|
In our association, the other officials on the crew evaluate each other after each game. These ratings are then compiled into a database, and the top officials at the end of the season at each position are our playoff officials.
The previous association which I worked in ranked officials based upon varsity experience. After 5 years of varsity experience you went to the bottom of the playoff list for your position. Each time somebody was tapped for a playoff spot at that position, they moved to the bottom of the list. On average, it took about 3 or 4 years to work up to a playoff. And you couldn't do a 2nd round until you did a 1st round, a semi until you did a quarter, and a final until you did a semi. Thus to be eligible for a state final, it could take many years. I did my first quarter 2 years ago after 9 years.
Now, the former is susceptible to politics. But at least not from the assignor. Fellow officials can agree to rank each other highly after every game, thus securing high enough ratings to qualify for a playoff spot. However, since we rotate each week with a different crew, this is less likely. However, the assignor does pair members, and if the assignor is part of the good old boy club, it could be a problem.
The latter is less susceptible to politics. But it makes it possible for unqualified, or less qualified, officials to make it to a quarter, semi, or even final. If the goal is to provide quality officials for state assignments, this is a problem. However, it takes politics out of the equation.
Being part of two systems, I can see the flaws in both. I'd like to hear more about other systems. No system is perfect, but perhaps some are better than others.
|