A question about "bad refereeing"

[bags27]

On the thread about how the referees "stole" game 5 of the WNBA championship, Bigpetunia just wrote this, which I agree with entirely:
Referees/umpires making mistakes is part of every contest, an unfortunate part, to be sure, but an unsurprising part given that they are human. How big a deal it is, of course, in the eye of any given fan, is colored by that fan's specific rooting interest in a particular game. It's just one more aspect of sports that "comes with the territory."

How do we think about referees/umpires?

Are they police and judges who stand apart and above from society and whom we might criticize when we deem their behavior unfair or below the standards of perfect (as in "perfect justice")? If referees/umpires make a mistake that might be perceived as contributing to an outcome, is that "unfair"?

Or are they an integral part of the actual game--a third rail, if you will, along with the two contending teams? That is, do they perform an interactive duty and what they contribute is real time and just as contingent as the play of both teams. They make or do not make a call, and the "other" two teams have to adjust to that reality. Sort of like the "play" of the gods in the Iliad, where the Greeks and Trojans have to adjust to suddenly having a divine presence tilting the battle to one side or the other....

 

[UconnWBB]

I think, unless they instant replay EVERYTHING, mistakes are just an unfortunate part of the event. Teams shouldn't rely on fortuitous calls to prevail anyway.

 

[Bigpetunia]

I think, unless they instant replay EVERYTHING, mistakes are just an unfortunate part of the event. Teams shouldn't rely on fortuitous calls to prevail anyway.

Couldn't agree more...whenever we hear these complaints that the refs cost some team a game, what we rarely hear along with that declaration is even more pertinent commentary about missed shots, turnovers, blown opportunities, etc., the real bases for a given loss. That's why I call such whining losers' laments.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

What drives me crazy in watching WBB, (and I'm already CRAZY) especially the WNBA is the inept and total lack of knowledge that the referees show every game! It's almost criminal how incompetent all the WBB refs are!
The touch foul 85' from the basket is called then one player runs over the other at mid-court and no foul!
The player jumps to catch a pass and turns and the defender steps in so the offense falls and no foul, TRAVELING is called!
The 2 easiest fouls to call are the illegal screen and the charge/block with the arc. And these are the 2 most screwed up calls made!
The legal screen is supposed to be arms in and NO MOVEMENT from the screener and the average illegal screens in every game is 22 to 25 with no calls! Then with 5 seconds left in the game the ref will call an illegal screen and award 2 shots! Screeners are either sticking a hip out, moving a leg, or spinning off the instant the screen is set! I'm screaming at the tv every time there is an illegal screen!
If the ball-handler lowers their shoulder while driving the lane that HAS TO BE A CHARGE! ND in 2010, 2011 & 2012 the team with Diggins, Mallory, Novosel, Peters, etal did this all the time vs UCONN and a block was called 99 out of a 100!
And it's getting so bad especially in the WNBA that players and coaches are going berserk at the stupid calls. Taurasi, leads the league in T's as she can't take the stupidity anymore!
In college officials make $600 to $800 a game doing 5 to 6 games a week! $1,000 for Tournaments you would think they'd at least learn the rules!

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I'll relate this back to refs, but I'll never forget in one of Vivian's first years at Rutgers a seldom used bench-warmer (perhaps in due to an injury?) blew a layup at the buzzer that would have turned a 1 point loss into a 1 point upset against someone. Fans were very upset. What Viv told the fan club was very simple - if we were good enough to win the game, then it shouldn't have come down to a reserve trying to hit a buzzer-beater. That player didn't cost us the game, the various plays and coaching decisions throughout the game did.

And so it is with refs, in my opinion. Teams should adjust to how the refs are calling a game (since, Lord knows, consistency from game to game is an issue) and live with the results. Don't have to like em, just accept them.

One of the biggest symptoms of the issues with refs is what I call preconceptions. A player who is a "clean" player by reputation can get away with a lot more than a player that has a "rep". Won't say she didn't deserve them, but there is a reason that DT got t'd up for breathing the wrong way a couple of years ago. Had a rep. Someone without a rep would have gotten away with at least some of the behavior that drew the t's, in my opinion. This applies to play in the post, bumping, 3 second calls, etc.

 

[HopJim]

I'll relate this back to refs, but I'll never forget in one of Vivian's first years at Rutgers a seldom used bench-warmer (perhaps in due to an injury?) blew a layup at the buzzer that would have turned a 1 point loss into a 1 point upset against someone. Fans were very upset. What Viv told the fan club was very simple - if we were good enough to win the game, then it shouldn't have come down to a reserve trying to hit a buzzer-beater. That player didn't cost us the game, the various plays and coaching decisions throughout the game did.

