Test and need help with ratings

[tracker]

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tracker

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 think that we've screwed something up. Give more credence to your evaluators.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 think 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?

[bgtg19]

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.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

However, I disagree that coaches should have NO input.

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?

[zebra44]

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.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by zebraman

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?

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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

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?

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

[mick]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

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

Unfortunately, in our surgeries only one patient in two lives.

[bronco]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

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

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

[mick]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, get rid of the coaches rating.

Good joke.

[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.

[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