Apple's Seedlings

A Motown Welcome to the Final Four - Now One!

Appleseed — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:13:27 GMT

Congratulations to the North Carolina Tar Heels. They demonstrated all season long and throughout the playoffs that they are national champions. And while the Michigan State Spartans didn't win their last game of the season, they have nothing to be ashamed of for their performance this year.

Thanks are due to all those who made this year's Final Four such a resounding success. Thousands of people from southeast Michigan and southern Ontario put in hours and hours of work - much of it volunteer - to give college basketball its best chance to shine. And shine it did!

But that is not all. Come again to Motown next April when the Frozen Four will be played out along some of the same lines as this year's Final Four - at Ford Field. We promise not to have a snowstorm then! And feel free to take home a pound or two of kielbasa, a taste of Detroit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have been on a deserted isle for the past year or so, you may have missed the scheduling which puts this year's NCAA men's basketball finals (also known as the Final Four) at Ford Field in Detroit on April 3 - 6. Much has already been written about the 2009 Final Four, and much more will be written now that the Sweet Sixteen has been pared down to four. Welcome to North Carolina, Michigan State, Villanova, and UConn.

This event follows on the heels of other recent national sports events in Motown such as regional men's basketball playoffs, the baseball All-Star game, and the Superbowl. As the only division one basketball program in Motown, the University of Detroit Mercy will be the host institution for the event.

If anyone has any questions regarding the background of this event, or of activities surrounding it, or other questions, please let me know. I do not guarantee to have an answer, or be able to find one. But as a Motowner and a member of the UDM community, I may be able to obtain some answers that are not otherwise available.

Whether you are just interested in the games themselves or would like a view of how a rustbelt city is reinventing itself, please sent me a FanMail or leave me a comment below. I will respond as quickly as possible. I cannot guarantee to get answers to all possible questions, of course, but I will try to get "horse's mouth" answers wherever possible.

In any case, welcome to Detroit - Motown (music), the Motor City (manufacturing), the Renaissance City, Hockeytown (and for a few days - Basketballtown), the Greenwich Village of the Midwest, the Largest Small Town in the World, and home to a lot of caring people. May your stay here be pleasant and may your team emerge triumphant!

An Open Letter to RichRod at Michigan

Appleseed — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:59:18 GMT

Note: This is independent of the other RichRod at Michigan posts so it is not necessary to read those in order to understand this one. Those who desire a fuller sense of continuity may want to read How to Fire a Head Coach, Journey Into the Abyss, Westward Ho!, Circling the Wagons, and Shootout at the Big House.

Dear Coach Rodriguez,

You have now been the Wolverines coach for a little over a year. Your apologists have asked that we wait one or two more years before assessing your effectiveness at Michigan. It will take that long, they say, to know whether you will be successful. Nevertheless, as early in your tenure as it is, there are some things which are even now apparent. Looking back on your first year in Ann Arbor, there are two general questions involving your performance worth examining.

How effective are you as a football coach?

Your first year at Michigan wasn't all that successful. But that seems to be your pattern. We are assured that after a couple more years we will like what we see. And yet, no first year coach in Michigan's history (or any second year coach, or third year coach, or coach with greater tenure for that matter) has done as poorly as your 2008 team.

You say that you need time to get the players who can play by the system that you are installing? That may be true. But one measure of the effectiveness of a coach is how much he can get out of the players he has. No one expected you to have an undefeated season in 2008 - that hasn't happened to Michigan in over ten years. But neither did anyone expect a winning percentage of only 0.250. Even some of the most inept coaches in Michigan's history haven't done that badly. The players may not have been that good, but surely they were not that bad either. Other coaches at Michigan - and elsewhere - have been able to institute new offensive systems without going through such a poor initial season as you have had. I think it unlikely that the fates would have ganged up on you to the extent that you had such reduced talent.

Perhaps you will be able to post a superior season in 2009, or even 2010. If so, you will have only demonstrated that you are a good one-dimensional coach. What have you really accomplished if you need three years to implement your style, even if you make it a winning program then? Is this "spread offense" so rare? It is my understanding that many other college football programs, including several BigTen schools, have implemented variations on it. Most of them did not have to go through such a bad "rebuilding" year as the Wolverines have just done. Is your style of offense really so special that the program must take such a bashing in the first year? Further, does this mean that your successor will need three years to configure the team to his/her desires when you leave? If so, let us hope that you and all future coaches either stay on the job for considerably more than three years or are never hired in the first place.

