Like many I have been looking at the mess around the lack of a single player inducted into the Baseball HOF in 2012.
What a joke on so many levels. First is the group who casts votes ... Baseball "writers." Come on ... other than siting on their a$$es watching and writing, what do they know about the game?
As evidenced by some recent articles, not all that much. In fact so much so the oft repeated expression about "... those who can't do ... teach." should be revised to "... those who can't do ... write about baseball."
It's no surprise that there were no players inducted into the HOF this year, and the overwhelming reason being bandied about it the "silent referendum" on the use of PEDs.
So who made the know little press experts on PEDs, their use, and the morality involved in those who are associated with them?
Well it's about cheating some say. Cheating? What about Gaylord Perry? Here is a player who was a known cheat for altering baseballs during the game ... and yet is in the Hall?
Yeah, but that's not dealing with PEDs.
Well neither is Clemens, or Bonds as both were cleared of any charges regarding PEDs (Bonds was convicted on an obstruction charge). Where's the beef guys? Are you telling me that a group of reporters knows better than our Criminal Justice system in determining guilt? Really? How incredibly arrogant of these writers.
What really frosted my cookie, and caused this rant was The HOF's future imperfect tense written by Jim Caple of ESPN. It's an excellent article worth a good read. One I largely agree with.
Where we depart in our opinions, is in his nearly mocking tone of the induction of Hank O'Day. Here is a guy who was a pitcher and umpire in MLB for 37 years. He worked the 2nd most number of games EVER in MLB history, and worked 10 World Series.
Caple's comment:
"Former umpire Hank O'Day, who, well, was an umpire."
Nice Caple. Here is someone who served the game for 1/3 of a century, and your comments amount to, yeah I guess those guys count too ... sort of.
How pathetic.
He continues with: All of those "Hall of Famers" -- elected by something called the Pre-Integration Committee
Again, pathetic. These folks have just as much invested as players, and should be treated with just as much respect. Caple is called on to take responsibility for a daily baseball column, O'Day for a thousands of MLB games and 10 World Series. You do that math.
Now, trust me, I did not miss the satirical point of the article as fundamentally I agree with what he is saying, and enjoyed the article. What he did not need to do was skewer others (than players inducted) to make his point. Particularly those like O'Day, who served with distinction.
Of note from the article:
I mean, are these the sort of people we're going to honor with plaques on Cooperstown's walls rather than the players we cheered so lustily and who made us feel so good? Old owners who financially abused players and perpetuated racism (Ruppert, Charles Comiskey, Tom Yawkey)? Owners who moved teams 3,000 miles away from their fans (Walter O'Malley)? Owners who charged outrageous beer prices? Commissioners who were ineffective and stubbornly stuck in the past (Kuhn)? And umpires? I mean, I respect umpires, but c'mon.
The link points to a call that was missed back in 2009 from Game 2 of the ALDS between the Yankees and Twins. C'mon indeed. What does THAT call, have to do with anything?
The answer to Caple's rhetorical question about "... are these the sorts of people we're going to honor ..." is a resounding YES YOU MORON! Why not? I'm not a particular fan of some things some of these folks did either, but why do the media think they are imbued with the authority to make moral judgments?
Let's take O'Day just as one sliver of this ... his "crime" ... he was an umpire (cue dramatic music). Why shouldn't he be considered and fully accepted as a Hall of Famer? People should be in awe of such a record, not suggest he was just an umpire. Please.
People serve in different ways, and in this case to suggest anyone other than a player is not a real inductee is crap. I even extend this to the media folks who see fit to malign those who actually participate in weaving the fabric of the game's history, not just sit up on high, and wax pathetic on it.
Last month, FIFA decided to hand Christine Sinclair, captain of the Canadian womens' soccer team, her punishment for comments made during the 2012 Olympic semi-final match.
The only explanation they gave her for the four game suspension and the CHF 3500 fine was 'unsporting behaviour towards match officials'.
