A very amusing article today on the NYT’s sports page, which in general has tragically few entertaining articles, about whining by the defeated Baltimore Ravens:
Ravens Coach Brian Billick said the timeout was called because his staff did not think the defense was in the right configuration to stop a sneak.
Several Ravens said no whistle was blown. “I didn’t hear a timeout,” Bart Scott said. “That was very convenient.”
When your team screws up, and even your coach admits it, but you still claim that the call was unfair — that’s whining.
Please go sit down Baltimore. There’s always next year.
Please share widely!
One odd element of this whole kerfuffle:
<
p>Samari Rolle has accused referee McKinley of calling him “boy.”
<
p>In the NYTimes article referenced above, as well as on SportsDesk on NESN last night, the author/presenter both included standalone sentences noting that both Rolle and McKinley are black.
<
p>Why the need to note this?
<
p>Is it because black men are more likely to use the word “boy” either with each other or in conversation? Or is there some other explanation?
<
p>Curious.
… that was and is often used by racists when talking to african americans. My understanding is that it was also the particular form of address when whites addressed slaves. Note that its pejorative in that it is condescending because the term is used without regard to age differences, only in regard to race.
where white men often called black men of any age, “boy”. I could be mistaken though. I think the line was put in to show that it wasn’t a case of a redneck calling Rolle “boy”.
And this strongly sugested that the ref uttered something just as offensive as the “n” word.
if the linesmen were white and had called a black player “boy”.
<
p>Calling another grown man “boy”, unless you know him well and are joking, is disrespectful.
<
p>For a white man to call a black man “boy” would be doubly insulting, because that term has additional historical weight.
<
p>I would never call another man “boy”, especially someone that I didn’t know, unless I was trying to goad him into putting his fists up.
<
p>My guess is that the race of the linesmen and player were noted to provide context.
It’s not like Rolle just strolled up to the ref and nonchalantly asked him how much time was left in the game. His comments were surely more colorful. While use of the word “boy” might indicate a certain level of disrespect, you get what you give. I think the ref was probably much much more restrained than Rolle was.
<
p>The ref invovled is a former player. And he is black. And he is quite a bit older than Rolle. And he is a game official. So there’s a certain sense of fraternity and respect that he might have expected and certainly deserved.
<
p>It’s hard to take Rolle seriously when he complains about being treated without the proper level of respect. Especially when you see how he and his teammates act during the course of a game.
<
p>In the context of a player or a coach interacting with a referee, that’s nonsense. The referee must be more restrained, for a whole list of reasons:
* The fans don’t pay to see the refs
* Competitors have adrenaline, and that boost is part of the game, required to play at a high level. Conversely, refs must remain cool, and must not have anything riding on the outcome of the game.
* Refs are responsible for maintaining safe conduct. Part of their job is to avoid confrontation with players, and help players avoid confrontation with each other.
* Refs are responsible for maintaining fairness, regardless of whether or not any player or team “deserves” it.
<
p>So, w.r.t. getting what you give, if the ref was doing that, he was wrong. Every player on the field has exactly one name: “Number xx”. It’s the only name a ref should call a player. Every ref has two names: “ref” or “sir”. If the ref called the player “boy” once, he was wrong. If he did it after being [demanded] not to, he was doubly wrong.
<
p>
<
p>From the article:
<
p>
<
p>This happens from time to time — the refs are trying to be fair and give a team a timeout when it wants one. A few weeks ago an assistant coach called for a timeout, the ref gave it, and the head coach was livid [this was college football IIRC]. Confusion like this is exactly why I believe the only people who should be allowed to call timeouts are players on the field of play. No assistant coaches. No head coaches. No players from the bench. You want timeout? You’ve got to be on the playing surface.
<
p>
<
p>Are the Ravens whining? Sure. Part of the game, especially when it’s close for most of the game and a few whistles are so important. It’s not that big a deal, and I can’t help but wonder if Bob is so touchy about the Pats because they were caught cheating earlier in the year.
<
p>I don’t think the Commish ever said that the Patriots ever “cheated”. The penalty against the team and BB was for violating a league rule. All teams try to steal signs; the Pats had the camera in the wrong place, which was against the stated rules but falls sort of “cheating”, IMO.
with the intent of gaining an advantage, and doing this not on the field of play but off is cheating.