In other words, Coach Rodriguez, it may yet be possible for you in the next year or two to show that you are a good coach in your one area of expertise. But by concentrating on only one style of offense, you have demonstrated that you do not have the flexibility or adaptability to be a great coach. Will your coaching abilities be enough to "get by" on into the future? Marginally, perhaps. You may end up winning significantly more games than losing. But that is not good enough for BigBlue.

In summary - even if you should win all your games for the next five years and bring home five national championships, you will only have established that you are a good coach ??? not a great one.

Are you a good representative of the Michigan football program?

On this issue we do not have to wait years - the returns are already in. You have chased players out of the program. You have shown disrespect for Michigan's traditions (such as the use of the #1 jersey) and to Michigan's supporters. You have downplayed the importance of traditionally important games - with Notre Dame, Michigan State, Minnesota, and especially Ohio State. Former players have criticized your arbitrary coaching and lack of respect for the program. You have engaged in name-calling of alumni and other supporters. You have acted like a spoiled brat when criticized, spewing verbal diarrhea when you are unable or unwilling to deal with a difference of opinion.

Oh, those remarks you made were taken out of context? "Get a life" only referred to those who posted hate blogs or who made obscene and threatening catcalls from the stands? "What about the economy?" was only meant to educate Michiganders who, (unlike West Virginians?) were unaware of the financial woes of the rest of the nation? In fact, there is no context appropriate for your remarks and how they applied when you said them. Even if you had won every game in 2008, you would not be justified in making these kinds of statements - under any circumstances - in any context.

We have accepted people with very different attitudes, personalities, and backgrounds into our family. The Michigan family is perhaps the largest and most diverse in the US, perhaps even the world. And we are open to change when debate and reflection indicate it is proper. But we are not open to disrespect of each other - on the part of members of the family or of those who have chosen to remain "outside" the family like you have done. Those who disrespected you were wrong. You were wrong for returning comments in kind.

If there is reason for changing a tradition, give us the reason and let us participate in the decision to change. There is an old saying, "Tradition should be a rudder and not an anchor." Apparently to you, tradition means neither.

So the two questions are answered respectively:

Are you a good coach? Maybe - partly.

Are you a good representative of the Michigan football program? No. You are an embarrassment to Michigan and a liability to its future. You are not a Michigan man, on the field or off it.

Sincerely,

Appleseed (a member of the Wolverine family).

Shootout at the Big House - RichRod at Michigan

Appleseed — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:43:31 GMT

Note that this post does not depend on the previous posts in the RichRod at Michigan series: How to Fire a Head Coach, Journey Into the Abyss, Westward Ho!, and Circling the Wagons. Reading one or more of those might provide an additional sense of continuity for those who wish to make the effort.

On November 15, 2008 the Michigan Wolverines hosted the Northwestern Wildcats at the Big House in Ann Arbor. Northwestern was not considered a collegiate powerhouse, and demonstrated it by beating the once mighty Wolverines by only 21 - 14. But for Michigan, it was only another nail in the coffin of a disastrous season. They were not going to a bowl for the first time since 1974 and had the worst W - L (3 - 8 and counting) record in the history of football there.

The next game on the schedule (and clearly the last of the season) was at the Horseshoe against Ohio State. While there are those who might argue that this rivalry falls short of being the most intense in college sports, even those who favor such classic rivalries as Texas-Oklahoma or Notre Dame-USC (and, of course, many others) are likely to rank Michigan-Ohio State in the top five.

The hype leading up to the game was as intense as always. It was on November 18 that RichRod was quoted as saying (in reference to some?) fans, "Get a life." Bob Wojnowski of The Detroit News went on to quote him further on whether he understood the importance of the Ohio State game, "Maybe I have and you all don't know it. I didn't make any public statements, because there are whole lot of things we're trying to do. I'll never diminish the importance of the Michigan-Ohio State game, ever. Never have, never would. Just because I don't say something my first day on the job doesn't mean I don't understand the importance of the game."

