Something from another thread got me thinking about what makes one official more experienced than another. Some might view it as years while some might view it as experience on a certain level.
I know from first hand experience that years of officiating don't and can't make one official more experienced than another if they officiate in different parts of the country. I know guys that have worked so much in so little time that I would have guessed they have been working for about 4 more years than they actually have. There are also officials who have been out there screwing ball games up for 20+ years.
I think the level an official works can play a part in telling the story of their experience. A prime example is Zach Zarba. I'm sure many of us have officiated longer than he has but being on his level has definately made him more experienced.

So what do we look for when we seek out that "more experienced official?" I think I look for someone who is or has been where I want to be. That is not to say I won't listen to others because that isn't the case. I guess experience, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Personally I would think it can't really be measured. Your experience is just something internal that you feel when you're confident enough to make the big and tough calls. And when you just feel comfortable out there all the time, and up to what age you can do before you're outside your comfort zone.

Other factors would be what you mentioned, like years officiating and knowledge of rules.

I consider an experience official as someone that been working the varsity level and above for years. Just because someone is experienced at the varsity level, does not translate to other levels. For example I consider myself to be a very experience varsity official, but not very experienced at the college level. I work only a small percentage of college games every year (by choice) because I am committed to accomplishing some things at the HS level first. I guess just like what makes an attractive women, everyone has a different opinion to what features are needed to think someone is beautiful. I just know that when I have an opportunity look for partners, I usually like to work with people that have been around the block at a particular level. Most of the time I do not get that option, so I guess it really does not matter.

Peace

Myself being very unexperienced in years but experienced in different levels (4th grade girls/boys up to mens A rec league, JH, JV and V HS) gives me a different perspective on how experienced officials are. There are some that I have worked with that have been officiating for many years that I don't think are doing a very good job. The opposite is also true, young officials running good games. Years of experience might just make old habits die hard, or by taking advice and watching how others work can be a blessing.

I believe experience doesn't have much to do with how long you've been officiating, but rather how you handle differing situations.

Somebody told me once that it takes 500 games (at any level) to prepare yourself for the varsity level. The idea was that you'd probably see just about everything by then.

That probably holds true in Ohio to some extent. At FR and JV they assign double headers. Work 3-4x a week for 13 weeks and thats roughly 80 games. Add in some kids stuff here and there and summer ball and 100 games a season is pretty easy to hit. Seems like around here, if you are gonna move up, it takes about 5-7 years so doing the math, 500 games is doable in that time frame.

In my opinion though you also have to weigh what leagues you work. Not all high school leagues, regardless of the level are created equal. Example, in Cincinnati, if you work GCL or GMC boys JV games, you have likely worked a tougher game than 40% the varsity games in the 50 mile vicinity but you get to do it two man vs. three. In my mind, this really builds exerience and confidence.

But to the question...what makes an experienced official? Is the word "experience"? Or is the word Quality?

So what makes a quality official?

In shape? Or at least can run?
Battle tested?
Knows their primary?
Calls the obvious?
Ref's the D?
Trust their P?
Works on their avocation thru camps and clinics?











[Edited by Larks on Jun 29th, 2005 at 02:22 PM]

Great question. A couple of weeks ago, I got to hear Don Daily speak at a camp. If you knew he'd only officiated basketball for 8 years you might form an opinion about his experience but then to learn that he's been working at the D1 level for 6 of them would change that opinion. Of course he's an anomolly. (sp) His first ever 2-man game was the first half of a D1 game when his R got knocked out cold during the jump-ball. I found his story an interesting one.

One measure of experience could be the number of battles an official has been thru and you can't count every game as a battle.

