I've been a high school basketball game announcer now for over 14 years. I'm not what you would consider -- and what most people who only "hear" me, and don't really know me, assume -- much of a basketball fan. It was just never my sport. I can't jump, and I can't dribble (at least not with my left hand) and I really don't shoot all that well either. And besides, I don't like to run much. So there's that.
I was always more of a baseball guy, and I'm a big football fan. But basketball? Not so much.
I don't get all giddy at March Madness time. In fact, I'm a little surprised I know what March Madness is. I don't watch the NBA draft, and couldn't begin to tell you who plays for what team, unless it's Lebron, Kobe or... well, I can't think of anyone else. I do know Bobby Knight used to coach at IU, and I know that someone who plays for Kentucky this year played with my son on his junior high team, one of only two seasons my son ever played in his life, so that's pretty cool.
My lack of interest in basketball is such that I rarely know the opponent our team is playing until I actually arrive at the game. You see, as the stadium announcer, I'm not a play-by-play guy, like the guy you hear on the radio listening to the game. My job is to make announcements, hype up the starting line-up, call out who made the shot, and who committed the foul, and do it all in a way that keeps the home crowd all hyped up. I'm good at that, and as long as I have a roster in front of me of the visiting team, who that visiting team actually is is actually pretty irrelevant.
I don't attend away games, because, again, I don't like basketball. It's not personal, you understand. I love the kids! I really do. I have a good relationship with the athletic administration, and the coaches, most of the players and I root for my hometown. I just don't like basketball.
Which is why I rarely know what our record is. Because I have no idea whether our team won in whatever away game they played last night. Every time I'm asked, "Who we playing tonight?" my response is, "I have no idea." And more than once have I been asked by someone, "What do you think of the team this year?" And I have to make up something about, well, we have some shooters, and they work hard, or they're going to struggle because they have no inside game this year.
Whatever all that means.
Which is why, prior to announcing my first high school basketball game, at nearly 31 years old, I had personally seen -- including my own high school days -- perhaps not more than five full high school games. Which is also why, when the high school athletic director asked me, "You announce basketball games?" my response was, "No, but I'll do it if you need me to."
That was prior to the 2001 boys basketball season, and I've been doing it ever since. A year or two after that, I began announcing the girls basketball games as well, and so, I suspect, that since that time, given an average of about 15 games a season or so, I've now seen a little over 200 high school basketball games.
Now I realize that may pale in comparison to those who actually like basketball, especially if they've played the game themselves and/or have children and/or grandchildren who play. Those of you who fall into that category have probably seen thousands of games or even more. But I think 200 games is enough to have learned a little about the game, so, I will get to the crux of this blog.
I would like to share what I've learned about basketball -- specifically high school basketball -- in my days as a high school announcer. As a preface, let me say this: As any of you who have seen a high school game know, the announcer's table, along with the scoring table and the players benches, are actually on the visiting team side of the gym. (At least they are at our home gym. Since I don't go to away games, I'm not sure if it's this way at every gym or not.) Now, why this is the case, I do not know. I can only assume that the IHSAA, in their infinite wisdom, has some logical reason for this, but I cannot say for sure. So you need to know that most of what I've learned, I've learned from the visiting team.
With that said, here are the things I've learned in my days as a high school basketball announcer:
1) Referees have no idea what they're doing. None of them, not one. I know this because the fans have informed us thusly at virtually every game I've called. Mostly, they're blind. They're never serious. (I know this too because after every call, someone asks them if they are serious, and even though they never answer back, I can only assume they are not serious.) They kid a lot too, although this too is unconfirmed. Many have never officiated a basketball game in their lives, and therefore they have failed to get in the game, whatever that means. What's worse is that at every game I've ever called, I've had the misfortune of seeing the worst official someone in the stands has ever seen, which is saying a lot, seeing as though that person has probably seen over 1000 games, and me a mere 200. It's probably just dumb luck on my part, but I pretend it is a badge of honor so as to not get so depressed. And even with so little officiating experience, they somehow have earned the honor of being hired by the home team so often, they've developed an unhealthy loyalty to the home team, and every visiting team loss is somehow tied to that loyalty.
