Double foul

[eyezen]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

According to Clay's profile, he's from IL. In IL, "certified" is a level of official -- officials are either Registered, Recognized or Certified.

Officials must be Licensed (and, thus, at one of the levels above) to work games. Based on your comment, I'm guessing that MO's "Certified" = IL's "Licensed."

[/B]

Thanks for the reply. That's interesting, I did not know that. Do you know how those levels are determined? Thanks.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by eyezen

Thanks for the reply. That's interesting, I did not know that. Do you know how those levels are determined? Thanks.



[/B]

Yes, I do know how those levels are determined.

Assuming that you want to know ... It's based on experience, testing and ratings. After two years at one level, the official can test for the next (by taking the Pat2 exam) and getting a certain number of officials and coaches (6 total, with at least 2 of each, I think) to indicate that the official is capable of being at the next level.

More detail (and probably more accuracy) is at ihsa.org

[eyezen]

I assume those levels go a long way towards high profile/playoff assigments? That's interesting, we have nothing of that sort across the river. Thanks for the info.

[rockyroad]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nevadaref

Wouldn't it take care of this problem if those older veteran officials would just get it right in the first place?
If they are sensitive about being corrected than don't be wrong.
Keeping up with the rules should be a lot easier than staying in shape!

Well duh...of course that would be best...but when that doesn't happen, do you honetly believe that coming in and telling your partner "You're wrong. This is how it should be" is better than the approach I encouraged CLAY to try???

[truerookie]

Originally posted by eyezen
I assume those levels go a long way towards high profile/playoff assigments? That's interesting, we have nothing of that sort across the river. Thanks for the info.

Eyezen, you have to take the approach of the new rating system being implemented in Missouri. 1-5 discussed during the rules meeting. I believe it is the same concept.

[eyezen]

Originally posted by truerookie

Eyezen, you have to take the approach of the new rating system being implemented in Missouri. 1-5 discussed during the rules meeting. I believe it is the same concept.

Ok that makes some sense. I wondering then if once you obtained a certain status in IL that you're there for "life?"

Whereas in MO if you truely stunk it up one year and/or ran into a bunch of coaches who you didn't get along with and rated you poorly then your rating would go down.

I can see where both approaches have they're merits and both have they're pitfalls.

Thanks for the reply.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by eyezen

Ok that makes some sense. I wondering then if once you obtained a certain status in IL that you're there for "life?"

Whereas in MO if you truely stunk it up one year and/or ran into a bunch of coaches who you didn't get along with and rated you poorly then your rating would go down.

I can see where both approaches have they're merits and both have they're pitfalls.

I wish they would standardize terminolgy between states, but I guess that'll only happen when I'm elected king.

Bob's one smart fella - that's why he gets paid the big bucks. I might just add that once you are promoted to the next level, in order to stay there you must continue to pay your dues and pass the Part 1 (open book) exam every year, and attend a clinic once every 3 years. So, as long as you do that, you could stay at your level for life. As far as post-season, however, there are other factors that go into it as well, such as ratings from coaches and other officials, and Top 15 lists submitted by schools and official's associations. They also give priority to Certified officials. However, you could be a Certified (highest) level official, and not get any post-season games if you don't do well in the other areas. I have also seen Recognized (middle) level officials receive post-season assignments because they do well in the ratings. So, just being a Certified official doesn't necessarily make you one of the best officials.

[jeffpea]

The real discussion that needs to take place regarding the initial thread topic is EGO. Regardless of experience level, officials who have a big EGO are the really a concern. The EGO says: "I'm always right", "I don't need to do anything to improve", "I don't care what new information you give me - my decision is final", etc.

A persons EGO is what stops them from becoming a better official (whether thats playoff assignments, moving to a higher level, or simply being the best official you can be). EGO shows itself in the way we think, behave, treat others, and present ourselves.

When RockyRoad says that he is more apt to listen to a younger partner only if approached a certain way, that's EGO. If CLAY wants to change a partners call by saying "that's not the correct call", that's EGO. Don't get me wrong, EGO can be a good thing. It's just that when EGO takes over and is not controlled or moderated, it will cause trouble in any game.

BTW - the first thing I say in my pre-game as the R is: "Guys, tonight our philosophy is 'get the call right'. It doesn't matter who/where/when - let's make sure we 'get the call right'".

Just my two cents worth...........

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by jeffpea
When RockyRoad says that he is more apt to listen to a younger partner only if approached a certain way, that's EGO. If CLAY wants to change a partners call by saying "that's not the correct call", that's EGO.

I agree that ego can be a bad thing if it keeps you from learning and improving. But I disagree that either of your examples is ego.

In Rocky's case, I think it's just human nature to bristle when confronted so openly. I don't think it's the result of not wanting to improve, or of being unwilling to listen. I just think people in general become defensive when confronted openly. I think you would probably react similarly, and am pretty sure that I would too.

In CLAY's case, I think it's just a lack of tact. He was correct, without doubt, to try to get this call changed. The problem was simply in the approach.

JMO, as well

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by jeffpea

When RockyRoad says that he is more apt to listen to a younger partner only if approached a certain way, that's EGO.

Just for the record, I did not say that I react that way. As a matter of fact, when I responded to Juulie I said that I don't respond that way...but thanks for telling me all about my ego anyway.

However, my original point is still valid - and even Chuck agreed with me...it's all in the presentation. When there's something odd in one of my games - WE discuss it and WE reach a decision together (quickly)...it's not a "You're wrong and I'm going to fix it" conversation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad

Just for the record, I did not say that I react that way. As a matter of fact, when I responded to Juulie I said that I don't respond that way...but thanks for telling me all about my ego anyway.

However, my original point is still valid - and even Chuck agreed with me...it's all in the presentation. When there's something odd in one of my games - WE discuss it and WE reach a decision together (quickly)...it's not a "You're wrong and I'm going to fix it" conversation.

I agree with both of the Munchkins also. It's always easier to talk somebody - anybody- into something if you don't piss them off first. Ego has nuthin' to do with it.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by rockyroad

Just for the record, I did not say that I react that way. As a matter of fact, when I responded to Juulie I said that I don't respond that way...but thanks for telling me all about my ego anyway.

However, my original point is still valid - and even Chuck agreed with me...it's all in the presentation. When there's something odd in one of my games - WE discuss it and WE reach a decision together (quickly)...it's not a "You're wrong and I'm going to fix it" conversation.

No, Rocky doesn't react that way. At least not when the other person is bigger. Which they always....