Larks,

I was at a camp this past weekend in Ohio. The camp was run by a D1 assignor that also assigned lower level college as well. He said he thinks some officials just have the "gift." He thinks it does not matter how long some officials have been working, he really feels that some guys get it and others will never get it. I tend to agree with that to some extent. I have seen officials that just know what they are supposed to do from jump. I have seen other officials that have been around 20 years and they are still talking about what they used to do 20 years ago and these officials will never get it. I do not think a specific amount of games gives you "automatic" competence. I do believe that experience will help you know how to handle situations better the more you see them. I know I learn every single time I work a game. I have changed things as I see more plays. I do not think just because I worked a lot of games that in itself is a judgment of how good I am. I just think my opinions or philosophies have evolved and I am more confident in what I already believe or what I have been taught over the years.

Peace

Great Topic
 

This is a great topic!

I think what makes an experience official is one knowing the game. I think having played the game at a high level really helps you understand the game and how it is supposed to be played.

Yes some people have the gift they go on the court and it just like they are playing with them. They can feel the flow of the game. They can sense if this game is going to be a running game, or a rough one.

Some people think that knowing all the rules makes you a great official, I totally disagree. This game is so much more than just the rules, this game is abt passion, knowing what to call and knowing when not to call it.

I agree with the person who originated this topic abt the official that have been doing this for 20+ years, there are officials that have been doing this for over 20+ years and are still messing the game up. But there are some that are still great.

My opinion I wish they would go back to a two man crew for a couple of years just to get rid of all the older crew. The three man crew has kept them around too long. I know that is wishfull thinking but it would be nice.

I think being experienced is also how the players accept and respond to you. And how you accept and respond to them. Are you able to talk to them or do you just tell them to do this and do that.

I know when I am the lead, I try my best to never call a 3 sec call because I am constantly talking to the players. Now i have been to some camps and they say, dont do that call the call. But as a player, if the official can talk me out before why slow down the game for that.

Also I think that an experienced official is an official that can give advice to the younger official in a way that they would understand, instead of just letting them sink or swim. I think the older officials are afraid to help the younger ones because they are afraid they will take there jobs from them. I know when I work with a new guy either in a varsity game, a summer league game, or anything I am always talkign to my partner, catching his eye to try and see what he is looking at so i make sure he is not looking at the same.

Every game is a learning experience, you never know what is going to happen, especially if you are working with someone new.

JUST A LITTLE FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!!! :)

[Edited by Love this Game on Jun 29th, 2005 at 02:55 PM]

To be experienced means you can pick up the "flow" of the game and adjust your calls accordinly so that you're not blowing your whistle everytime and enforcing everything, but that you're able to keep games under control using other means than your whistle.

Just because you're experienced at one level doesn't mean you're experienced at all levels. There are some great high school and college refs that can come down and referee a third grade game so wisely and all the parents love him. And there are some that are experienced at the lower levels but not the upper levels and visa-versa. For example I've been told by people that I tend to "stay up" in how I officiate. I call a good high school or 7/8th grade game, but I try to apply the same rules for grade school kids and mess up their games.

Someone told me once...

One must do something until the become 'subconciously competent'.....you do it without thinking.....like tying your shoes

I think it is someone who gets the job done, but still knows they don't know everything and still need to get better.

I agree this is a good topic, but are we substituting the word 'experienced' for the word 'good'? Because IMO the responses that I'm reading are all definitions of good officials, not 'experienced' ones!

I've worked with some officials that have been at it for years, and they call the game as if they are the most important aspects to the game. Their mechanics are almost flawless, but the game is like a whistle-fest.

I've also worked with some newer officials (I've only got 5 years, and they have less than two) that have a solid grasp of the game flow. Mechanics might be sloppy, but the game is played as smooth as silk, no one questions a single call, and the best team wins (as it should be).

So are we trying to equate experienced with good?

Bingo!

There's no real correllation between the two imo also.

I've seen relatively inexperienced officials that I thought did an absolutely great job.

I've seen very experienced officials blow chunks.

