Two women in stripes - newspaper article

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The problem in Oregon isn't that females are being pushed ahead of their abilities. It's that females with real abilities have been held back by the selection process and now that the selection process has finally started to deal with reality, high quality female refs are being put into their rightful places.

That is not quite true, we've sent qualified women officials to the top state tourney before...with the old process. There were two that I remember since I've been in the PBOA, one of them moved out of town and never went to the tourney again from her new area. The other is working D1 ball and gave up HS ball after going to the top girls tourney in her last year. They were good enough to overcome the main deficiency of the system (lack of votes from boys coaches).

There were a handful of others that woud have made it if they had stuck around and spent the same 10-15+ years improving and earning the repect of their peers that all other other tourney official had to do...but they didn't want to put in the time and effort.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I know Camron will take issue with this. I don't care. It was way past time for these three refs to be working 5A and 6A tournament games, and they were a credit to their association. Hopefully, someday I'll be as good as they are, and I"ll be able to do the job, too. I say "hopefully" because now that we are actually making it possible for refs to be chosen according to their abilities and not by their social affiliations, I may have some shot at it, when I'm good enough.

The only thing that held Melodee back in the past was the lack of coaches votes. Since she only worked girls game, she was never going to get the vote from boys' coaches and is not likely pull enough votes from girls coaches to overcome that obstacle. She did get the 11th most votes (out of over 200 officials) from fellow officials and has consistently done so. Lea Ann was only a few spots behind that. Those two have been strongly recognized by their peers as quality officials in the vote on a regular basis. If we had only eliminated the coaches vote from our old system, these two would have gone to the tourney anyway...by the vote of a lot of men (including myself).

With our new system where the commissioner gets to pick 1/3 of the slots without regard to the vote, the obstacle of getting boy's coaches votes can be addressed by bypassing the vote altogether.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They were good enough to overcome the main deficiency of the system (lack of votes from boys coaches).

The only thing that held Melodee back in the past was the lack of coaches votes. Since she only worked girls game, she was never going to get the vote from boys' coaches and is not likely pull enough votes from girls coaches to overcome that obstacle. She did get the 11th most votes (out of over 200 officials) from fellow officials and has consistently done so. Lea Ann was only a few spots behind that. Those two have been strongly recognized by their peers as quality officials in the vote on a regular basis. If we had only eliminated the coaches vote from our old system, these two would have gone to the tourney anyway...by the vote of a lot of men (including myself).

I keep trying to tell everybody that coaches have a lot to do with your career as an official but nobody wants to hear it from me, mainly because of the propaganda that JR and some of the others are allowed to do to me on this forum after I post. You go T'ing up a coach, especially a undeserved T, it could have a huge effect on how fast you move up. I hear a lot of people say that you don't call a game based on what the coach thinks, and we really shouldn't have to. However, true be told, you better listen to what they have to say.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Old School

..... You go T'ing up a coach, especially a undeserved T, it could have a huge effect on how fast you move up. ....

Your statement implies that an official should expect that a "deserved" T could also have a huge effect on how fast an official moves up. Thats a flawed system.

Just as the inmates shouldn't pick their jailers, the coaches should have little, if any, say in who officiates.

My .02

[JoeTheRef]

[QUOTE=jmaellis]Just as the inmates shouldn't pick their jailers, the coaches should have little, if any, say in who officiates.[/QUOTE]


I agree 100%. In our state, they may request that an official not work their games or gym, but they better have a good reason and tape to back it up. If not, too bad.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

I keep trying to tell everybody that coaches have a lot to do with your career as an official but nobody wants to hear it from me, mainly because of the propaganda that JR and some of the others are allowed to do to me on this forum after I post. You go T'ing up a coach, especially a undeserved T, it could have a huge effect on how fast you move up. I hear a lot of people say that you don't call a game based on what the coach thinks, and we really shouldn't have to. However, true be told, you better listen to what they have to say.

And being scared to issue a deserved T will have an even bigger affect on your career. No one here advocates giving "undeserved" T's, though.

You might want to check, but I'm pretty sure your strawman is burning.

[Adam]

In a way, it's like the big Superbowl story about the first and second African-American head coaches getting to the big game. Should it be news? No. Did I realize it hadn't happened yet? No, but I'm not African-American, and I don't tend to pay attention to race.
However, it was going to be an issue until it happened precisely because it had taken so long.
Two women working this game was going to be a news story until it finally happened.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

In a way, it's like the big Superbowl story about the first and second African-American head coaches getting to the big game. Should it be news? No. Did I realize it hadn't happened yet? No, but I'm not African-American, and I don't tend to pay attention to race.