And with that, town marshall RichRod had drawn his weapons and began firing, seemingly at random. It is not clear whether he hit any targets. Many followers of BigBlue scrambled for cover, drawing the curtains, sending the children to safety, and hiding under the bed. But the Clanton gang began to return fire with gusto. The reaction was swift and terrible - a counteroffensive of shock and awe. A bit of a sampling follows.

LZ Granderson of ESPN's Page 2 wrote on November 19, "...Rodriguez's sin isn't thinking that some of the Michigan fans need to get a life. His sin was being stupid enough to say it. That's the equivalent of doing the worst job performance anyone in the history of the company has ever done, and then flipping the boss the finger for being overly critical. Especially when you and everyone else in the world knows you were not the company's first or even second choice for the job...."

MCNEGROPOD of firerichrod.blogspot.com, also on November 19, wrote, "Get a life? ...coaching Michigan football isn't your job. It's your life!"

But perhaps the unkindest cut of all came from Detroit Free Press sports commentator Mitch Albom. Maybe you remember his book Tuesdays with Morrie which topped the New York Times nonfiction list for over a year. On November 20, he wrote, "At this point, Rich Rodriguez is like the guy who gets too drunk at the bar, goes staggering through the wrong neighborhood, gets knocked down, kicked around and now just wants to crawl home safely."

Thus occurred the Shootout at the Big House. While the bullets were still flying, the hopeful looked toward one last game. The game at the Horseshoe in Columbus would likely not be a shootout - at least not for the Wolverines. But maybe the season was not beyond the pale. A win against Ohio State - or even a gutty loss - might salvage some fan support and provide a platform to build on for the coming season. Ohio State had only two losses on the season, a blowout at USC early on and a closer loss to Penn State more recently. Michigan went into the game with emotion. Emotion is absolutely necessary to win a game that has the intensity of Michigan-Ohio State. But wining it also takes skills which fit a game plan.

The outcome was as predicted. Michigan's "moral victory" was a 42 - 7 loss to the Buckeyes. The season wasn't saved, but instead suffered what was arguably the worst loss of 2008. The animal from which the Michigan team name originated is said to be the most vicious animal on earth when considered pound-for-pound. But the football Wolverines weren't even close to that description.

Michigan fans have emerged from behind their curtains and from under their beds. Occasional bullets still fly, but the sense of the times is now kind of like the quiet before a really big storm. The black clouds are gathering in the west and heat lightning brightens the horizon from time to time. RichRod has made it this far, but it is clear now that he is in survival mode.

We have picked up his journey from West Virginia where he seems to have gone through much of what he has since experienced at Michigan. He has lost some players here from the team as well as "decommitments" and marginal recruiting (as he did at West Virginia). He has also landed a few players who he feels have the skills he wants for his team. He continues his inability to accept criticism and his ability to dis those who do offer constructive comments.

An assessment of his future at the Big House will be the subject of the next post on this subject. It will be in the form of an open letter to RichRod. Whether it will be the final post in this series or whether there will be more that needs to be said down the line depends in large part on how effectively RichRod will be able to perform during the coming season.

Circling the Wagons - RichRod at Michigan

Appleseed — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:22:02 GMT

Note that this post is in sequence to "How to Fire a Head Coach", "Journey Into the Abyss – RichRod at Michigan", and "Westward Ho! - RichRod at Michigan". It is not necessary to read those posts to understand this one, but those who do may get a greater sense of continuity.

A storied college football team takes the field under the leadership of a new coach. This is not the first time it has happened in college football of course, nor even for this program. But this was not quite as normal a change as usual. The coach had been hired under circumstances which had been controversial.

On August 30, 2008, the Michigan Wolverines hosted Utah to open the college football season. The Utes pulled out a 25-23 victory. To the Michigan faithful, this was reminiscent of the previous season opening loss to Appalachian State – a real embarrassment. Utah would go on to have an undefeated season, but that wasn't known at the time. But some were encouraged. Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated (who on December 16, 2007 wrote that Michigan “scores a home run” with the RichRod hire) wrote on September 3, 2008 that the Wolverines' loss to Utah “wasn't that bad.”

