Test and need help with ratings

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I might have a bit of a different perspective here - as a fairly long-time basketball official and having a few years in as a HS football coach...no way in the world should coaches be evaluating officials!! I would not do it as a coach...I wouldn't want it done as an official. Coaches and officials see the game differently...I like to think I am pretty even-minded as a coach due to my years of officiating, but I still want things called that will benefit my team more than the ones that will hurt my team...how do you separate the hours of time spent preparing for a game and the hours spent with the athletes from a perceived bad call that hurt my team??? Can't...that's why I will not evaluate officials...and why I don't want coaches evaluating me.

I will say that coaches should have an avenue to follow to deal with "problems" that arise during contests...twice this past football season I called the assignor to discuss (read as complain) the lack of communication from some of his officials to us on the sideline - refusing to answer some basic questions like "How was the hold on?" "Why wasn't that a...", etc...but no way would I rate them or turn in any kind of points system.

I coached a little too. My own remembrance was that I never watched the officials unless they did something to bring themselves to my attention. Other than that, I never had a clue what they were doing. If you're concentrating on doing what you're supposed to be doing- coaching- then you're looking at the players, defenses, offenses, etc. You ain't watching the officials if you're doing your job.

There's also nothing the matter with getting feedback from a coach also if there were any game problems. These can be checked out, and if there is something there, you can work on the problems.

[M&M Guy]

Ok, let me play devil's advocate here for a second.

It's true in IL, coaches do rate officials, and those ratings make up a certain percentage of the "power rating" that is used in determining post season assignments. But certified (the top level) officials also get to rate other officials. And it has been (not so subtly) stated by several officials that they will rate other officials highly to "make up" for the coaches rating us lower. I'm not sure that's fair either. Do two wrongs make it right?

Also, from a state perspective, and I suppose your local association, the only way to truly rate an official is to have an objective third party actually watch them work. And, watch them more than once - how often have you had an evaluator watch, and it just happens to be your worst game of the year? (Murphy's Law.) But in IL's case, there are no where near enough qualified people to watch and evaluate all the officials. So the next best thing is to get a rating from someone who was actually at the game - in this case, the coaches. Will we probably get a lower rating from the losing coach? Probably. But then again, we may get a higher rating from the winning coach as well. So they should offset. Kinda. Perhaps.

It's no where near a perfect system, but how else does that state office get an idea of who the best officials are, when many of them live and work several hours away? They have several criteria, which include coaches' ratings, but the ratings aren't the biggest factor.

[Scrapper1]

I love the idea of rating the coaches. When coaches rate officials, the ratings go an assignor probably. Who would we send our "coach's ratings" to? State athletic association? Send a complete list of the ratings to each AD in the area?

I really think we need to work on this and implement it, and see how fair the coaches think it is.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I love the idea of rating the coaches. When coaches rate officials, the ratings go an assignor probably. Who would we send our "coach's ratings" to? State athletic association? Send a complete list of the ratings to each AD in the area?

I really think we need to work on this and implement it, and see how fair the coaches think it is.

We would send our reports to this prestigious institute of higher learning responsible for advancing the education, development, standards and practices that allow coaches to maintain the high levels of professional discipline and respect that they enjoy.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, let me play devil's advocate here for a second.

It's true in IL, coaches do rate officials, and those ratings make up a certain percentage of the "power rating" that is used in determining post season assignments. But certified (the top level) officials also get to rate other officials. And it has been (not so subtly) stated by several officials that they will rate other officials highly to "make up" for the coaches rating us lower. I'm not sure that's fair either. Do two wrongs make it right?

Also, from a state perspective, and I suppose your local association, the only way to truly rate an official is to have an objective third party actually watch them work. And, watch them more than once - how often have you had an evaluator watch, and it just happens to be your worst game of the year? (Murphy's Law.) But in IL's case, there are no where near enough qualified people to watch and evaluate all the officials. So the next best thing is to get a rating from someone who was actually at the game - in this case, the coaches. Will we probably get a lower rating from the losing coach? Probably. But then again, we may get a higher rating from the winning coach as well. So they should offset. Kinda. Perhaps.

It's no where near a perfect system, but how else does that state office get an idea of who the best officials are, when many of them live and work several hours away? They have several criteria, which include coaches' ratings, but the ratings aren't the biggest factor.

I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks that any evaluation is ever perfect. So all we can do is make it the best possible.

Independent evaluators are probably the best system although it can be expensive and trying to find a group of evaluators that everyone agrees on is difficult at best.

Coach input is pretty much useless because they rarely know anything about officiating and the only time they really "care" is when an emotional call is involved.

BTW, being under pressure is part of officiating. I would imagine that the best officials would have their BEST games while being evaluated, not their worst.

[iref4him]

I truly believe the predominately most coaches do not have the understanding what officials do or what we know or don't know. Their goal is to win the game and get the most out of their players. As officials, we see the game with our eyes and not our emotions. We do not have ties to the players and how well they do or don't do.

I have been in many different associations --> pne assoication only coaches rated; one association where the officials rated each other at the end of each game; one association where there was a paid observor (you were lucky to get one game with were you were observed); one association where only the assignor rates(or his/her desginee).

The best system I has been in was where the assignor had observers, a group of officials who were evalutors for JV and below, and then had a rating committee. They were also implementing a video requirement. Each official could video 2-3 games and send it into the observor, rating official, and/or rating commitee. Officials who went to camps were given a closer look since they took the time and money to become better. Even this association let coaches make comments and were asked on consistency and professionalism. The coaches were allowed to black ball only if they had video proof of the officials mistakes, errors, etc. It was very complicated, but this association was trying to be progressive. At least they were trying.

In every association, someone thought they were getting screwed by the system. So learn the system, don't prostitute yourself. The cream does rise to the top. Life isn't fair and officiating is included.

[JRutledge]

I am not a major supporter of coach’s ratings, but I understand why they are there. We have a rating system as stated by M&M that uses coaches ratings. Of course I feel coaches in most cases are not qualified to tell us how good an official has done. The problem is that most officials are not seen by the assigning body. In most if not all assignors are active officials. So they do not get a chance to see officials work on a regular basis if at all. Another problem is the playoff assigning is done by on individual and they cannot possibly watch every game or even some up and coming official. For what it is worth our system is an objective system to give the IHSA Sports Administrator who does the assigning some data that is objective from different sources. It is not used as the end all be all barometer for assigning officials. I know for a fact that when they do come out to watch official (or someone in the office does this) they put a lot of weight on what they see. It might not be what we all think it should be, but it is after all the system that is used. No matter how much you try to think coaches do not have a say, the more wrong you will be. Coaches are going to always have some say, it just might not always be formal or in writing.

Peace