For everyone taking a shot at this man's officiating, perhaps you can explain why he gets so many games. He's an independent contractor desired by several conferences. What he did at the RBC Center is another matter.
There were plenty of witnesses around, Hess will be fortunate in that there will be plenty of people to corroborate what he claims required such drastic action.
Well, there you go.
Still unsatisfying. Protocol wasn't followed. Fine.
But here's the thing. These are two members of NC State royalty. They're not exempt from the rules. They can be thrown out if warranted.
But they better be doing something pretty darn bad to get the boot. Something much worse than it would take for, say, me to be shown the exit.
Hard to imagine anything they could have said to Hess - in the presence of their preteen daughters - that would justify booting them. Hess almost certainly overreacted, and basically kicked an already-irate fan base in the teeth.
I do not care how good this ref is "in game", he bonered up bad enough that days later we are talking about a zebra's off court antics more than we are talking about Seth Curry from last night.
That's just wrong.
Hess is a mess, pick from the rest. There have got to be plenty of other good officials out there that can keep their panties out of a bunch long enough to call a game without going Ole Roy on homecourt legends.
As I said before, I long for the day when technology makes the zebras obsolete. I'm thinking it's in that truck that makes the yellow line that let's me know when I can get another beer...
If being a fan were logical, we'd all be Duke fans but some of us were born to a different blue.
Sanction would imply a fine, or losing games. I don't see that either happened, so I question that Hess was "sanctioned". And I would like to know what they did that warranted ejection. We know that chants of "**** Redick" are not enough to get fans ejected, and wearing shirts on the TV side that say "**** Duke" aren't enough to get one ejected. So what did they do that was worse than that?
I'll have to admit the playcallers well written defense of potential reasons for Hess's actions has me backing off my knee jerk reaction to skewer him.
It still seems like an overreaction, but Hess was in charge and I see situations all the time where people with responsibilities are easy targets for actually making the hard decisions, ones that have issues everyone else rarely sees.
The front page article reminded me of that.
They only people never criticized are those who generally fail to do anything or accept some responsibility.
Playcaller has me giving him the benefit of the doubt ......this time.
"An angry man catches no fish"-Zen proverb.
That said, by not following procedure and by handling it the way he did (for which the conference publicly reprimanded him), Hess seemingly created a worse situation -- or at least a whole 'nother problem -- than the one he was trying to handle.
So, maybe he gets the benefit of the doubt that they needed to be removed, but he still handled it incorrectly.
I'd agree he still handled it incorrectly, even if his reasons for his actions were sound.
He should be held accountable for those actions, but we should all look to see that there is fairness and balance applied as well.
"An angry man catches no fish"-Zen proverb.
From Brett Friedlander:
" Considering that Hess was a member of the crew that affected the outcome of a game in Syracuse earlier this season by missing an obvious goaltending call, he might be advised to pay more attention to the action on the court than in the stands from here on out."
Playcaller's take is an interesting perspective that none of the rest of us have. I can see the point he is getting at regarding potential distraction at/near the scorer's table. But there are two key questions unanswered:
1. If G&C were being distracting, was it in fact at/near the scorer's table and interfering with game operations?
2. If anything they were doing was (or was becoming) a distraction to the point of interfering with the game, were they warned and told of the potential consequences of continuing that behavior? If not, why not? (This is the part that bugs me and I think a lot of us... that it seems from afar like a pure power trip and why didn't he take steps to address the problem - if there was one - in a more appropriate and stepwise fashion?)
The only scenario I can see justifying this line of thinking is if C&G were in fact purposely interfering with game operations, had been warned, and then proceeded to ignore the warning. Doesn't sound like what happened, but I wasn't there and unfortunately we may never know unless reliable sources sitting nearby are able to shed additional light since the ACC is clearly not going to provide any further details/explanation.
I tend to agree with Elvis14. The playcaller's argument for a fellow referee did not convince me. The key in these instances is to let the folks who are "excessive" know the consequences if they continue their behaviour. Apparently, Corchiani was never told that his behaviour could lead to an ejection.