Changes in the Game

[oldnavy]

I don't know if there is enough interest in this topic, but it is something that has bothered me all season, and I mentioned it in the post-game thread.

Officiating in general to me has been surpassed by the talent of the players.

What I mean is that I get the sense that the refs are usually a step behind the level of play on the court. Over the past 25 years or so, I believe that the quality and parity of college basketball has gone up. There have always been talented players and teams, legends in fact, but I do believe that there are more talented players overall in the sport than 25 years or so ago. Credit the AAU movement or just the popularity of the game??

The problem I see is that officiating hasn't improved with the level of play. I see horrendous calls and no-calls in just about every game. Maybe this has been the case for as long as the game has been played, but it just seems worse to me now. It could just be that more basketball is being seen with the expanded coverage?? or maybe the game is being played faster, by bigger and quicker players... and refs can't keep up?? I am not sure.

I mentioned that I have not enjoyed watching games as much this year than in any year I can remember. I lay that solely at the feet of the officials and how games are being called, not the talent on the court. No flow with whistles every 20-30 seconds, phantom calls that are clearly not fouls, fouls that are clearly fouls that are not called, monitor reviews, hand checking that has no impact on the play being called while bodies fly under the basket and are not called, 40+ FT's a game, 2 and 1/2 hour games... I could go on and on...

I may just be getting old, well there is no doubt that I am getting old...

But, I would be interested to hear what others on this board think about this.

Should the NCAA think about going to full-time paid refs with off season training like some of the pro leagues to improve the quality of officials?

[Matches]

I agree with your observations, and I wish I had a solution, but I do not - I think the problem goes well beyond officiating.

I don't really agree that the players are better than ever. I think it's the opposite - early entry has significantly deteriorated the quality of play at the college level. There may be more parity than there was 20+ years ago but IMO that's not because the mediocre programs have improved - the elite programs have been brought down closer to the pack. So part of why you're seeing choppy play is because the players just aren't as good.

Coaches also have much less job security than they did in the past. This leads to more micromanaging on their part - more/ quicker timeouts, more substitutions, and a more restrictive style of play designed to make up for a lack of talent. This means more "physical" play (which = more fouls), and longer, more deliberate possessions that can be tough to watch.

The reffing is also, across the board, pretty lousy. It's a crapshoot, even within an individual game, as to what is or isn't a foul.

These things are interrelated in some ways and independent in others. They are combining to create an inferior product, one I have trouble watching unless I've got a strong rooting interest.

[OldPhiKap]

I think the current game has better athletes, but worse fundamentals. So everyone is bigger, stronger, faster, but not necessarily playing both sides of the ball as soundly as they did in the past. Hence, more fouls (or at least more random contact -- the number of fouls called has more to do with they style the refs are allowing or not allowing I guess).

Not sure if the refs are any better or worse than they were in the day. Lenny Wirtz, Teddy Valentine and Dick Paparo all sucked yet were considered the top-shelf guys by the league.

[MChambers]

I think the current game has better athletes, but worse fundamentals. So everyone is bigger, stronger, faster, but not necessarily playing both sides of the ball as soundly as they did in the past. Hence, more fouls (or at least more random contact -- the number of fouls called has more to do with they style the refs are allowing or not allowing I guess).

Not sure if the refs are any better or worse than they were in the day. Lenny Wirtz, Teddy Valentine and Dick Paparo all sucked yet were considered the top-shelf guys by the league.

Ever since I coached and refereed recreational soccer games involving middle school kids, I've learned that reffing is just darned hard. I try not to whine about the officiating and instead realize that the refs, like the players, are simply human beings doing the best they can.

Other than Hank Nichols, I can't remember a ref who was consistently good. I think you just need to accept flawed officiating as part of the game, as it is in baseball and other sports.

[brevity]

I've watched a handful of ACC games this season, most involving Duke, where a play pops up that demands official review. The referees take their time at the scorer's table and use multiple angles to replay the action, and still have a hard time. This tells me two things:

1. Real game situations are like a final exam for these guys every night. That can't be easy.
2. The ACC -- and all of college basketball for that matter -- needs to spend some money and give the referees the technology they need to get their calls right. Larger HD screens and noise-cancelling headphones should be made available.