The alleged act was commited during a game marred with questionable calls. The US team whom they were playing, were even surprised at the turn of events. It left many a Canadians with a bitter taste in their mouths in the aftermath of the cliff hanger match where Sinclair scored all three goals owned by her team that day. ...
Kicking Back Comments: I'm not quite sure where to go with this. It was actually pretty funny in spots since it is so misplaced ... so incredibly misplaced. Ms. Pradhan is clearly out of her depth.
I actually thought I was reading a piece in the Examiner on soccer for a second.
To Show Their Support, Soccer Fans in the U.S. Need to Master 'Tifo'
SANTA CLARA, Calif.—Members of the 1906 Ultras, a fan club for the San Jose Earthquakes soccer team, had a lot at stake as they trooped into Buck Shaw stadium here for a game earlier this season.
The concern wasn't so much their team's prospects against rival Real Salt Lake. The big test was their own performance in the stands. ...
I am a little surprised frankly the WSJ went there. It's not even a good article.
Why is this on A1? I have to believe there are a few other things going on that should make A1.
Now I get this is a WSJ "A-Head", and the library of WSJ A-Heads can be found here. It was just widely out of place, and had almost no point to me.
I dunno, I'm not saying everything has to be serious all the time, but this article to me was particularly vapid. This includes the reference to ultras-tifo.net, which is running ads from holliganart.com.
Olympic Soccer 2012: No US Men's Team, No American Interest
I'm as active a proponent of rational discussion as you'll find, and yet in the wake of Team USA's failure to qualify for the 2012 Olympic soccer tournament, even I'm left wondering: Where's the outrage?
Where's the prideful resentment? Where are the pitchfork demands for retribution?
Kicking Back Comments: Where I depart company with the article (and I think the only part) is that the US Women are insanely popular (by US standards). So it would seem less about good soccer v. bad soccer (the US women while winning are not playing real attractive soccer), it would seem more about winning v. losing ... which was at the intended heart of my article, Where are all the men?
Obviously by not qualifying the men are de facto losers, but I will be curious to see what happens if the women get anything but gold.
I am guessing it will not be happy.
I don't disagree with the article that the US base is becoming more discriminating in its tastes for The Game, and the international game is plainly much better.
I still hone in on the fact though that America likes winners of all walks, and the US Men just will not get it done. Obviously not in the Olympics (as they did not qualify), but far beyond that.
It is interesting however, and I agree straggly here, that the media will make or break professional soccer in the US ... and right now an irony is by making the international game more popular, it has made the US version pale in comparison.
So while this post is in reference to the doping controversy currently swirling around the cycling world, the message is universal.
To have credibility to comment on a matter, once needs to walk a mile in their shoes.
Wiggo made this point transparently clear in his rant the other day when asked about doping. Parental warning regarding foul language, or if you are a Wiggo follower, normal language for him.
Consider the move by US Soccer to qualify only ex-professional referees to their higher level assessing and instructing ranks. This to me is a particular clever maneuver and one that keeps the ship going in the right direction as these folks should have the most to share for those who need it the most.
Now, you may be asking, I just received an assessment in my youth match from someone who has not refereed much, recently, or maybe even at all. Should I take that advice?
My answer is a conditional yes. In "Confirmation Bias" or "China Syndrome"? we explored this a little bit and I came to the conclusion that all feedback is good feedback. However, you need to file it accordingly.
That said, those who have "been there" I believe hold a particularly keen ability to get the right message, in the right way to those who are listening.
This is true I think with Wiggo as well. Part of his point was related directly to the media who write, not do. While a necessary part of making a sport more attractive on the worlds stage, I hold their opinions (not reporting on the facts) in fairly low regard as so few have ever been where they are reporting on.
Those that have, I listen to more than nearly all others.
Let me say that I largely agree with Paul's analysis and appreciate his candor in the matter. After viewing the clip embedded in the article and the article itself I had two similar follow on points.