<
p>You can argue intent, you can argue that it wasn’t a significant advantage, you can argue that it’s a dumb rule.
<
p>But, it’s a rule designed for fairness and the Pats violated it. Hard not to call that cheating in my book.
If a player reacts this way to a ref, umpire or official, he is a badly coached player. As seen here: mouthing off to this ref cost Baltimore their chance to win the game.
In my opinion–and I watched the entire game as well as having seen several other Ravens games–the ref’s behavior was fine.
<
p>He didn’t hit the player. He didn’t shove the player. He didn’t get in his face and gesture wildly in a way that would humiliate the player.
<
p>In the face of a player and team that shows little or no respect for the refs and their opponents, who act like spoiled bullies, the ref essentially told him to stop acting like a jerk. And the player acts as if he burned a cross on his front lawn. That’s the Raven’s MO. Think pro wrestling.
<
p>Two kids sitting in the backseat of a car on a ride to grandma’s. They are told not to hit each other. One child puts his finger an inch from the other’s eye and whispers “free space, free space, free space.” After five minutes of this, the other child pushes the finger away from his eye.
<
p>Mom, he hit me!!!!!!!!!!
<
p>That’s how I see this.
<
p>On the issue of cheating: yes, it can be very black and white. Any violation of the rules is cheating. Some cheating will cost you 500,000 and a first round draft pick. Some will get you a five yard penalty. Using this definition, every player in the game has cheated.
<
p>I agree with your timeout scenario. Should be players only. If they aren’t smart enough to know when to look to the sidelines and be told when to call timeout, too bad. I’ve heard it said in the last few days that since the assistant called the timeout when he isn’t allowed to, the Ravens could’ve been penalized five yards for that. And we could’ve called them cheaters.
in question is what the ref said, and whether or not it was appropriate.
<
p>My contention is that refs have to be above the game, not a part of it. That includes remaining impartial — and that means not saying anything that can be construed as offensive, including “boy” [esp. when asked not to!]
<
p>The refs have to be impartial, and they have to appear impartial. If a player of coach commits a violation [including a personal and/or technical foul depending on sport], the ref blows the whistle and assesses the official penalty. No more, no less. That’s part of wearing the stripes.
<
p>As for cheating, sure you could call every penalty cheating. I contend that an infraction during play — a hold, a late hit, an illegal man down field, allowing the play clock to expire, etc — are violations of the rules, but they fall under a very different category than making a decision to violate a rule off the field and then assigning resources to accomplishing this [NFL-illegal] task.
<
p>You want to paint them both as cheating, that’s fine. It’s my opinion that what the Pats did is far worse than illegally sending a man in motion, and I believe that the NFL feels the same way, based on the disparity of penalties.
I don’t see where the impartiality is an issue. Again, the ref didn’t actively engage the player. At all. The ref didn’t do anything beyond telling Rolle to knock it off and just play.
<
p>The “boy” thing is nonsense. If you think Rolle was really offended by that you’re either nuts or naive. Rolle threw that out because he was mad at how the game went. That’s it.
<
p>The conversation was on the field between limited people. So the “offensiveness” of any comments is limited to that situation and the context of it. If Rolle was someone who was likely to be insulted by being called “boy,” he likely wouldn’t have acted the way he did leading up to it.
<
p>I think officials (and little league coaches) put up with a lot more stuff than they should have to. Especially baseball umps. Even accounting for adrenaline and comptetive natures, there are far more opportunities for officals to find players and coaches “in contempt” and penalize or eject them. It has nothing to do with “impartiality” or making themselves a part of the game. It has to do with keeping order on the field/court/pitch/ice.
We have no idea what was actually said, or if Rolle was actually offended. The official will likely [and wisely, and likely at the suggestion of the league et al] say nothing. Rolle says the ref engaged him and called him “boy”, even after being asked/told not to do so. Did it really go down that way? Dunno.
<
p>If the ref was dishing back what he was getting, he was wrong to do so. The “you get what you give” comment should never apply between a ref and a player/coach. If the player/coach gives verbal [or physical] offense, the ref should never respond in kind, and certainly shouldn’t initiate it either. What should the ref do? Throw the flag. Blow the whistle. Throw up the thumb. This was my initial point [which has gotten a pair of 4s, likely I suspect for calling the Pats cheaters].
