|
Replies: 14
| visibility 2,210
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Serious question about basketball officiating . . .
Dec 22, 2018, 4:41 PM
|
|
and I'm not talking about today's game, which admitedly was one of the worst officiated games I've seen in a while; I'm talking about the horrific state of basketball officiating in general. So, here's the question:
Is basketball officiating so bad because (A)The refs just don't know or understand the rules, or (B)They are just too chickenshid to enforce them?
Sometimes I wonder, because it actually appears that refs just don't comprehend the rules, or are completely unaware of certain ones. It bottles the mind to think that they can see, right before their very eyes, the same violations occur repeatedly, yet not blow they whistle. One possibility is that they are just so poorly educated and schooled on the rules, that they really don't know any better. I have a hard time believing that, or maybe I just don't want to believe they are that incompetent, but that leaves me with an even more disturbing posibillity: they IGNORE the rules in an effort to coddle ignorant players, coaches, fans and commentators who have become used to such a gradual errosion of authority and enforcement of the actual rules that actual enforcement now would result in outrage, revolt, and possibly violence and all sorts of social and cultural implications.
Personally, I long for a game in which all offense is not entirely precicated upon the ability to travel and carry/palm the ball, and all defense is not entirely dependent upon the ability to hand check, elbow, shove and grab, and all rebounding is not dependant upon shoving out of the way or going over the back.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Re: Serious question about basketball officiating . . .
Dec 22, 2018, 4:45 PM
|
|
There is a C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20637
Joined: 7/31/07
|
Re: Serious question about basketball officiating . . .
Dec 22, 2018, 4:54 PM
|
|
You are correct and it is a Capital "C" too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1999]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1854
Joined: 9/22/09
|
Re: Serious question about basketball officiating . . .
Dec 22, 2018, 5:01 PM
|
|
I too have wondered the same, I think we have just progressed to a more "sloppy" style of basketball in the past 15-20 years. My main issue is the constant charging/blocking problem that occurs so many times every game.
I wouldn't mind seeing them do away or really dial down these calls and just let them play, because I don't have an issue with basketball being more physical. It seems it was more physical in the 80's - 90's, especially down low.
How many times do we see the following:
Play A: Ball handler drives into the lane and forces up a shot while the defender stands patiently with hands straight up initiating no contact. Defender gets called for a foul and is now compromised, especially if it is his second or third. Why not just let the shot fall where it may if there is no obvious contact?
Play B (Usually on the next time down the court): Ball handler drives into the lane and forces up a shot, defender decides he is going to flop this time and goes flying backwards, ball handler called for the foul and is now compromised. The flopping is really egregious as well, these are 200 pound college athletes for the most part, think about how much force it would really take to go flying backwards like that. It is so integrated into the sport now I don't know how to get rid of it.
If there was not this constant back and forth between maybe who can get the foul called on them, I bet we would see a lot less of the forced lane drives and defense would pick up again. I don't want basketball players to all turn into James Harden, imagine how long and tedious those games would be...
Message was edited by: aclemfan48®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
The call seems totally random now, with mirky,
Dec 22, 2018, 5:51 PM
|
|
ever-shifting criteria. Once upon a time, at least the crteria was more clear-cut: If the defender had both feet firmly planted before the man he was defending left his feet to pass or shoot, then he had established position, and an offensive player who ran into or over him was guilty of a charge. If the defender's feet were not planted, but rather were moving (and he was moving along with the offensive player) then he had not established position, and he was called for a blocking foul if an offensive player ran into him. That seems incomprehensible these days, and a defensive player does not have to have his feet planted and can be moving right along with the offensive player and stil have "established position" and draw a charge. It is therefore totally a random, judegment call, based largely on what it "looks like" to any given official. The same exact play could be called differently by different officials, and all would be considered correct. Part of the problem is that now carrying/palming the ball is allowed, which enables players to plow forward with the ball much more aggressively, and change direction much more quickly and dramatically, which makes it impossible to defend using the old "feet must be planted/position must be established" idea a joke. Thus all of the randon charging/blocking calls and no-calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18407]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10717
Joined: 10/20/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Good article - thanks!***
Dec 22, 2018, 5:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2480]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2675
Joined: 9/17/10
|
As long as the zebras make consistent calls evenly to both teams I’m fine
Dec 22, 2018, 7:57 PM
|
|
But today was perhaps the worst officiating I’ve ever seen in any game in all my life - which includes the football game against BC a few weeks ago.
