How has the game and/or the refereeing of the game changed during your career?

 

I think the officiating has changed mostly because of how the evaluation of officials has changed and what officials are now expected to know, to do, and to get prepared. All those things are at a much higher level.

 

You can look at umpires in baseball or referees in the NBA now and compared to 20 or 30 years ago, the difference in fitness level is huge.

 

I notice it all the time with NFL officials…

 

Exactly. And I think what happened is that once more money came into the picture in all these sports and the pay cheques got bigger and all of a sudden, the bar is raised and more people want to get into it.

 

And because there's more people who want to get into it, there's a bigger pool to choose from and now you can pre-select and say "You need not apply unless you're in phenomenal shape."

 

Forty years ago that would have been different.

 

The other piece that has changed is that even to get into the higher levels, you already have to be a very good analyzer of yourself on video. You have to really be able to understand the national and international ways of calling the game. There's a terminology base that wouldn't have existed years ago.

 

Video is a huge piece of all of that. But not just video where you're just watching games but how you're analyzing it and how you're being analyzed.

 

So in a game, supervisors will break down plays, slow it down, etc...but it's right after a game. Which makes for much better education but it also really does separate some officials quite quickly.

 

As far as the game itself goes, the biggest change has been the perimeter. The change in how often now shots are being taken from the three-point line has been incredible. So the offenses have changed around that and as a result, we have to adjust to things and where we put our focus.

 

Nowadays it's inexcusable to get caught being straight-lined on those because it's probably going to be a very big play that you'll miss. You have to be in the right position.

 

In terms of our local high school and university teams, have the players changed much over the years?

 

The players are so much better, it's incredible. Kids are taking it more seriously at a younger age.

 

I think the NBA influence and the Raptors influence is huge in our area. And Canadian basketball in general has improved dramatically in terms of drawing more of the top athletes. So for officials then, much more athletic games and much more athletic plays in a game is what follows.

 

Also, the coaching has sky-rocketed. What they're running now is so much different than what they were running 20 or 30 years ago.

 

What do you wish basketball fans - especially casual basketball fans - understood better about the game and how it is called?

 

My first thought is to slightly deviate from that and say that I wish they understood that we really don't care who wins.

 

The biggest downside to the way that fans watch the game is that they do see it one-sided.

 

But by definition, that's what a fan is - they're a fanatic. So of course they're going to watch it from their side.

 

It's hard for me to complain about that though because that's actually what I want. I want them to be passionate. I want them to follow their team.

 

I do want them to boo when it's a critical play that went against them because it just means that they're into the game and into their team. And that's just going to build basketball generally.

 

Aside from that, there certainly are some plays that are more of a frustration at the younger levels, not the higher levels.

 

I guess I just wish that some fans/parents knew that they don't know the game that well at the early stages.

 

So many parents get into basketball like I got into dance because of my daughters. I wasn't an educated follower of dance going in.

 

But here they are getting into a sport that is maybe new to them and maybe they're casual observers because of the Raptors and those sorts of things and because they've watched some games now, they feel that they know the game very well.

 

It's not that they don't know the game. It's that they're so vocal in what they don't know about the game.

 

I feel like there's certain myths I'd like to debunk. Maybe I could stop and say "Okay, ladies and gentlemen, this is how this rule works…"

 

Like three seconds in the key, for example…

 

Exactly. There's many things like that.

 

The frustration is parents - especially at the younger ages - not letting their kids just be kids and instead focusing negative energy towards officiating when half or more of the time they're actually incorrect.

 

And unfortunately that lack of knowledge can then be shared with others and after two or three calls, it can snowball.

 

So now you have an official making the correct calls but there's a lesser trust in the officiating because bad information is being shared.

 

 

When I've watched you ref university games and especially NBL games like the K-W Titans, there's so much physicality, I sometimes wonder how you know what to call and how do you try to make it somewhat consistent?

 

Well, the truth is that we don't get every play right so there's going to be inconsistencies because of an error. And those are frustrating for us because we want to eliminate those but because we're human, we're going make those here and there.

 

So the idea of a "make-up" or "even-up", I've never bought into that.

 

Because if I'm going to make an honest mistake once and now I even that up, now I'm twice as bad because now I've made two incorrect plays.

 

What the fans don't know is that I'll acknowledge that mistake to the players and/or to the coaches so they will know that I'm not going to call it the same. So it will be correct next time even though I just screwed it up this time.

 

It's important for me to get that information to them so that they understand why I called something different than in the first quarter. I'm not going to keep screwing it up just be consistent with something I called earlier in the game.

 

You're a high level basketball official but now you're also a high school Vice-Principal. Is that because you're a rules-oriented person or a people person?

 

Definitely more of a people person.

 

Part of it goes back to those first two years of YBC refereeing when it was all feel. It was all seat-of-my-pants.

 

I don't even know if I owned a rule book those first two years.

 

I went by "this is fair", "this is not", "this is what should be called", etc., and then the rules got me up to speed so that my fairness factor could kick in better.

 

I remember an official saying to me a while back when I was a rules interpreter: "I was surprised how many times you worked through a rule in front of all of us and we'd debate back and forth, back and forth, and when all was said and done, you were right."

 

Even now as a VP, I'm finding that my policy information is catching up to my "feel knowledge". So I will feel my way through a situation - and at some point I have to go through policy and procedures - but I start out by thinking "As a human being, what do I believe?". And then in the end, that decision usually goes pretty well.

 

Because when it comes down to it, if rules and policy are done properly, they should reflect fairness. They really should.

 

So I still have to hit that "book" so that I know the rules and I can give a very educated answer whether it's in my role as a vice-principal or a basketball official.

 

I would hate to be just a "rules person". It wouldn't be much fun.

 

I think people who are just "rules, rules, rules" are the ones who frustrate coaches and players and parents the most.

 

The best of the best know the rules in and out but they've also got that feel. They've got that extra piece.

 

Finish this sentence for me: "I know I've reffed a good game when…"

 

This is going to sound silly but…"when the players are happy."

 

I watch player reactions all game long.

 

Because I am human first, I really do watch for reactions and then I trust my gut on whether they're real reactions or they're trying to work an official or get an advantage of some kind.

 

You don't always get it but once in awhile you have a player pat you on the back and say "that's the right call". That's not what I'm working for, that's not my end goal. My end goal is that when everyone goes home, people feel like that's the way that game should have ended.

 

Someone asked me at a camp I was speaking at what my favourite type of game is.

 

I said "uneventful."

 

That surprised some people. They thought I would want an overtime game, for example.

 

I clarified and said "I didn't say that I didn't want a good game. I said I wanted an uneventful game." I want it to be an overtime game and also be uneventful.

 

I want the ball to go in or not go in and that's the game and everyone is either disappointed or happy. That's the way it should be. They shouldn't be mad at us. We shouldn't have impacted how the game went.

 

It may have had a technical foul. Or an unsporting foul. But it was dealt with and we moved on.

 

So you feel the players are a better barometer than the coaches?

 

100 per cent.

 

I have always said that I do not referee for coaches. I will never referee for the coaches. I will referee for the players.

 

Coaches are a hugely important part of the game but I would hope that the coaches coach for the players as well. And they don't care about the officials.

 

We're also a very important part of the game…but a "part" of the game.

 

We can never forget that we're all there for the players. It's all about the players.

 

If our main goal is to appease a coach, then we got it backwards. Our main goal is to allow these athletes to do their magic.

 

And when that happens, it's fun. It's fantastic.