It is that time of year....I have a question for everyone

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by Dad

I disagree and don't think taking this line of thinking has much success. If someone bitches to me about it I tell them to get better. If they think they are already great and can't get better then I found the problem!

Good ole boy networks make a lot of sense. Getting playoff games isn't as simple as, "I make good calls, blah blah blah!" Lots of officials are good at calling a game.

*The issue at hand here (viz. in this thread) is not a disgruntled ref saying "he can't get any better as a ref". That is a whole nother issue when we start talking about whether or not ref feels as though s/he has reached the epitome of their reffing skills. However, the critical question pertaining to this post / thread is: a disgruntled ref holding the opinion that: "I know that my reffing skills are at least equivalent to Ref B (who got a tourney assignment) because I have reffed with Ref B before or observed Ref B in games". And, all things being equal--save for Ref B being a good ole boy--, Ref B got the assignment, so why did I not get selected?

And, we all here know and understand that lots of refs are excellent at calling games, never turning back games, doing a fine job etc. Another factor could be gender. I had a ref tell me that his assignor said he had to select a female ref for certain tournament assignment just to check off the 'gender equality' box. And this particular ref was good and the other selected ref was a two year experienced person.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

It is natural human emotion and curiosity to question why you did not get selected to ref any district level or state play off games--especially ....

Natural curiosity and human emotion can be overcome. When one puts them to the side and focuses on making one's self better, good things eventually follow in this line of work.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

*The issue at hand here (viz. in this thread) is not a disgruntled ref saying "he can't get any better as a ref". That is a whole nother issue when we start talking about whether or not ref feels as though s/he has reached the epitome of their reffing skills. However, the critical question pertaining to this post / thread is: a disgruntled ref holding the opinion that: "I know that my reffing skills are at least equivalent to Ref B (who got a tourney assignment) because I have reffed with Ref B before or observed Ref B in games". And, all things being equal--save for Ref B being a good ole boy--, Ref B got the assignment, so why did I not get selected?

I just find these two very similar. Just because I think, and even if it's true, I'm better than another official getting playoff games doesn't mean I'm the best fit. Said another way, being able to call a game well just doesn't mean matter much with how many good calling officials there are.

Why don't assigners want to give you games?

Why do coaches/ADs prefer someone else over you? Is it because you have no idea how the system works and only want 5A+ games? Maybe you're not getting any 1A-4A votes -- here that matters.

Why do fellow officials not want to work with you? There's a strong correlation with officials wanting to work with you and voting for you come playoff time.

Are you disgruntled and annoying to people around you? Probably.

Are you charismatic? Are you fat? do you wear glasses? Are you short? Do you look athletic? Do people like you? Don't think these things matter? They do. Maybe you think you pass all these tests, but in reality you don't. Maybe your running looks really awkward. Maybe you're just awkward in general and don't know it.

I could say a million other questions that go into who gets games and who doesn't. Note, this is completely useless and the reason most said people have a hard time moving up.

Who cares? Work on your own game. It'll pay off. Not getting where you want to go? You're probably not working hard enough. Work hard or shh.

[biggravy]

I received probably the best post season assignment this year that one could ask for in my area. I think being good at the basics cannot be overemphasized. My five areas to work on this year were:

1. Slow down. See the whole play and give good preliminary signals. Tell the story.
2. Really try to see shooting action better. Protect my shooter but referee the defense. Let players block shots.
3. Control my facial expressions. I've noticed on tape when I'm concentrating I look mad sometimes.
4. Use my voice better. When appropriate talk to coaches and players. Verbalize my calls, shooter, throw in spot, etc. loud enough to be heard by those on the court.
5. Game awareness- knowing when we hit six fouls, making sure the clock starts, knowing when a timeout may be coming, etc.

Sure these are all really basic things, but I decided to work on the basics this year. I also lost 40 pounds from last year and am in the best shape of my life. I think that matters a lot. I'm also blessed to work with some great officials. I ask for honest feedback and try to get better every night. I emulate those who call state finals, college games, and anyone I can learn something from. I used to think there was a "good ol' boy network". Now I'm not so sure. Hard work does seem to pay off in my area.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by biggravy

... knowing when we hit six fouls ...

That was my big goal this past season. Don't count on the table to tell you when we're in the bonus (although most tables do a good job of doing this). Keep your eye on the scoreboard. No correctable errors. Non calling official identifies the shooter, and gets the players lined up, while the calling official is reporting to the table.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

However, the critical question pertaining to this post / thread is: a disgruntled ref holding the opinion that: "I know that my reffing skills are at least equivalent to Ref B (who got a tourney assignment) because I have reffed with Ref B before or observed Ref B in games". And, all things being equal--save for Ref B being a good ole boy--, Ref B got the assignment, so why did I not get selected?

That person, making the judgement of themselves vs. others, is often simply wrong.

There have been many studies done that consistently show many people over estimate their abilities relative to their peers. In fact, one such study I remember reading some years ago found that 80% thought they were better than average in their group. So, at least 30% of the people overrate themselves. That doesn't account for some small number that thinks they're below average despite actually being above the average. And that doesn't provide any information on those were actually above average but put themselves higher within that half of the group than they should be.

I would venture to guess that the numbers might be even higher for referees.

Sometimes the cold hard truth is that the other person is just better.

So, what can a person do? Realize that there are things that can be improved....keep working and getting better. If a person does that, eventually, the games will come. If they don't come, then the person isn't fixing the right things, or they buried themselves so deep in a hole that they can't escape their reputation.

[BillyMac]

... where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There have been many studies done that consistently show many people over estimate their abilities relative to their peers. In fact, one such study I remember reading some years ago found that 80% thought they were better than average in their group.