One bad call or one bad tech don't define whether a person can hack it as a ref. Too err is human, and there are going to be frustraitingly bad misses at times. The thing you most want is just consistency, whether good or bad, just call the same thing the same way all game long. She handed out two techs when the game was getting out of hand, to basically signal keep it inline and take your frustrations out on the Cavs, not the refs. She did her job and did it correctly. If you are pointing to one error as proof that she or any other ref isn't good enough for their job, then you likely are either a troll or have an agenda. At the end of the day, the league needs to add a ref on the floor, help designate which ref in which position should be making calls based on line of sight, and give coaches a challenge to use in late situations. We all eventually make errors in judgement but steps can be taken to mitigate the impact.
Thats a bit overly sensitive. So if the black guy is doing a bad job, how can the boss criticize him without looking like a bigot? "This is not for you" can genuiely mean, this isn't for him and doesn't mean hes saying "its not for blacks". Thats a pretty big leap to make. If a white player said, "this might not be for him" he would get fined for critiquing the refs publically and everybody would have moved on. Yes, the situation is more sensitve because a woman is invloved. Espeically with all the domestic violence stuff going on in the NFL, anything man vs woman will be magnified to the millions.
In any case, Paul screwed the pooch on the PR of the incident. He made himself look like a bully and maybe a chauvinist. He hurt his personal brand. And, any legitimate complaint he might have had about the calls in the game were completely undermined by his postgame comments. Maybe, if his complaints had any merit, the Clips could have gotten a tech or two rescinded upon review. He could even have put pressure on Holtkamp through a ref review process if her refereeing was graded poorly after internal complaints from the Clippers. Paul embarrassing the league with public complaints creates an incentive for the referees and the league office to dig in and back Holtkamp.
Only if one wants to make a mountain out of it and consider him calling a woman "her" as some kind of remark against her as a woman lol. Maybe you're right, he should've said if HE is going to make calls like that then maybe this is not for HIM. That's what he should've said right?
Chris Paul is a bigger b**** than any woman. Maybe a fat ass fine will clue him in to what a sexist tool he's being.
No, not really any dependencies about it. I'm not even calling him a sexist and I don't really care if he is. I'm looking at the public reaction and the media portrayal and anticipating the league reaction and saying: whether he was right or not, sexist or not, he is worse off for opening his mouth. He did himself a disservice. (Tangentially to address your defense of his remarks, if you think the pronoun 'her' is the issue, I'd say you don't have a good feel for the subtext that people have picked up on. Imagine, for example, he said "She's a bad referee." Its impolite and inappropriate to say about a ref, but it doesn't have the gender baggage that "This is not for her" has.)
is this seriously an issue? what else is he supposed to say if he's criticizing someone? So he can't refer to her as "her" Give me an effing break.
What would be the difference? I'm trying to read between the lines here and I'm frankly not seeing why he cant criticize a ref.
I think the backlash has zero to do with his use of a feminine pronoun. As a woman, I am a "she." A "her." There's nothing offensive about that in the least. It's the "this might not be for her" -- which suggests that maybe she does not belong or is not sufficiently competent -- that is fueling the reaction. NBA refs make ridiculous calls every night, and it seems to me that there have been an abundance of unwarranted techs lately. Would CP3 have gone to the media and flat-out said that maybe Joey Crawford or Tony Brothers or whoever else might not belong in the league because they call stupid techs? I sort of doubt it. I'm actually not all up in arms over his comment, and I'm not even willing to say he intended it in a sexist way. But I do think that in a league where there are only two female officials, suggesting that one of them is in over her head or doesn't belong (when you've never said that about the male refs who make the same kinds of calls on a nightly basis, as far as I know) -- you can't be shocked when some interpret it that way.
Thank you for the serious response. I still disagree because I see nothing wrong with what he said at all. I do think he was uncomfortably more personal than needed, but I just chalked that up to him being a whining dick I kinda see your point about the optics of it
not allowed. countless examples where the nba has come down hard on open ref criticism. don't forget the jvg/yao incident. nba brought the hammer down hard on jvg.
I'm more upset at the refs defending the Paul tech on the inbound. Admit it was a bad call, to defend her call and not admit error hurts credibility -- otherwise you look like the mobbed up corrupt pieces of crap you are.
