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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, get rid of the coaches rating.

Good joke.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

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?

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

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 Ooaches 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 always 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.

[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.