Wanted, Reward, Dead Or Alive ...

[JRutledge]

I went to a camp on the East Coast for a college assignor and I was the oldest official when it came to years of experience. Most officials there had been officiating under 5 years and had college assignments. So we are either going to have to face the reality that some people progress faster or live in the world thinking it takes everyone more years than we once thought to get to those opportunities. All I am saying is be very careful what we assume as we move forward. There are more resources available for officials now than there was when many of us started. That does not mean that there are some unrealistic officials out there both newer and older. But some arbitrary year of experience for varsity is silly. I worked with a guy this year at a camp that was his first college camp and he was better than 90 percent of the guys I have worked with over the last 5 years. Now his downfall might be his youthful look and dealing with certain situations, but there are officials that have 15 years or more experience and are not as competent to deal with similar situations.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Think about the effect of having a pipeline to put most new officials on varsity games in <5 years. To make room for them, you have to push people out the other end (those would mostly quit rather than step back to JV). Then, when the next generation of new officials wants those varsity games, you'll have to push the last group of "new" officials out too. You'll effectively force careers to be no more than about 10 years and will need an entirely new set of officials every 4-5 years. With as shorthanded as many groups are, you really can't afford to do things that reduce your numbers. You have to keep the older generation in just to cover your games. It is a balancing act. It is more of a problem with the younger generation expecting to shoot to the top fast. It isn't unique to officiating, it is a problem everywhere.

Well, both our perspectives are good arguments for why mandatory experience requirements are dumb. In a perfect world, assigners should be able to use their discretion to decide when officials are (not) ready for varsity, or whether certain officials need to move down or move on. Every situation is unique.

It would never work in my state. The rating structure is too ingrained in the culture.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I went to a camp on the East Coast for a college assignor and I was the oldest official when it came to years of experience. Most officials there had been officiating under 5 years and had college assignments. So we are either going to have to face the reality that some people progress faster or live in the world thinking it takes everyone more years than we once thought to get to those opportunities. All I am saying is be very careful what we assume as we move forward. There are more resources available for officials now than there was when many of us started. That does not mean that there are some unrealistic officials out there both newer and older. But some arbitrary year of experience for varsity is silly. I worked with a guy this year at a camp that was his first college camp and he was better than 90 percent of the guys I have worked with over the last 5 years. Now his downfall might be his youthful look and dealing with certain situations, but there are officials that have 15 years or more experience and are not as competent to deal with similar situations.

I'm with you. Ideally there shouldn't be any "mandatory" experience years and it should be up to the assigner to use whatever criteria (s)he values (like college officiating). One-size-fits-all policies just don't work. But unfortunately with states/associations that have rating structures like mine, experience requirements are unlikely to go away.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I'm with you. Ideally there shouldn't be any "mandatory" experience years and it should be up to the assigner to use whatever criteria (s)he values (like college officiating). One-size-fits-all policies just don't work. But unfortunately with states/associations that have rating structures like mine, experience requirements are unlikely to go away.

We have a structure too. My point was that we are going to structure ourselves out of having officials to cover games and keeping officials. Or what should be the most important thing, get the very best on the games regardless of who they are or where they might come from. Now here any assignor or conference can hire anyone they want that is licensed. They do not have to use any criteria officials to hire someone for any level game. But for the playoffs we have a structure where the longer you have been in the game, they hire those with certain experience criteria. I do not have an issue with that policy to some extent, but waiting for people to get 20 years in before you assign them major tournament games should not be a standard. Telling official that they should only work so many state finals and now we move on from you is not the best way to have the best officials in the most high profile situations. Standards are great, but let us not have standards that automatically make the deck stacked against some people when they might be the most talented.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We have a structure too...

The difference between your rating structure and ours is that ours impacts regular season and postseason assignments.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The difference between your rating structure and ours is that ours impacts regular season and postseason assignments.

I'm not focusing on the specifics of a system (yours or mine). I am talking about how we prevent officials from feeling like this is something they need to try. One of the reasons people stop officiating high school sports is the systems that are put into place to make roadblocks for their opportunity. When they get certain opportunities they go in those directions rather than stay with the high school game. Often that is the fault of the systems put into place that does not allow them to grow at that level. If you had not noticed, I was stating that our system had barriers to getting certain places and that has had officials say, "I will just work college." They might not get 50 college games, but if they work 25, that might be enough for them. Heck in some cases you get paid just as much for the fewer games.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I'm not focusing on the specifics of a system (yours or mine). I am talking about how we prevent officials from feeling like this is something they need to try. One of the reasons people stop officiating high school sports is the systems that are put into place to make roadblocks for their opportunity. When they get certain opportunities they go in those directions rather than stay with the high school game. Often that is the fault of the systems put into place that does not allow them to grow at that level. If you had not noticed, I was stating that our system had barriers to getting certain places and that has had officials say, "I will just work college." They might not get 50 college games, but if they work 25, that might be enough for them. Heck in some cases you get paid just as much for the fewer games.

Peace

I noticed completely what you were trying to say and agree with you. I was only pointing out the major difference between our two states' rating systems.

[ilyazhito]

This makes sense, that there are artificial barriers in place to people moving up. If there are fewer officials, period, this is problematic, because it prevents games from being covered. There are several possibilities to get around this: take "ready-made" officials from college/university intramural programs, recruit downward by getting local college officials to work high school games on their days off and to mentor high school officials, or accelerate newer officials judiciously by providing targeted training (put subvarsity officials in a program to teach 3P mechanics and have them work rec/travel/adult games that would otherwise be 2P as 3P games for experience, with spot varsity assignments to the best trainees/those near the end of the program, or assign MS officials to work 8th/9th grade rec/travel games, with some freshman/JV assignments to get the best of them next-level exposure. Those with existing experience (transfers/dual members/intramural officials) can be evaluated and accelerated as needed).

Any other solutions to alleviate the numbers crunch and reduce artificial constraints? Recruiting college officials down might put experienced officials in the playoffs or on high-profile games, while allowing younger officials to work alongside and learn from them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I noticed completely what you were trying to say and agree with you. I was only pointing out the major difference between our two states' rating systems.

We have a lot of differences around the country. Not surprised by the multiple differences anymore I guess.

Peace