On September 6, Michigan hosted Miami of Ohio and took them for a 16-6 victory. Not impressive, but at least a win. On September 13, the Wolverines went to South Bend to take on the traditional game with the Fighting Irish. The Notre Dame program had been in trouble in recent years, but was now purported to be emerging from it. Whether Michigan deteriorated or the opposition improved (or both) was hotly debated, but the Wolverines returned home having been doubled, losing 35-17.

The undercurrent of discontent with the program began to mount. Some who had taken a “wait and see” attitude were now being openly critical of the new coach. The Wolverines had a bye following the Notre Dame game, but whether this helped or stemmed the groundswell was debatable. The new coach was now subjected to personal attacks – primarily on the internet but some from catcalls from irate fans..

On September 27, Wisconsin came to visit. It was early in the season. Wisconsin had pocketed some impressive victories and was ranked ninth in the country. In a game marred by many errors on both sides, Michigan emerged with a slender victory 27-25. To have beaten a top-ten team in a rebuilding year seems to have allayed some of the criticism, but some of the most bitter fans were still firing both barrels at the coach. As the season progressed, it was clear that Wisconsin wasn't that good – and so Michigan's victory over the Badgers was less significant. The loss to Illinois (45-20) on October 4 only fed the flames of criticism.

The nail in the coffin of the season occurred in the next two games. On October 11, 2008, BigBlue lost to Toledo 13-10, even more like the previous season's loss to Appalachian State than the loss to Utah was. And on October 18, the Wolverines went to Happy Valley. They held the Nittany Lions pretty well in the first half, but fell apart in the second half and lost 46-17. The tidal wave of unhappiness and criticism which followed the Toledo loss grew to a firestorm after the Penn State humiliation.

But there were still games to play: a 35-21 loss to traditional cross-state rival Michigan State on October 25; a 48-42 loss at Purdue on November 1; a win(!) (29-6) for the Little Brown Jug at Minnesota on November 8; and a loss (21-14) to Northwestern on November 15. The criticism mounted – even after the win at Minnesota. Finally, three days after the Northwestern game, RichRod lost it.

On November 5 after the Purdue game, AP Sports Writer Rusty Miller writing in USA Today quoted RichRod as saying (apparently addressing sports reporters):

“Y'all want to make everything so much drama. This is just unbelievable. Every time something's said, everybody wants to make a big deal out of something and make so much drama about everything. That's why I didn't tell y'all too much. You think I tell you a lot. I think I've been pretty transparent, but sometimes I don't because I don't know what y'all are going to take and make a big deal out of a wee little thing.

“Seems like for nine, ten months, that's happened. Oh, he said this. Let's psychoanalyze this, psychoanalyze that.

“We're not going to a bowl game, but do you think we're going to pack it in? You think the guys are a bunch of quitters? I don't think we've got any quitters. You think the coaches are going to pack it in, not show up for work? Golly”

On November 18, 2008, he is quoted from several sources as saying,

“It's amazing some of the things that people would say [on a message board] or yell at you of a personal nature. You almost want to tell them, 'Get a life.' There's a whole lot bigger problems. Look at the economy.”

Westward Ho! - RichRod at Michigan

Appleseed — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:01:15 GMT

Note that this post follows Journey Into the Abyss - RichRod at Michigan. It is not necessary to read that one, but it might provide some additional continuity for those who are interested.

Imagine being in the situation where you have supervised a group but have now moved on. The new group you are joining still has its supervisor in place. Your new position will become available after the organization makes one more major effort, so you just have to sit in the background for a while.

The current supervisor tries to include you into the operations of the organization. He asks your opinion and introduces you to your future colleagues. Meanwhile the organization you will be joining prepares for its big event under someone else's direction.

You feel you were born to lead and are a person of action. You know you will get your opportunity shortly. But it is still hard not to backseat drive while the car is careening down the highway. It is both sweet and sour when the big event comes off successfully for the organization.

Your predecessor moves on and you move into his shoes. You have different – more modern – ideas about how to operate things. Some of the personnel are leaving as a matter of course, others will be leaving because they have no loyalty or stomach for you or your ideas. It is time to replace a large number of people who you will be working with, and replace them with people having different kinds of outlooks and talents than the organization has ever had before.