The out-of-bounds pass late in the BC-Syracuse game is a prime example. From what I could tell, the referees were unsatisfied with the standard definition ACC Network picture and went to the high definition ESPN picture. Why should a standard definition picture ever be their default? And why are they looking at tiny screens? I'm not saying they need to leave the arena and make their reviews in a dark room or anything, but they should have better equipment ready at the scorer's table to get the job done. Putting myself in their place, I'd be squinting and sticking my fingers in my ears, wondering why it has to be this way.

As for this thread's general question about referees falling behind the action. I wonder about the barriers to entry into the profession. I know it doesn't pay well, and chances aren't great that it will pay much better, but there must be a solid supply of former athletes (not just basketball players, and not just men) that might still be interested.

[oldnavy]

I think the current game has better athletes, but worse fundamentals. So everyone is bigger, stronger, faster, but not necessarily playing both sides of the ball as soundly as they did in the past. Hence, more fouls (or at least more random contact -- the number of fouls called has more to do with they style the refs are allowing or not allowing I guess).

Not sure if the refs are any better or worse than they were in the day. Lenny Wirtz, Teddy Valentine and Dick Paparo all sucked yet were considered the top-shelf guys by the league.

Do you think that going with full-time officials would help or be worth the effort?

I hate to see the game that I grew up loving change to the point where I really do not enjoy watching it as much.

It could very well be the early departure of players, but that actually has been going on now for a few decades...

I think the short answer would be "let them play"... only call fouls that actually give the offender a clear advantage. All too often I see fouls being called where there is no impact on the play whatsoever. The phantom calls are the most frustrating, but even the ones where there is some contact, but it doesn't really impact the play should be "play on"... let them go... there are plenty of "real" fouls to call..

Problem is... consistency. What are fouls on one end are not on the other, or what is let go in the first half is called in the second half...

[weezie]

The ACC -- and all of college basketball for that matter -- needs to spend some money and give the referees the technology they need to get their calls right. Larger HD screens and noise-cancelling headphones should be made available.

Spot on brev. What about another "ref in the sky" type thing with an overhead angle and for in bounds stuff, too?
I wonder if basketball is heading to a challenge option too.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

2. The ACC -- and all of college basketball for that matter -- needs to spend some money and give the referees the technology they need to get their calls right. Larger HD screens and noise-cancelling headphones should be made available.

I wonder if the SportVU player tracking system can track fouls and other situations that could lead to a statistical analysis of refereeing.

I am not sure anything could be developed in the near future, but long term, I can see refs being completely replaced by sensors and cameras that give immediate and accurate feedback on the game. Then again in the long term we'll all be watching laserball games instead.

[jv001]

When I was younger, I blamed every Duke loss on the refs. Football and basketball included. Then I mellowed a little and quit blaming the refs. But this year, I find myself scratching my head on some of the calls. Touches are called but takedowns are not called. One player will use his arm to push off a defender and it's called, but the same thing will happen a few minutes later and it's not called. I agree refs have a difficult job because of bigger faster more athletic players. Plus the game is faster(exclude Wisconsin). I think if the rules committee would make a change in the carrying/palming the ball rule it would clear up some of the physical play. When a player is allowed to make an illegal cross-over move against good defenders, it put's a lot of pressure on the defender. Defensive players then began to get physical with the ball handler. I remember when Duke played Villanova a few years ago they man handled our guards and Duke couldn't run our offense. This became the norm in college basketball until the NCAA decided to clean up play. Well it's now a mess and like Navy said, it's hard to watch college basketball because the game is decided many times by the refs and not the players. I still like college basketball better than the NBA. GoDuke!

[OldPhiKap]

Do you think that going with full-time officials would help or be worth the effort?

I hate to see the game that I grew up loving change to the point where I really do not enjoy watching it as much.

It could very well be the early departure of players, but that actually has been going on now for a few decades...

I think the short answer would be "let them play"... only call fouls that actually give the offender a clear advantage. All too often I see fouls being called where there is no impact on the play whatsoever. The phantom calls are the most frustrating, but even the ones where there is some contact, but it doesn't really impact the play should be "play on"... let them go... there are plenty of "real" fouls to call..

Problem is... consistency. What are fouls on one end are not on the other, or what is let go in the first half is called in the second half...

I wish I had an answer. You have certainly nailed the problem, I agree with each point you make above.

Not sure that full time refs make that much difference as far as consistency or whether they let the kids play or not.

I guess my half-brained solution is that there should be a set of objective criteria that the refs should be tested upon and rated. (Perhaps this already exists and I just don't know about it). The highest rated will be the most in demand and make the most money. The ones who are not can find other jobs. Let the free market and objectively-tested criteria bring the level of officiating up.