And so it is with refs, in my opinion. Teams should adjust to how the refs are calling a game (since, Lord knows, consistency from game to game is an issue) and live with the results. Don't have to like em, just accept them.

One of the biggest symptoms of the issues with refs is what I call preconceptions. A player who is a "clean" player by reputation can get away with a lot more than a player that has a "rep". Won't say she didn't deserve them, but there is a reason that DT got t'd up for breathing the wrong way a couple of years ago. Had a rep. Someone without a rep would have gotten away with at least some of the behavior that drew the t's, in my opinion. This applies to play in the post, bumping, 3 second calls, etc.

Another perspective. Having children who attended a college with a strong, but not Top 30, basketball program, it was frustrating to see their League always get 2nd tier refs. Without overly generalizing, the refs were typically older, slower, and often not in the best position to make critical calls. Met several of the League Officials at several games who admitted that once someone makes the cut at this level, rarely do they get removed. There was acknowledgement that issues happened frequently but there was little or no policing of the officials, good or bad. With the exception of the top 20 games during the college season, my impression is that the WNBA and most women's college games have 2nd tier refs and pay the price in inconsistent and often wrong calls. While agree that focusing on one game can appear to be whining, seeing the continuing ineptness of women's referring over multiple seasons is frustrating.

 

[BigBird]

The dichotomy Bags outlines in the OP really isn't one. A ref can absolutely twist the result of a game, and ref errors are a part of the game. Both things can be true at the same time. It's true that good teams should overcome an adverse call. It's also true that they shouldn't have to.

What made the WNBA shot clock call extra frustrating was that the play had been shown to the TV audience in stop action replay, but the officials were blythly unaware of it, either by (wrong) choice, gross indifference, or general incompetence.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I think, unless they instant replay EVERYTHING, mistakes are just an unfortunate part of the event. Teams shouldn't rely on fortuitous calls to prevail anyway.

Instant replay will not remove ALL errors/mistakes---
I beat this dead horse often herein---as long as there are HUMAN's involved or programming or evaluating or judging--errors MUST be part of the equation--
Human's are human---human's make mistakes (often)

Some make mistakes as in an error --the bad ones make mistakes (in judgement) by selectively picking the wrong choice.
To expect anything near perfection is ignorant (not knowing what you don't know)---GENO says STRIVE for perfection--knowing you can never get there..

 

[BroadwayVa]

The dichotomy Bags outlines in the OP really isn't one. A ref can absolutely twist the result of a game, and ref errors are a part of the game. Both things can be true at the same time. It's true that good teams should overcome an adverse call. It's also true that they shouldn't have to.

What made the WNBA shot clock call extra frustrating was that the play had been shown to the TV audience in stop action replay, but the officials were blythly unaware of it, either by (wrong) choice, gross indifference, or general incompetence.

I should have read your's first--I could have save the energy (below) writing about Humans being human.

 

[BroadwayVa]

What drives me crazy in watching WBB, (and I'm already CRAZY) especially the WNBA is the inept and total lack of knowledge that the referees show every game! It's almost criminal how incompetent all the WBB refs are!
The touch foul 85' from the basket is called then one player runs over the other at mid-court and no foul!
The player jumps to catch a pass and turns and the defender steps in so the offense falls and no foul, TRAVELING is called!
The 2 easiest fouls to call are the illegal screen and the charge/block with the arc. And these are the 2 most screwed up calls made!
The legal screen is supposed to be arms in and NO MOVEMENT from the screener and the average illegal screens in every game is 22 to 25 with no calls! Then with 5 seconds left in the game the ref will call an illegal screen and award 2 shots! Screeners are either sticking a hip out, moving a leg, or spinning off the instant the screen is set! I'm screaming at the tv every time there is an illegal screen!
If the ball-handler lowers their shoulder while driving the lane that HAS TO BE A CHARGE! ND in 2010, 2011 & 2012 the team with Diggins, Mallory, Novosel, Peters, etal did this all the time vs UCONN and a block was called 99 out of a 100!
And it's getting so bad especially in the WNBA that players and coaches are going berserk at the stupid calls. Taurasi, leads the league in T's as she can't take the stupidity anymore!
In college officials make $600 to $800 a game doing 5 to 6 games a week! $1,000 for Tournaments you would think they'd at least learn the rules!

