Then, how do you explain their success in the NBA if, in fact, the game is played at too high a level for them to be successful? What I'm saying is that the facts don't bare out the supposition. If we are supposing that women are incapable of referreeing the men's pro game because it is too fast and physical for them, that would be born out in their performance. The fact that they have been successful is an indication that the supposition is false.
Jeff, I don't think anyone is suggesting the women can't do the job, just that there might have been men available who would have done a better job. Sure, the women have done well, I wouldn't have suspected otherwise since they were probably the best available refs from the women's NCAA. But you saying the facts don't bear out the supposition is based somehow on the idea that the women are refereeing perfectly, and that no one could do better.
You're talking simply about two refs, presumably the two best refs they could find at that level. What if we took a couple hundred NCAA women's basketball refs and saw how they did? What % of them do you think would be successful? I'm not supposing anything about women, just NCAA women's basketball refs. I'm pretty confident that I watch more women's basketball than most of you do so I know the differences in the speed of the game. If Dee Kantner reffing NCAA women's games makes her qualified to be an NBA ref then there are a number of high school boys basketball referees that are just as qualified. If you want to say Kantner is not as qualified as the typical NBA ref but is getting an opportunity at the NBA because she's denied a shot at reffing NCAA men's games then I'd probably agree with that. If we're talking strictly qualifications however, there's a reason why there aren't more NCAA women's basketball refs in the NBA.
The situation is analogous to affirmative action in the real world. The NBA has always tried to be innovative. They decided to hire some female refs. Were they qualified? I would think their work history shows they are as qualified as some of the male refs. Were there better male candidates out there? I suspect so. Here is the real question: Why haven't they hired more? Since the 2 women were hired, didn't the tax 'scandal' occur which caused some of the refs to be suspended or fired? Shouldn't there have been more openings? (For those who don't know, some refs were turning in first class airline tickets for coach, pocketing the difference and then not claiming it on their taxes). The sport that should get women involved in the arbitrating is baseball. There are no physical limitations other than getting in the face of managers and players who get in your face first.
This might be the SI bit Jeff was referring to (it's from Phil Taylor). Personally I think they suck and should be kicked out of the league. But then I think that about every ref. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/1999/04/06/mailbag/ What happened to the female refs from last season? I thought they did very well, and as a testament to their abilities, soon forgot they were on the court. Are they still around? -- Anthony Harris, Kansas City, Mo. Dee Kantner and Violet Palmer are both still working games. The players and coaches I've talked to say that Kantner is easily in the top half of referees, and Palmer is about average. None of the problems that some people envisioned have come to pass. They haven't had trouble keeping control of games or winning players' respect. Probably the best sign is the fact that you haven't even noticed them this season. I'd be willing to bet they've worked games that you've watched, but they just blended in because you're used to seeing them and they were doing a competent job.
My only objection to the question was the implication or assumption that the female refs were inadequately qualified. Whether their background was the same as male refs or not is irrelevant to me, because I honestly believe the NBA would select the best people possible for the position based on their qualifications.
Timing: I'm a tad surprised that you will argue racism to your grave but sexism has no place in your vocabulary. If you don't agree with someone, just call them a sexist. I'm amazed how so many people either don't understand the point; or are ignoring it, trying to avoid it, and/or twist it around. The two referees' performance in the NBA to date does not matter. I've conceded that they've probably been solid. Why am I bringing this up now? Maybe because at the time they were hired, I either didn't know about this BBS or it didn't exist? Maybe I never got to discuss it with other knowledgeable fans? Why does it matter? Is there a statute of limitations on topics now? We can't discuss historical events? If we dare do so, there must be some alterior motive? Interesting new rules for posting. This is a (or should be) a discussion of qualifications or experience, not gender. You're not going to acknowledge that there are differences in different levels of basketball? I'm blown away by that. It's like if we just extend the three-point line and raise the goal, the dad who's volunteering as a ref for his kid's after-school league could be an NBA ref because the rules are the same! That's what you're suggesting. "The rules are the same even if the speed and physicality are different." Those are your exact words Jeff! As long as the rules are the same, basketball is basketball.....if you think otherwise, you might be sexist! I'm not saying they can't do the job. Obviously they are doing it. I'm asking why they were selected. I'm merely wondering why someone who had never officiated even at the level of men's college basketball would be chosen as an NBA referee. Apparently to you, all basketball is the same, regardless of the skill levels of the players, so this question obviously would never pop into your mind. Nice. Real nice. Sam: Or are you just pissed that a woman made it into the all boy's club of NBA refs? You may as well have said "remind me again why chick doctors are allowed to operate on guys"? You insinuated sexism with the first comment, and mocked the use of the word "chick" in the second one. Mrs. JB also appeared to have a problem with the word as well, although she did indicate she was joking. Sam: the Asian example is just so far off. It really has no relevance here at all. I'm not supposing that. I'm merely saying that someone who had officiated men's college basketball would be more qualified to officiate in the NBA than someone who hadn't. The fact that a less qualified person received the job and did okay is not relevant -- it doesn't change their qualifications. Sam -- (sorry I'm getting these quotes out of order) -- I think they were hired solely because they were women. Just my opinion. Has the NBA ever hired a man whose highest level of experience was women's college ball?
