NBA - Chris Paul Criticizing a Female Official

[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"!

[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

[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.

[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..

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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.

I do not care if what is the context that you see it to be. I have every right to judge based on his actions and his comments. Again, I have yet to hear anyone give me a single case where an NBA player spoke personally about a rookie of any other gender or time or situation. I watch a lot of SportsCenter and cannot think of one case. Not a single one.

I also saw the Paul comments and just like any other comments, I do not believe him. I have the right not to believe him. He is trying to cover his behind IMO and he clearly to me was trying to rip her because she was an easy target. I doubt seriously that the entire conflict was only because she was a rookie. He did not like a woman telling him what to do and that is why he had to talk about her qualifications, not that it was just a bad call.

Peace

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not care if what is the context that you see it to be. I have every right to judge based on his actions and his comments. Again, I have yet to hear anyone give me a single case where an NBA player spoke personally about a rookie of any other gender or time or situation. I watch a lot of SportsCenter and cannot think of one case. Not a single one.

I also saw the Paul comments and just like any other comments, I do not believe him. I have the right not to believe him. He is trying to cover his behind IMO and he clearly to me was trying to rip her because she was an easy target. I doubt seriously that the entire conflict was only because she was a rookie. He did not like a woman telling him what to do and that is why he had to talk about her qualifications, not that it was just a bad call.

Peace

From ESPN.com:
TORONTO -- National Basketball Players Association executive director Michele Roberts said any suggestion that Los Angeles Clippers guard Chris Paul would be disrespectful toward women is "utterly ridiculous, outrageous and patently false," hours after the head of the National Basketball Referees Association called the All-Star's comments on official Lauren Holtkamp "personal and unprofessional."

"Without hesitation, the Players Association stands firmly behind Chris, whose competitiveness may only be exceeded by the strength of his values and his conviction," Roberts said in a statement.

On Friday, Paul repeatedly said it was "a bad call" that prompted him to criticize Holtkamp's officiating Thursday night -- nothing more.
-------------------------
As I've said before, a person can infer whatever meaning they want to Chris Pauls' comments, however they run the risk of being entirely wrong. Unfortunately, it seems as though you've taken his comments out of context and assigned gender-discrimination to them inaccurately.

btw - Did you know that Violet Palmer was assigned to work the 1997 NCAA Division 1 Men's Basketball Tournament only to have that assignment revoked when "people" complained about having a woman officiate men's games? Now THAT is a case of comments/actions being taken because of a person's gender….THIS (Chris Paul) is not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

From ESPN.com:
TORONTO -- National Basketball Players Association executive director Michele Roberts said any suggestion that Los Angeles Clippers guard Chris Paul would be disrespectful toward women is "utterly ridiculous, outrageous and patently false," hours after the head of the National Basketball Referees Association called the All-Star's comments on official Lauren Holtkamp "personal and unprofessional."

"Without hesitation, the Players Association stands firmly behind Chris, whose competitiveness may only be exceeded by the strength of his values and his conviction," Roberts said in a statement.

On Friday, Paul repeatedly said it was "a bad call" that prompted him to criticize Holtkamp's officiating Thursday night -- nothing more.
-------------------------
As I've said before, a person can infer whatever meaning they want to Chris Pauls' comments, however they run the risk of being entirely wrong. Unfortunately, it seems as though you've taken his comments out of context and assigned gender-discrimination to them inaccurately.

btw - Did you know that Violet Palmer was assigned to work the 1997 NCAA Division 1 Men's Basketball Tournament only to have that assignment revoked when "people" complained about having a woman officiate men's games? Now THAT is a case of comments/actions being taken because of a person's gender….THIS (Chris Paul) is not.

So the union stands behind their president? Oh, never mind then.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

So the union stands behind their president? Oh, never mind then.

He would've never said anything had this been a male. He would've been another nameless, faceless official. One person here seems to think otherwise. He's wrong.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

From ESPN.com:
TORONTO -- National Basketball Players Association executive director Michele Roberts said any suggestion that Los Angeles Clippers guard Chris Paul would be disrespectful toward women is "utterly ridiculous, outrageous and patently false," hours after the head of the National Basketball Referees Association called the All-Star's comments on official Lauren Holtkamp "personal and unprofessional."

"Without hesitation, the Players Association stands firmly behind Chris, whose competitiveness may only be exceeded by the strength of his values and his conviction," Roberts said in a statement.

On Friday, Paul repeatedly said it was "a bad call" that prompted him to criticize Holtkamp's officiating Thursday night -- nothing more.
-------------------------
As I've said before, a person can infer whatever meaning they want to Chris Pauls' comments, however they run the risk of being entirely wrong. Unfortunately, it seems as though you've taken his comments out of context and assigned gender-discrimination to them inaccurately.

btw - Did you know that Violet Palmer was assigned to work the 1997 NCAA Division 1 Men's Basketball Tournament only to have that assignment revoked when "people" complained about having a woman officiate men's games? Now THAT is a case of comments/actions being taken because of a person's gender….THIS (Chris Paul) is not.

OK and the NBARA stood behind the official. And I heard that Paul was fined 25K for this little comments.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... Paul was fined 25K for this little comments.

Would the fine be the same if he had criticized a male official in the same manner for the same situation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK and the NBARA stood behind the official. And I heard that Paul was fined 25K for this little comments.

"Chris Paul has been fined $25,000 for his public criticism of Lauren Holtkamp, the first-year referee who called a technical foul against the Los Angeles Clippers star point guard earlier this week."
Full story:
http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=12292518

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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.

Talk about running the risk of being incorrect...How can you possibly know this to be the case? You are doing EXACTLY what you describe in your post..."thru lens of their own viewpoint & perspective"

[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.