If the ball-handler lowers their shoulder while driving the lane that HAS TO BE A CHARGE! ND in 2010, 2011 & 2012 the team with Diggins, Mallory, Novosel, Peters, etal did this all the time vs UCONN and a block was called 99 out of a 10
That drove me nutz too. The person who fouled is the one who initiated the contact---but not so in WCBB. In the nCAA's we saw players from nearly every team run into players (offensive players) and they got the call--apparently the WCBB has decided to limit defensive effect
have made a decision not to call the Charge a charge..
Those were NOT bad calls --they were made per WCBB dictates. I assume. Teams were using what was given to them..

 

[BroadwayVa]

I'll relate this back to refs, but I'll never forget in one of Vivian's first years at Rutgers a seldom used bench-warmer (perhaps in due to an injury?) blew a layup at the buzzer that would have turned a 1 point loss into a 1 point upset against someone. Fans were very upset. What Viv told the fan club was very simple - if we were good enough to win the game, then it shouldn't have come down to a reserve trying to hit a buzzer-beater. That player didn't cost us the game, the various plays and coaching decisions throughout the game did.

And so it is with refs, in my opinion. Teams should adjust to how the refs are calling a game (since, Lord knows, consistency from game to game is an issue) and live with the results. Don't have to like em, just accept them.

One of the biggest symptoms of the issues with refs is what I call preconceptions. A player who is a "clean" player by reputation can get away with a lot more than a player that has a "rep". Won't say she didn't deserve them, but there is a reason that DT got t'd up for breathing the wrong way a couple of years ago. Had a rep. Someone without a rep would have gotten away with at least some of the behavior that drew the t's, in my opinion. This applies to play in the post, bumping, 3 second calls, etc.

Either C Viv took that from Geno or Geno borrowed it from C Viv. I have heard Geno say that on a number of tight losses (usually against ND) The Ref or the player missing a last second shot (SVET-Tamika missed shot against Vols) didn't cost the game--it was the missed opportunities in offense and Defense earlier .

 

[ThisJustIn]

Hop - what you're seeing is the fiscal reality meeting the meritocracy. Long time readers will know I've written several pieces on officiating, and I've had the pleasure of speaking to some longtime refs and coordinators of Division I (top and "lower") conferences.

It takes years to train up an official. As independent contractors, they have to pay for that training. Since the pay is crap until they reach to top level, they all have regular jobs. They have to get time off from their jobs to get out to the high school or Div III gig they're working. If their coordinator spots them, supports training'em up, it's pretty much guaranteed they'll get headhunted by the coordinator for the next level up, so boom, as a DIII coordinator, you're back to square one.

What's interesting about the WNBA is that they have a hard time getting the best of the best of the officiating corps. Those who work the NCAA season use the summer to spend it with their families (consider how much traveling/time away from home). There's a short train up time for the W - and they've got to adjust to the different rules and the faster speed of the game.

If folks want a "fix," they need to look to the top NCAA conferences. They have to commit money to develop the officiating pool. This means:

1. Cracking down on diva coaches and players. The disrespect shown to officials on the court and in the locker room means the pool of folks who might become superb officials - players - is tiny.
2. Put your money where your mouth is. Hire an official supervisor and give them sufficient staff to get to ALL of the games and give feedback to ALL of the officials.
3. Speaking of money, make sure your budget is big enough to offer high quality professional development. This means paying folks to attend.
4. Create a paid mentoring program, where current officials can mentor up-and-coming officials
5. Commit to transparency. Make sure that you proactively share the hiring, education and review processes. And do this EVERY year.
6. Educate fans. The rules change... and many don't know the rules. Yah, the NCAA has a wbb website (NCAA Women's Basketball Central Hub - News and Announcements) but every program should offer "So you think you can ref?" sessions for fans, players and coaches. How about a "You are the call/rule trivia" contest?​

This applies to ALL the sports. 'cause if you think this issue is unique to women's basketball, you're head is in the sand....

BTW - reposting links, in case want to know about the officiating world: Officiating articles

 

[MilfordHusky]

I went from watching the UConn season to watching the WNBA about a month later. To me, it seemed as if the WNBA officiating was noticeably worse and included some truly head-scratching calls and lack of coordination among officials. Issuing a memo after a missed call in the last 2 games of the finals may be a historic first for a major sports league. The WNBA needs better advertising and other things. Respectable officiating is one of them.

 

[HardHatGuy#2]

My feelings on this are two-fold:

1. Mistakes can happen, but there is no excuse for an official to not understand the rules of the game. No amount of replays can compensate for ignorance. IMO, officials should be dealt with harshly for such offenses.
2. I prefer games not be decided by the whistle, but a late call at a pivotal part of a game isn't "decided by the whistle", it is decided by the play on the floor; you foul, you get called.

