sims@hou2b.UUCP (J.SIMESTER) (02/22/84)
Just for grins (and because the local traffic seems rather low in
this group) - anybody interested in discussing the relative
ineptitude of officiating in various conferences? I would think
such a discussion would avoid the high-BTU flames of debating which
is the "best" conference (we all have our personal opinions on that),
and I'm frankly curious how the quality of refereeing is perceived by
others for the various conferences. I've heard statements in the past
that the Big Ten was "physical," while the ACC tended more towards the
"finesse." Such tendencies must in part be due to how the games are called.
My personal experience is mostly limited to the Big Ten from my days as
a grad student at Illinois. From them, and from the games I catch on the
tube, I would have to rank Big Ten officials near or at the bottom of
almost any stack you could name. What concerns me the most is not so
much the apparent lack of fundamental understanding of the rules of the
game of basketball (I have yet to watch a Big 10 game in which there
were fewer than 4 or 5 calls I just couldn't understand), but rather the
almost total lack of consistency on the part of many of the officials.
For example, I can't count the number of times I've seen the *exact* *same*
*play* called charging at one end of the court and blocking at the other.
Or the games in which brutal physical play is allowed inside throughout
a game, only to have a ticky-tacky touch foul called outside in the final
minute. It also seems at times that all calls under the basket have been
relegated to the official at mid-court rather than the referee standing
directly in front of the action (yes, I know that an official can sometimes
be screened, but not THAT often).
BTW, the above opinions are not the result of partisanship or a flame at
any particular game. The quality of officiating (or lack thereof) is
maintained for almost all games, regardless of who is playing (though I
must admit that blown calls against the Illini tend to boil my blood,
while those against other teams simply make me shake my head in
disbelief). I have heard (purely gossip) that Big Ten officials are
selected through a "good ole' boy" network rather than on the basis of
any sort of quality evaluation - this would certainly help explain my
above complaints (anybody out there heard anything similar??).
Enough for now. Anyone else have any thoughts on the topic? Mail welcome,
or add your logs to the fire here!
--
Jim
..!houxm!hou2b!simsmth@drufl.UUCP (Hamilton) (02/22/84)
There probably isn't anyone who likes the officiating in any sport. I, too, think basketball officiating borders on atrocious. The big joke I see this year is the rule of verticality. It seens that no one bothered to tell the refs. I think charging/blocking is the most difficult call an official has to make. Several factors have to be taken into consideration, all in a split second, in order to come up with the correct call. (1) Was the defender set? (2) Did he allow the ball-handler 1 1/2 steps? (3) If off a pass, did the defender allow the pass receiver enough room to come down or turn around? (that seems to be in the opinion of the ref) (4) Did the defender, if set, move into the ball-handler with his knee, hip, or shoulder? (5) Did the ball-handler break the plane of verticality? There is probably more. Not to side with the officials, but there have been a few times I thougth the call was wrong until I saw the replay, when it turned out I was wrong. Also, it doesn't surprise me anymore when a ref makes a bad call. They have so many things to look for. If you have ever reffed a basketball game, you'll know. It is the toughest sport I've reffed (never professionally). Fortunately, the refs have to screw up 3 or 4 times on each player before the player fouls out. Although being in foul trouble can be almost as bad for key players. Maybe the NCAA should consider going to 6 fouls. But doing it for this reason would be a big blow to the credibility of officiating (I don't know why the pros did it, probably to keep players in longer and keep "the game" interesting). Finally, no flame intended, but I don't see how someone can complain about officiating if they don't understand some of the calls. Maybe they meant they understand the call, but not why it was made. I notice alot of times the announcers (the major announcers!) don't even know what is being called. Which no doubt confuses alot of viewers. I always pay all attention on the game and not some stupid Al McGuire analogy. Then you know what is being called and whether or not you agree with it. Sorry if I misinterpreted any statements. Mark Hamilton Denver
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (02/22/84)
"There is that super-star,
who would get a hit, walk, or sacrifice every time at bat,
who would get every batter out,
who would never make a fielding or throwing error,
who would perfectly call every ball, strike, safe, or out,
who would never miss a block,
who would know where the daylight is to run to,
who would always call the right play,
who would always see the open receiver,
who would catch every ball throw his direction,
who would not be fooled by a play-action pass,
who would never let a receiver get open,
who would never miss a lay-up,
who would never accidentally commit a foul,
who would see through players to know all of the contact,
who would know what's happening on the court at all time
(because he can concentrate over a 170-degree
field of vision),
who would call every infraction perfectly, obviating the need
for instant replays,
if you could just get him to lay aside his hot dog and beer and come out
of the stands."
The Q-Bick, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!{sun,amd70,decwrl}!qubix!lab
--
The Ice Floe of the Q-Bick
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!{decwrl,amd70}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPAsims@hou2b.UUCP (J.SIMESTER) (02/23/84)
Regarding my original article on the subject of poor officiating, Mark Hamilton responded (in part) with: > Finally, no flame intended, but I don't see how someone can complain > about officiating if they don't understand some of the calls. Maybe > they meant they understand the call, but not why it was made. I > notice alot of times the announcers (the major announcers!) don't > even know what is being called. Which no doubt confuses alot of > viewers. I always pay all attention on the game and not some stupid > Al McGuire analogy. Then you know what is being called and whether > or not you agree with it. > Sorry if I misinterpreted any statements. Just to set the record straight, my statement about not understanding calls was supposed to mean that a given call made by an official had little or no relation to what actually occurred on the court. Granted, my original statement was rather vague on that point (must start using the old :-)!!). Also, I am well aware of the fact that officiating is difficult, especially in a fast-action sport like basketball, and I wouldn't object to *occasional* blown calls. However: 1) The officials in major conferences are supposed to be experienced *professionals*, not volunteers refing a local pick-up or intramural game, and 2) I have seen Big Ten games where the blown calls were of epidemic proportions! Just wanted to clarify a bit. Glad to see some interest!! -- Jim ..!houxm!hou2b!sims