It is a task you have done before – and successfully! It takes time. The immediate productivity will be low. But you have confidence gained from previous experience that the long term results will be to ensure your new organization is much more competitive in the modern context than it was before. The alternative to your efforts, as you see it, is to let your new organization become second-class.

To complicate matters, your departure from your previous organization was less than amicable. Not only did customers get upset, but your colleagues seemed to have a different picture of your role there and of your departure than you did. Your leaving was, to put it bluntly, contentious and soon became litigious. Your family was insulted and your old home was vandalized.

Many of the customers and colleagues of your new organization seem to understand what you are trying to do, and accept the need to build slowly. They feel as you do that your new organization has to be brought into the twenty-first century, and it would not be easy to do that. But other customers have deep reservations about your plans, feeling that there should be a way to accomplish the goals without destroying what the organization has meant to them and to tradition.

It is January 2, 2008 and you are about to begin your rebuilding task even as some doubt the need to rebuild. You are competing for new personnel with traditional rivals across the continent, rivals who now seem to feel that they have an edge up on you because of your and your new organization's troubles. Through the long winter and the slowly brightening spring, you try pull your chestnuts out of the fire. You don't expect to win them all, of course, but you feel that you have taken credible first steps.

At the end of spring, you have your first attempt at training the combined old and new personnel. They are not yet what you want, but they are what you have to work with. They are skilled, but their skills are not always what you desire. And throughout the summer, you plan how to get the most out of those you have while keeping your ultimate goal in mind.

And two days before Labor Day, you have the opportunity to lead your organization for its first big event under your leadership. You hold your breath as your personnel move out to meet their challenge. You know they will do their very best but doubt whether their best is sufficient. The customers turn out a tenth of a million strong. Some are bleeding with you all the way, some would like to see you fall on your face.

But the season is under way. It is now August 30, 2008 and Michigan hosts Utah at football in the Big House.

Journey into the Abyss - RichRod at Michigan

Appleseed — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:31:43 GMT

NOTE: This is not an impartial analysis. Before he signed with UMich, I knew very little about R. Rodriguez. I was skeptical of his hiring, but much of that skepticism was directed at the athletic director who hired him rather than the coach. But things have changed. Here is the story as I see it of how the changes in my attitude came about.

Any new coach coming into an established college football program will have huge shoes to fill. Many new coaches do not make it. This is particularly true for Michigan which has a pedigree going back almost a century and a quarter. One piece of folklore on the Ann Arbor campus is that Michigan taught Notre Dame how to play football so they could have a good nearby opponent.

Coaches coming to Michigan have failed. One notable example was Bump Elliot in the nineteen sixties. He had a Michigan history and connections, and had the skill set. But he did not seem to understand the “Michigan way” even though he had played on the team when he was a student. His tenure as head coach is not remembered like the successful tenures of Fielding Yost, Fritz Crisler, and Bo Schembechler.

Michigan usually hired its new coaches from within the “Michigan family.” A notable recent exception was Bo. All new coaches have to face skeptical fans and demonstrate they are worthy of the past history of the sports programs there. And a “non-family” member has an added hurdle in this respect. This time the athletic director felt there were no viable candidates within the "family" for the job Lloyd Carr left, and so started looking outside the Michigan cadre.

It has been reported that feelers were sent to the current coach at LSU – a “Michigan man.” Les Miles already had a good program there and the timing of the offer was bad. No deal.

Coaches at Syracuse, and Rutgers were apparently considered and that led to offers. The offers were rejected. It then seems that the Michigan athletic director began to panic since he had promised the Michigan faithful that there would be a coach in place soon. A last (apparently unvetted) offer was made to the West Virginia head coach with a lot of pressure behind it for a quick decision.

There are various opinions on why RichRod said “yes” to Michigan's offer. I have presented one alternative in "How to Fire a Head Coach." I do not claim that the scenario laid out there corresponds to the actual situation, but it is one possible way in which the statements of various West Virginia people and of their coach can be reconciled – even though the statements seem to be at odds.