Great win by our Tigers considering the zebras were doing everything in their power to give the game to the shamecocks. Hard to win when you’re outnumbered 8-5. Hats off to our team for gutting it out. The game should have been a blowout but I’m happy with the W.
It’s hard to believe men being paid for that kind of job on the basketball court. If I messed up that bad doing my job, someone would die. Atrocious officiating. How Brownell doesn’t blow his gasket is a real life miracle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I understand and I hear that a lot, but I don't agree with
Dec 22, 2018, 8:44 PM
|
|
the idea that it's okay if they are consistently and equally bad for both teams. Perfection is an absurd expectation, but I don't see why consistently enforcing the rules as written is asking too much. That should be the minimum expectation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3616]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 3791
Joined: 1/21/16
|
Re:
Dec 22, 2018, 9:58 PM
|
|
A referee's primary job is not rule enforcement. That is a misperception. It is game management. It is making sure that neither side gains an unfair advantage through whatever actions are taken outside the rules.
You cannot blow the whistle, or throw a flag, on every violation. Every player would foul out, and the games would be endless parades to the free throw line. And the game would come down to a ref's interpretation of the rules, not the skills of the players or coaches. No ref wants that.
Do you want a totally unwatchable game? That's what you're asking for.
I'm not a ref, but I'm friends with a couple. And i also used to talk with them during the HS games when i was working the scorer's table. Their perception of their job is totally different from what a fan thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
That's totally wrong on every level, in every way.
Dec 23, 2018, 6:04 PM
|
|
I don't know about "primary job", but it is certainly a ref's job to enforce the rules. To say that it's okay to ignore rules for the sake of game management is total bullshid. A ref does not, or at least should not, have that discretion. That then gives them the ability to affect the outcome of games not only outside of the rules, but also completely against the spirit of the game.
As I stated, you cannot expect perfection, and refs are going to miss some calls. That's to be expected and I'm totally cool with that. However, the idea that refs cannot blow the whistle or throw a flag on every violation they observe is flat out false, and the exact opposite of what they should do. Sure, there are certain, unusual or unique situations where refs probably should use that discretion (at the end of blowout games, for instance), but they are otherwise obligated to look for violations and call them. And the suggestion that doing so would render the game unwatchable is a weak argument and again flat out false. If, however, they informed all teams it was going to be a point of emphasis, then called it every single play, after a few series, it would stop. Calling fouls every time would result in more free throws, but if players want to play that aggressively, that out of control, then that's the way it should be. In 1975, Clemson had players foul out of games 26 times! I think the game was much more watchable then than now; attendence would probably refeclt that. Sure, the game would change; allowing the violations to become integral parts of the game has already changed it, for the worse, and it can and should be corrected. Of course, as I said, there would be outrage and revolt by the ignorant who have become accustomed to a game in which certain rules are optional or ignored altogether, but the game would be better off without them. Almost all of them would quickly adapt as well, howevcer, and the game would continue without missing a beat and be much better in the long run.
I work with a HS referee (football, basketball, lacrosse), so I know (and appreciate) their side of it, as we have this discussion on an ongoing basis. His argument is that the game moves incredibly fast and it's downright impossible to see, much less call everything. I understand that it is an extremely difficult and underappreciated job. He also, though somewhat begrudgingly, admits that they do let a lot of stuff slide because they know that even though rules are being broken and violations committed, he and other refs just ignore it because players, coaches, and fans have come to expect it, and he doesn't want to disappoint them or make them mad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3616]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 3791
Joined: 1/21/16
|
Re: That's totally wrong on every
Dec 23, 2018, 10:14 PM
|
|
No, it isn't.
