Ladies and gentlemen, a special message from Karl Hess

Karl asked me to pass along this message* to his detractors:

(btw, if you've never met Karl, his voice sounds kind of like Jack Nicholson)

Quote:

---

"Son, we live in a world that has basketball games. And those games have to be officated by men with whistles. Who's gonna do it? You, Billy Packer? You, Chicago_1995? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Vanderbilt and you curse the referees. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Vanderbilt's loss and my no-call on the travel, while tragic to some, probably saved the game. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves the game.

You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that court. You need me on that court. We use words like advantage/dis-advantage, pivot foot, primary area...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very officiating I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a whistle and take the court. Either way, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK YOU'RE ENTITLED TO!!!"

---

*shamelessly pilfered from Officiating.com forum

Karl, did you order the no call?

DID YOU ORDER THE NO CALL?

You want the TRUTH?!?

You can't HANDLE the truth!

A bit off-topic, but this gentleman does a great re-enactment of that scene (and many others -- check out his Star Trek and Willy Wonka scenes!)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kh5yOZRUwgw

A justice of the U.S. Supreme Court once said "we are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final." People--in some cases people who are smarter than, and understand the law better than, the Supremes--have always had law reviews, and now also have blogs, in which they can I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about Supreme Court decisions. Doesn't change the decision, but one writes in the hope that an intellectually curious and appropriately humble Supreme Court justice will read the law review article or blog post, realize he or she screwed up, and fix it the next time the issue comes before the court.

Same principle applies here. Karl Hess gets to make the call because he wears the striped shirt. The call doesn't stand because it's right. The rightness of the call is, in that sense, utterly irrelevant. The call stands because the rules of the game make the call final and unreviewable. The rightness of the call matters in the larger sense that without ascertainable rules, the game becomes impossible--and bad calls reduce the ascertainability of the rules. In that sense, officials, like judges, are guardians of a public trust--a point which they appear to either not understand or deny.

The hubris displayed on that officials' board is incredible and appalling. Gentlemen (and ladies), there are those of us out here who know the rules as well or better than you, and have worn the striped shirt (some of us may have worn the striped shirt refereeing at no higher level than intramurals or recreation leagues, but you had better believe that we were every bit as dedicated to getting it right as you are). We get to point out when we think you've blown it. And you should pay attention. You may not like it, but the day you think you know it all--the day you stop obsessively reviewing tape, going to clinics to learn, and seeking out the judgment of others--is the day you suck.

And those who apologize for and enable the attitude displayed by Mr. Hess and others like that are every bit as bad as they are. You know who you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burnspbesq

A justice of the U.S. Supreme Court once said "we are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final." People--in some cases people who are smarter than, and understand the law better than, the Supremes--have always had law reviews, and now also have blogs, in which they can I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about Supreme Court decisions. Doesn't change the decision, but one writes in the hope that an intellectually curious and appropriately humble Supreme Court justice will read the law review article or blog post, realize he or she screwed up, and fix it the next time the issue comes before the court.

Same principle applies here. Karl Hess gets to make the call because he wears the striped shirt. The call doesn't stand because it's right. The rightness of the call is, in that sense, utterly irrelevant. The call stands because the rules of the game make the call final and unreviewable. The rightness of the call matters in the larger sense that without ascertainable rules, the game becomes impossible--and bad calls reduce the ascertainability of the rules. In that sense, officials, like judges, are guardians of a public trust--a point which they appear to either not understand or deny.

The hubris displayed on that officials' board is incredible and appalling. Gentlemen (and ladies), there are those of us out here who know the rules as well or better than you, and have worn the striped shirt (some of us may have worn the striped shirt refereeing at no higher level than intramurals or recreation leagues, but you had better believe that we were every bit as dedicated to getting it right as you are). We get to point out when we think you've blown it. And you should pay attention. You may not like it, but the day you think you know it all--the day you stop obsessively reviewing tape, going to clinics to learn, and seeking out the judgment of others--is the day you suck.

And those who apologize for and enable the attitude displayed by Mr. Hess and others like that are every bit as bad as they are. You know who you are.

---

Hey what movie is that from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burnspbesq

You may not like it, but the day you think you know it all--the day you stop obsessively reviewing tape, going to clinics to learn, and seeking out the judgment of others--is the day you suck.

And those who apologize for and enable the attitude displayed by Mr. Hess and others like that are every bit as bad as they are. You know who you are.

---

Classy. Who are you calling out? Who is apologizing for and enabling the attitude displayed by Hess? As for enabling, is he reading this board?

Here's a thought: refs get a lot of calls wrong. They also have egos. They are human.

Posters on internet forums get a whole lot more calls wrong than refs. They also have egos, and often think they know more than a ref. They are human.

I think that there are more random posters on this forum than D-I refs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burnspbesq

And those who apologize for and enable the attitude displayed by Mr. Hess and others like that are every bit as bad as they are. You know who you are.

---

I'm curious. What attitude might that be?

Well played feldspar. Got a great chuckle out of that.

And Burnsy, much, much thanks.

Far more eloquent than I would have been, and it's dead on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chicago 1995

Well played feldspar. Got a great chuckle out of that.

---

Glad you did

Quote:

---

Far more eloquent than I would have been, and it's dead on.

---

Eloquence at times is mistaken for rationality. Unfortunately, you're right on the first, but burnsy's post was greatly lacking in the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by feldspar

Glad you did



Eloquence at times is mistaken for rationality. Unfortunately, you're right on the first, but burnsy's post was greatly lacking in the latter.

---

:rolleyes:

We can disagree. You go back to your official buddies and tell them how you defended the Thin Black and White Line against the ignorant masses. I'll stick my Karl Hess VooDoo Doll with pins in hope that he sprains an ankle getting out of the shower and can't call the title game.

It's cool. If you don't get what burnsy is getting at, this is pointless. We're not going to convince each other, and there's no reason for us to continue this essentially private discussion on the boards. If you want to continue to discuss, send me a private message, and I'm happy to continue my discussion off-line, assuming I've got a full RX of crazy pills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by feldspar

Glad you did



Eloquence at times is mistaken for rationality. Unfortunately, you're right on the first, but burnsy's post was greatly lacking in the latter.

---

Eloquent? Aww, you're making me blush.

Shorter burnspbesq: Karl Hess needs to understand that he's not why people pay money to watch basketball games. Feldspar needs to understand that he doesn't get to decide what anyone other than Feldspar thinks about Karl Hess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burnspbesq

Shorter burnspbesq: Karl Hess needs to understand that he's not why people pay money to watch basketball games. Feldspar needs to understand that he doesn't get to decide what anyone other than Feldspar thinks about Karl Hess.

---

Exactly why I called your initial post irrational. You make a couple of pretty big leaps there, pardner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by feldspar

Exactly why I called your initial post irrational. You make a couple of pretty big leaps there, pardner.

---

Do tell.

Feel free to elaborate. You may, one is prepared to assume, have a legitimate point or two to make, but they are getting lost in the snark. Or is this "snark as a substitute for discussion" night around here?

The bat signal should not be used to cry wolf. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burnspbesq

Do tell.

Feel free to elaborate. You may, one is prepared to assume, have a legitimate point or two to make, but they are getting lost in the snark. Or is this "snark as a substitute for discussion" night around here?

---

For starters, I think it's a pretty big jump to assume that Karl Hess believes he is the reason people pay to watch a basketball he officiates.

Second, I think it's a pretty big jump to assume that I think I can decide what other people think about Karl Hess.

Hope that was clear enough.