First, I really dislike the media. I recognize in a way I am part of the institution with Kicking Back, but there is a stark difference. I write to provoke thought through strong and sometimes "tongue in cheek" analysis. I do not like "sensationalistic" commentary.
I have commented about this in the past with some of the reporting that is done around the MLS and is intended to get a headline, not perform genuine analysis. This story strikes me as similar, lots of flash, not much substance. To somehow turn a foul from the back (that was not deserving of the punches thrown by the opponent) into a violent attack where "law enforcement" had to be called in and people were calling for "punishment" under the legal system is just ridiculous. Player lost their cool, yes. Parents behaving badly, yes. Media grossly inflating a "school yard" skirmish, defiantly.
Second, and please put this in the advice column, DON'T TALK TO THE MEDIA as a referee.
Now for those who are not familiar, there is a policy for how to conduct yourself, and it can be found in the Administrative Handbook here on page 43, and states:
Guidelines for Contact With Media
Referees
Game Officials should use good judgment based on the referee Code of Ethics when speaking to the media.
Game Officials should:
Not, under any conditions, discuss the politics of the game or the sport.
Stick to what you know as it relates directly to your personal experience in the game of soccer.
Relate only factual information about a game. Do not discuss judgment calls that were made.
Avoid making declarations, which amount to speaking for other people.
Represent yourself, your state association and the game in a positive and enthusiastic way.
That aside, very little good can come from sharing an opinion with the media as a referee. Listen, I get it, it can be a thrill to be interviewed about something you love to do. I've been there, and made that mistake a couple of times, so I don't fault this referee at all as I am certain this was his first rodeo.
However, don't get caught off guard. This can indeed happen to any of us on any given day, and don't be fooled, reporters are not there to make friends with you when the cameras are rolling, just get a story. After the cameras are off, you're on your own and speaking personally I have found having a relationship with a reporter on a personal basis is not a bad thing. Like most things, it depends on the person.
So, if you find yourself in a similar situation ... heck even without the media, but parents asking "what the heck happened", your responsibility is to make a report to the league. Frankly that is your best response. If someone (other than the league) wants to know what happened, you are better off saying "I'm sorry, I can't discuss this until the league is made aware of the facts", or something to that effect. That of course is not reasonable if interviewed by the police ... but even there ... just the facts, not an opinion.
Don't forget, those who are asking may not be all good faith actors and may indeed twist your words to make a trap for fools. It is not unimaginable to find yourself on a witness stand defending your comments (or video of your comments) in some form of litigation.
You can't get in trouble for not saying anything to media/parents/coaches ... so play it safe, and don't.
Written reports and answering media questions are certainly a part of being a higher level referee, and aspects that we will address later in time as I personally have learned some brutal lessons there.
Admission of the problem is the first step to a cure. In the glass half full world of Major League Soccer, there are never really problems - only initiatives.
MLS, however, has a problem which needs fixing. Like anything worthwhile, it cannot be done overnight but the League wants it known a serious initiative is being launched to tackle the situation.
At the dawn of a brand new season, there's a new franchise in Montreal, a new stadium in Houston and a new broadcast partner across the United States. MLS continues to toot its horn on a range of issues from improved standard of play to the growing visibility of the sport in North America. ...
Kicking Back Comments: So I read this article, and you know what I got out of it?
A headache.
I'm not sure what is was. Either the snotty tone Reed takes mocking MLS for its "initiates," or "complimenting" the league for recognizing it has a "problem" (which Reed does not define), or his clear inexperience understanding what he is commenting about.
It would have been great to detail Mr. Walton's appointment and maybe do some research about what prompted it from the PRO or MLS perspective. How about some thoughts, some specific thoughts about what needs to be adjusted, and in some cases just plain 'ole fixed in the refereeing ranks.
[I'll give you a hint Mr. Reed ... consider making the referees salaried professionals ... and pay them.]
Nope. Just a fluffy piece back-handly mocking the work that has gone into where we are now with MLS, and asking the self serving question ... Gee will it be fixed now?