Or not.

[FerryFor50]

Ever since I coached and refereed recreational soccer games involving middle school kids, I've learned that reffing is just darned hard. I try not to whine about the officiating and instead realize that the refs, like the players, are simply human beings doing the best they can.

Other than Hank Nichols, I can't remember a ref who was consistently good. I think you just need to accept flawed officiating as part of the game, as it is in baseball and other sports.

Reffing is hard. But on this level, with as much money on the line (sad, but true), you can't leave such a difficult profession to part timers. They need to pony up, hire full time refs, grade them like the nba does and spend money on better replay equipment.

They also need to start holding officials accountable for mistakes, such as the non-called tech in the Arizona St game when the player hung on the rim and did chin-ups with time still on the clock. Or on the TJ Warren continuation play.

[oldnavy]

Reffing is hard. But on this level, with as much money on the line (sad, but true), you can't leave such a difficult profession to part timers. They need to pony up, hire full time refs, grade them like the nba does and spend money on better replay equipment.

They also need to start holding officials accountable for mistakes, such as the non-called tech in the Arizona St game when the player hung on the rim and did chin-ups with time still on the clock. Or on the TJ Warren continuation play.

I totally agree that officiating is hard... VERY HARD. My problem isn't really a personal one with any single ref, it is how they collectively are calling games.

With officiating I think the general rule should be less is better... I don't want to see a wrestling match, but I do feel that most games this year are over officiated.

One of my major beefs is with refs calling what they "think" they see. We can know that they "think" they see it and don't really see it, because with the benefit of replay, we see that it never happened... bad angles may be to blame.

For example, there was a play in CIS a while back where I believe Rodney Hood or Hairston went to the floor to save the ball from going out of bounds on the base line... the ref on the base line blew the whistle and said his foot was out of bounds when he touched the ball giving the ball to the other team... on replay the player's foot never touched the line, in fact it was several inches from it - clearly! The ref could not have seen the players foot out of bounds, because it never was out of bounds... he made an anticipatory call based on what he thought might happen... That is a call that should never have happened...

[theAlaskanBear]

I think there are some important points being made in this thread. Players have gotten faster and stronger, and officiating has gotten more difficult, and officials face more pressure from every side of the game -- the players, the coaches, the fans...than they did before the era of high definition TV and replay, when it just wasn't possible to really evaluate the refereeing unless you were court-side.

Even if it is not possible to quantify whether reffing has gotten better or worse, we have the tools to make it better, and college basketball generates enough money to easily do so. Thus, any responsible basketball organization owes it to the future of the sport to improve the game where it is possible...officiating is the low-hanging fruit, the easiest to accomplish. The NCAA can't really control the AAU circuit, one-and-dones, or the overall skill of the players or the coaches, but they can easily improve officiating.

1) Game and travel limitations. In order to be at peak performance, refs need to be physically and mentally rested. The crazy travel demands and sheer amount of games these guys do as contract employees is detrimental to the game. Lets just use Karl Hess as an example. He refs almost 100 games a season all along the eastern half of the United States. To start this season, he refereed in 13 games in 13 days, in 12 different states...the shortest distances being a Philly-Newark-Philly stretch. During this time he also had a 4 game stretch where we went from Virginia to Arkansas to Florida to Ohio.
source: http://statsheet.com/mcb/referees/karl-hess

2) Physical fitness. Refereeing is about being in the right place, at the right time. You have to keep up with the players and should actively be seeking the best angles on the court in concert with your officiating team. I am not saying we need track stars, but better fitness should produce better results. One of the things that watching a lot of NBA makes clear, NBA referees are in better shape than college referees. I am not saying you fire a ref for failing to hit a certain time on a mile, but fitness results should be a part of the overall evaluation of refereeing.

3) Better use/investment in technology. I agree with the posters above...for reviews get rid of those dinky monitors, give refs a high quality picture, noise cancelling headphones. Better yet, refs should have noise cancelling headsets on the whole game, and should be mic'd up together. This would minimize miscommunication and hopefully reduce the influence of a crowd on momentum/home court calls. Each coach could have a button/buzzer that is sent to the headphones to call a time out. It would also shield officials from the abuse of coaches and whining by players.

