Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I do not mind getting ratings from coaches, but not an evaluation. They know nothing or not enough about officiating as much as I or most of us would know little to nothing about actual coaching. We know coaches do not like officials for some silly reason or for following the rules, so why would I want to know what a coach thinks of me that I have little or no respect for?
And your suggestion would still be political. It would make people realize who does not like them either way and likely be seen as held against one or the other. Then if we had a coach that was on the record not valuing our ability, then anything we did with them moving forward would be held against us even if we did not really care or pay attention. There is a reason politicians have closed-door meetings about policy. The public knowing how the sausage is made only would cause a problem in many cases for the person making the comments or the result to be accepted.
Ratings are fine but do not tell me that a coach knows when I should rotate or who actually should have made a call or not. They often think we are all looking at the same play when we clearly are not.
Peace
|
I think good officials are appreciated by terrible coaches in most cases.
I didn't say it would eliminate politics. I feel it would eliminate some of the politics but not all of it. The open meeting would hopefully detour a coach or AD from being unfair.
I never said it should be a mandatory thing or part of a selection process but I would appreciate certain feedback from coaches if done in a proper way. For example, did I show a high level of decisiveness? Did I communicate with participants effectively? Did I maintain professional control during the contest? Was I aggressive or overbearing?
Evaluations regarding my application and understanding of the rules should maybe be left up to our peers.
It was just a thought. But anyway.