Who wants to bet this will be followed sometime mid-MLS season with a "Well I guess it's not working ..." piece?
I've read some of his other stuff and it's pretty good I think. I just don't understand why the wheels come off the journalistic cart when discussing referees.
Then again, in looking at his experience, he has watched a lot of The Game, and to nearly all, that qualifies them to understand the nuances of professional league refereeing, and comment openly about their "problems."
Reed gives us an "out" however in his closing statement that referees don't make the rules, they just enforce them.
If the comment in isolation does not scream "nitwit" (to The Game), I don't know what does.
Referees winning the percentage game whatever managers and media say
A few years ago Jeff Winter, a familiar name for any students of refereeing demonology, released an autobiography, Who's the B*****d in the Black?, which contains a particularly enlightening passage about his last match at Anfield before retiring.
Winter reveals he deliberately played a bit of extra time, waiting until the ball was at the Kop end. Then, with everything in position, he blew his whistle. "The fans behind the goal burst into spontaneous applause. It was longer and louder than normal, even for a home win. Did they know it was my final visit? Was it applause for me? They are such knowledgeable football people it would not surprise me."
At the risk of bursting a few dreams, it is a fairly exceptional level of delusion judging by what we know of football's relationship with the referee and, specifically, the way fans tend to distrust them as their default setting. Managers are not much better and we journalists can be culpable, too, given the frequency we bring them up in press conferences, looking for a bite. Very little reasoning is applied sometimes when the blame can be redirected and the buck passed. ...
Like with many things, you can find an amazing amount of information from the internet. I use it often to find a great amount of "stuff" about a great number of topics.
One should however be very careful in how they approach using this information. For example (and I have personal knowledge of this one), take a look at the Wikipedia article for chicken salad here. Looks good right? Authentic?
It's a spoof from guys that I work with. A complete fabrication.
I can almost hear the Wikipedia police knocking now ...
Same is true about refereeing information. There are lots of sources for information. For example:
AskTheref is an interesting potpourri of questions and answers. Mark Sprenger, Grade 8 referee from CA is the author of the site and does a nice job fielding a wide array of questions, from a wide audience.
The Big Soccer Referee Forum seems to dispense advice as well. Some of which is really good IMHO. Again a wide array of topics (and some inside info at times) to a wide array of folks. Careful here though because even many of the "insiders" get the LOTG or the rumor mill badly wrong.
Absolutely worth reading is You Are The Ref from The Guardian. Excellent questions, and excellent answers generally from Keith Hackett, arguably one of the best football referees - ever.
We then get into other blogs of note such as HK Referee who has some truly excellent stuff by way of refereeing analysis and George Cumming blog ... a man who has written the LOTG, not just enforced them.
Then you get to guys like me at Kicking Back who try not to dispense advice, but more to think about why a referee is doing what they are doing. I personally like to challenge perspective with an opinion.
So where does this leave us in the soup of information?
First friends, study the LOTG, Policies and Procedures, and Administrative materials for referees. For those of us involved in US Soccer, look here.
Regarding all the rest, be careful what you chose to use as advice. Punditry is one thing, read that all day long. For me it is an endless source of entertainment to read what other people feel about referees.
For what to implement in your matches however, be very careful to use official information. Much of what you can find online today is not of that quality, or is outdated.
This unofficial information has its place, but is no substitute for the real deal.
We need refereeing consistency demands Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson
Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson believes that there needs to be more consistency in refereeing decisions.
Ferguson was speaking after his side had beaten Bolton Wanderers 3-0 at Old Trafford on Saturday.
He was unhappy that referee Peter Walton, who awarded United a penalty in the 21st minute which was subsequently saved, did not send off Zat Knight for illegally denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. ...