CHOOSING not to blow the whistle because you "...want the players to decide the game...", IS deciding the game by the whistle.

On a side note, as much as Bonita Spence drove me NUTS sometimes, but, do I miss seeing her on the court. She and Dee Kantner (sp?) really seem(ed) to know their game.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

My feelings on this are two-fold:

1. Mistakes can happen, but there is no excuse for an official to not understand the rules of the game. No amount of replays can compensate for ignorance. IMO, officials should be dealt with harshly for such offenses.
2. I prefer games not be decided by the whistle, but a late call at a pivotal part of a game isn't "decided by the whistle", it is decided by the play on the floor; you foul, you get called.

CHOOSING not to blow the whistle because you "...want the players to decide the game...", IS deciding the game by the whistle.

On a side note, as much as Bonita Spence drove me NUTS sometimes, but, do I miss seeing her on the court. She and Dee Kantner (sp?) really seem(ed) to know their game.

Bonita (RIP) and Dee both showed a technique of refereeing with humor, as though the players were, well, real people. If you want to see another ref out of the same mold (if she's still around this year) Lisa Mattingly is a good one.

Just as we are seeing a lot of really long time head coaches reaching (near) the end of their careers, Geno included (although he of course has a number of years left), so too we should soon be seeing the end of the careers for quite a number of long time refs. DeMayo has cut back, and there are a number of other refs I expect to be doing the same, soon.

 

[UcMiami]

This is a really interesting thread with some very good observations - I almost didn't open it because I figured it would be another whine thread.

I have a few observations that may have been mentioned above in other posts:
On replay:
1. Instant replay is not a panacea for all that ails as various pro and college sports have discovered - it is at best a way to correct both egregious errors, and to correct for some specific cases where the speed of action and the line of sight for the live refs cannot properly judge a specific aspect of play (puck/ball crossing the goal line in hockey/soccer is a prime example, or line calls in tennis.) It does not solve the intricacy of interpretation of complex rules like catch/no catch in football, nor can it be clearly used to determine many complex situations where multiple bodies and varying sightlines do not provide definitive answers. One of the immensely ridiculous aspects of the NFL use of replay is that the obviously most important camera angles are not part of standard locations in football stadiums (end line, goal line, and sideline) and the NFL which produces incredible amounts of revenue refuses to invest in that standardization. Add in that to a large extent coaches challenges are based on their press boxes ability to watch broadcast TV replays and often important possible challenge situations are not replayed based on the whim of the broadcasters. When you get to the college level, and the lesser pro leagues, the number of camera angles available for replay diminishes, reducing the accuracy of the replay process

2. Specific to foul calls/penalties, the use of replay has typically been excluded which I think is a good thing - most of those calls are even under review interpretations of just how much contact crosses the line and slow motion doesn't really help on common fouls.

On refs:
1. I really agree that the refs do represent a third entity in the game (as any smart coaches and players recognize.) Great refs are not identical in how they call a game - some allow more body contact, some allow more incidental arm/hand contact, etc. but what they have is consistency individually and as a unit with their crew - and smart coaches/players adjust. What frustrates players, coaches, and fans is inconsistency within a game and especially across the crew calling the game because they cannot adjust and no longer know how each action will be called. The crew aspect I think is something that does not get emphasized enough, and is an inconsistency that leagues and especially playoff competition adds to the mix. And the wages/nature of the ref profession adds to this issue - especially in basketball where there are so many games each week and crews are mixed and matched all the time.

2. Players and coaches deserve a significant part of the blame for issues with refs as well (part of the three teams on the court/field aspect.) They are constantly in the business of playing to the refs - exaggerating contact in hopes of either drawing fouls offensively or defensively. Soccer is famous for the 'dive', but it is present in every sport, and the modern athlete has become a master of both acting and of calling for fouls/complaining about no calls. Most coaches appear to teach some aspects of this to their players.

3. Agree that anticipation is an issue in basketball and that reputations of players always seem to creep into some aspects of officiating. One of the things I hadn't noticed before specific to WNBA refs, was the apparent delay of foul calls until after a shot was clearly a miss or a make. A driving player who got some contact and made the shot was less likely to have been deemed to have been fouled, than one who missed the shot.

