wonkadog- I think you're so used to us getting the raw end of the deal on calls that when a referee actually gets it right, it feels like we're getting away with something.
Refs Protect Players
- Thread starter JJ4ISU
- Start date
I'll admit I can be touchy on this subject. There are too many fans that have no idea what a foul or a violation is - and there are too many talking heads steering them in the wrong direction. If you officiate, at whatever level, you know this.
Good players tend to make good plays - I'll concede some officials may get "caught watching" good players, but there is no way I believe any intentional preferential treatment is occuring. When do they plan this? Is there a letter that goes out to officials with a "do not foul out" list? or do they go over it in pre-game? I just can't believe it - of course I'm not a big Roswell buff either ... :sweet:
Good players tend to make good plays - I'll concede some officials may get "caught watching" good players, but there is no way I believe any intentional preferential treatment is occuring. When do they plan this? Is there a letter that goes out to officials with a "do not foul out" list? or do they go over it in pre-game? I just can't believe it - of course I'm not a big Roswell buff either ... :sweet:
I think the fans on this site and particularly the ones engaged in this particular thread are outside of the perameters you set for foul and violation knowledge. So I believe we are seeing the same game. If you are an ISU fan then the talking heads are a bigger enemy than the officials in many cases. I also think that officials do give "top players" preferential treatment for the very reason stated above. "Good players tend to make good plays." If the official goes into the game believing that one player or team is superior in talent or execution then it will show up in the calls, no letter, list, or memo needed. I think you just explained the reason for what we all saw on Saturday reguarding Durant.
I would also contend that many other teams' fans had the same problem during the Fizer-Tinsley era, and during the run 2 years ago when we were leading the league in steals with Stinson and Will. There is no denying preferential treatment it is part of the game, the refs are human and go into the game with some preconcieved expectations of play and players. The only conversation here is really are we all willing to see it when it is for and against us?
I'll agree with a lot of that JPark, but consider for a minute the refs don't care who wins. From my experiance (not Big 12, mind you) There are times when an official has no idea of the score until they look up and read it at halftime. There are times when officials are suprised number 12 fouled out, because they don't specifically count the fouls. Because guess what? at the end of the day the paychecks the same no matter who wins.
I played b-ball in high school and always wondered how refs could miss or make the wrong call so often. I then, did some reffing in college for intramural sports and realized how hard it can be to make the correct call. For some reason it's completely different in person than when watching on TV or playing in the game.
I do agree that refs give the benefit of the doubt to the well-know players too often when the game should just be called based on what really happens. But, I've also learned to tone down my crticism since I tried to actually referee a game.
I get upset at un-evenly called games, but I do understand the occassional missed or wrong call as long as the refs don't become partial to one team.
I do agree that refs give the benefit of the doubt to the well-know players too often when the game should just be called based on what really happens. But, I've also learned to tone down my crticism since I tried to actually referee a game.
I get upset at un-evenly called games, but I do understand the occassional missed or wrong call as long as the refs don't become partial to one team.
I agree that the Texas game was not determined by the refs... and that they were not screwing ISU over... but in GENERAL... big name players such as Durant seem to get the benefit of the doubt a lot...
its the same in any sport anywhere, when a guy whos name is better known goes up against a guy who isn't as well known, the guy who IS better known is going to get the call most of the time. I agree we are getting jipped on some of these calls, but we did get these calls back with Fizer and Tinsley, all you gotta do is start hyping some guys and they need to play well enough to get their names out there. if it weren't for Durant, Wesley Johnson would be talked about for big 12 freshman of the year and BECAUSE of Durant he is flying under the radar, I believe Wesley is a couple absolute BREAKOUT games away from being a "talked about" guy who will end up getting those toss-up calls go in his favor. Next year Craig Brackins is a big name recruit and give him a few good games on the natl stage and he will start getting the calls as well. I guarantee these refs are not blind to the national public that talks about players, so they know who the big names are.
How hard is it to believe Durant may be a better player than ... pretty much anybody we had on him? Ceaser was quicker and smarter than Clark was in that game, hence the foul differential - hopefully Clark rebounds tomorrow night. (pun not intended)
If Brackins is as good as you say, he'll beat his man to the spot or know when to not push and you'll say "see he's getting the calls", which is really unfair to him for not even giving him the credit for playing better than the competition.
Durant is really good, he's gonna be a terror to guard everywhere, and everyone will complain.