See the whole story here, from Click-Manchester.com
Kicking Back Comments: So there are two sides to this. First is, a 3-0 loss win is frankly hard to pin on a referee. In a case like this I would think an initial comment would be one of introspection, not blame I think Sir Alex got it mostly right, and was my mistake for thinking otherwise initially as I had the score reversed. Due apologies to Sir Alex (I think my bias just showed through). Second, fairly often we hear a chorus of "experts" saying that what the MLS needs is Eurpoean referees to come in and be more consistent. Well guess what, Sir Alex may want to consider hiring some MLS guys for consistency.
Yes I recognize (now more than before) these two points are in conflict, which is what makes the whole thing funny to me in the first place.
Kicking Back of late has not included much in the way of substance on this topic. I mused a little in "It could never happen to me", where a Hungarian referee missed quite an obvious handball that should serve as a warning to all referees. We also had "We've got your bias right here ...", about an older 2004 comment from Sepp regarding women footballers.
Slightly more serious was "Still don't think there is a difference ...", where there is a clear view that men's and women's football is not the same, and even (in this case) the French National coach commented as such.
Of most significance was "USA Gets Gold in Women's World Cup", briefly detailing the tremendous efforts of the officiating trio who went to Germany, and in my estimation, conquered the tournament from a refereeing perspective.
That's it ...
I could make up some excuse like I've been really busy doing stuff, inspecting matches at the Regionals, or around Massachusetts. Maybe I get honest and say I was (am) more interested in the developing Tour de France (my poor Radio Shack team is getting creamed). I don't know.
Maybe it was the poor performance by the USA in the final. But I don't think so as my disinterest was throughout the month, not just after that match. Maybe I just did not find the tournament as a whole that exciting. Certainly aspects of it, such as USA v. Brasil or the final, but as a whole not so much. I don't believe it was because it was women's football, but I can't discount it either. Maybe there is a certain brutality that can occur in a men's match that piques my interest, and the subsequent management challenge that follows.
It has been opined by some that the players in the grand scheme are not that good as compared to what is touted on a regular basis. Take a look at "Face the facts: Soccer has found its niche in U.S.". Again, as with the other articles, please don't shoot the messenger. It is an interesting theory, and a very well written article.
Honestly I don't know, and it has left me scratching my head. I mean, I love THE game. I have for my lifetime. I am struggling to understand in this case my indifference toward the WWC, and the clear result being my lack of real substantive coverage here.
One thing I do know however, it that it has earned me the Media Pinhead Gold Medal.
As I did the other day with Media Pinhead Bronze Medal: Michael Smith of ESPN, the next (2) posts I am going to call out some folks in the media that I believe are pinheads. This distinction may be for a variety of reasons, or a single event. In all cases these are my personal opinions about their professional conduct or work product. I don't know these people personally, so I can not comment, nor will I comment on them personally.
This one for me was based not in a pinpoint stupid comment as with Michael Smith, but with a continued and consistent lack of regard for referees and their art, or alternatively, a continued lack of understanding and gap filling with opinion.
This particular article is in regard to L. E. Eisenmenger (Examiner) and Paul Gardner (Soccer America).
I will say that both of these folks are very accomplished and very good journalists ... a whole lot better than me frankly. LE's profile can be found here, and some info on Paul here.
My reason for the "award" is the regularity that these folks pin the woes of the (soccer) world onto the referee's back.
I have taken particular note of this from very early this season. Back in the beginning of April, Paul Gardner wrote a couple of pieces lambasting MLS referees only a week into the season. That piece, A walk in the Garden(er), made sweeping generalizations about referees such as:
It evidently takes a good deal of time for officials to alter their mindset. We saw the same thing after the 1997 alteration to the offside rule ... . It took nearly a decade for that new thinking to sink in.
and,
It almost looks as if referees, as a body, decide to ignore any changes, but that of course, is ridiculous -- not least because referees have never been known to act in concert. The reason for their intransigence is evidently that, quite simply, they do find it difficult to adjust their way of doing things.
... does it really make any sense to finger the referees as the villains? It does not -- and, in this particular game, I do not believe that it was justified. ...
