Referee or Umpire

[walter]

My association has had long and sometimes heated discussion when it comes to evaluations and classifications. This year, the powers that be have decided to attempt to implement a system whereby officials will be classified as Referee(s) and Umpire(s) within each level of ability (i.e. junior high/middle school, junior varsity, varsity). We have all been given the opportunity to submit a list of characteristics that define what makes one a referee and what makes one an umpire. Being that this forum has been incredibly valuable to me and I respect that vast majority of opinions and experience demonstrated here, I thought I'd throw it to you. Our association has a rating committee made up of evaluators and the assignors. Over the years, they have been tasked with grouping people into categories such as 1A and 1B for varsity, 2A and 2B for JV and 3A and 3B for lower levels and new officials. The "A" level within each classification was to be for the best of the class (the referees). The problem is that people have been moved from one category to another, many times based on years of service, service to the board, etc. and not basketball officiating ability. Therefore, as you can imagine, the Board has become extremely top heavy ratings wise as people have been moved up and never come back down. This year, we have hired evaluators (well respected former officials who no longer work for the board or for their college conferences) and have taken peer ratings out of the mix. In order to be fair, the evaluators have sought input from their former college supervisors and fellow officials and have asked us (the members) what we look for in classifying someone as a referee or an umpire. We have eliminated the A & B classes and have simply gone to varsity, junior varsity and lower level ratings. Within those ratings, the evaluators will group the referees and umpires and then the assignors will use those groupings to assign games. Please, if you don't mind, could you take some time and list characteristics you feel make one an "R" v. an "U". It is our hope to put together a qualities list so that each person will know what the valuators are looking for. Thanks and I apologize for the rambling.

[deecee]

an umpire and refree in basketball is the same -- the only difference is that one has more responsibilities pretipoff than the other -- other than that same pay same basic job description -- i dont give a rats a$$ if im one or the other -- both officiate a game and none can overrule the other

[zebraman]

Walter,

We have a very similar system, but it is peer only (we have evaluators, but their input is just for self-improvement and not input to the ratings).

Here is some of our criteria lifted directly from our ratings form:

Superb game management, handles difficult situations decisively and positively, makes the calls the game needs, understands the rules and applies them with common sense, calls game consistently, respects partners and helps them be comfortable, fosters positive communication with coaches and players, manages the clock and bench decorum, maintains composure and professionalism, puts forth consistent hustle and effort, contributes to good pre-game preparation and displays standard NFHS mechanics.

We had considered going with the "R/U1/U2" rankings within each ratings category, but we opted for H/M/C (high, medium, capable) instead and here's why:

Some of our officials couldn't seem to understand that just because an official was assigned as the R (or U1 or U2) for the game being observed, it DIDN'T MEAN that they automatically should be placed in the R (or U1 or U2) category. Seems silly, but that's what we encountered. If I understand what you're trying to do, you're trying to separate officials who are in the same category (4A/3A, 2A/1A etc.) but may have a slight difference in abilities. As deecee said, there isn't much difference between an R and a U. I have heard some assignors say that they are looking for R's and not U's so I know that there is a "leadership" factor in there, but you might find that some of your rating officials don't understand that concept.

Z


[Edited by zebraman on Nov 1st, 2005 at 07:47 PM]

[walter]

If I understand what you're trying to do, you're trying to separate officials who are in the same category (4A/3A, 2A/1A etc.) but may have a slight difference in abilities. As deecee said, there isn't much difference between an R and a U. I have heard some assignors say that they are looking for R's and not U's so I know that there is a "leadership" factor in there, but you might find that some of your rating officials don't understand that concept.

Zebra, that is exactly what we are trying to do. Even though the "R" and the "U" do the same job, for the same pay, I don't think that anyone can argue that some are better at it than others. I also believe that the majority of folks out there will agree that some games demand two (or three "R"s while other games can be done well by two "U"s. The designation for a particular game is not what we are after. What we are after is a way to designate the best of the best within each category and at the same time come up with qualities or criteria that each official understands is being used by the evaluators to come up with those groupings. This will also help the assignors when faced with making decisions regarding certain ball games. Our board uses Arbiter software for assignments and that software allows the assignors to set the criteria for assignments. It also allows the assignor to rank the officials and set assigning criteria based on school rankings, etc. We are simply looking for a way to help officials understand what the best of the best should look like qualitatively speaking. The way the assignors are looking at it is the best of the best are the officials they should be able to assign anytime, any place. Deecee, while what you said is true, I bet you'd find every supervisor and assignor doesn't agree with you. I bet you they would easily be able to idebtify the cream of the crop. As for working games, you are correct. There is an R and a U, or U1 and U2. That doesn't mean that they have equal capabilities. I can guarantee you that your assignor knows who he/she can send to any game and knows it will be officiated no matter what crazy situations may arise and he/sheknows what officials he can't send without cover of a more capable official.

[IREFU2]

In my opinion we are all Referees and the crowd really doesnt know the difference. So with that said, let have a great season this year!