2) Every coach (and every fan, for that matter) is convinced that their own player NEVER fouls anyone else, yet at the same time is convinced that same player gets fouled on EVERY play they make, even if it's a technical foul shot.
3) It is customary at every game, for a fan, usually on the visiting side, to take it upon himself or herself to personally monitor the 3-second lane violations of the other team. (I'm not sure if its a self-designation, or it's relegated in some sort of pre-game committee meeting.) Now, I'm not totally sure what a 3-second lane violation is, but having been so designated, the appointed fan will notify the officials of the infraction EVERY play until it is called, and again after it hasn't been called for several minutes. By the way, the refs are so dumb, they rarely call it, even with said fan making them aware of the infraction on each play.
4) Fans (particularly parents) believe the players are listening to them in the stands. So calls of "Hustle!" and "Move!" and "Shoot the ball!" rain down from the stands with regularity. As every player is usually instructed to pay attention solely to his coach while in the game, and while it is virtually impossible to hear much of anything when hundreds of fans are all yelling at the same time, this does not deter the fan. I suppose the players do not tell these fans to shut up so as to help boost the self-esteem of the parent and preserve peace in the home.
5) The traveling violation (which is actually a false-start in football) was created, I'm to understand, to keep the player from grabbing the ball and running with it like a tailback. But the violation is called even if a player breathes wrong while holding the ball. If a player falls, and therefore has no control over their own movement, nor any ability to dribble a ball, they are still called for traveling, the sense of which I haven't been able to make out yet. Moreover, even though I'm sure that every coach teaches their player how to dribble a basketball, they all assume the other coach has not done so, because every time an opposing player has the ball and moves with it, they scream out "traveling!" Maybe it's in their contract to do so.
6) A "jump ball" is supposed to be called when a player from each team simultaneously has possession of the basketball. Some years ago, I'm to understand, officials were instructed to award the jump ball more liberally so as to cut down on the scrums that can turn a little violent when both teams are scrambling for a loose ball. It has done the opposite. Now, all you have to do is punch the opposing player in the neck when he has the ball, and you can be awarded a jump ball, upon which, no one jumps. I can only assume this is because the crowd likes a good fight. So it is a ruse. Under the guise of cutting down on scrums, they actually wanted to create more scrums, which they have. It's like hockey. That game's boring to the point of passing out, so everyone hopes for a good fight.
7) Coaches yell out things like "Four Corners!" or "Five-Out!" and "Kentucky!" or "Pioneer!" when their team has the ball on offense. I've learned this is a smoke screen, and only done to confuse the opposing team. Turns out, these phrases really have no meaning. Mostly, they all mean "Keep running around until someone get's open and takes a shot!" But apparently the other team, upon hearing such things, believes the team on offense is going to do something other than run around to get open and take a shot, so they stop playing defense properly, which they're coach hasn't taught them how to do anyway.
8) Unless you are too big or dumb to do so, it is federal law to know how to dribble a ball behind your back and between your legs. Not necessarily at the same time though, but sometimes.
9) A coach is not allowed to call a time out when things are going well for his team. Only when things are going badly. And if he does this, then he is allowed to yell at his own team. Also, coaches are not allowed to yell at the visiting players, even if they are punks. Only the fans are allowed to do this.
10) Even though it is the most physical game I've ever seen -- including football, and closely resembling wrestling matches -- it is apparently the job of the referees to get the hands of one player off the opposing player. Apparently, the coaches have no obligation whatsoever to teach their players to keep their hands off players of the opposing team, so the untrained players do it the whole game. The refs, however, suck at maintaining this order. See #1.
11) Refereeing in general is totally arbitrary. It's true. There's no rhyme or reason to it whatsoever. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if there really isn't an actual rule book, or perhaps there is literally only ONE rule book, and none but a precious few have actually seen it, let alone read it. There are times when two players can way-lay each other to the point of drawing blood, and no foul will be called. Other times, a foul can be called when one player winks at another. I've tried, but I've found no pattern as of yet to how these determinations are made, which makes me think it's random. Which is fun, if you really think about it. Keeps things interesting.