<
p>This is the m.o. in basketball [college and NBA AFAIK]. The refs say little, and when the line is crossed, blow the whistle and call a T. Easy peasy. No banter, no jousting, no inflating the frustration. This seems to be the opposite of MLB, where umps get red faced and have a reputation for having egos.
<
p>Do refs put up with more than they should? Yip. Can they fix it to some extent? Yip. In the pro leagues it’s harder, but in college and below, just blow the damn whistle. Be fair about it, hold all players and coaches to equal standards, and let them know before the contest begins that you won’t tolerate crap.
<
p>Calling a player anything other than “Number xx” leads to the perception of partiality, and can very well foster disorder on the playing surface.
JfX, fight your battles where they matter. Referring to someone on your team as “boy” doesn’t matter: they’re on your team. Referring to someone who is being beaten by a cop and who is being called “boy” does matter.
because in their last three offensive series of the game, when all that they needed were a couple of first downs to ice the game, they went three and out.
<
p>The Pats made plays at the end when they needed to, on both sides of the ball, and the Ravens didn’t.
<
p>BTW, last year when the Pats lost to the Colts in the AFC Championship game, they could have won if they had made a first down at the end of the game, and kept the ball away from the Colts. If you can’t get a first down when you need it, you don’t deserve to win.
<
p>This is just my plebeian opinion of course. I should really wait until the BMG Fantasy League All Stars migrate over from the baseball threads and weigh in. They have inside info, and excellent analysis that puts ESPN to shame. LOL.
… a lot like a textbook example of what an adrenaline hype rush can give your team (witness 1st three quarters of the Ravens never getting tired or slow) and what it can take away (witness an end of the fourth quarter meltdown where cooler heads would have won the game).
I missed the very beginning of the game where this might have been explained. Was there any significance to exclusive use of Led Zeppelin for the music as they went into commercial breaks?
All LZ tunes have just been released in digital format for the first time (legally.) XM radio has also introduce XM LED, the 1st station dedicated to a particular band. iTunes got the full song list the middle of last month.
<
p>Which one paid for the air time, I don’t know. Zep’s been a ton more noticeable on broadcast radio, as well.
One of the things I like about satelite radio (and there are many, many, many) are things like this.
<
p>I have Sirius and they have had a number of channels dedicated to a single artist. Not the Spice Girls or anything like that. But they have a permanent Elvis channel. They have a Sinatra channel (but they play a lot of non-Sinatra stuff from the same genre). They just added a Grateful Dead channel. They have also done temporary channels like a six or nine month run where a channel was nothing but Rolling Stones. They did the same with Springsteen and the Who (which included Daltrey/Townsend/Entwistle solo stuff). If you’re a fan of the artist you get to hear deep cuts, concerts and all kinds of stuff “from the archives.”
<
p>It’s a great concept. I had wondered if XM did the same thing. Zepplin can definitely carry a format like that.
<
p>A Beatles channel would work well, too.
… but it was much praised.
Zep released a new compilation CD a couple of weeks ago. Maybe that’s why.
<
p>I noticed the same thing too. I was was kind of getting annoyed when ESPN kept playing Dazed and Confused when the Pats were having a tough time making plays. Too cute by a half. Oh, and hearing the riff from Black Dog forty freakin’ times was getting old. There are eight studio albums to choose from; they could have mixed it up some!
<
p>Then again, the same Led Zeppelin song over and over again is better than no Led Zeppelin at all.
It seems that the Ravens should be the last ones complaining considering that they got away with their share of non-calls since their corners were mugging our receivers all day (for the record, I agree with a physical game and letting the players play, but certainly some of the Ravens’ play in the secondary could have been flagged.
<
p>The Patriots were indeed lucky to win (e.g. the timeout and the false start penalty, back to back!), I’ll admit. But it seemed that each of the refs’ calls were appropriate.
<
p>BTW, what about that kickoff from the 35 or so yard line of the Ravens? That was one of the stranger things I’ve seen in the NFL.
If your opponent is kicking touchbacks from the 35, why not commit a personal foul after your opponent scores an XP or FG? After all, they kicking from the 50 [or the other 35 in the case of a double PF] offers them no advantage, and you get to crack some skulls.
<
p>There are other possible ramifications [eye for an eye, fine from commish, going overboard and getting yourself ejected, etc], but the refs can’t really do much to penalize your team if you take a cheap shot on an opponent whose team just scored 3 or 1 it would seem.