conflict of interest?

[Andy]

An article in today's paper:

Pac-10 must address officiating conflict of interest

Comments?

[Welpe]

I'd like to think that 99% of officials that officiate a game involving their alma matter would do so impartially but it is hard to ignore perception, especially when ignorant fans and media looking for a story are involved.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that there are any Collegiate conferences that allow this.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Andy

An article in today's paper:

Pac-10 must address officiating conflict of interest Comments?

I presume there once was a time when a "journalist" about to publish slanderous accusations against someone, would bother to have some semblance of fact, or proof that an incident actually happened, before trashing an individual, and beyond that an entire group of extremely hard working professionals. I thought remembering and supporting the University you attended, so that it may continue it's job of educating people, was a proper thing, perhaps even somewhat noble? When did it become a form of kick-back or indication of dishonesty.

Makes you wonder what kind of character Paolo Boivin actually has that he immediately conjurs up the worst possible conclusions without any evidence, or even rational suggestion, of the existence of the "problem" he has chosen to pontificate about.

Apparently in Mr. Boivin's circle of influence, attending a certain college obiliviates a lifetime of hard work, dedication to an avocation, a lifetime of adherence and dedication to understanding and interpretation of a set of rules. Are Judges allowed to rule on cases that involve individuals who may have attended the same college as the Judge. What about people who may have attended the same High School?

Should a Judge be allowed to preside over an issue where one of the principals lives in the same town? After all they very likely pay the same school and community taxes.

Just because "journalists" apparently have such a low level of ethics, sportsmanship and honesty doesn't mean officials share their tendencies. Makes you wonder how many, if any, journalists actually are officials. Apparently "journalists" lack the ability to be able to separate "A" from "B", perhaps that might be a cause of today's journalism being unable to separate their personal and political biases from their work.

It takes skill, dedication, a strong sense of knowing the difference between right and not right and perhaps most of all some measure of honesty and, above all, class to achieve one of the highest levels of officiating. I guess with "journalists" all you need is a big mouth, a suspicious mind and a willingness to engage your fantasies without filtering them through your mind.

[waltjp]

Alf, sometimes I think you just write crap to get a reaction. You can't be serious. Have you ever heard the term, "appearance of impropriety."

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Alf, sometimes I think you just write crap to get a reaction. You can't be serious. Have you ever heard the term, "appearance of impropriety."

I agree Walt. I don't have a problem with an official working a game at his alma mater. If he's made it to the level of a D1 official, he's already proven several times his ability to apply good judgment. If he gets too many calls wrong, regardless of school involved, he will no longer be working at that level, let alone that school.

However, the burdon of proof for conflict of interest only has to contain an appearance of impropriety. My company has several policies based on this. If my wife owned a business that could provide a service to my department, there might be nothing illegal or unethical happening but even the appearance of impropriety prevents me from doing it. The same could definitely apply to a conference of officials.

While I don't agree with the comments in the article, I have no issue with what he wrote.

[HLin NC]

The donor booster club thing should be enough to negate him from working their games.

[waltjp]

I've seen it several times around here. The official in question may be eminently qualified to work a given game and those that know him would all agree that he can remain objective. Unfortunately, that's not the point. The point is that if any controversy arises and anyone on the outside can point to a potential bias it becomes a controversy. It's just not worth the headaches. There are plenty of games to work. Don't put yourself or your colleagues in the position to have to defend your objectivity.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Alf, sometimes I think you just write crap to get a reaction. You can't be serious. Have you ever heard the term, "appearance of impropriety."

Once again, Walt, you and the usual chorus of echos filter everything through your own prisms and wind up with your own foggy picture. My above comment has nothing to do with the "appearance of impropriety" as beheld by someone who has absolutely no credibility whatsoever in making such a judgment.

This bozo pontificates his opinions and denegrates the intentions and conduct of a fellow official, based entirely on his personal standards, which don't seem anywahere near the standards of the profession he has chosen to denigrate. If you are going to question someone's integrity, you should have absolute, conclusive proof of what you are suggesting, of shut your face until you do.

Your usual mastery of the obvious adds nothing. The "appearance of impropriety" is sadly an occupational reality. It has been developed, ingrained and populated by people who lack any credibility to do so, and in my humble opinion should be criticized whenever it rears it's ugly head.

We all respond to it in different ways, but none of US should ever defend it's relevance. Sure we have to deal with it, most accept it begrudgingly but only the truly weak minded among us are stupid enough to agree with it.

You shouldn't worry all that much about people who don't matter concluding things that don't count. It goes with the territory.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by ajmc

This bozo pontificates his opinions and denegrates the intentions and conduct of a fellow official, based entirely on his personal standards, which don't seem anywahere near the standards of the profession he has chosen to denigrate. If you are going to question someone's integrity, you should have absolute, conclusive proof of what you are suggesting, of shut your face until you do.

Kind of like the same thing you did when you didn't read enough of the link to discover that author is a woman.

[cmathews]

I think the author goes out of her way to say that she doesn't believe that officials at this level would cheat....but that it isn't fair to them or the universities involved to have that point brought up when mistakes are made...I whole heartedly agree that perception is reality, and in the case of potential conflicts of interest, why even put yourself in that situation....

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

Kind of like the same thing you did when you didn't read enough of the link to discover that Paolo Boivth author is a woman.

or even got to this part of the article, about half way down.


"Frankly, I believe most Pac-10 officials are making on-field calls based on fact, not emotions. They are trained, hard-working and have the game's best interests at heart.
However . . .
The conference can't ignore perception, and putting an official at a game involving a school he attended is setting everyone up for failure.
Look at Fogltance. He might have done nothing wrong but his allegiances have caused this firestorm.
The truth is, officials make errors. Everybody makes errors. Don't put them in a position to have those mistakes blamed on bias."

Slander? Really?

[bkdow]

I've done this twice. One time while refereeing Soccer, I officiated a game for my now-defunct alma mater. I had to call a penalty shot with time expired in a tie ball game. I hold that it was clearly the correct call, but I was totally shreded the next day in the local newspaper. I vowed that I would never do it again.

My first varsity football game was hosted by the school that my son was a freshman. I was the umpire and didn't do anything to impact the 51-7 outcome but afterwards realized that I probably should not have allowed myself in that position.

I have been officiating sports since I was 12 (now 41) and believe that I can be completely objective without regard to who the opponents are, however, as one D1 official said in our summer conference said, "do not put yourself in a position where there can be even an appearance of a conflict of interest."

I recited my vow again to never allow it to happen again. It's not whether we can do the job correctly, it's completely how the team will perceive a close call. The same reason that we do not treat one coach like an old friend and the opposing coach stoaiclly.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Once again, Walt, you and the usual chorus of echos

By this you, of course, mean everyone but you.

[JRutledge]

If you expect to only have officials that have never attended any schools in a major conference, then you will not get many qualified people to work. People attend schools in their region of the country. So unless someone lived in a completely different area, they likely had the possibility to attend one of the schools. And people that officiate are often are close to sports and either played or knew someone they are working with like the coaches. These conflict issues are mostly fan boy based and not based on reality. Heck, why not worry about if someone lives in a state and eliminate them too?

Peace

[Durham]

Seems to me that this is that officials fault for making a donation to his school and being on the donor list. I don't even use the awesome liscense plate frame my wife bought me because the last thing I want is for someone to know where I went to school. I tell the NCAA and the conferences because they ask, but I don't need to put my self out there for someone to find.