12) Every fan, regardless of basketball knowledge or experience, knows more about how to coach the team than the actual coach does. I find this fascinating, because it seems to me that in today's culture of strapped school budgets, a lot of money could be saved by ditching coaches altogether and just throwing the players out on the court and let the fans tell them what to do.
13) In fact, you could do that with the refs too. Again, see #1.
What you can't do, however, under any circumstances, is get rid of the announcer.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Friday, January 2, 2015
Another Tragic Suicide
This is the kind of post that usually gets me in trouble.
It's the kind of post that some people read, and then instantly label me as "uncaring," "unloving" or "cold-hearted." It's the kind of post that readers subsequently tell me I have no right to "judge" or that I should be more like Jesus.
Truth be told, I get those responses from Christians and non-believers alike.
It's usually because they don't pay attention. (Which is true of about 90% of the Twitter universe, but I digress.)
I read this story a couple days ago. It's the tragic story of a suicide. A teenage boy took his own life. Stepped in front of a moving semi-truck in the middle of an interstate. You can read the story for yourself here. Please do, because the details of it are important to what I'm about the write.
You'll notice a couple things first. One, as is usually the case in stories like this, the reporters didn't bother to get both sides of the story. Nobody has talked to the parents. As yet, I can't find one report that includes any comment from them. They managed to pull a quote from Cincinnati's "first openly gay city councilman," but they didn't talk to the parents. Didn't even make the attempt, from what I can tell. That's important to note.
Two, you'll notice that the story (and every other one I've read covering it) refers to the young boy as "her." It's shoddy reporting at its worst. It's almost Rule #1 in reporting: Correctly report the gender of the subject. This teen was most definitely a male in every way. You'll further notice that I will refer to him as "him."
Three, its not a unique story. Oh, the reporter wants you to believe it is, because it has a sensational sub-plot. But it's not. At its core, it is the tragic story of yet another teen who killed himself because he was confused about life and couldn't see any alternative. And even worse, lives in a society wherein the media glamorizes suicide as "peaceful" and "freeing."
Four, the article (and, again, each piece I've read about it) paints the parents in a very negative light. On purpose, I suspect, but easy to do when you don't bother to get the other side of the story.
So, with those aspects out there, let me say this: This is a tragic, sad story. Heartbreaking that a teen took his own life in his prime, needlessly and senselessly, while those around him were either unable to, or incapable of, helping him. My heart goes out to his family in this loss.
And this is the point where you, as the reader, have a responsibility to PAY ATTENTION! Because I do not in any way want to belittle this death, blame the victim, or dance on a grave.
Rather, what I want to do here is focus ON THE REPORT. The Story. Or even better, how the story is portrayed.
When you read this young man's post, you will come away with the idea that his parents were hateful, heartless monsters. You will believe that they were righteous, indignant, religious zealots who were stone hearted enough to not let their little boy just "be who he wanted to be."
At least, that's how the boy portrayed them. And that's how the reporters who've covered the story have allowed it to play out, because they haven't bothered to get the other side of the story. In the end, they all might be right. These parents might be the cold-hearted bigots they're made out to be.
But we'll never really know, will we?
You see, today's society tells us that we're all allowed to be whoever or whatever we so choose. And if we don't accept that blindly then we are racists, or bigots, or "phobes" of one sort or another, or heartless, or whatever you want to call us.
But think -- for just a moment -- about what these parents were being asked to do. They were being asked -- no, rather, "told" -- to reject a lifetime of doctrine, teaching, standards, morals and convictions. They are being told to reject a theology that is thousands of years old and is the foundation this country was built on...
...all because their little boy decided one day he wanted to be a chick instead of a dude.
(That's the part that usually gets me in trouble.)
Please -- stay focused -- I don't want to get into the debate about whether he "chose" to be transgender, or whether he just "discovered" it. That's a different debate.
