THE REFS - the 538 nerds weigh in

[msgkings322]

The way you phrased it made it seem like you were saying the refs are better now than before because they also have more technology at their disposal.

I don't and its not just my perception. There's more frequency of the discussion over the last couple of years from fans, media, players and coaches. All of the things in place to allow for that perception, technology and whatnot, existed 3, 5, even 10 years ago but there wasn't as much discussion. And I'm saying that's because there is a decline in quality now as opposed to then. Like PickleRick said, officiating is better than it was in the early 00s/late 90s. I generally think it was was pretty good throughout most of the 2010s, probably the best its ever been, especially when they loosened up the freedom of movement guidelines starting in the late 00s. Yes, there's always bad calls here or there. Yes, you can always find someone somewhere that will complain about it. I agree with tlance, mgs, you in that regard. But somewhere along the line the last season or two, that quality has dipped. They could have been at the best its been for awhile and dipped the last couple of years, but its still a dip. And that's why you see the uptick in rhetoric from players, coaches, and media members. They are reacting to what's on the court. Yeah, it could all be perception of everyone involved. But I want a more substantial take than "there's always bad calls, nothing to see here" to show otherwise or how that 538 piece intended to do, but how I pointed out their case needed more context.

You are mischaracterizing the 538 article

 

[wildturkey]

Holy wall of text, Batman!

Seriously it seems like you're using a lot of words to say they need to be better. You don't think they will see that when they do the reviews and improvements they already do every year? Sometimes it's a bad year.

We've now reached the point in the discussion where the people involved start complaining about how much they have to read instead of actually engaging in the discussion. It's a paragraph. You'll survive. If you don't want to talk about it anymore, just don't post anymore. It's not that big of a deal and its not like I'm holding any of it against any of you all

 

[trojanfan12]

The way you phrased it made it seem like you were saying the refs are better now than before because they also have more technology at their disposal.

I don't and its not just my perception. There's more frequency of the discussion over the last couple of years from fans, media, players and coaches. All of the things in place to allow for that perception, technology and whatnot, existed 3, 5, even 10 years ago but there wasn't as much discussion. And I'm saying that's because there is a decline in quality now as opposed to then. Like PickleRick said, officiating is better than it was in the early 00s/late 90s. I generally think it was was pretty good throughout most of the 2010s, probably the best its ever been, especially when they loosened up the freedom of movement guidelines starting in the late 00s. Yes, there's always bad calls here or there. Yes, you can always find someone somewhere that will complain about it. I agree with tlance, mgs, you in that regard. But somewhere along the line the last season or two, that quality has dipped. They could have been at the best its been for awhile and dipped the last couple of years, but its still a dip. And that's why you see the uptick in rhetoric from players, coaches, and media members. They are reacting to what's on the court. Yeah, it could all be perception of everyone involved. But I want a more substantial take than "there's always bad calls, nothing to see here" to show otherwise or how that 538 piece intended to do, but how I pointed out their case needed more context.

lol

There's more discussion because there are more platforms to discuss it. They're all still discussing the same few ref mistakes, they're just discussing it across more platforms.

This is what is feeding your perception.

 

[wildturkey]

You are mischaracterizing the 538 article

In what way? Myth #1 was framed as a strawman and I already pointed out why. Myth 2 pointed to the officiating grading they do. That's fine, no issue there. Myths 3 and 4 were addressing generalized conspiracies that I don't much value in. They were right to point that out but those kind of comments come from the typical casual "mad my team lost/lost a bet" crowd.

 

[wildturkey]

lol

There's more discussion because there are more platforms to discuss it. They're all still discussing the same few ref mistakes, they're just discussing it across more platforms.

This is what is feeding your perception.

Those platforms were all here over the last decade though. And mild mannered players like FVV and CJ McCollum didn't just up and decide to start blasting refs this year because they were on Twitter and fell into the perception loop.

 

[trojanfan12]

Those platforms were all here over the last decade though. And mild mannered players like FVV and CJ McCollum didn't just up and decide to start blasting refs this year because they were on Twitter and fell into the perception loop.

No they weren't. They've increased.

For example, this forum existed 10 years ago, but the other hoop didn't.

If we discuss a refs bad call over here and then discuss the same bad call over here, it doesn't mean the number of bad calls increased, it means the number of places it's discussed increased.

 

[msgkings322]

We've now reached the point in the discussion where the people involved start complaining about how much they have to read instead of actually engaging in the discussion. It's a paragraph. You'll survive. If you don't want to talk about it anymore, just don't post anymore. It's not that big of a deal and its not like I'm holding any of it against any of you all

I....just did engage in the discussion. Why are you being so pissy?

 

[wildturkey]

I....just did engage in the discussion. Why are you being so pissy?

"Holy wall of text, Batman!"

You're literally complaining about the length of a post. It's a common tactic people on message boards use when they can't think of a solid point to say to push back on the debate topic but can't let go of the topic either. You know what you're doing.

 

[msgkings322]

"Holy wall of text, Batman!"

You're literally complaining about the length of a post. It's a common tactic people on message boards use when they can't think of a solid point to say to push back on the debate topic but can't let go of the topic either. You know what you're doing.

Holy shit you're a sensitive bitch. Did you stop reading right then? Have at it, you're a mess.

 

[trojanfan12]

"Holy wall of text, Batman!"

You're literally complaining about the length of a post. It's a common tactic people on message boards use when they can't think of a solid point to say to push back on the debate topic but can't let go of the topic either. You know what you're doing.

To be fair...as far as amount of text...it was WalMart Wiggy level.

 

[wildturkey]

Holy shit you're a sensitive bitch. Did you stop reading right then? Have at it, you're a mess.

Yet you're the one calling me pissy? I haven't attacked you or anyone here but here you are calling me a bitch and a mess. Settle down dude. No one here was angry until you came in with this right here. We were all debating this topic just fine.

 

[tlance]

I do not recall you ever talking about definitively changing the officiating system in sport with video and technology as the only way to make it better. We've been posted here, what, 10 years now? Whenever the topic comes up of any officiating in any sport, you're not typically out here talking about the need for better technology. What you do, and why I brought it because your started going down that road in topic, is you go on about saying officiating is hard and fans could do no better so they shouldn't complain. Which is a nothing statement. It's the same useless logic as when athletes pull the "I played, you didn't" card so nothing a person says should hold any weight at all. By using that logic, you take away the accountability of officiating to better themselves because you chalk it up as "there will always be bad calls" and now you're trying to add "they can't get better without technology". The former is always true but it doesn't end the discussion or answer the question of if there's officiating problems. The latter isn't true because while technology can make things better and cut down on missed calls, so can extra work from officials. That's the entire point of the training they do. So when an officiating issue arises (perceived or not), its reasonable to wonder if they need to put in some more work to sharpen their skills back up and not just chalk it up to "oh well. bad calls happen. they did their best"

Well, I have.

Whenever the topic of how it can improve comes up, that is my answer.

Change the system.

Or be okay with how it is, because human officials are always going to miss more calls than the public is okay with.

Especially now that calls get highlighted so much more often.