[tomegun]

The old rules interpreter for a board in Maryland used to give coaches a test before the season. He would always only have one or two that passed. If a coach can't pass a test similar to the one we take, how can they give an impartial evaluation?
In Mississippi the coaches do evaluate the officials. Those that know me I'm always in danger of getting a bad eval because I'm there to do the best job I can and I don't care what the coach says. On Saturday I had the opportunity to ask a coach when he actually did the evaluation. He told me that he never does it right after the game. He said he likes to wait, watch the film and then do it. If only all the coaches did it this way.

One thing that alarms me about this conversation is the same problem I see in officiating. Back in the day a term was often used - be seen and not heard. Currently, reading the rules makes an official think he/she knows enough to participate in conversations - conversations that discuss doing things on the court that they simply cannot do.
I said all of that to say this. There are experienced officials on this board that are giving their opinion and constantly meeting opposition. Think about this for a second. Someone who has experienced something is giving an opinion and someone who hasn't had the experience is disputing that. Doesn't make sense to me. The bottom line is coaches do not like officials. They are not your friends. Some might think those two statements are extreme and they may be. But those two statements are a lot closer to the truth than thinking a coach is going to give an unbiased opinion.

Gunman out!