http://www.minorleaguenews.com/baseball/affiliated/a/midwest/120601.html Female ump in minor leagues.
TheFreak, Plain and simple it was a PR move. The NBA needs all the exposure it can get, so it looked hard for ways to find it. One of the things they have the most control over is the refs. The ticket scandal hurt them in that area, and hiring a couple of women refs was one of the ideas to improve PR. It was meant to cause a little controversy and get people talking about the NBA more often. It is just bonus that they are doing an above average job, more than what the NBA probably expected. The NBA's demographics/ratings have slipped considerably since Jordan retired the second time, and they are trying to be active in finding ways to increase exposure and broaden their fan base. Kudos to the NBA for doing stuff to stay afloat and be successful. Sure it's not perfect, but at least it isn't in the state MLB is in. B
You know what....I don't think I'm comfortable talking about this any longer. There are people on this board who I know and like, and I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea about me. I'm sure we could have a friendly discussion about this if we were out somewhere together, but for whatever reason, there's something about discussing it here that changes things. Hope I didn't offend anyone by bringing this up. I shouldn't have to say it, but sexism is not something I take kindly to. Peace! Also my sig is a joke.
You insinuated sexism with the first comment, and mocked the use of the word "chick" in the second one. Mrs. JB also appeared to have a problem with the word as well, although she did indicate she was joking. I didn't intend to label you as a sexist - just any league / system that perpetuated a single-gender hiring practice where there is no specific gender-based advantage to preferring one sex over another. And I guess I did question your use of the word chick in the thread title. IMO if you wanted to bring up a legitimate topic about gender, you would be better off not starting it with a word like "chick." But maybe that's just me. Sam: the Asian example is just so far off. It really has no relevance here at all. I disagree. In your first post you stated that "I never got the rationale of hiring women to ref NBA games." You didn't say you didn't understand why the NBA hired people (men or women) who had only refereed women's NCAA games. (These two women, by the way, worked for a few years as WNBA refs before making the leap to the NBA. Dee was the WNBA Supervision of Officials). Your question was gender-based, not experience-based. I don't see the reason why such a question couldn't have been "Why does the NBA hire Asians" or "Why does the NBA hire short people". Sam -- (sorry I'm getting these quotes out of order) -- I think they were hired solely because they were women. Just my opinion. Has the NBA ever hired a man whose highest level of experience was women's college ball? This question is flawed because Kantner and Palmer both had WNBA experience, as well as NCAA.
Just saw your last post, and thought you got the wrong idea. I don't hold anything you said in this thread against you, and hope you won't against me either. It's just talk. Maybe a few smilies would help.
Exactly. TheFreak, don't worry about it. Those of us who've had the pleasure of meeting you know you well enough (at least I think I do) to know that you're not a sexist.
Freak: That Steve Francis comment was out of line. Sorry 'bout that. Clutch: That may be the funniest thing I've seen posted in weeks. In fact, I'm making that my signature.
Violet Palmer is a horrible referee. Seems to have a huge midwestern bias; I'd say she's in the lower third of all NBA refs. Kanter is good, however. Better than many of the other refs out there. But there's no way I'm touching the debate issue here.
