March 31, 2005

OFFICIALS SHOULD BE CRITICIZED LIKE PLAYERS AND COACHES

      An obviously frustrated and perturbed Toronto Raptor coach Sam Mitchell stood outside the team’s locker room and chose his words carefully as he spoke to the media after a recent loss to the Miami Heat.  He muttered something about needing to keep his composure and not criticize the officials after a game that went from heated to explosive due to the inconsistency and incompetence of the officiating staff.  The question becomes—why does the league need to protect its officials the way a parent protects a child when players and coaches are open to any and all points of criticism?  What makes these men, and woman, immune to the same standards set out for anyone else involved in the game? 

       The point of contention for Mitchell came in the latter stages of a close and hard-fought game between the Heat and the Raptors.  The officials had been slowly losing control of the game, as they seemed to lean their decisions toward the higher seeded team as it competed against a bottom feeding (on this night) overachiever.  The bubbling volcano blew when Raptor Morris Peterson fouled Dwayne Wade as the local superstar drove to the basket.  Feeling aggrieved Wade stuck his jaw into Peterson’s face and voiced his displeasure.  Peterson did not back down.  In a matter of seconds Godzilla joined the fray, throwing all others aside until he reached the small (by comparison) Raptor.  Shaq continued the verbal barrage from in close while Wade continued to jaw with Peterson from afar.  The officials’ then made a final decision—to eject Peterson from the game—that should have been subject to severe criticism after the game since Peterson was simply returning the verbal volleys tossed at him by the Heat players.  The decision turned a close four-point game with four minutes remaining into a rout as the obviously frustrated and aggrieved Raptors lost their focus for a moment, allowing the Heat to wrap up the victory. 

      It has long been the mantra of officials in all sports that they do not want to be the deciding factor in any game.  The participants are supposed to decide the contests.  In this game, however, the officials took it upon themselves to make a rash decision that obviously benefited the home team.  It effectively ended the contest.  Granted officials aren’t paid by home teams, and they certainly don’t gain anything from judging plays in the home team’s favour –outside of avoiding the surliness of the home town fans, but there is little doubt that on many occasions, especially when a contending team plays a non-contender, that, in spite of the protestations of any official from any sport, calls will favour one side over the other.   

       In this game if the officials decided that the milling about had gone on long enough and players had to be tossed to get the game back in rhythm then one player from each team should have been tossed.  They should have added Wade, the instigator to the entire affair, to their ejection list—but by tossing Wade the officials would have had the home team, and the home fans, up in arms.  The officials obviously wanted to avoid that firestorm.  Then why toss anyone?  The fracas was nothing more than a war of words—there wasn’t even the inkling that it could degenerate into anything physical—and was about to break apart.  So why add gasoline to the fire by making a decision that will obviously upset one entire team?  There doesn’t seem to be able rhyme or reason—or an intelligent answer—for it. 

       This brings me back to my original point—why can’t officials be publicly criticized when they make blatant errors in judgment?  The officials are human.  They are prone to making the same mistakes as anyone.  Why can’t they be criticized?  Sure, you don’t want players or coaches being aggressive, or rude, or profane—but why can’t Mitchell calmly explain that the officials made an error, and then explain his reasoning.  Why does he have to eat his words?

       The League maintains that its officials are scrutinized and graded on a game-by-game basis.  That there is an employee of the league at each game who marks down all the positives and negatives and makes out a report so that each official will have a complete dossier done on them by year’s end.  That’s what the league says they are doing.  Do we believe it?   It is possible that something is being done since the officiating in the league—which was abominable two years ago--has greatly improved.  But what is exactly being done?  Why can’t fans be made aware of the process?  As far as we are concerned it’s all a charade, done to appease those involved in the game and the fans that the league believes its officials need to observed and judged.  Will those officials be coached on their mistakes, the way a player would by his coach?  Or will it be passed off as just another game until the end of the season when each official will be handed a piece of paper with a grading letter on it and either an invitation to the playoffs or a one-way ticket home.

       What I would like to see is—after games in which a call or a decision has played a large part in the outcome—the official who made the call stand up in front of the media, explain his decision and answers questions—just like any player or coach would do.  Otherwise you will continue to have children—hiding behind their parents—officiating, and deciding, games played by adults.