Agreed. I've seen some officials who have been exercising bad judgment and exercising poor mechanics and poor communication for 20 years. I've seen some second-year officials who have caught on already. Combine a an official who "gets it" AND a few years of experience and you have something special. Experience in-and-of-itself means nothing.

Z

I did that my first game.

I just say go out have fun, officiate, and work hard. Others are going to put you in catagory they feel like. Does it really matter whether you are experienced or good aslong as you do the three aforementioned.

Actually, I think that it probably would help if you were good while you were having fun, working hard and officiating. It's better than the alternative anyway imo- being bad while you're having fun, working hard and officiating. :)

O contrair Brian, I believe you might adjust your calls to mirror your partner(s) but the players have adjust to you. I we all did what you suggest, then a team could come out and handcheck all night and we'd have to adjust?

Experienced versus good. I will have to give that one some thought. They are often used together but I can't think of someone being described as experienced that wasn't good.

I think there are experienced officials who are happy where they are so they can have sloppy mechanics. However, I think an official must have strong mechanics in order to move up in today's game. So the mechanics don't really make or break an "experienced" official.
At some point in time an official would have probably been physically capable to gain credibility. So an "experienced" official may or may not be able to run like a deer.
Rules knowledge is important but it isn't the end all be all to officiating bliss. I personally know of one example of this. :)
Communication, while important, will not hold someone back if they are just that good uh I mean "experienced." There are certain officials that have reached the top of college officiating while remaining less than approachable on the court.

I think an experienced official is like a Lexus, so many things working so well together. Thinking then reacting, reacting then thinking, new rules, applications of rules, go top-side, step down, illegal screen, #34 has four fouls, TV time out on the next dead ball, block, charge, chucking the cutter, double the line, accelerated rotation, team B is playing a zone, the shot clock didn't reset, let my partner get in the game, good crew call, answer the coach, warn the coach, T the coach or make the coach laugh, walk into the play, we're in the bonus, foot on the line, in the act of shooting, traveling, hold in the post, my partner is in the tank, get the shooter, secondary defender, team A is fouling, game over. Work of art.
Putting all of that together with a crew in sync takes experience. It seems like being a good official will go hand in hand with this also.

Yes, we'd adjust from a game that contains no hand-checks right? What's your point?

You call the same game everytime? I call a slow three point shooting game different from a fast breaking crash the boards game, I'll be the first to tell you that. Am I the only one who adjusts my calls to the game?

P.S. At least I suppose I would like to think I do.

I like where this thread is going.

When i made my post i did not think abt experienced and good, they can mean two different thing.

There are a lot of officials that have a lot of experience but are not good official.

And there are good officials that do not have a lot of experienced.

So let me think abt that question and get back.

Having the same experience for 1000 games, doesn't mean you have 1000 games experience. After each game, if you can't say "I could have done this better, or I could have done that better," you are just reliving the same experience. If you are not striving to improve, you are not gaining experience. If a clinician points out an error you made, and your feeling is "What does he know" you are not gaining experience. You will just have the same experiences over and over.

I don't agree with a lot of this. Sometimes, unfortunately, evaluators don't know what they are talking about. I think you will always have something you could do better the next game. When I have the perfect game I'm going to quit and I don't think I'm going to be quitting any time soon. I also don't think striving to improve relates to gaining experience. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. Can you explain further?

If I'm reading this correctly, both you guys are pretty much basically saying the same thing. Fwiw I agree with both of you too.

I agree with FrankHtown. I think what he's trying to say (and I always seem to get in trouble when I do this, but here goes anyway), there are people that get to a level and stay there, no matter how many games they do. They don't want to get better; maybe they think they've done their 1,000 games and now they're "experienced". I might be closer to 1,500 games, and I'm still looking for input from other officials, clinicians at camps, supervisors, etc. Part of becoming more experienced is learning what information to use and what to discard. We've all had the situation at camps where one clinician tells you one thing, and you go to the next court the other clinician will tell you the opposite. Experience teaches you to just nod and say "Ok", rather than saying "But, so-and-so told me..."