4. Disagree that 'lowering the shoulder' on a drive is an automatic foul, the defender still has to have established position even if they are moving, and they cannot be reaching in/swiping at the ball - agree that the presumption shifts from the offensive player to the defensive player with a lowering the shoulder but it is still an interpretation issue.

5. I do like the coaches who look at the game as a totality and recognize that a dubious call at the end may actually offset other dubious calls early in the game - that if their team was good enough they would not have been in the position to be hurt by the call.

6. The one aspect that I do think is a serious issue with refs is those that don't use the tools they have - from knowing the rules, to using the technology put in place to assist - so not reviewing an out of bounds call, or a shot clock violation, or a three point shot should never be a point of discussion.

 

[BroadwayVa]

This is a really interesting thread with some very good observations - I almost didn't open it because I figured it would be another whine thread.

I have a few observations that may have been mentioned above in other posts:
On replay:
1. Instant replay is not a panacea for all that ails as various pro and college sports have discovered - it is at best a way to correct both egregious errors, and to correct for some specific cases where the speed of action and the line of sight for the live refs cannot properly judge a specific aspect of play (puck/ball crossing the goal line in hockey/soccer is a prime example, or line calls in tennis.) It does not solve the intricacy of interpretation of complex rules like catch/no catch in football, nor can it be clearly used to determine many complex situations where multiple bodies and varying sightlines do not provide definitive answers. One of the immensely ridiculous aspects of the NFL use of replay is that the obviously most important camera angles are not part of standard locations in football stadiums (end line, goal line, and sideline) and the NFL which produces incredible amounts of revenue refuses to invest in that standardization. Add in that to a large extent coaches challenges are based on their press boxes ability to watch broadcast TV replays and often important possible challenge situations are not replayed based on the whim of the broadcasters. When you get to the college level, and the lesser pro leagues, the number of camera angles available for replay diminishes, reducing the accuracy of the replay process

2. Specific to foul calls/penalties, the use of replay has typically been excluded which I think is a good thing - most of those calls are even under review interpretations of just how much contact crosses the line and slow motion doesn't really help on common fouls.

On refs:
1. I really agree that the refs do represent a third entity in the game (as any smart coaches and players recognize.) Great refs are not identical in how they call a game - some allow more body contact, some allow more incidental arm/hand contact, etc. but what they have is consistency individually and as a unit with their crew - and smart coaches/players adjust. What frustrates players, coaches, and fans is inconsistency within a game and especially across the crew calling the game because they cannot adjust and no longer know how each action will be called. The crew aspect I think is something that does not get emphasized enough, and is an inconsistency that leagues and especially playoff competition adds to the mix. And the wages/nature of the ref profession adds to this issue - especially in basketball where there are so many games each week and crews are mixed and matched all the time.

2. Players and coaches deserve a significant part of the blame for issues with refs as well (part of the three teams on the court/field aspect.) They are constantly in the business of playing to the refs - exaggerating contact in hopes of either drawing fouls offensively or defensively. Soccer is famous for the 'dive', but it is present in every sport, and the modern athlete has become a master of both acting and of calling for fouls/complaining about no calls. Most coaches appear to teach some aspects of this to their players.

3. Agree that anticipation is an issue in basketball and that reputations of players always seem to creep into some aspects of officiating. One of the things I hadn't noticed before specific to WNBA refs, was the apparent delay of foul calls until after a shot was clearly a miss or a make. A driving player who got some contact and made the shot was less likely to have been deemed to have been fouled, than one who missed the shot.

4. Disagree that 'lowering the shoulder' on a drive is an automatic foul, the defender still has to have established position even if they are moving, and they cannot be reaching in/swiping at the ball - agree that the presumption shifts from the offensive player to the defensive player with a lowering the shoulder but it is still an interpretation issue.

5. I do like the coaches who look at the game as a totality and recognize that a dubious call at the end may actually offset other dubious calls early in the game - that if their team was good enough they would not have been in the position to be hurt by the call.

6. The one aspect that I do think is a serious issue with refs is those that don't use the tools they have - from knowing the rules, to using the technology put in place to assist - so not reviewing an out of bounds call, or a shot clock violation, or a three point shot should never be a point of discussion.

Replays of normal, routine, calls if questioned --isn't great
We'll be waiting for 3 officials to decide what you already know.
Officials are human--human's make mistakes.- even when they know the rule book forwards and backward.

I do not believe a bad official --who forgot the rules--not a devious one that selects one side over the other--
but the guy who forgot the rules--if he calls it wrongfully against both teams--i accept that.

lowering a shoulder--must not AlONE be the indicator of a foul--

Also the offensive player initiating contact should be a foul.