Should refs be made available after games?

[Katwatcher]

Yeah but fans are idiots. Coaches do get asked questions..ever read a paper, watched a postgame, or listened to a call in show?

Sure, but those are in a different setting. Those type programs are often screened and at least a day later. I agree some fans are idiots and some are not.

Do the rules change during the game?

No, the rules don't change during the game, but if the game starts getting rough, only the refs can control it by calling it a lot closer to keep it from getting out of hand. I think that is the right way to handle it.

 

[GCASE]

Refs absolutely should be held accountable and they're not.

I actually look forward to the day where drones are the officials.

We make coaches & players speak to the media after wins & losses, these are games the have laid their heart & soul into, & may have missed a game winning shot, or the coach may have gotten a technical to effect the outcome of the game.

The only people involved with the game that doesn't have to speak to the media is the officials & they have just as much or more influence on the game as the players & coaches.

There is no reason with the technology we have today, that the official cannot sit down with the media for thirty minutes after a game & look at selected highlights of the fouls they have called & tell why they called the foul.

This would cut down on the calls against teams because the official has a grudge against the coach because they would then have to explain those calls.

 

[martinsm30]

Are refs. ever graded and is there a pass or fail?

Conferences contract officials. Sometimes you will see the same guys ref ACC games and SEC games. Each conference has its methods of grading officials. The head of officials for the conference is typically the one who has the final say about everything though.

I have refereed. In all the organizations I was part of the referees had an us vs the world attitude. They would circle the wagons if one of us was called out. A lot of massive egos as well. I remember a game I refereed where both team's fans were yelling at me that I sucked the entire time. At that point I knew I was doing a good job.

 

[UKGrad93]

Sure, but those are in a different setting. Those type programs are often screened and at least a day later. I agree some fans are idiots and some are not.


No, the rules don't change during the game, but if the game starts getting rough, only the refs can control it by calling it a lot closer to keep it from getting out of hand. I think that is the right way to handle it.

If the rules don't change, then why should the officiating? Seems like it should be a constant. If things get too out of hand, go talk to the coaches or use the available rules to deal with it.

 

[Xception]

There is crime in every sport and given what we know to be fact that when large sums of money is involved then humans will contaminate it . No way to know what refs take money or who is just not good at the job but I can't see a scenario where every ref is clean . Aside from the criminal angle there are refs who let bias influence their calls , they may not like a coach or school and that's enough for them to mess a game up . Impossible for humans to regulate anything fairly , it's just not in our nature .

 

[Nubb16]

No, because every answer they would give would be the old "i calls em as I sees em."

 

[the nail at the foul line]

I believe in hardly any conspiracies.

I think Cal is looked at as rogue and UK is considered rogue. I heard national media idiots saying this the other day. Therefore, any call we get is considered well deserved. Also, since we have talent then they are just keeping it fair. I believe in that nutty conspiracy.

 

[Katwatcher]

If the rules don't change, then why should the officiating? Seems like it should be a constant. If things get too out of hand, go talk to the coaches or use the available rules to deal with it.

I addressed that question in another post on this thread.

 

[Katwatcher]

They should receive a base salary and receive bonus incentive pay based on a review of their body of work.

A good solid official who is consistently in position to make solid calls would earn far more than those who
are always in controversial situations.

Cream would rise to the top and the turds sink to the bottom. Cream works the NCAA tourney, Turds the CBIT.

I see your point, but someone still has to decide if it was a solid call.

 

[Katwatcher]

Refs absolutely should be held accountable and they're not.

I actually look forward to the day where drones are the officials.

That is simply not true. The refs are held accountable, they are rated every game by conference officials

 

[martinsm30]

That is simply not true. The refs are held accountable, they are rated every game by conference officials

And the conference officials are typically former refs who used to travel with the guys refereeing the games. Refereeing is a brotherhood because no one else will stand with you. Not the coaches and certainly not the fans.

 

[BigBlueCatNation]

There are always questions about certain calls but sometimes, like the Kansas game, everyone would like to hear why calls are made. If coaches (other than Pitino) and players have to answer to the media after a game why shouldn't officials have to do post game press conferences?

I absolutely agree. There's just too much at stake in today's game for them to be above answering for the decisions they make.

 

[KingOfBBN]

That is simply not true. The refs are held accountable, they are rated every game by conference officials

Not really. A simple apology for effing a game up where the outcome doesn't change isn't okag and rarely is a suspension handed down.