I don't think the number of games alone determines experience, as much as what you do with the knowledge gained. So, I would think striving to improve, along with applying that knowledge, makes you a more experienced official. That's how someone with 500 games might be a more experienced official than someone with 1,500 games. Also, I think "experienced" and "good", might be two slightly different concepts, but I think they are related.

OK, I'm understanding a little better now. Maybe it was just too early. :D

I think experienced and good go together when you are talking about the positive qualities of an official. On the other hand, if an official has been doing games for 15 years and isn't very good I think you would only use "experienced" with a smirk on your face.

Feeling a little less curmudgeonly today?

:D

Feeling a little less curmudgeonly today?

[/B][/QUOTE]There is a fine line between curmudgeonly and insanity.

And I'm a-walking it today.

The bottom line to this entire discussion is this is our own opinion at play. I know of guys that have worked a very long time that I do not respect or never will respect as officials. I mainly feel that way because these officials do not keep up with the changes and hold on to things they did years ago. This will be my 10th year and every year something has changed and I had to adjust. If I ever get to the point that I cannot improve, I will need to stop working games.

I have also been to camps and had clinicians there I did not respect as well. This usually happens at the high school level and guys who are telling you things based solely on their individual knowledge, not what is advocated by anyone but them. This discussion is not much different than the one we had several years ago about the rules knowledge vs. presence debate. Some people are always going to believe that working a certain amount of games are key and others will think that working a certain amount of years makes the difference (or whatever issues you might have within this topic). Experience from my point of view can only take you so far. You have to have some talent to go along with that experience. Some of the best officials in this country do not have a lot of experience before they were picked up at the highest of levels. Michael Jordan was a very good player at a very young age at his career. Just look at LeBron James as well. These players just get it. There are other players that had similar experiences and did not understand the game or their role ever. Experience is one thing, but you have to be good as well.

Peace

I look at it this way.

Many people in the trades, let's say contractor-builder for example, are experienced, but that does not make them necessarily good. Anyone that has contracted or bought a new house can validate that all builders, even with the same experience are not equal, i.e. good.

One can be experienced, but not good, whereas, you cannot be good without being experienced.

Now, I don't care how "good" someone thinks they are with only a few years under their belt. It takes time AND experience to become good. Officiating is like many other professions where experience is needed. The more you work, the more you see and experience. A younger official might be good (good mechanics, good movement) but what is missing are the years of experience. They can't possibly have seen as much as the more experienced, and that IMO is the missing ingredient.

Like I said, you can be experienced and not be good, but you cannot be good and not experienced.

goose

I think at the root of the discussion is the difference between a lead official (an R) and just a very good official. I have worked for 3 years (around 1000 games total) and the more I work the more I feel I need to work on experience type things, such as handling coaches, unusual situations. Good officials can rise quickly through the ranks, I've seen some go to the college level very quickly, and in my 3rd year I made the state tournament level in HS. There's a big difference between being able to call these types of games, and being able to officiate them. A lead official, a great official, has the ability to not only referee the game, but manage the game and manage the officiating crew in, and ultimately be the guy who is accountable when everything's on the line. These skills can only come with experience and by being mentored by others who have the experience. When I think of an experienced official, I think of someone who, at that level of the game has the skills to be the R. That means an experienced ref at a MS, JV, V, Playoff, JC, D1 or NCAA tourney game has a different skill set.

Leader? Reminds me...

"A good leader is at the front of the line... A great leader is at the back of the line pushing everyone on to do better."

Quite an interesting thread. Two things come to mind:

1) At the camps I recently went to, the clinicians all said the same thing, "The world is filled with U1's and U2's, we want R's" Leadership is a part of officiating. We all have off the court personalities and experiences that affect us on the court. In many cases, I think that the "experienced" official has gained much of that experience off the court and is better able to apply it on the court.