I do find it ironic though as it showed a fundamental shift from his earlier position that referees are not stern enough, or they are intractable in their thinking ... so much so that it took a decade in some cases to change.
Which is it Paul? If a referee was allowed the inconsistency shown here, they would be hung out to dry by the whole press core.
Now, while Paul provides a somewhat balanced, yet hopelessly tainted view of refereeing, LE does little to hide her bias, or in an alternate construction, her naivete about higher level refereeing. I leave it to the individual reader to decide.
Now there was the eye grabbing headline, Slack MLS referees lead to Javier Morales' broken leg: Commentary and photos, where LE spewed how bad MLS refereeing was ("MLS officiating hurting the League") but other than a seriously injured player, failed to connect any dots as to why a referee was to blame.
There have been four season-ending injuries caused by bad tackles to four of Major League Soccer's top players just eight weeks into the season.
The conclusory nature of those comments does little to convince that the referees are the blame for the thuggish, or reckless behavior. This part was funny:
Despite that MLS clubs brought in more talented players this year, the quality has declined due to the inability of most MLS referees to manage games.
Again drawing a conclusion without any facts in evidence to support the conclusion. Further, professionally she is not trained as one who could make that connection, even if the facts were there.
I applaud the passion, and at times I believe she is really on to something, either because she is developing the understanding, genuinely knows, or via the "tipsy coachman" theory.
Sealing the silver for me was her article, Zakuani's broken leg vs. MLS referee directive to 'manage with personality', where LE feebly tries to paint a 1::1 correlation between a brutal tackle that occurs in the 3rd minute of a match, and one of several directives that a referee is given, specifically to manage with personallity. In this particular case I genuinely believe LE was intellectually dishonest, as this was just a hit piece.
That brutal incident is here:
Lets look at some facts in this case.
1. The tackle was was brutal and there is no place for it.
2. The Incident occurred very early, at 2:53 of the match.
3. Mullen was send off straight away for the misconduct.
4. Mullen received a 10 game suspension for the incident.
With that as a backdrop, what does managing with personality have to do with anything? The whole article is a red herring to again beat up on referees. This particular referee was exactly correct in their decision. A brutal foul, and a send off, period. What else is there? What else does she want? A referee to predetermine, or PREJUDICE their view on an incident or player before something happens?
Now, in reading that article you again may get the sense she knows of what she speaks because she quotes refereeing legend Angelo Bratsis, as well as yours truly on the topic. Guess what folks, as with many things, she places them out of context. No one in the refereeing ranks condones such reckless behavior, it is what we are trained to stop. Also, I have never known a referee to try to talk their way out of something like this. It was reckless, brutal, and unnecessary. Managing with personality is one arrow in the quiver of tools a referee needs to manage a match at the high level, not a one size fits all remedy to match control. As always the "prime directive" as it were, is to protect THE game and its participants.
By way of an analogy, remember game 3 of the Stanley Cup playoffs? It had this brutal hit:
Not completely dissimilar. Horton is a skilled player for the Bruins, Rome is a thug for the Canucks. Lets look at some facts:
1. The hit was was brutal and there is no place for it.
2. The Incident occurred early, at 14:53 of the match.
3. Rome was send off straight away for the misconduct.
4. Rome received a 4 game suspension for the incident.
Amazingly similar fact pattern. Except for one thing, the media reaction.
Well in these cases I believe the American media has (2) "baked in" biases.
First is the one against referees of all sports, not just soccer. We are a natural target, the folks wearing the "black hat" who rarely get it right, or even if they do, no one is happy. Silence is praise for a referee. It is easy to be against referees as at least 50% of the participants in any given time generally are. There is no risk in writing such a piece.