Refs are way too protected.

 

[Premo__]

Dock pay for each bad call? Sorta like they old pride fighting days where when fighters who broke the rules would lose part of their purse if they kept doing something wrong.

 

[JPScott]

Absolutely not. I think you need to approach reffing as sort of above it all.

Couldn't disagree more. The refs ALREADY act like they are above it all, and that's a major part of the problem IMO.

FWIW, what I've suggested for over 10 years goes something like this:

After the game, the media is allowed to pool together and submit up to three written questions about calls which were made during the game. Videos of the plays are encouraged to accompany each question.

These three questions are submitted to the lead official. It is expected that before the officiating crew leaves the building, the questions are answered in writing, either by the lead official or anonymously by someone within the officiating crew. Citing the actual rule within the rulebook is encouraged. If the question legitimately can't be answered quickly, then it can be forwarded to the head of officials of whichever league is responsible and they have two days to answer the question or resolve the issue.​

I think doing it like this is a good compromise, and I believe would help to ensure that quality calls are made going forward.

Some advantages:

1.) it allows the referees to remain anonymous if they so wish
2.) it allows the referees to explain why they made a call (especially if they feel it was the correct call) and in the process provides the actual rule citation, which helps to educate the general public as to the rules of the game and how they are applied.
3.) it forces referees who have made bad calls to be quickly confronted with evidence and have them explain (even if it's anonymous) how the bad call happened.
4.) most importantly it forces the referees to be accountable to the others in his crew, as it impacts the entire crew if one of them is consistently making bad calls
5.) it forces the referees, or the league office, to admit when errors have been made, and that will hopefully spur the entire system to work even harder to reduce such errors.
​

FWIW, I've been in discussions with referees about these issues and have heard them claim that there is nothing more difficult or motivating than having the league supervisor review their calls with them. But I simply don't believe it, especially since there doesn't seem to be much improvement or consistency in officiating at this level (as opposed to the NBA for example). I do think that having the referees be required to explain themselves to the public at large, and be forced to be accountable to the other referees within their own crew is a much more motivating factor to getting the call right in the first place, than anything that would happen behind closed doors with a supervisor.

 

[Katwatcher]

Dock pay for each bad call? Sorta like they old pride fighting days where when fighters who broke the rules would lose part of their purse if they kept doing something wrong.

Sounds good, but who is going to determine if its a bad call or doing something wrong? Everyone is skirting the real issue. Someone is going to have to make the decision. If more than one person is making the decision, you have another problem.

Please tell me who is going to make the call. lol.

 

[Katwatcher]

Couldn't disagree more. The refs ALREADY act like they are above it all, and that's a major part of the problem IMO.

FWIW, what I've suggested for over 10 years goes something like this:

After the game, the media is allowed to pool together and submit up to three written questions about calls which were made during the game. Videos of the plays are encouraged to accompany each question.

These three questions are submitted to the lead official. It is expected that before the officiating crew leaves the building, the questions are answered in writing, either by the lead official or anonymously by someone within the officiating crew. Citing the actual rule within the rulebook is encouraged. If the question legitimately can't be answered quickly, then it can be forwarded to the head of officials of whichever league is responsible and they have two days to answer the question or resolve the issue.​

I think doing it like this is a good compromise, and I believe would help to ensure that quality calls are made going forward.

Some advantages:

1.) it allows the referees to remain anonymous if they so wish
2.) it allows the referees to explain why they made a call (especially if they feel it was the correct call) and in the process provides the actual rule citation, which helps to educate the general public as to the rules of the game and how they are applied.
3.) it forces referees who have made bad calls to be quickly confronted with evidence and have them explain (even if it's anonymous) how the bad call happened.
4.) most importantly it forces the referees to be accountable to the others in his crew, as it impacts the entire crew if one of them is consistently making bad calls
5.) it forces the referees, or the league office, to admit when errors have been made, and that will hopefully spur the entire system to work even harder to reduce such errors.
​

FWIW, I've been in discussions with referees about these issues and have heard them claim that there is nothing more difficult or motivating than having the league supervisor review their calls with them. But I simply don't believe it, especially since there doesn't seem to be much improvement or consistency in officiating at this level (as opposed to the NBA for example). I do think that having the referees be required to explain themselves to the public at large, and be forced to be accountable to the other referees within their own crew is a much more motivating factor to getting the call right in the first place, than anything that would happen behind closed doors with a supervisor.