If Brackins is as good as you say, he'll beat his man to the spot or know when to not push and you'll say "see he's getting the calls", which is really unfair to him for not even giving him the credit for playing better than the competition.
Durant is really good, he's gonna be a terror to guard everywhere, and everyone will complain.
I don't think anyone here is saying we lost any game because of poor officiating. What I am saying is that I think McDermott is doing a hell of a job teaching our post players to play solid, straight-up post defense, and several times in the A&M game and the Texas game I felt our big guys did just that. And the result was a quick whistle from a referee calling a foul on our guy who did nothing but put his hands straight up in the air!
Any psych majors out there? I have a minor and this is beginning to remind me of some study where they found that a debate didn't sway the opinion of anybody that came to the conversation with their mind already set in one direction. In fact a presentation against their arguement only entrenched them further in their previous beliefs.
If there is anyone that can explain that better go ahead - I think this conversation has run its course.
If there is anyone that can explain that better go ahead - I think this conversation has run its course.
I'm just saying that everything averages out. Plus you help my point a little--Tinsley and Fizer were great players being defended by good players who needed to foul or be embarassed. Iffy calls (and blown calls) happen both directions. I usually see as many iffy calls for us as against us--whether home or away.
And I would (not strenuously) argue that big name players are big name because they're great and great players--well--they don't need the benefit of the doubt. If they did, then they wouldn't be great--they'd be good.
In summary, PART of what makes SOME great player great is their ability to defend/block/steal without fouling and/or the ability to force defenders to foul them or get embarassed.
I firmly believe that if Durant was getting so much preferrential treatment (as some others have suggested), then Ceasar would have had 10 fouls.
I firmly believe that I am open minded and that you're wrong.
Period.
Further--everyone is happy to have their opinion swayed.
Or are you so attached to your opinion that opinions can't be changed that you won't change your opinion? Self fulfilling prophecy anyone?
(Lighten up--that was hysterical. Really. And if that's not your opinion then . . . Oh never mind.)
So, riddle me this. Is there no such thing as a make up call, or is a make up call just the refs trying to be unbiased?
I remember last year's MBB game at KU, early in the game, the fouls were like 8 against ISU and 1 against KU. The ISU bench was complaining and I saw one of the refs look up at the board to see. I told my buddy, they're gonna call a foul on KU and sure enough that's what happened next. Make up call?
Of course I've never seen a decent ref job at KU regardless. My opinion is that's why KU does so poorly in the NCAA's.
I remember last year's MBB game at KU, early in the game, the fouls were like 8 against ISU and 1 against KU. The ISU bench was complaining and I saw one of the refs look up at the board to see. I told my buddy, they're gonna call a foul on KU and sure enough that's what happened next. Make up call?
Of course I've never seen a decent ref job at KU regardless. My opinion is that's why KU does so poorly in the NCAA's.
You know, I have thought a lot about this over the years, and while I agree that you have to make plays to win games, but to think that there isn't a higher power out there that has at least a little influence on what happens, then I would consider you naive. CBS has given the NCAA billions of dollars, and if you don't think that they expect their voice to be heard then we can agree to disagree. But if you want any proof, put a tape of the UConn Washington game last year, that doesn't just happen. Three guys don't just miss all those calls, unless there is an agenda (in this case it was Washington thinking they could win). I think that is why George Mason won, because there was so much controversy after the UW game, that the breaks that normally go UConn's way didn't happen.
It's not just the refs' job to protect the marquee players, but to keep the games close, too. You do know they work on a commission, right? Average pay for a D-1 game is fifty bucks, plus 20 percent of the conscessions. So if the game's a blow-out and people leave, it cuts into their beer money.
I hope you are just kidding...They get upwards of $500 a game in the major conferences. I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with how many clone cones we down. Awww clone cones...crap, just a second while I go get some ice cream.
If they really worked off commission is anybody else picturing Tommy O'Neill and Steve Wilmer's horrified faces when they realized that the "big time" Drake/Cal-Irvine showdown that they signed up for in December is "Buck hot-dog/popcorn/pop night"? Wahahahahhahaha
Last edited:
I bet they get all the leftover concessions too...big huge garbage sacks of popcorn, huge containers of nacho cheese, etc. Now I know why "buckhustler" David Hall has to run around like a crazy idiot. He has to work off those Clone Cone calories.