Always love when Chris Paul crys about refs. Only person to play basketball after getting shot with a sniper. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hcxXGPDC1Gs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I understand the "big leap" part. What I am saying is that it is a sensitive thing putting in the public--again fair or not. You do not have to say in public the guy does not belong in order to criticize him. You can just tell where he messed up and that's it. You see, there are people who say that women have no part in men's sports, and there are circles where people believe blacks do not belong. Public figures know better to avoid adding fuel to those things.
Ok, I understand why Chris Paul got in trouble and that's because he said Lauren doesn't deserve her job or isn't doing an adequate job at it. You never go to your co-worker and tell them, "You don't belong." I'm still unsure why the media is pushing this agenda that CP3 made a sexist remark. It's actually making things worse. Articles should be saying "Chris Paul unfairly critical of NBA referee, Lauren Holtkamp." Instead I'm seeing twitter blow up adding the word "female" or making an emphasis that he used "her." I think that actually make a majority of twitter sexist to be honest lol. The fact that it happened to be Lauren and then they see the quote "this might not be for her" so they automatically assume 'oh, it's cause he called her a 'her'. No fam lol. How narrow-minded can you be? It's cause he told her she sucks at refereeing and should do something else in her life. Yes, we all can tell she's a woman. When did being an NBA referee only become a man's job? As long as you know how to call the game then that's all the matters.
I agree, I thought Chris was being whiny. Instead of the articles backing her up on job performance, they are backing her up because of her gender, which is stupid.
I think the issue lies within whether he would be as critical of a man in the same circumstances. And if he was critical, would he go so far as to actually question if he should be in the profession? It's obviously an incredibly gray area, but with the way social issues are today, you know there will be any number of people just falling all over themselves to get involved on either side.
So far as I know, she hasn't said one word about it in public. I think KlutchQT covered it already, but I'll beat the horse anyway. I'm saying he can (morally) criticize a ref even if its a woman. If he said she sucks at reffing, I'd take it like that (though I'm sure some would still complain). But, to couch it as some kind of existential issue of where people 'belong', that's when it dredges up the baggage of persecution. To say 'she sucks' criticizes her as an individual. 'Its not for her' makes it sound like the NBA is for some certain kind of people, and the definition of what kind of people is not stated (so people have space to assume the worst). I tend to think he said it to capitalize on her inexperience at the NBA level to talk down to her and say he knows how to do her job better than she does and she's not measuring up to his expectations. He could do that to a man or woman, though maybe its no accident he did it to a woman. I can't read his mind; I don't know if that was a subconscious expression of his chauvinist, paternalist prejudices, or if he just used some poor wording that implied something he didn't mean to imply. But, I do understand how people can interpret it that way and assume the worst of him. I think it would serve him well, if he was misunderstood, to get with his publicist and craft an apology that includes an explanation that he didn't mean any of it in any sexist way.
about time someone stood up to these flopping divas. good job, lauren. =) they're all used to crawford and brothers getting on their knees.
I agree with this, I think she did a great job. She didn't back down from what I am sure was an intimidating situation.
Since nobody has posted the actual tech yet... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/23SDxkspLyI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
r****ded rookie officials shouldn't have the ability to do this. I don't even like Chris Paul much, but that's just stupid. Utterly stupid.
Bad calls followed by bad comments. The things he said should lead to a fine whether he is right or not.
Haven't really followed this. Does CP3 consistently criticize male refs by saying they should quit their job? Because I've honestly never heard an NBA player go that far before. Of course, maybe CP3 is different. If so, then I agree the media's overselling this. But if so, you'd think refs would have CP3 blacklisted if he's told all of them that they don't belong on an NBA court.
To be fair, this it's not like the Clippers are saints. They're leading the NBA in technicals this year. They have had the most technicals of any team in the NBA 2 out of the last 3 years, and the 3rd year they ended the season with the 2nd most technicals. And let's also not forget that Holtcamp only called 2 out of the 5 technicals that the Clippers were given last night. One on the inbounds play, and one where DJ screamed "god dammit" after a dunk and was looking in the refs direction. The 2nd technical was egregious enough that even Chris Webber (who had been making a long speech about players needing the freedom to be emotional) immediately backtracked upon the replay and say, "Oh yah, that's a technical..." Without hearing the exact words said or seeing the expressions of Chris Paul, or knowing what Chris Paul had been chirping about prior to that play it's hard to judge whether the technical was warranted or not. However, given the Clippers' track record of getting technicals, flopping and their propensity for whining to the refs, I tend to lean towards the officials on this one.
The other ref rookies: Dedric Taylor Justin Van Duyne http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/nba-officials-media-guide.pdf