JP, I respect your suggestions and the input you furnished this site. I think some of your suggestions are already being used, such as the refs getting together to discuss a certain call and using everyone's view to get the call right.

Your list contains a lot of good ideas that would help the situation, however #3 has some questions. "3. it forces referees who have made bad calls to be quickly confronted with evidence and have them explain (even if it's anonymous) how the bad call happened."

I would like you to answer this question-----who determines if it is a bad call in the first place. I can understand if its a clock issue, or maybe 6 players on the court, or an illegal number. etc., but if it is a judgement call evidently the official calls it like he sees it.

It seems everyone is quick to mention a bad call, How is that determined?. The game is not set up to have a jury trial on every call that the coach or fans disagree with.

I'm not saying that there are no bad {allegedly} calls made. There always will be missed calls if humans are involved.

There have been comments about how certain officials seem to stare down the players who are involved in the call. I think that is a petty issue from the start. Officials who leave any doubt about the call is already in trouble. They have to be firm with every call or everyone in gym will doubt them.

I have heard other ridiculous comments like refs should not make calls in final seconds of a game which would affect the out come. Really?

 

[JPScott]

JP, I respect your suggestions and the input you furnished this site. I think some of your suggestions are already being used, such as the refs getting together to discuss a certain call and using everyone's view to get the call right.

Your list contains a lot of good ideas that would help the situation, however #3 has some questions. "3. it forces referees who have made bad calls to be quickly confronted with evidence and have them explain (even if it's anonymous) how the bad call happened."

I would like you to answer this question-----who determines if it is a bad call in the first place. I can understand if its a clock issue, or maybe 6 players on the court, or an illegal number. etc., but if it is a judgement call evidently the official calls it like he sees it.

It seems everyone is quick to mention a bad call, How is that determined?. The game is not set up to have a jury trial on every call that the coach or fans disagree with.

I'm not saying that there are no bad {allegedly} calls made. There always will be missed calls if humans are involved.

There have been comments about how certain officials seem to stare down the players who are involved in the call. I think that is a petty issue from the start. Officials who leave any doubt about the call is already in trouble. They have to be firm with every call or everyone in gym will doubt them.

I have heard other ridiculous comments like refs should not make calls in final seconds of a game which would affect the out come. Really?

First of all with respect to the bolded section, having the referees get together and confer DURING the game is NOT what I'm talking about.

I understand why they do it because it's important to get the call right, but I also understand that missing calls from time to time is a part of basketball.

I think that this phenomenon of referees stopping play every few minutes to review calls is a terrible disruption which threatens to harm the flow of the game even more than the endless number of timeouts and commercials they already have. To me I would hope that the instances where the game is stopped for review is very limited. [and FWIW I think that one improvement which could be made fairly easily is to adopt what the NBA does, where a light goes off when the shot clock expires (i.e. not just the end of the half or regulation)].

As an aside, I also find it fascinating to see these guys who are trained and paid to make split second decisions who go out and make these decisions, and act like they are always correct, yet you give them a TV monitor and it can literally take them multiple minutes to come to a decision. Anyone else see that as a contradiction?

What I'm talking about is to have the referees review a play and provide a written response after the game.

As to your main question, I thought I explained it already. The questions are pooled from the media who are there covering the game .

Part of that is because since the media are already covering the games and preparing stories of their own, they would likely have an interest in finding out more information about particularly significant calls, or calls which the reader would be most interested in. So to answer your question of who decides what a bad call is, it's the media that acts as a proxy for the general public, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a 'bad' call. It could be a significant/critical call or a call that was the most confusing.

Beyond being asked to act as a proxy for the public, another reason to use the media is because presumably they have ready access to video clips etc. to provide with the questions. Third, because the media is supposedly unbiased but also contains members who cover both the home and the travelling team, it in theory covers questionable calls from both points of view.

Now I had suggested up to 3 questions as a way to limit how much is expected of the referees. But that could be changed to say 4 (2 from home media; 2 from away media for example) or 5 depending on how much of a burden it's perceived to be.

I don't trust the media to do a lot of things correctly, but I would trust them to be able to get something like this to work among themselves.

If not, then maybe there could be a different method. For example wouldn't it be interesting if say each fan message board on Rivals had the opportunity to vote on and submit questions about 2 calls that were made during a game that their team just participated in? I'd love to be able to do that.

