Ratings through Arbiter

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A rating system and an evaluation system in my mind are not the same things.

Rating often implies a number being associated with one's performance (example, 1-10), which, in some cases, can be limiting. Evaluation, while it may be associated with a number, may involve other forms of measuring one's performance (written commentary, oral commentary, checklists, etc.).

Also, the question pops up, is the "system" used for:
1) Ranking (another number) for assignment purposes (the level and number of games).
2) Education (improvement of officials).

[JRutledge]

My understanding is that assignors have to rank officials in the Arbiter in order to give them games. I was told these rankings involve what games they can give as an official.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My understanding is that assignors have to rank officials in the Arbiter in order to give them games. I was told these rankings involve what games they can give as an official.

Peace

It's an option, but not mandatory. It is mandatory if you want Arbiter to do auto assigning. You can rate all the officials and rate all your games and then tell Arbiter to fill all the slots.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's an option, but not mandatory. It is mandatory if you want Arbiter to do auto assigning. You can rate all the officials and rate all your games and then tell Arbiter to fill all the slots.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

You are right, it was for some level of auto-assigning. I do not get to use that feature, but that is the only way I know it was used in Arbiter. And our rating system only involves schools and they do that through the state's website (not Arbiter). That might change at some point, but not right now.

Peace

[SC Official]

We have a convoluted, antiquated rating system in South Carolina. 25% of our rating is peer evaluations, which we do through Arbiter. There is an "evaluations" tab and an option to "evaluate officials" underneath it. There are six categories we rate our peers in, on a scale of 1-10. The average is then multiplied by 2.5.

[ilyazhito]

I remember that you said in a different thread that peer evaluation is useless because most people give their peers 9s and 10s. If the system is convoluted and antiquated, what alternative would you prefer that the SCBOA and SCHSL use?

BTW, I do receive evaluations through Arbiter for baseball. There is a standard form that asks the designated crew chief for the game (the person whose name is in bold in Arbiter) to evaluate his partners on mechanics, signals, judgement, procedures, and professionalism, and provide an overall score. The crew chief also is expected to add comments to any rating that he posts. We later get to see how our partners rated us, including an average of our scores in all of the categories, and an average overall score, with their comments.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I remember that you said in a different thread that peer evaluation is useless because most people give their peers 9s and 10s. If the system is convoluted and antiquated, what alternative would you prefer that the SCBOA and SCHSL use?

Not to derail the thread, but since you asked.

The overarching problem in South Carolina is that the state office controls all the varsity assignments for football and basketball. The reason is simply because it has always been this way, and SC is a relatively small state (~200 high schools), so one central contact point isn't too burdensome (i.e. people don't see the reason to change). We have to have a way to rank the officials so the booking office has something to go by. Obviously this system is stupid and I don't need to give reasons. The ideal solution would be for district directors to control all assignments within their districts, not just subvarsity games/holiday tournaments, like is done in surrounding states. Then directors could structure their own evaluation system to recommend their postseason officials. This is extremely unlikely to happen while I am still officiating.

With respect to the peer ratings, yes, very few people take them seriously. This inevitably leads to the statewide exam being the sole differentiator among officials. Currently, the rating system is structured such that on-court ability has nothing to do with one's assignments (which obviously is insane). We have to attend a camp every three years for 5% of our points, and that's it. We need observers to evaluate officials, but there is pushback on this because of cost and paranoid officials worrying about the objectivity of evaluators. I am all for rules knowledge and rewarding officials for getting in the book (and not rewarding officials who refuse to study the rules), but the reality is that we have too many officials working games they shouldn't be working simply because they test the best. It's unfortunate but that is the way it is. Eventually the coaches will raise enough hell that it will have to change, but that has not happened yet.

We do not have "conferences" in SC that have the power to hire/fire their own assigner; we have "regions" within each of the five classifications (1A-5A) that are realigned by the SCHSL every two years, so a college-type system where officials can work for whomever will hire them will not happen here. Most of the private schools in SC compete in a separate league that has their own way of dealing with officiating, so that's an option and many good officials that struggle under the current structure in the SCHSL/SCBOA do very well in the private school league (SCISA).