4) I think to accomplish any of these things, referees will have to be salaried in order to reduce the incentive to ref as many games as possible. Contracts could get reviewed and renewed every 3-ish years. Maybe two years with a one year probation (or 3-1, 2-2, etc) notice if their performance isn't up to par. Now, the logical place this could happen is in the individual conferences (this would also reduce mileage once the conference season starts), but then of course you have issues such as will officials become biased to the conferences that employ them, biases due to familiarity of players and coaches, how are games between conferences handled, etc.

Overall though, I think referees love basketball and they want to be professional and excel at their jobs. Conferences or the NCAA should give them all the tools, support, and training they need. The money is there. Just need the will.

[FerryFor50]

I think there are some important points being made in this thread. Players have gotten faster and stronger, and officiating has gotten more difficult, and officials face more pressure from every side of the game -- the players, the coaches, the fans...than they did before the era of high definition TV and replay, when it just wasn't possible to really evaluate the refereeing unless you were court-side.

Even if it is not possible to quantify whether reffing has gotten better or worse, we have the tools to make it better, and college basketball generates enough money to easily do so. Thus, any responsible basketball organization owes it to the future of the sport to improve the game where it is possible...officiating is the low-hanging fruit, the easiest to accomplish. The NCAA can't really control the AAU circuit, one-and-dones, or the overall skill of the players or the coaches, but they can easily improve officiating.

1) Game and travel limitations. In order to be at peak performance, refs need to be physically and mentally rested. The crazy travel demands and sheer amount of games these guys do as contract employees is detrimental to the game. Lets just use Karl Hess as an example. He refs almost 100 games a season all along the eastern half of the United States. To start this season, he refereed in 13 games in 13 days, in 12 different states...the shortest distances being a Philly-Newark-Philly stretch. During this time he also had a 4 game stretch where we went from Virginia to Arkansas to Florida to Ohio.
source: http://statsheet.com/mcb/referees/karl-hess

2) Physical fitness. Refereeing is about being in the right place, at the right time. You have to keep up with the players and should actively be seeking the best angles on the court in concert with your officiating team. I am not saying we need track stars, but better fitness should produce better results. One of the things that watching a lot of NBA makes clear, NBA referees are in better shape than college referees. I am not saying you fire a ref for failing to hit a certain time on a mile, but fitness results should be a part of the overall evaluation of refereeing.

3) Better use/investment in technology. I agree with the posters above...for reviews get rid of those dinky monitors, give refs a high quality picture, noise cancelling headphones. Better yet, refs should have noise cancelling headsets on the whole game, and should be mic'd up together. This would minimize miscommunication and hopefully reduce the influence of a crowd on momentum/home court calls. Each coach could have a button/buzzer that is sent to the headphones to call a time out. It would also shield officials from the abuse of coaches and whining by players.

4) I think to accomplish any of these things, referees will have to be salaried in order to reduce the incentive to ref as many games as possible. Contracts could get reviewed and renewed every 3-ish years. Maybe two years with a one year probation (or 3-1, 2-2, etc) notice if their performance isn't up to par. Now, the logical place this could happen is in the individual conferences (this would also reduce mileage once the conference season starts), but then of course you have issues such as will officials become biased to the conferences that employ them, biases due to familiarity of players and coaches, how are games between conferences handled, etc.

Overall though, I think referees love basketball and they want to be professional and excel at their jobs. Conferences or the NCAA should give them all the tools, support, and training they need. The money is there. Just need the will.

Great points.

I'd also add, do some research on the refs. Make sure the guy reffing the UNC game didn't graduate from UNC or grow up loving or hating UNC. I recall a minor controversy in the NFL where a guy who was supposed to officiate the Panthers-Saints game grew up a Saints fan. The league acted accordingly and reassigned him.

[lotusland]

Just curious - who pays the officials the ACC or the NCAA?

[brevity]

Just curious - who pays the officials the ACC or the NCAA?

Fats Thomas?

(Sorry. I am the last person who would accuse refs of corruption, but the joke was set up so nicely...)

[SoCalDukeFan]

I have been thinking for some time that the game has just become very difficult or maybe impossible to officiate well, and it is distracting from the enjoyment of the games. Fans here seem after every Duke loss to blame the officials, and can point to several plays where in slow mo or something the refs were wrong. After many Duke wins, fans from the other team do the same thing.

I don't follow the NBA very much. Does anyone know if they have the same problem in the NBA?

One thing I think that is worth considering is taking away the 5 fouls and you are out. Bad calls against a star player would be less penal.

I know that its nice to try to get it right but I don't like the stoppage of play when they have to review and review and review tape.