As far as bad calls being made, that's the point. There may not be a good explanation for why an incorrect call was made other than the referee made a mistake, or didn't have a good angle to make the call etc.. If that's the answer then that's the answer.

But even admitting that, to me goes a long way to illustrate that these guys do indeed make mistakes on the floor. (And if there's a pattern that emerges where the same referee is constantly being called to explain why he blew a call game after game, maybe that will be an indication that something needs to change.) And hopefully in the long run being forced to admit errors will spur them (and those who are in charge of them) to strive to improve in the future.

And as I mentioned, there's always the situation where the call may look questionable to the general public but it actually was the correct call. Having this system in place provide a mechanism for the official to not only defend himself but to help educate the public going forward.

With the current system where no one is really allowed to question the officials in a meaningful way, and with TV announcers often covering for their bad calls, it not only doesn't spur improvement but it leads one to question whether something else is going on.

 

[Ryan Lemonds Diary]

I understand a bang bang call can be missed but the ending to that game the other day and I don't recall the 2 teams where one guy walked for 3 seconds with no call and then they hit a winning shot was beyond a missed call. It was horrendous and did you hear of any officials being suspended? I sure didn't hear about it if they did.

 

[JasonS.]

They should be available, alright.

 

[EdNygma]

Dock pay for each bad call? Sorta like they old pride fighting days where when fighters who broke the rules would lose part of their purse if they kept doing something wrong.

Who determines a 'bad' call? That is a subjective matter and in most cases the call is a bad call to 50% of the spectators/coaches.

 

[truebluewildcat]

I think there should be some sort of review process for officials...maybe there is one...I'm not sure...if there already is some sort of process, it needs to be overhauled...

but I think officials need to be monitored and reviewed...

I think coaches and/or athletic officials should be able to file formal complaints after atrocious games where calls were clearly a factor...

It doesn't have to be available for the public and/or some sort of media spectacle...but quietly behind the scenes there should be some sort of formal process where somebody can file a report and request that a game, officiating crew, and/or individual official be looked at...

when the the free throw disparity gets above 12-15 then I think it should be an automatic review...not necessarily with the intention to punish but rather to improve and educate...in some instances when the calls are particularly atrocious and one sided, then I think some sort of penalty needs to be possible...

bottom line, an individual hack here and there is debatable...but 47 attempts to 22 is not debatable, it is one sided...especially when one team hasn't been very aggressive or physical all season...

 

[Katwatcher]

I understand a bang bang call can be missed but the ending to that game the other day and I don't recall the 2 teams where one guy walked for 3 seconds with no call and then they hit a winning shot was beyond a missed call. It was horrendous and did you hear of any officials being suspended? I sure didn't hear about it if they did.

I don't think it matters to a lot of fans whether it a bang bang play or not. They use it as an excuse for losing the game although using their selective memory fails to include several turnovers which could have same results.

Again it all goes back to the walking no-call. Its hard to accept the fact that the call was missed with 3 officials on the floor if indeed he did walk.

 

[Katwatcher]

I think there should be some sort of review process for officials...maybe there is one...I'm not sure...if there already is some sort of process, it needs to be overhauled...

but I think officials need to be monitored and reviewed...

I think coaches and/or athletic officials should be able to file formal complaints after atrocious games where calls were clearly a factor...

It doesn't have to be available for the public and/or some sort of media spectacle...but quietly behind the scenes there should be some sort of formal process where somebody can file a report and request that a game, officiating crew, and/or individual official be looked at...

when the the free throw disparity gets above 12-15 then I think it should be an automatic review...not necessarily with the intention to punish but rather to improve and educate...in some instances when the calls are particularly atrocious and one sided, then I think some sort of penalty needs to be possible...

bottom line, an individual hack here and there is debatable...but 47 attempts to 22 is not debatable, it is one sided...especially when one team hasn't been very aggressive or physical all season...

If I'm not mistaken they do have a process for reviewing certain calls in place now. I don't know exactly the procedure, but I believe they have one and possibly needs overhaul.

 

[Premo__]

Sounds good, but who is going to determine if its a bad call or doing something wrong? Everyone is skirting the real issue. Someone is going to have to make the decision. If more than one person is making the decision, you have another problem.

Please tell me who is going to make the call. lol.

well I guess I could do it..