In any case, accept Michigan's offer RichRod did. Since both teams had bowl games, RichRod was a nonparticipant at bowltime. This was especially ironic since a score of years before, Michigan had lost its basketball coach while heading into the NCAA tournament. An assistant coach piloted the team to the national championship – but the Wolverines had to give it up years later as an NCAA penalty. Michigan had felt the pain of having someone recruited from the family only to do it themselves years later.

Will RichRod be able to reach out to the fans? Will he be able to develop and use the talent left to him by Lloyd Carr? Will RichRod be able to lead the “Michigan family” into another era of excellence in football and sports in general. This will be the subject of the next blog on the subject.

How to Fire a Head Coach

Appleseed — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:11:20 GMT

Head coaches (or field managers or whatever they are called in some sport or other) usually have costly contracts of lengthly duration. Presumably, this is okay if the team is performing well and if the head coach keeps on good terms with the "front office."

But what happens if the coach's team loses more than people think it should, or if there is stress between the coach and the front office? The usual activity when this occurs is for the front office to "buy out" the remainder of the coach's contract, effectively firing him or her and giving a whopping severence pay package.

But one team found a better way. The coach had established a winning record and was a fan favorite, so the usual approach was not available. A strategy had to be developed which would put the coach at the disadvantage. It took a good deal of coordination, but they were able to pull it off.

This was a public institution, so they were able to get many people into discussing contract renewal. These people had different constituencies. They were the governor of the state, the CEO of the institution, and the head of athletics. Each, under the guise of representing their "people," told different stories and wanted different provisions in the wording of the contract renewal.

After the dust settled, there was a provision in the proposed renewal that stated that the head coach would have to pay the institution a sizable indemnity if he left before the term of the contract was up. This was initially unacceptable to the head coach, but upon being assured by one of the negotiators for the institution that it would be removed or eased, the coach agreed to sign the contract.

It should have come as no surpise that the front office immediately began finding fault with the head coach. They not only criticized him publically, but indicated that there would be delays in providing funds and other resources he needed to fulfill his obligations. After more than a year of this, the coach was offered a position at another institution with other considerations such as better compensation and working conditions. He took the position.

Most of us know by this time who the principles in the above story are: Rich Rodriguez moved from head football coach at the University of West Virginia to head football coach at the University of Michigan. In the lawsuits and counter lawsuits that followed, it was clear that the contract he signed ruled (as perhaps it should) and that people told him things with the express purpose of getting him out without having to buy out his contract or incur the animosity of his fan base.

Other schools, professional teams, and the like have certainly learned from this. The day of the team buying out a coach's contract is probably behind us. A coaching job is now a liability and a coach will have to pay the institution which effectively fires him (even though he was forced to resign).One is remined of the line from the folk song "Pretty Boy Floyd": Some men rob you with a six-gun. Some with a fountain pen.

And sports, including players, coaches, fans, and even front offices, are all losers because of this.

Conspiracy and Officiating

Appleseed — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:27:38 GMT

Many of the posts I have seen on FanNation and other sites (including game posts, comments, and blogs) suggest that there are conspiracies rampant in sports. In particular, league officials are supposed to have scheduled games to the advantage of one team or another. Game officials are to tilt their calls to help a preselected team win for some reason.

The reasons vary from simple (but unsupported) statements that <so-and-so referee> doesn't like <team name> or <the league> will favor <team name> because it is a big money market, and the like. The reasons are endless and quite unconvincing.

Leagues do strange things sometimes, and so do referees. Both are human. But aside from the case of Donaghy (NBA referee involved in betting on games he officiated), the presumption is that games are scheduled and called "cleanly."

I do feel that there tends to be a bias toward the home team, but I don't feel it is a strong one. The reason for this bias can be understood by anyone who has tried to umpire a Little League game with angry parents screaming. I am pleasantly surprised that the officiating isn't even more tilted toward the home team.

There have been games which have been badly mauled by the officials, of course. But I have not seen evidence that this was done intentionally by the officials any more than I have seen evidence that this was done intentionally by the players (the "Black Socks" excepted, of course).

Further, it stretches my imagination that an official should bias a judgement. This is not the image that most game officials have of themselves. Like a team that has just lost a close one; when they butcher a call, they pull themselves together and go on to the next one resolving to do better.