More professional officials would help, I guess. However there are many plays when on slow motion review the commentators can not agree on the call. If you want to see a really badly officiated game, find the 2004 FF Duke-UConn disaster. I would hope the FFs have the best officials the NCAA can find, and they did a terrible job.

I am also not sure that allowing more contact is the answer. There will always be a fine line as to what is allowed and what is not. Maybe its much less contact and calling a foul on anything that is not incidental.

I hope someone comes up with the answer.

SoCal

[crimsonandblue]

Discussion of how to improve officiating is important and there are some good suggestions here. But, the notion that somehow officials are worse today than, say, thirty years ago, is laughable. Officiating has been bad since the dawn of sports and will remain so until the end of time.

Imagine all the decisions you make in a month at work. Now, crush them into a fast-speed montage of two hours. It's a hard job performed by men who've made traveling around to sweaty gyms, running around with sweaty dudes, wearing a zebra suit, blowing a whistle, and making a slew of judgment calls and funny hand signals, their life's calling. I think we're doing well to have guys with eyes and legs.

[oldnavy]

I have been thinking for some time that the game has just become very difficult or maybe impossible to officiate well, and it is distracting from the enjoyment of the games. Fans here seem after every Duke loss to blame the officials, and can point to several plays where in slow mo or something the refs were wrong. After many Duke wins, fans from the other team do the same thing.

I don't follow the NBA very much. Does anyone know if they have the same problem in the NBA?

One thing I think that is worth considering is taking away the 5 fouls and you are out. Bad calls against a star player would be less penal.

I know that its nice to try to get it right but I don't like the stoppage of play when they have to review and review and review tape.

More professional officials would help, I guess. However there are many plays when on slow motion review the commentators can not agree on the call. If you want to see a really badly officiated game, find the 2004 FF Duke-UConn disaster. I would hope the FFs have the best officials the NCAA can find, and they did a terrible job.

I am also not sure that allowing more contact is the answer. There will always be a fine line as to what is allowed and what is not. Maybe its much less contact and calling a foul on anything that is not incidental.

I hope someone comes up with the answer.

SoCal

I'm not suggesting that they should "allow" more contact. I am suggesting that they not over call the games. You cannot play this game without contact and if a game was played without contact it would be the most boring thing to watch on earth. Imagine for a moment that the players played to avoid contact, there would be no boxing out, no defense AT ALL, anyone could get a layup at anytime.. you get the picture, and I know that this isn't what you mean...

There are plenty of true, no kidding, have to be called fouls that occur in the game. By all means call those. I believe the problem has been in the attempt to "clean up" the game, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It is like watching the government try to fix a small problem by passing sweeping legislation that has numerous unintended consequences.

Some have suggested and leagues have experimented with allowing 6 fouls or variations on that theme... I don't think that increasing the number of fouls a player is allow is the answer... the answer it to stop calling the bogus, inconsequential, often little to no contact, "fouls".

Perfect illustration of what I mean Jarbari's last foul in the 'Cuse game. There is no way on earth that should have taken him out of that game... talk about officials impacting the game in a negative way both for Duke specifically and for the beauty of that game in general (one of the best players in the country taken out of the best game of the year for that!). With the amount of contact that IS allowed in the paint, to call a charge in that situation was beyond ridiculous... I could say the same about his offensive foul called in the UNC game... another pivotal juncture in a game where a "play on" should have occurred, yet a ref decided to take center stage and make a call...

I only use these two plays as examples because I am more familiar with them. There are calls that go in Duke's favor that should not be calls as well... my frustration isn't really about Duke and calls, it's about the direction the game in general is heading.

I have the opportunity to speak with hundreds of folks a day in my job... often if the discussion or small talk allows, I will ask how they feel about officiating this year. To a person, everyone has said it is much worse than they can remember and that they do not like it. I don't really discuss individual calls or games. My last conversation was with an 79 year old, sweet lady, who happened to be wearing a UNC sweater. She said she was disgusted with how the games are being called as well... she actually showed some passion when I mentioned it, which given her age and overall quite demeanor was very cute.

Point being, I have yet to find anyone who likes the way things are heading with officiating games...

[gus]

I think a big problem is that fans often don't actually know the rules.

Refereeing is really, really hard (for reasons already cited). Add to that biased fans who don't actually know the rules* like they think they do, and it's easy to get the impression that refs suck. Who made the observation to the effect of "it's amazing how much better the officiating is when you don't care about the outcome?"


* I'm not putting myself above this: I'm definitely in this category