A problem that I have with the system is allowing coaches and state association/assignors rating people that they may never have seen you work vote. The vote is potentially based upon word-of-mouth, hearsay rather than actual game observations. As for coaches, I am one who believes that most, not all, coaches have no idea what goes into officiating a ball game (training, rules interpretation meetings, camps, etc.). They base their ratings more on win-loss than on positioning, hustle, knowledge of rules, game management techniques and abilities, mechanics, etc. Also, how can a coach from a school you've never officiated possibly rate you as an official. When coaches are allowed to be part of the selection process for game assignments you run the risk of problems. I work in a state where games are assigned by our board's assignor during the regular season. The coaches have no say in who can officiate their games. They can attempt to red-line an official but the red-line must be upheld by our board's executive committee to be put into effect. This makes a coach give very specific reasons/examples as to why they do not want an official to work their games. In the post season, however, our state association allows coaches to vote on officials for the state tournament and let me tell you that our board's vote/rankings and the coaches vote/rankings as to who the top officials are varies tremendously. Because of this, we are currently attempting to eliminate the coaches vote from consideration in state tournament assignments. This has not happened to me but I have witnessed situations where an official ranks in the top three on our list finishes in the twenties on coaches lists and vice-versa. That's why, in my opinion, only your peers who have knowledge of your work should have any say in ranking you as an official.
|