classifications. It happens in other areas of our sports/officiating like race, height, weight, athletic size all get mentioned and now we are to think her gender could not be mentioned as a way to dismiss her ability? I would have not problem if he had said something only about the call, but he mentioned "This might not be for her." I do not hear NBA players make those kinds of comments publicly about any officiating rookie. For one they will get fined if they say anything about an official negatively.

Those can disagree, but I feel he was dismissing her because she was a woman.

Peace

People are certainly free to "read between the lines" when hearing comments made by another. However, they run the risk of being incorrect when they ascribe meaning to statements thru lens of their own viewpoint & perspective.

Chris Paul was complaining about the officiating...nothing more nothing less.

A famous person once said: "Context is everything."

Consider that: the Clippers complain more than any team in the NBA (may have the most T's this season) about officiating; received 5 T's in this game; Chris Paul is the Pres. of the NBAPA (which now has a woman as Ex. Dir.); & is generally considered a true "nice guy" in NBA circles.

When I heard those comments, I heard a frustrated player complaining about an unwarranted T he received by a rookie official....because THAT is exactly what happened. Nothing more - nothing less.

btw - there are 2 reasons you don't hear NBA players making comments about female NBA rookie officials: 1) 1997 was the last time there was a female rookie NBA official (there were two that season: Violet Palmer (still active) and Dee Kantner (fired in 2002)); and 2) it's only because the official in question is a woman that these remarks are being noticed.

Every season for the past 18 years (since Palmer & Kantner were hired), players, coaches, & others have complained about bad calls by rookie officials - this is no different, except that people are taking a fairly routine occurrence and turning it into something more than it really deserves.

Chris Paul will get fined by the NBA and I'll bet that the NBA doesn't even come close to mentioning gender in its statement in announcing the fine. This will go away if people will simply let Paul's innocuous statement stand on its' own rather than insert their own sensitivities to it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

"Context is everything."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

"Context is everything..

[Adam]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

The official is a rookie who called an un-warranted T and was criticized by a player....what else is new - happens often...

I haven't seen any of the game, but from those who have and are posting on here, you seem to be the only one who thinks the T wasn't warranted.

That said, it's not related to the question of whether his criticism is related to her gender. That's not as simple a question as it should be, IMO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Those that watch the NBA would recognize the situation: turnover after a recent stoppage in play (meaning there would be no subs) and a low clock. I've seen refs grab the ball and give it to the players right away within a couple seconds, which is much faster than your average ceremonial throw-in. Apparently CP3 got impatient this time.

Watching the video, she moved just as fast as possible on this.

Not the issue.

[APG]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Those that watch the NBA would recognize the situation: turnover after a recent stoppage in play (meaning there would be no subs) and a low clock. I've seen refs grab the ball and give it to the players right away within a couple seconds, which is much faster than your average ceremonial throw-in. Apparently CP3 got impatient this time.

Not entirely true...outside of two minutes in each quarter, if there's a violation where the ball will be inbounded in the backcourt, the substitute must already be in the substitution box at the time of the violation.