Why aren't the officials better?

Everybody complains about the officiating, but nobody does anything about it.

Of course, there’s a good reason for the inaction: At the WNBA and collegiate level, there’s really nothing that can be done. Why? Let us count the ways …

• The talent pool. This is the crux of the problem. Obviously, the more people who participate in an activity, the more likely there are to be people who are good at it. For example, if as many girls played field hockey as played basketball, then the talent at the highest level of the sports would be roughly equal. But since many more girls play basketball, there are many more elite basketball players than there are elite field hockey players (as international competitions prove).

  But who wants to be a ref? Beyond the bozos in the stands (and often on the bench), about which more later, there are some significant obstacles to those who might be interested.

  First, it requires a certain level of physical conditioning. There’s the simple stamina required to do two games in a row at the high school level (where pretty much everyone must start), and the longer-term pounding of lasting through an entire season. I’ve known more than a few officials who wanted to keep blowing a whistle but were simply unable to handle the demands on their bodies.

  Second, it takes a lot of time. Almost every officials’ association has numerous meetings before and during the season, and those are unpaid hours. Game days are a lot longer than most people think as well, because seldom do refs live right next door to the gym where they’re assigned. An official assigned to junior varsity and varsity games might have a 5:30 p.m. start, which means there’s traffic to deal with – and ideally, the refs should be on-site at least 45 minutes before tipoff.

  Third, it’s not an easy thing to learn how to do. The more games a ref does, the better, especially early in her career, and that means rec leagues, summer ball and CYO. The pay is low, the conditions often poor and the support non-existent, but putting in the time is crucial. The more times a ref sees a particular play, the easier it is to make a call, and it follows that the more games a ref does, the more situations she’s familiar with.

  Not that many people are willing to go through this process, and of that group, how many have the …

• Judgment and knowledge of the game. The ability to make quick decisions with a high degree of accuracy, in any field, is not that common. Basketball, obviously, is a very fast-moving game, and even those officials who understand the mechanics and get themselves as close as possible to the optimum spot on the court to make the call must then make the right call.

  That requires, in addition to judgment, a sense of the game. Experience as a player and/or coach can help, but gaining an understanding of the flow of the game, and the unwritten rules of conduct, is not easy. Someone who is otherwise qualified to be a ref can often turn out to be unsuitable because she never quite grasps what the game is all about.

• Gender. Always a delicate topic, but it’s one that must be addressed. In an ideal world, the pool of officials for basketball would be independent of the gender of players. For example, all SEC officials would do both men’s and women’s games, and women would do men’s games as well as women’s games.

  But because females are pretty much relegated to doing women’s games, it tilts the playing field. There’s a push to employ as many female officials as possible, so women are too often promoted before they’re really ready – while men with more experience, and ability, are often passed over. And so they move out of the women’s game entirely, which penalizes both them and women’s basketball.

  And as mentioned above, it takes many, many games to experience enough different situations to respond quickly and appropriately. But since there is a mandate (sometimes unspoken, sometimes overt) to get more women at the college and pro levels, female refs are unfairly placed at a level they are simply not ready to handle. Sometimes they adjust, but too often they are either phased out by the leagues or simply give up, overwhelmed by the experience.

  And speaking of overwhelmed …

• The bozos in the stands. One of the most frustrating aspects of officiating isn’t just getting yelled at – it’s getting yelled at for making good calls.

  Because of the nature of the sport, and especially with two-man crews (high school and below), there are many times an official isn’t in the best position to make a call, but the whistle has to blow anyway. For example, if the ball goes out of bounds, or if a ballhandler falls down, some kind of a call has to be made, even if it’s mostly guesswork. If it’s the wrong call, the official will know almost immediately by the reaction of the players and those with a better angle. And at that point, the boos and catcalls are at least justified.

  But far too often, an official will bust her butt to get in position, have a great look and make exactly the right call – and coaches and fans who have no angle at all will go crazy, impugning the official’s ability, judgment and moral character. This is what drives refs out of the game, and shrinks the talent pool.

  And usually, the people making that uninformed noise will be the first to say ‘You’d never catch me reffing a game.’ Well, why not? If the clown in the stands is capable of calling the game from five rows up at halfcourt, then why not get down on the court and do it?

  Even worse, the bozos in the stands cannot affect the call that was just made, nor do they make the officiating better. In fact, they make it worse, because if they get in the head of the refs, then the officials won’t be focused on the game, and will make more bad calls instead of more good ones. And finally, the obnoxious fans just drive more potentially good officials out of the game, making the whole situation worse.

What all this means is that the WNBA and major colleges are dealing with a short deck. They rely, just as the teams do, on feeder programs to deliver talent, but in this case, the talent is discouraged from staying in the sport rather then encouraged to stay involved.

If the WNBA is serious about better officiating, then serious money should be invested in developing, training and nurturing officials at the lower levels of the sport. The same is true of the NCAA, which could also mandate that every league draw its men’s and women’s officials from the same talent pool. This would allow women, if they were good enough, to work men’s games, and would mean that gender equity truly existed. As it is, female players and coaches are assigned refs with less experience and talent who are there only because of their gender.

And as for the fans, they can play a big role too, especially at the lower levels. And it’s a very simple thing: Just shut that pie hole, and let the refs learn their trade. The players are high school players, which means they aren’t very skilled or experienced, in general, and the same is true of high school coaches and officials. If it’s unfair to expect high school girls to play at a WNBA level, why is it right to expect the coaches and officials to do so?

That alone would go a long way towards finding better refs, at all levels, but until those who complain the most learn to complain without screaming at the officials – and the WNBA and NCAA invest in referees -- the sad truth is that the situation is unlikely to get better any time soon.