Quote:
Originally Posted by CJP
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.
|
And they would avoid the situation by not saying their feelings on the record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJP
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?
|
The point I was making that even in your suggestion you still would have a major flaw. All systems have flaws that someone, somewhere is not going to like or respect and that even your concern would have a way around what you were looking for. Which goes back to my original point, no matter what they come up with, someone is going to not be happy. We have to control what we can control and not worry about much else. Often in my experience, people do not accept the obvious. Because even if a coach shared exactly what they thought of you in their rating, people would claim they were not being fair. I know when clinicians tell officials why they are not advancing or why they need to do better, guys/gals get defensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJP
Evaluations regarding my application and understanding of the rules should maybe be left up to our peers.
|
There is more to what we do than rules and application of rules. We used to have the same kind of feedback from coaches and they took it away because it was clearly was not helpful to anyone. All it did was piss off officials because some coach would complain about some mechanics and the coaches clearly have no idea what our mechanics entail.
Peace