|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 03:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Great!
Quote:
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only! 
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 04:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chuck,
They used the State tournament as a carrot to begin with here. Their rationale was to to factor 3-man experience into the selection criteria with the hopes that the individuals and assignor groups would do all they could to speed the conversion process. I know there are still some outlying areas that work 2-man but most of our great state has converted. A small problem occurs when we try to promote our successful sub-varsity folks that are using 2-man - they look lost once again. Our (assignor group, not state) next goal is to begin using 3-man on sub-varsity games to ease the transition from 2-man to 3-man as our guys are called to the show. I don't know how it is in Mass. but we were not making enough money down here to let that be a factor in delaying this conversion. I hope that is not one of the reasons keeping y'all from implementing 3-man. Mulk
__________________
Mulk
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 04:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ronny, I never did hear the outcome, but wasn't there a vote in Georgia this year to replace IAABO as your state governing body? What was the outcome?
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 04:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Great!
Quote:
In the beginning, our state put the onus on the individuals and assignor groups to get their own training and experience. Be it camps or college experience. Also, the assignor groups had to sell this as a product to the schools that they support. Some schools still haven't converted. They don't see the better officials because the better officials only want to do 3-man, now. Now, the state holds camps and recommend attendance every other year.
__________________
Mulk
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 05:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
They did not GOVERN, instead they provided training and testing. A lot of people were unhappy with their performance verses their cost. The vote was to return to the original method with the state also providing the testing and training at half the price for the individual official. The vote has been taken and I don't even know if it has been tabulated much less published. We keep hearing any day now.
__________________
Mulk
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 05:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]Carnac the Ancient Magician sees in his crystal ball that you are a member of IAABO Board 305- Cherokee. If training and testing is taken away from IAABO, is it mandatory that you must still remain an IAABO member? Or will this Board no longer service your area? Or.....? Just wondering how Georgia is looking at handling this.
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 07:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
JR,
For the past 3 years the state made membership mandatory in IAABO - all 1700 officials HAD to join to officiate. We have 26 assignor associations in Ga. and the leadership of those groups have already voted them out. Then, our commissioner thought there was some hankey-pankey in the manner in which that vote was taken and decided that the vote should be from the entire population. That vote is the one we are waiting on. If we vote IAABO out, then IAABO membership would go back to being an individual choice. However, IAABO would have zero role here. Most of our officials could not see what IAABO was bringing to the table, especially when you consider the additional cost. I will be surprised if they are not voted out. Mulk
__________________
Mulk
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 09:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If so, I can certainly see where you're coming from. IAABO can't really do anything for you that you aren't capable of doing yourself in-state anyway. True?
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 09:56pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Exactly. So, why pay the additional money. I guess I should preface my following remarks with a statement that this was our association's experience and conversations we had with other associations' leaders.
All we could see out of IAABO was that it created another layer that frustrated the leadership of the associations. For example: Tests came down from IAABO, never in a timely manner. Then, they disagreed on who would grade, who would pay. IAABO only requires you to pass a test but Georgia wanted their officials to be tested every year. It was like pulling teeth to get rules books. Their registration period was months off our registration period making enrollment a nightmare. Insurance levels and costs were never clearly communicated. Was that all their fault? I doubt it, but before they came those problems did not exist. Again, these were problems that the leadership dealt with. The average official saw his dues more than double with really no increase in training by IAABO. It had to be equally frustrating for IAABO but losing 1700 members was not something they wanted to happen. Bottom line is that IAABO claims to be training experts but all we saw from them were questions to us on what we needed. In defense of IAABO, people here probably expected more out of them than they normally provide.
__________________
Mulk
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 10:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for the info, Ronny. Very interesting. I can see how you were frustrated, seeing that a "Ronny Mulkey" happens to be listed as the vice-president of IAABO Board 305- Cherokee.
|
|
Thu Feb 19, 2004, 11:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this stuff was not important to you?
Ronny,
Why would any of this matter to you? I thought you were only interested in officiating, not the process of associations and moving thru the ranks? All this process has to do with the bureaucracy that helps determine who goes to the playoffs or not, not the "spirit of officiating" that you so much like to talk about.  Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Fri Feb 20, 2004, 01:37am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Going from 2-man to 3-man games is lot like using a remote controlled TV for the first time. You may hit a few wrong buttons and get the wrong channel a couple of times, but once you "get the hang of it" you will be amazed at how you survived with out it! You'll never want to do a 2-man game again......
The biggest benefit IMO, is game management. You have time to talk to players and coaches (they all just want to feel like you're listening to them) during key situations. You significantly reduce the chances of losing shooters, timing/scoring errors, and in general have a smooter game (substitutions, time-outs, etc). Coaches who say they don't want a 3-man game should be "whacked" w/ a T to start the game for being REALLY stupid. Those are the coaches who have absolutely no clue about officiating.......
__________________
Jeff Pearson
|
|
Fri Feb 20, 2004, 08:52am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this stuff was not important to you?
Quote:
You thought wrong is all I can say. IAABO being here had nothing to do with state tournament selection. But, you are right if you are saying that I care more about doing things the right way, rather than worrying about advancement. Mulk
__________________
Mulk
|
|
Fri Feb 20, 2004, 09:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tough call.
Quote:
Do things the accepted way ---> advancement If those are the only choices we are allowed, then we are right between the shaft and the screw. This remains a game, but show me your (assignor's) rules! mick
|
|
Fri Feb 20, 2004, 09:44am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tough call.
Quote:
Judgement is the factor that will determine an official's success. An understanding of rules knowledge will enhance that judgement. I've asked this before, but do the assignors in your area teach methods contrary to NFHS rules/interps/case book rulings? If not, where do these "acceptable" practices come from? Are they different than those published by the FED? If you applied a casebook ruling would you not advance? Or, are talking about judgement and "spirit of intent"?
__________________
Mulk
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