The reality is, he was a male. In every way, shape and form. I don't even pretend to know the ins and outs of transgenderism, but I know that even if it were possible to change gender (which I do not believe it is) this young man hadn't even started the process. He wanted to, that much is sure. But hadn't. And even if he had, he was born a MALE. Believe in God if you want to or not, even scientifically speaking, he was male.
And yet, his parents, raised as Christians, living their faith, trying to raise their family the best they know how, and -- despite the physical and scientific evidence -- are just supposed to dismiss all that in an instant because their boy thought he was a little girl?
The teen himself admits the parents tried to get him help. HE didn't think it was helpful, and YOU might not think it was helpful, but it was what the PARENTS knew and believed to be right. They are Christians, so they sought Christian help. Why is that so bad? Because they lost this fight? So that makes them wrong?
Non-Christians do not regularly seek out Christian advice, or counsel, or therapy in times of need. Why is it so disturbing that Christians would not then seek out non-Christian advice? Monsters, you say? I bet when push comes to shove, you seek out whoever you are most comfortable with.
What if they were right along? What if it is true that God doesn't make mistakes? What if the Bible is true when it says the devil tries to deceive people? What if the devil deceived this little boy into taking his own life? Does it make you feel any better to know Satan won instead of God?
See, that's the part those who want to support the boy don't want to face. That's the side of the story those with an agenda don't want to tell. We want to side with the teen who clearly was confused about life. Because that is the position that is cool and chic in today's world. But in the end, we don't want to face the fact that maybe -- just maybe -- the parents were right.
When our soldiers go off to war, sometimes they get killed. But the death doesn't make the cause any less worth fighting. It's tragic and sad, but the cause is still just. I'm sure these parents are as heartbroken about this as any parents would be. And I'm sure they're questioning everything they've ever said or did regarding their son. And I bet they're beating themselves up to the bitter end trying to think of what the could have done different. I bet if they ever get the chance, they might do some things differently. But if they are true Christians, I bet they stand firm in their faith. Because they know that sometimes, when we do battle with Satan, we lose. And people get killed.
You might say that this teen didn't ask to go off to war. But then again, maybe he did. Maybe his "choice" was to go toe to toe with the devil in attempt to challenge God's perfect plan. Maybe he listened to the devil's ticklish plans and chose to dance. And maybe he lost. Maybe we all lost in this case.
Just Maybe.
It's the kind of post that some people read, and then instantly label me as "uncaring," "unloving" or "cold-hearted." It's the kind of post that readers subsequently tell me I have no right to "judge" or that I should be more like Jesus.
Truth be told, I get those responses from Christians and non-believers alike.
It's usually because they don't pay attention. (Which is true of about 90% of the Twitter universe, but I digress.)
I read this story a couple days ago. It's the tragic story of a suicide. A teenage boy took his own life. Stepped in front of a moving semi-truck in the middle of an interstate. You can read the story for yourself here. Please do, because the details of it are important to what I'm about the write.
You'll notice a couple things first. One, as is usually the case in stories like this, the reporters didn't bother to get both sides of the story. Nobody has talked to the parents. As yet, I can't find one report that includes any comment from them. They managed to pull a quote from Cincinnati's "first openly gay city councilman," but they didn't talk to the parents. Didn't even make the attempt, from what I can tell. That's important to note.
Two, you'll notice that the story (and every other one I've read covering it) refers to the young boy as "her." It's shoddy reporting at its worst. It's almost Rule #1 in reporting: Correctly report the gender of the subject. This teen was most definitely a male in every way. You'll further notice that I will refer to him as "him."
Three, its not a unique story. Oh, the reporter wants you to believe it is, because it has a sensational sub-plot. But it's not. At its core, it is the tragic story of yet another teen who killed himself because he was confused about life and couldn't see any alternative. And even worse, lives in a society wherein the media glamorizes suicide as "peaceful" and "freeing."
Four, the article (and, again, each piece I've read about it) paints the parents in a very negative light. On purpose, I suspect, but easy to do when you don't bother to get the other side of the story.
