State talking points
 

At my association's first meeting every season, the director gives us a detailed rundown of offseason chatter within the SCBOA and SCHSL.

-Reducing our certification exam (which we all have to drive to Columbia to take) from 100 to 50 questions.

-President of the Coaches' Association thinks that coaches' ratings should factor into the officials' rating formula, which it currently doesn't.

-Suspending officials for unprofessional conduct. Apparently we had an unusually high number of fan-official incidents last season.

-On the flip side, schools that do not deal with problematic fans may be subject to a $5000 fine.

-Suspending officials for not filling out ejection reports. I'm pretty sure we already have a clause like this in our bylaws. But, supposedly it will be enforced this year.

-The SCHSL is imploring officials to penalize unsporting behavior without regard to what the repercussions for the ejecting official and coach will be. Targeting the officials who won't take care of business because they don't want the coach to get fined or suspended.


Now, some of these topics are important issues and I'm glad they're being discussed. However, it's rather comical how much time we spend in SC talking about everything other than how to improve the statewide quality of officiating on the floor.

Welcome to another season.

Well, is it possible that these are issues that need to be addressed? I get wanting things to be addressed on the court, but would that not come from a different focus? For example, don't you have some kind of camps, clinics, trainings that can be used for on-court improvement?

You think a memo is going to go over well if they say, "The Lead in a rebound needs to move away from the lane to get a wider angle of rebound" if that is said in such a memo?

Peace

These two seem to be at odds with each other.

I think the points are coming from two different sources.

I'm sure they are. I just hope that the state association that was trying to crack down on unsporting behavior would be smart enough to not let coaches have a say in the evaluations.

AMEN!!!

My sons deal with coaches at the professional level and it is incredible that these professional morons ask the same dumb questions and make the same idiotic comments as they do at HS and college level. They do, however, dress nicer:)

Remember, SCHSL assigns all varsity games in the state and rates all 700 or so officials on a scale to 100.
I would keep the 100 question test. I think the answers should be set in concrete before administering the test though.
If SC is going to use the coaches input (ratings?), SC should throw out the lowest ratings or figure out someway to weight them to be fair. Also all games, should be filmed and put on-line so an official could challenge his rating to a committee if he/she feels their rating was unfair.
Coaches get to black list officials, officials get to black list official and official get to black list schools.

I didn't say they didn't need to be addressed. I said the SCBOA/SCHSL have never, ever paid as much attention to the quality we put on the floor versus all of this other stuff. Even at the "state-sanctioned camps," which only a small percentage of officials went to this past summer, were more about the clinicians pushing their own agendas and making money. Of course, you could say that's the typical camp business, but our governing bodies have never indicated a strong desire to actually make officiating better statewide like surrounding states have. Our system is a joke, but it's not going to keep me away from officiating...yet.
The exam always has multiple vague, poorly-worded questions that end up getting thrown out. So from that perspective, a 50-question test makes sense in terms of curtailing some of that. Problem is, with 70% being a passing grade, now officials can only miss 16 questions instead of 31. And the hard questions that trip officials up are not the ones that are going to be eliminated.

Adding a coaches' factor into our rating system would require a vote of the association, and I don't see it passing. With the state wanting us to penalize inappropriate behavior, it would make zero sense to implement a coaches' rating component, which IMO would cause LESS technical fouls to be called.

The president of the Coaches Association also said the peer ratings component of our rating system makes no sense. And on that point I could not agree more.

The only people that are going to make officiating better, are officials themselves, not some organization or entity on their own. Ultimately you have to look within and do what it takes and those veterans have to do their part to share their knowledge. And none of this is going to be resolved IMO by some memo or specific camp. I have never relied on my state to make me better. Because every thing you stated does not make you better ultimately. I do not see the NCAA for example doing special things to require their officials to do anything, but if you want to get hired you have to go to camps and be a student of the game as well as make contacts.

I understand your frustration, but not sure how that all lies onto the state if the officials do not put in the work and look in the mirror.

Peace

Rut:

The system in SC is a mess. I've experienced it as a young official myself. In no way did SC Official imply that he is not responsible for his own improvement as an official, and I'm not sure where you got that from.

Some coaches will downgrade you if you issue a T. But, some will recognize that they deserved it and not penalize you (and may even upgrade you). And, the coach at the other end of the floor might appreciate that you took care of business and upgrade you. How it really affects your ratings is unclear, to me.

and, of course, the state could make it such that a coach who gets a T is unable to rate the officials in that game. (I suppose if the coach has the same officials later in the year, the coach could carry a grudge forward.)

You've gone off on a tangent that was not related to the intent of this thread. I was simply discussing some of what is going on in my state and how I disagree with some of our priorities and politicking.

I would be willing to add a coach rating component if we were to eliminate the peer ratings.

Never said it was not messed up or said I did not agree that it could not be messed up, but at the end of the day getting better falls on the individuals. Even here were we try to put people in positions to succeed, they choose to either not use the resources in front of them (or complain mostly that things are not easier, even though our system is more transparent and allows for more advancement). My point is that you can have whatever system in place and still no one is going to get me to go to more camps or attend more meetings or simply talk to veterans about what they do that helped them succeed.

Actually I am not on any tangent, I asked a question and you are getting defensive about it, which is fine. I just wondering what you think the state is going to do other than what they put out (and you posted) that will really make officiating better if officials decide not to take on getting better themselves? Because even if they put out mechanics emphasis, that is not going to make people use them if people do not apply what is stated. I say this from experience as we often tell people what they are supposed to do and many ignore the suggestions. Just like the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but that is not going to make them drink."

Peace