I appreciate your comments, BTW.
Your last paragraph makes my point. Call it Enforcing the Rules in Light of Reality. Your friend cannot put the genie back in the bottle, nor can he take 20 years out of the developmental skills associated with any game. He tells you (you say he says) that he wants to call a strict game but cannot because he doesn't want to make people unhappy; the reality is that if he suddenly starts calling a tight game WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF HIS COHORTS he is being unfair and might be asked to never ref again.
Why?
Because he is making his interpretation of the rules more important than the game itself. Even with a striped shirt and whistle, a referee does not have the right to change the game into what he wants it to be. The players make the game what it is. The officials can only do their best to prevent one side from gaining an edge through illegal play.
Bringing his bias toward old school play into the mix is the ultimate in unfair officiating. The team who plays more his preferred style would gain an advantage. From the ref, of all places.
Now if the officiating crew, together, can justify why a particular rule needs to be emphasized, and that enforcement doesn't present an advantage to either side, hey, go for it. As a crew, they will bear the repercussions that come from deviating from accepted standards of officiating, if they did.
The fact that they know they are missing calls (because the game moves too fast) means that the calls they DO make are by choice. On every play so much borderline activity is done by both sides that he sometimes fails to realize that the level of play has escalated to illegal. So enforcement is spotty even when
he sees violations.
But i hope you truly do appreciate what your friend goes through. Nobody trusts a ref with an agenda, even if it's done for the good of the game.
Would love to talk more, but i have to get back on the road. If you don't respond to this thread any more, Merry Christmas.
If you do, I'll respond when i can. This goes to the nature of the games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I could not disagree more, and I think it's pretty simple.
Dec 24, 2018, 2:48 PM
|
|
Enforce the rules as written. The fact that refs don't do that is the problem. By all means, they should all get together, and commit to doing just that. The idea that they would do anything else is shameful. You have suggested that enforcement of a particular rule may provide an advantage for one team over another ... well of course it could, and it should. Teams who abide by the rules should be rewarded, and teams who don't should be punished. That's not a revolutionary idea, it's fundamental to the game, to any game. It has nothing, nor should it have, anything whatsoever to do with a ref favoring "old school" or any other style. It has everything to do with them enforcing the rules as written, and not giving into the trendy, ever changing opinions of the ignorant as to what they think it should be.
My co-worker is a friend, and as I have stated repeatedly, I fully appreciate the difficulty of his job as a ref.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16797]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9366
Joined: 11/1/14
|
It's why I enjoy soccer officiating...
Dec 24, 2018, 3:23 PM
|
|
It's called within the context of the game flow, by and large. Even when there's a foul, the match isn't necessarily stopped at that point due to 'advantage' for the fouled side. An infraction can be 'punished' at the next stoppage, if need be. Officiating soccer is equally about match management as enforcement of laws. It's not unusual to use the early minutes of a match to see how the sides want the match called. I've actually had players from both sides say, 'Ref...we don't want it that tight...let us play a bit." My reply is fine, so long as everyone's on the same page...it's your match, not mine.
When I see a football play returned for a penalty that had zilch result on that play's outcome, I want to pull my hair out. It's such a wasted stoppage of the game...a game that simply gets longer and longer, often for no good reason.
I don't know the perfect answers, other than to say in some areas of football/basketball, there are likely too many rules and not enough focus on game flow. Players tend to let you know how they want a game called, so perhaps something from soccer could be learned and applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I sure hope not.
Dec 24, 2018, 5:43 PM
|
|
Look, I understand that there are certain circumstances, particularly in youth or high school where it makes sense, espcially with agreement from both sides to let certain things slide. I can't believe, however, that there are actually people out there who talk this utter nonsense about applying rules in "context of the game flow" and suggest letting the players determine that certain rules are ignored at the college or professional level. I find it hard to believe that intelligent people who believe in things like fair play, discipline, respect, and integrity favor this kind of insanity. Either folks are yanking my chain (and that's okay), or we have really fallen farther than I realized as a society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 2,210
|
|
|
50