So, with those aspects out there, let me say this: This is a tragic, sad story. Heartbreaking that a teen took his own life in his prime, needlessly and senselessly, while those around him were either unable to, or incapable of, helping him. My heart goes out to his family in this loss.
And this is the point where you, as the reader, have a responsibility to PAY ATTENTION! Because I do not in any way want to belittle this death, blame the victim, or dance on a grave.
Rather, what I want to do here is focus ON THE REPORT. The Story. Or even better, how the story is portrayed.
When you read this young man's post, you will come away with the idea that his parents were hateful, heartless monsters. You will believe that they were righteous, indignant, religious zealots who were stone hearted enough to not let their little boy just "be who he wanted to be."
At least, that's how the boy portrayed them. And that's how the reporters who've covered the story have allowed it to play out, because they haven't bothered to get the other side of the story. In the end, they all might be right. These parents might be the cold-hearted bigots they're made out to be.
But we'll never really know, will we?
You see, today's society tells us that we're all allowed to be whoever or whatever we so choose. And if we don't accept that blindly then we are racists, or bigots, or "phobes" of one sort or another, or heartless, or whatever you want to call us.
But think -- for just a moment -- about what these parents were being asked to do. They were being asked -- no, rather, "told" -- to reject a lifetime of doctrine, teaching, standards, morals and convictions. They are being told to reject a theology that is thousands of years old and is the foundation this country was built on...
...all because their little boy decided one day he wanted to be a chick instead of a dude.
(That's the part that usually gets me in trouble.)
Please -- stay focused -- I don't want to get into the debate about whether he "chose" to be transgender, or whether he just "discovered" it. That's a different debate.
The reality is, he was a male. In every way, shape and form. I don't even pretend to know the ins and outs of transgenderism, but I know that even if it were possible to change gender (which I do not believe it is) this young man hadn't even started the process. He wanted to, that much is sure. But hadn't. And even if he had, he was born a MALE. Believe in God if you want to or not, even scientifically speaking, he was male.
And yet, his parents, raised as Christians, living their faith, trying to raise their family the best they know how, and -- despite the physical and scientific evidence -- are just supposed to dismiss all that in an instant because their boy thought he was a little girl?
The teen himself admits the parents tried to get him help. HE didn't think it was helpful, and YOU might not think it was helpful, but it was what the PARENTS knew and believed to be right. They are Christians, so they sought Christian help. Why is that so bad? Because they lost this fight? So that makes them wrong?
Non-Christians do not regularly seek out Christian advice, or counsel, or therapy in times of need. Why is it so disturbing that Christians would not then seek out non-Christian advice? Monsters, you say? I bet when push comes to shove, you seek out whoever you are most comfortable with.
What if they were right along? What if it is true that God doesn't make mistakes? What if the Bible is true when it says the devil tries to deceive people? What if the devil deceived this little boy into taking his own life? Does it make you feel any better to know Satan won instead of God?
See, that's the part those who want to support the boy don't want to face. That's the side of the story those with an agenda don't want to tell. We want to side with the teen who clearly was confused about life. Because that is the position that is cool and chic in today's world. But in the end, we don't want to face the fact that maybe -- just maybe -- the parents were right.
When our soldiers go off to war, sometimes they get killed. But the death doesn't make the cause any less worth fighting. It's tragic and sad, but the cause is still just. I'm sure these parents are as heartbroken about this as any parents would be. And I'm sure they're questioning everything they've ever said or did regarding their son. And I bet they're beating themselves up to the bitter end trying to think of what the could have done different. I bet if they ever get the chance, they might do some things differently. But if they are true Christians, I bet they stand firm in their faith. Because they know that sometimes, when we do battle with Satan, we lose. And people get killed.
You might say that this teen didn't ask to go off to war. But then again, maybe he did. Maybe his "choice" was to go toe to toe with the devil in attempt to challenge God's perfect plan. Maybe he listened to the devil's ticklish plans and chose to dance. And maybe he lost. Maybe we all lost in this case.
Just Maybe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)