[David B]

Originally posted by walter
My association has had long and sometimes heated discussion when it comes to evaluations and classifications. This year, the powers that be have decided to attempt to implement a system whereby officials will be classified as Referee(s) and Umpire(s) within each level of ability (i.e. junior high/middle school, junior varsity, varsity). We have all been given the opportunity to submit a list of characteristics that define what makes one a referee and what makes one an umpire. Being that this forum has been incredibly valuable to me and I respect that vast majority of opinions and experience demonstrated here, I thought I'd throw it to you. Our association has a rating committee made up of evaluators and the assignors. Over the years, they have been tasked with grouping people into categories such as 1A and 1B for varsity, 2A and 2B for JV and 3A and 3B for lower levels and new officials. The "A" level within each classification was to be for the best of the class (the referees). The problem is that people have been moved from one category to another, many times based on years of service, service to the board, etc. and not basketball officiating ability. Therefore, as you can imagine, the Board has become extremely top heavy ratings wise as people have been moved up and never come back down. This year, we have hired evaluators (well respected former officials who no longer work for the board or for their college conferences) and have taken peer ratings out of the mix. In order to be fair, the evaluators have sought input from their former college supervisors and fellow officials and have asked us (the members) what we look for in classifying someone as a referee or an umpire. We have eliminated the A & B classes and have simply gone to varsity, junior varsity and lower level ratings. Within those ratings, the evaluators will group the referees and umpires and then the assignors will use those groupings to assign games. Please, if you don't mind, could you take some time and list characteristics you feel make one an "R" v. an "U". It is our hope to put together a qualities list so that each person will know what the valuators are looking for. Thanks and I apologize for the rambling.

I don't understand the purpose of that ruling. Maybe in the playoffs its nice to have a designated R for coverage etc., but as far as a doubleheader, just split the duties.

Wow, to be an R, you have to be able to correctly bounce the ball on the floor and measure the height, and then maybe check the scorebook a little better than the other guy.

After then, there is nothing that R and U can't get together and discuss to correct or address a situation during the game.

I would think it would hurt some guys feelings.

Thansk
David

[Andy]

Instead of using 1A/1B, 2A/2B, etc., why not just break it down in five rankings, 1,2,3,4,5.

A "1" rated official is the best of the best, capable of working any game at any level.

A "2" rated offical is a notch below, capable of working any JV level or below game and some of the lower level varsity games.

And so on.....

You also stated that your association has become "top-heavy" with many officials at the highest rating. There also needs to be a process in place to move officials back down in the levels as they get older and maybe slow down some. I've seen too many "top rated" officials that were great officials once, but their skills have deteriorated to the point that they should not be working the top level games any more.

[Oz Referee]

In Oz there is far less distinction made between the Referee and the Umpires.

However, what we do have is sub-classifications of A, B and C. If you're interested, here is how referees are graded in Australia:


5 - FIBA badged ref - capable of doing international matches (including Olympics)
4 - Top domestic level, minimum level required to do National Basketball League (NBL) games
3 - Usually refs that do pre-season NBL games and that are working towards their level 4
2 - Top regional level grade
1 - Base level
Pre-lim - "trainee" referee

Each level is then split into A,B and C based on experience, assessment, leadership etc.

Don't know if this will help at all....but some may find it interesting. Oh, and all levels are governed by Basketball Australia, so there is consistencey between the states and (in theory) all refs on the same level are of the same ability.

[deecee]

we use a similar rating system as in Australia I guess.

1-5 -- with A-C breakdowns where 1C is the lowest of the low and 5A is top of the line (usually also D1 officials).

then we breakdown what rating you need to work what levels and by some levels that could mean that 4A could work most Boys Varsity but 5A can work any game -- especially the highly rated games. This allows for 15 levels of rating and you can usually tell who is what once the game starts.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The late Danny Doss subscribed to the following theory:

"Never be the R, no good can ever come from it."

MTD, Sr.

[M&M Guy]

Now, for those that are in the higher leagues, say, NCAA D-1, aren't R's paid more? I know in my case, in working JUCO and D-3, the R of the crew is specified ahead of time, and also has the additional duties of phoning the school and their partners a couple of days ahead to verify everyone's on the same page, from game time and site, to travel arrangements. We still, however, get paid the same, but there is additional responsibility associated with being an R, if not necessarily on-the-court responsibility.

I know this may or may not have to do with a ratings system, but I find it interesting that there seems to be more of a difference between R's and U's than simply the R does the toss.

[JRutledge]

The higher you go up the more they want officials that can be a Referee. If you watch major college basketball, the Referee is usually one of the most respected officials on a crew. I know that many D1 assignors goal is to have 3 Referees on the crew. This is not by position, but in the way these officials are thought of as officials. For example when I watch a Big Ten game and Ed Hightower is on the game, he is always the Referee. He always works the Big Ten Tournament Championship and every game in the tournament no matter who is there he is the Referee. The same thing applies with many of my HS assignors. They do not put inexperienced or not very accomplished officials as the Referee in those games. My college assignor also dictates who works where. Usually the U2 is the least experienced official.

So for many assignors and people it does matter who the Referee is.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
I know in my case, in working JUCO and D-3, the R of the crew is specified ahead of time, and also has the additional duties of phoning the school and their partners a couple of days ahead to verify everyone's on the same page, from game time and site, to travel arrangements. We still, however, get paid the same, but there is additional responsibility associated with being an R, if not necessarily on-the-court responsibility.

You'll never get to be an R until you learn how to spell it.

Keep chasing that dream.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You'll never get to be an R until you learn how to spell it.

Keep chasing that dream. [/B][/QUOTE]

SU. (Sorry mick.)