Second, lets face it folks, refereeing at the MLS or international level is hard. It is an amazing balancing of social, economic, athletic, religious, governmental, and personal elements to try and manage a group that inherently don't want to be managed. We asked for the job though, so its ours to rise or fall, succeed or fail. BUT, armchair media (or really anyone) just don't have the patience to understand what goes into the art, and at these levels how subtle the craft is that we spend a lifetime developing. Watching a match for 90 minutes and making a decision about how a referee did based on a result without understanding more is not doing anyone a service. Most don't spend the time to understand and have the gift to articulate it. What's that life lesson, "Seek first to understand, then be understood?"
I would the opine the media don't understand, and many don't even try to. Some are just open about their anti-referee bias.
Also, and frankly, blaming the referee in either case does not even pass the "sniff test." NHL writers saw the act by Rome as independent from any referees conduct, LE apparently does not make that break and implies the referee was the cause of Zakuini's injury through his conduct of match management, for nearly 3 minutes.
Like I said to start, both these authors are very good and very accomplished. I read them both regularly. They provide insight into THE game and have at times really provoked my thinking about some matters.
Over the next (3) days I am going to call out some folks in the media that I believe are pinheads. This distinction may be for a variety of reasons, or a single event. In all cases these are my personal opinions about their professional conduct or work product. I don't know these people personally, so I can not comment, nor will I comment on them personally.
Bronze Medal Pinhead Winner: Michael Smith of ESPN
So as readers have seen I have been talking a bit about the Tour de France and commenting about how these guys, like with soccer are real athletes ... tough athletes ... and deserve respect for that.
Well, almost on cue with the dramatic stage 9 crash of riders Fletcha and Hoogerland detailed in Not for wimps, we get treated to Michael Smith of ESPN laughing at the incident via twitter. A full accounting of his unprofessional and insulting conduct can be found here, courtesy of the Washington Post.
Now it was not his initial comment laughing at the incident, as I can almost stretch reality to say that an anxious laugh is not outside the possible, but to continue FOUR MORE TIMES (the tweets can be seen here) to insult decency with his vapid comments goes beyond the pale.
Icing on the cake was his feigned apology:
This really showed his professional level of respect for athletes, or those who follow athletes. I would surmise from his smarmy comments, he has none.
A simple apology, even if a lie, or even silence would have been better from the ESPN pundit.
So what are his credentials to make such a statement and dismiss such incredible tenacity that saw these riders return today to the TDF and continue to compete? You would figure he knows something that the rest of us don't as to what makes a pro athlete (any pro athlete) tick or some inside track about the difficulty of coming back from something like getting hit by a car, getting strung up in a barbed wire fence, receiving 30 stitches, and still getting back on a bike to ride 158km today.
Something? Anything?
Nothing. Except a BS from Loyola in 2001 for mass communication.
From his ESPN bio, he is a beat reporter and analyst. He has no athletic credentials to speak of that I could find. I would figure that such credentials would be touted by ESPN if he had any, even a scintilla of athleticism.
Nothing. Nada. Zip.
So why do we listen? Because he provides such cunning insight about things he watches? What makes him such an expert? He has never been there or done that with anything related to sports from what I can see.
It is easy to shower comments down to the masses in a lounge chair, when one has never been in the hot seat, any hot seat.
So as a professional, he is really nothing more than a guy with a microphone and no clue about what he is talking about as he has no life experience with professional sports (or even collegiate sports maybe) as an athlete.
Should that stop him? Heck no! Perspective is important and 3rd party observers contribute to the fabric of our culture greatly. Look at me (not for adding to the fabric, but), I talk about professional sports other than THE game, and while I worked in the professional leagues for many years, it was not in the NHL, NFL, MLB, NBA or international cycling, to name a few. It's just a perspective.
Now to me, Smith shows he does not respect sport, not just a sport, but sport in general through his comments. I can appreciate pundits who are not experts (i.e. never been there or done anything) who given opinions. I respect the thoughtful ones, and dismiss the bobble heads. Even the bobble heads often times at least feign interest in what they are commenting on and serve as an ambassador to their respective organization.
