I think it's time to rethink college basketball officiating

[lvocd]

... at least in the women's game.

Because today's players are much bigger, stronger and faster, it seems to me that many officials in the women's game are unable to keep up with the pace. They are not quick enough to get into position to see all the action, so they miss obvious fouls, or call anticipatory fouls that don't actually happen.

Some of the officiating during this year's Tourney was, I feel, unfair to today's players and disrespectful to the game.

With all the money the NCAA has, my hope is that soon someone will realize this and change the rules to increase the number of officials for Tournament games, to start, from three to five -- 2 umpires that stay on one half of the court and 2 umpires on the other, plus one lead referee that roams both halves and is the head official.

The four umpires could switch positions to begin each quarter or half, and the lead ref stays put.

Anyway, I feel like adding more eyes and legs would solve most of the problem since most of the mistakes are caused by officials not getting to where they need to be in time. It would cost more money, but in the long run would be better for the game if they spent it.

 

[Volfan2012]

At least need instant replay installed because most of these Refs make way to many mistakes on possessions out of bounds. They do not know a charge from a block and they definitely miss a lot of obvious fouls like the foul on Notre Dame at mid-court on that last possession.

 

[Giveem6]

All I saw was atleast in the women's games and uhhhhhhh the officiating in all of basketball period is atrocious. I saw Grant Williams fall down and catch a foul. I also saw the ball go through the net in a ladies game and get stuck and they waved it off.

The refs all need to burn the pinstripes in the dumpster fire they came from and redo it all. It's pathetic and it's hurting the game.

 

[livefaith]

What if they kept the #s the same. Then went to an extra ref for the tourney. Low extra cost, but better coverage in the big games.

Maybe that would create more problems.in the tourney die to refs practicing all season, then changing roles at the end of year.

 

[Kinger]

With all the money the NCAA has, my hope is that soon someone will realize this and change the rules to increase the number of officials for Tournament games, to start, from three to five -- 2 umpires that stay on one half of the court and 2 umpires on the other, plus one lead referee that roams both halves and is the head official.

The four umpires could switch positions to begin each quarter or half, and the lead ref stays put.

I was thinking the same thing but maybe the "stationary refs" that stay on one side could switch on every timeout or something like that. What you don't want is for one set of refs to call "everything" and the other set to not call much at all.

 

[gule]

too many cooks spoil the soup!

2 good refs a game are plenty.

 

[Kinger]

too many cooks spoil the soup!

2 good refs a game are plenty.

The problem is there aren't many good refs

 

[savannahfan]

If you add refs, then you better add several players to each team. That is if they (refs) do anything other than stand around or run to the monitor for several minutes. As has been stated above, most don't know a charge from a blocking move.Or for me a walking violation, palming the ball on the dribble, and many others. One big one is the three second call. How many saw a look of disbelief, or don't know what they a talking about look on coaches faces when the few that were called showed the coach after the play?

 

[savannahfan]

With all the money the NCAA has, my hope is that soon someone will realize this and change the rules to increase the number of officials for Tournament games, to start, from three to five -- 2 umpires that stay on one half of the court and 2 umpires on the other, plus one lead referee that roams both halves and is the head official.

The four umpires could switch positions to begin each quarter or half, and the lead ref stays put.

I was thinking the same thing but maybe the "stationary refs" that stay on one side could switch on every timeout or something like that. What you don't want is for one set of refs to call "everything" and the other set to not call much at all.

I like what you say but would take it a step further and swap up the the ref pairs at least on time outs.

 

[Chitownvol1129]

So let me see what has been suggested so far...at end of season, when it is do or die, we should completely play the sport differently by adding more bodies on the court and thus increase empathous on everything, dispite none of the teams playing that way all year.
Then we have switching the refs to the other side of the court, because I guess we think east, west, north, south effects vision and mental clarity, I am assuming.
Then we have more video review, so the game becomes a bunch of standing around by players while people watch tv.
Obviously, all are well thought out plans... Why not just pay more money to officials, to what the men pay, and use the same refs, or calabor of refs?

In reality, bad calls happen at the same rate for both teams (unless you are Dawn Staley, who accussed the SEC, Missouri, and the officials of a plot against her team...ahh Delusional Dawn).
I see no sound reason for any other attempt at improvement, without hampering play. More bad refs on the court? Making them switch ends? Stopping the game to micro manage it?

 

[feathersax]

Bad referees but worse"solutions".:crazy:

 

[gule]

The problem is there aren't many good refs

So, why would we need more incompetent refs out there on the court?

 

[Kinger]

So, why would we need more incompetent refs out there on the court?

My thought would be that the existing refs might do a better job if the had less responsibilities and less area to cover. They would not get caught out of position as much as seems to happen now. Obviously, I have no way of knowing this would work. Just a thought

 

[stllvf]

folks the $100B national football empire just this year defined what a catch is and is not. the NBA referees are careful not to call too many fouls on marquee players. Staley was upset this year because the refs called three fouls early on her marquee player. Baseball umpires are in a union and have instant replay -

My two requests would be consistency for four quarters and resist calling picky fouls on the perimeter while allowing mayhem in the paint.

 

[gule]

read the rulebook, know the rulebook, enforce the rulebook. To the letter!

ps: unless it is to the Ladyvols detriment:;; lol

 

[lvocd]

My thought would be that the existing refs might do a better job if the had less responsibilities and less area to cover. They would not get caught out of position as much as seems to happen now. Obviously, I have no way of knowing this would work. Just a thought

That's what I was thinking. If four of the refs never cross center court (2 stay stationary on each side) then they wouldn't have so much ground to cover. It makes perfect sense. Only the lead Referee crosses the center line to make the total number of officials 3 on one side of the court at all times without there ever being moments when there is NO REFEREE where the action is, regardless of how quickly the game changes directions or how spread out the action is.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Replay duration's get my goat.

2-1/2 minutes it takes to put .7 seconds on the clock.