2) Repetition is certainly not the same as experience.
If I do something 1000 times, and keep doing it incorrectly or poorly, I don't think I fit what we mean by "experienced." The most "experienced" officials out there seem to be the ones that are best at taking whatever experiences they have an translating them into useable learning tools.

SM,

Lead official won't always be the R, though. Might have a crew of officials with similar levels of experience (years/games) but one of the officials has a better court presence when it comes to dealing with the coaches, players, etc. He might not be designated as the R, but he will display an 'R-like' presence on the court which can affect the whole atmosphere of the game. I sometimes think this is more important depending on the game, team matchups, stuff like that.

Hmmmm....a great leader doesn't often need to 'push' anyone.

It's a good concept. I've also seen games where two or three officials are all acting like R's and stepping all over each other. You also have to know when to jump in the passenger seat, IMHO. There are a couple vet guys I ref with where I'm assigned as the R, yet I occasionally let them handle something that is an R function. It keeps them happy and isn't any skin off my nose.

Z

Z brings up yet another good point. Part of being a good leader is knowing when to step aside and let others take charge. I certainly feel that the only thing worse than three guys who want to control everything is three guys who can't control anything. I have seen a few games, especially at camp, where people are trying to do a bit too much and they just end up looking bad.

How can you lead from the rear? Wouldn't you then be following? :confused:

"If the people would lead, the leaders would follow."

This is what you get for paraphasing my quote. It said "... a great leader is at the rear pushing everyone on to do better."

You can either be at the front of the line just refereeing your game and getting out of the gym. Or you can be at the back pushing everyone in front of you to do better by giving them tips and working with them to help them out. You can be at the back of the line encouraging everyone else and letting them get the credit and spotlight while you're content with yourself in the back.

The quote really had nothing to do with refereeing, was a part of a speech I heard, and whoever's post up there reminded me of it, so I thought I'd share. It was at a National Honor Society ceremony, maybe the intelligence level here isn't able to comprehend. :D

j/k

Zebra, great call.

I remember when i first started they were really pushing the younger officials staying and watching the Varsity game after they do the JV game.

And with my big mouth, I asked in the association meeting. Why would you want me to stay and watch a Varsity game when most of there mech were worse than mine.

I still believe that playing the game really helps you understand the game.

I think you really have to be careful with who you watch and who you learn from.

Hey, don't start dissing squirrels. If you're not respectful, they'll come to your house and fill your closets with acorns!

Acorns? Mmmmmm..... Tasty...... :D

The reason you watch officials regardless of their experience level is to learn something. Not necessarily to learn directly from the officials in a positive way. You also need to see bad officials as well. You can learn who is good and why, and who is bad and why. You also can figure out why certain officials advance and why others have a long way to go.

Peace

Hmmm, well after careful consideration, I still think the quote is a complete load of ... utter nonsense.

A leader is, has always been, and will always be, that person who is out in front doing things others only talk about. Sometimes leaders succeed, sometimes leaders fail, but leaders try.

A leader can teach from knowledge and experience that others do not have. That knowledge and experience was not gained lurking at the back, pushing others. It was gained by being out there doing.

A leader draws us after him because we recognize his example as worthy of emulation. The leader gets our attention because he is already doing the things we come to realize we ought to be doing.

A leader is not a hero or a glory hound. Praise and attention often fall upon leaders because others recognize their greatness. But a leader is also selfless, humble and willing to share the spotlight.

The guy at the back, pushing others to get better is not a leader, he is a manager. Never confuse the two. The leader is the one showing you how to do it better. The manager is the one asking why you didn't do it better. Beware the manager.

Ya see...if the people are LEADING, they are the leaders...and if the leaders are FOLLOWING, they aint the leaders...get it? Leaders lead? Followers follow? If you follow my drift....(apologies for my lack of clarity, I've never actually heard a national honor society speech...)