Smith through his actions in this matter, in my estimation, has neither respect for sport, nor is a good ambassador for ESPN. If he were he would have just said nothing, or offered a genuine apology it would never have been an issue as, I don't think it is in his DNA to offer a genuine comment about the sheer athleticism of what happened to Fletcha and Hoogerland, or for that matter about cycling.
So the irony left is that ESPN has a sports commentator that does not respect sport. Sounds pretty useless to me.
A petition to have Michael Smith suspended from ESPN is here. I already signed it as Smiths conduct is inappropriate to have an ambassador of a sports media outlet show such disrespect for sport in general.
Say what you will about FIFA, they are a marketing machine. Just take a look at the recent statistics regarding viewership for the 2010 World Cup Final.
1 Billion people. That's about 1/7th of the Earth's population.
You know, I personally get very tired of hearing about how much of a wimp soccer players, and cyclists are. Dancing around in their shorts, and Lycra, tra la la, la la. Rubbish. Well, there was a recent incident in MLS, and yesterday in Stage 9 of the Tour de France that should summarily dismiss the notion any of these athletes in their respective sports are wimps.
First up is the match between Columbus v. Seattle where Steve Zakuani received a brutal tackle. Keep this one in the front of mind folks, I will be calling a media pinhead out on it this week. BTW, that *pop* is his leg.
Second was a bizarre incident in the TDF where a French media car wrecked the 5 man breakaway and may have cost Teams' Sky and Vacansoleil as well as riders Fletcha and Hoogerland their lives and their Tour. In case your were wondering, both finished the stage, were awarded the most combative riders of the stage (1st time ever in TDF history), and Hoogerland was awarded the polka dot jersey for his effort in the mountains.
Also ... that was a barber wire fence Hoogerland was caught up in ... no wimps here folks. Check out here, for full coverage on the stage results, and carnage.
Often times I rail and whine here about the need for adults to act like adults and stop blaming a referee for their own circumstances. Tom Weir and the Chicago Bulls did exactly that ... they did not blame the referee.
In Weir's story (Did refs hose Bulls last night? Not really) he provides a thoughtful analysis of the free throw situation across the series thus far, clearly indicating that the result was "fairly predictable" that the Bulls did not get to the line that much in game 5. He actually used facts, real facts to show that:
Going into Game 4the FT tries were near even, with Miami holding a 68-67 edge. That wasn't to be expected, given that Miami was one of the NBA's best teams at getting to the line during the regular season. The Heat's 2,288 FT attempts ranked third, behind only Denver (2,429) and Oklahoma City (2,401). The Bulls ranked 11th.
Equally heartening was that the Bulls did not play "the ref card", as Weir calls it. There were several great quotes from the Bulls who, I think, had a very enlightened view of what happened.
The Bulls didn't play the ref card. Carlos Boozer told the Chicago Tribune that, "We've never been an excuse team. We're not going to start being an excuse team now. They got fouled, I guess we didn't."
Added Taj Gibson: "Whatever happens, you can't argue with the ref. They're going to make the call, so you have to keep playing. You can't hang your head and whine about the call. You have to keep playing."
It gave me great hope that there are some level heads out there that at least recognize, even if the referee is wrong, that you have to keep going. Believe me, referees reflect deeply on mistakes they made, and even ones they did not, to make things better. Having a player or coach bark at you in the press does not make things any better, or help the overall situation.
Media accreditation process for the Preliminary Draw launched
FIFA announces that the accreditation process for media representatives who intend to cover the Preliminary Draw for the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ opened via the FIFA Media Channel (http://media.fifa.com). The deadline for accreditation applications is Friday, 13 May 2011.
Thereafter, the applicant’s information will be subject to a review process by FIFA and the Local Organising Committee. Applicants will be notified by e-mail as of mid-May 2011 if their accreditation requests were successful. ...
See the whole story here, courtesy of the Ghana FA.
Kicking Back's comments: This one is just too tempting to pass up. KB just might have to "turn pro" to get the inside scoop on this one.