And I cannot image any official taking orders to tilt a game. Not only does this violate all the self-concept of arbitrators, but it would involve too many people to keep secret. And despite all the claims of conspiracy, there is no one in a knowledgable position blowing any whistles on these plots.

Conspiracy theorists will say that it is still possible that game tilting is occuring. Maybe so. But to convince me that it is likely, you will need evidence. And at this point I haven't seen any and doubt whether it is there.

Technology and Officiating

Appleseed — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:02:34 GMT

There have been several bad officiating calls recently in sports contests - two home runs which weren't at Yankee stadium, two miscalled goals in a hockey playoff, and a three-point basket launched after the quarter clock had expired to name just a few. And I haven't even mentioned other games in baseball, hockey, or basketball (much less football or other sports).

Perhaps it is time to rethink the role of technology in helping those who call the games in all sports. Each sport is unique in some ways, so I won't try to suggest a "one size fits all" approach. Yet I do feel that there are some principles which apply universally to officiating, including principles involving the use of technology.

1) Officials should be in charge of the game. In some sports (notably hockey), when the officials go to a replay, the decision is passed to the replay officials. I do not agree with this. Under conditions where the technology is not immediately or conveniently available to the principle officials, those officials can still be "advised" of what the replays show by those who do the review. The primary officials would have the freedom (and the risk!) of overrulling this advice.

2) Officials should have access to all available technology. This does not mean that every play should be reviewed, but that any time the officials feel the need to review something (whether the game clock had expired, whether an off-side or lane violation occurred, etc.) they would have the option of using whatever technology is available.

3) Only the officials can decide whether to consult a replay technology. Managers and coaches, players, and fans may request replay reviews, but the officials make the final decisions regarding whether to do it. And they may initiate a replay review even if not requested by anyone else.

Individual sports may want to tweak implementation of these principles. Baseball, for example, may want to discourage review of every questionable called ball and strike. My advice in these cases would be to indicate to the game officials that "excessive" review is to be discouraged, but not prohibited. Appropriate use of technology should be one criterion upon which officials are judged.

If these principles can be applied across all sports contests, there will be some teething problems for a while. But in the long run we will find that they can be used to render fairer decisions with less disruption in the continuity of the game.

The Perils of Officiating

Appleseed — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:04:41 GMT

I empathize with those who officiate a sports contest. I have had some experience umpiring little league games, and I know how difficult it is to see everything that should be seen and ignore everything else. I know how difficult it is to maintain attention on a game when it seems that all around you have their attention on you. And I know how important it is to render decisions as fairly as humanly possible when all those around you have lost this perspective.

But one point comes through clearly. Once an injustice has occurred, there is no just way to correct it. Any attempt at repairing the damage of a bad decision will adversely affect others in the game. (In this context, in the effort to wipe out centuries of treating some of its citizens as "second class," the US put in reforms including "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action." It is no surprise that these led to charges of "reverse discrimination.")

So it is in sports. Hockey, in particular, is a game in which a lot is going on. And so much is missed. Hockey seems to recognize the problems of extrapolating from what is seen to what might have happened. A call on the ice can only be overturned on review if there is conclusive evidence that the call was wrong.

So when the referees and league were made aware of how players were violating the rules around the opponent's crease, they gave it special attention. Good. When Datsyuk apparently scored a goal in the fourth game of the third round of the Stanley Cup playoffs in 2008, they inferred that there had been an infraction. They must have inferred it since the replays show clearly that it did not occur. And this is out and out bad officiating.

Then, when Dallas scored the next goal, they missed it again. A player was clearly in the crease long before the puck got there. Perhaps they were still smarting from their previous bad call - I don't know. And later when a player was brought to the ice and spun around into the player who checked him, who was called for the penalty? It wasn't the original checker.

I have a lot of respect for the officials of that game. They have done a magnificent job in many, many games of a sport which is especially hard to control. But they blew those calls. Good players can have bad days. Good officials can also have bad days.

When players cease to perform well during a game, they are replaced by others from the "bench." Perhaps we need a "bench" of reserve officials to take over when the starters lose control? After a short spell, it could be that the original officials could get back into the game. Or it might be in the best interest of the competitors and the sport to keep the subs in.