Test and need help with ratings
 

Test was last evening and went in feeling confident. Simplified illustrated, case book and rule book were very beneficial this year. This is my 5th year and I am looking forward to the season. 91 on NFHS and 90 on Iaabo. Question..what is the fairest and most objective way to rate other officials. Our system could use some modification.

Rated by
Test Score max .3
Evaluator max 4
Coaches max 5 / by 2
Peers max 5 / by 2
Attendance max .1

Looking for suggestions?

Yup, get rid of the coaches rating. Coaches don't really know or understand what officials are doing out there. They're watching the players, not the officials. The only time that they notice the officials is when they <b>think</b> that we've screwed something up. Give more credence to your evaluators.

I agree, why in the world do we think that coaches know anything about officiating? Don't get me wrong, some may know a little bit but enough to evaluate us, NO! I have been in a hospital does that mean I can evaluate the doctors on their surgical techniques?

I don't think I understand the ratings system described above, but I'll both agree and disagree with the others who have written so far. I agree that most coaches do not really understand officiating and I think that any input they receive should be minimized. However, I disagree that coaches should have NO input. At the varsity level, our long-term "success" is often determined by how well we can communicate with/handle coaches. I think evaluators, assignors and peers ought to have a greater influence on the ratings, but I think coaches should have some voice/input, too.

Good joke. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/la...smiley-016.gif

So if a coach deserved a T but the official knew that giving the T would result in a really low score, would it affect some officials decision?

I got the joke, Mick......sometimes it's on us......for those who don't know, Michigan ratings are ONLY done by coaches. They can also give us "needs improvement" for such things as postioning, rules knowledge, etc.:eek:

If you were the patient and the surgery was successful, then you could rate.

Unfortunately, in our surgeries only one patient in two lives. http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/bricks1.gif

I'd care more about rating a surgeon if the surgery were unsucessful.:(

You are asking me to make a couple of assumptions. (1) The official "knew" that giving the T would result in a really low score. The official probably cannot KNOW that, although she might suspect it. (2) Would it affect some officials' decisions? I can't KNOW that, although I might suspect it.

That's why I'd like coaches' input to be minimized. So that any undeserved low score is not unduly influential in the overall rating of the official. If the coach "deserved" a T but an official does not call it, that might negatively affect the ratings of an observer, evaluator or peer. If the ratings from observers, evaluators and peers are more heavily weighted than coaches, you'll have officials doing the right thing and not worrying about how it may or may not influence ratings.

A potentially underved low rating from a petty coach -- while certainly making the system imperfect -- does not, in my opinion, mean that coaches should have no voice whatsoever.

Does that mean that you also think the officials should be able to rate the coaches too, and that the coach's jobs should also be dependant on our ratings? Same logic, isn't it?

Who said anything about making officials' jobs "dependent" on coaches' ratings? I attempted to make clear that, while I think coaches should have a voice, it should not be the loudest voice at all.

And it's certainly not the same logic. Officials are independent contractors who move around from location to location. The reason why we have "ratings" is so that people who are responsible for our playoff assignments -- people who often do not know us and/or do not see us work very often -- can make judgments about us using some method, even if an imperfect one. Coaches, on the other hand, continuously are in one location and are (or should be) constantly evaluated by one person, the athletic director.

Even though it is not the same logic, I do think your suggestion is a good one. Although our input might receive relatively minor weighting in the decision, I do think officials feedback about coaches might be helpful as a piece in the A.D.'s evaluation. ;)

I don't care what kind of voice that you think coaches should have. The great majority are not competent and knowledgable enough to rate officials, and their ratings will <b>always</b> be linked to the success of their team.

How about letting the fans rate us then? They have exactly the same objectives as the coaches. They basically just want to see their team win. They're also about as knowledgable and competent as the vast percentage of coaches when it comes to the criteria needed to evaluate and rate officials properly.

In more than a few states, post-season assignments are at least partially based on coaches ratings. Well, that's completely ludicrous imo. If an official's post-season participation depends on the whims of coaches, then it's just as reasonable that we should have some say in the coach's participation also. That's as logical as what you're proposing.

We disagree completely philosophically, and always will.

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 <b>never</b> 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- <b>coaching</b>- 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.

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

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 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.

http://www.crazyirving.com/history/CLOWN_COLLEGE.jpg

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.

there will be flaws in every system
 

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.

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