This is a very telling statement. Because of what you are not, you do not have to pay attention to something like that. Many African-Americans paid a lot of attention to the Super Bowl and other similar situations because it is really odd when most of the players are of a certain race and you can only find one or two opportunities. This is really a concern at the college level (football coaching) where the numbers are even more abysmal. The myth that many do not understand it is about equality, not about something as simply as what race you were born with. If you give opportunity to everyone that is "qualified" and not just to a select group of people, this will not be an issue anymore.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a very telling statement. Because of what you are not, you do not have to pay attention to something like that. Many African-Americans paid a lot of attention to the Super Bowl and other similar situations because it is really odd when most of the players are of a certain race and you can only find one or two opportunities. This is really a concern at the college level (football coaching) where the numbers are even more abysmal. The myth that many do not understand it is about equality, not about something as simply as what race you were born with. If you give opportunity to everyone that is "qualified" and not just to a select group of people, this will not be an issue anymore.

It was meant to be telling. I really don't care about race, and was raised that way. My only concern is someone's qualifications and abilities. Understanding that an individual's "qualifications" may have been stunted in spite of his/her abilities, I struggle with how much weight to put on "qualifications."
That said, I recognize that this is in many ways a factor of my own race. I'm not forced to deal with it on a daily basis, and only have to deal with it on an abstract-let's-talk-about-it basis; and then only when I want to. I was only giving my perspective, as little worth as it has to most.

[Adam]

Jeff and I had a quick, cordial discussion. Apparently that seems acceptable. Now, I'm guessing anyone can see exactly how this one degenerated. Good grief.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You might want to check, but I'm pretty sure your strawman is burning.

This might help with the burning sensation:

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is not quite true, we've sent qualified women officials to the top state tourney before...with the old process. There were two that I remember since I've been in the PBOA, one of them moved out of town and never went to the tourney again from her new area. The other is working D1 ball and gave up HS ball after going to the top girls tourney in her last year. They were good enough to overcome the main deficiency of the system (lack of votes from boys coaches).

There were a handful of others that woud have made it if they had stuck around and spent the same 10-15+ years improving and earning the repect of their peers that all other other tourney official had to do...but they didn't want to put in the time and effort.

The part of the new system that makes it easier for women, and other qualified men btw, move up to tournament level is the part about people only being eligible if they didn't work a tourney last year. If that had been fully implemented this year, both Melodee and Lea Ann would have been eligible by votes, and would not have needed to be "commissionered" in.

I disagree that lack of boys' coaches' votes is the primary item in not getting into the tournaments. The problem isn't who votes and who doesn't. The problem is that once someone has been to the tournament, they have a sort of name-recognition and credibility that gets them more votes next year. By extending the rotation to include refs who are actually good enough, but get squeezed down the list by those who have been to tournaments in the past, not only women refs, but also refs like you, Camron, are more likely to get into the tournament.

I think the next step is to eliminate coaches' votes altogether, but I expect that's quite a ways down the line.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The part of the new system that makes it easier for women, and other qualified men btw, move up to tournament level is the part about people only being eligible if they didn't work a tourney last year. If that had been fully implemented this year, both Melodee and Lea Ann would have been eligible by votes, and would not have needed to be "commissionered" in.

But that would still keep them at a relatively lower postion in the ranking. The coaches vote would have a larger impact....in fact both Melodee and Lea Ann would move up exactly 10 spots by eliminating the coaches part of the vote....clear indication that the coaches vote is what is pushing them down. While the eligibility part makes for more people getting a shot, it doesn't change the imbalance in coaches votes that works more against the women than the men.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I disagree that lack of boys' coaches' votes is the primary item in not getting into the tournaments. The problem isn't who votes and who doesn't. The problem is that once someone has been to the tournament, they have a sort of name-recognition and credibility that gets them more votes next year.

If that were true, you wouldn't have 5 new people going to the tourney (not counting the women who were put in by the commissioner's picks).

Originally Posted by rainmaker

By extending the rotation to include refs who are actually good enough, but get squeezed down the list by those who have been to tournaments in the past, not only women refs, but also refs like you, Camron, are more likely to get into the tournament.

It's not about sending someone who is "good enough". It's about sending the best officials....with some mearsure taken to cover for a statistical margin of error.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It's not about sending someone who is "good enough". It's about sending the best officials....with some mearsure taken to cover for a statistical margin of error.

I disagree completely. Tournaments are competitions for the players, and should not be for the refs. Anyone who is good enough should be able to have a turn. There's no rationale for sending the "best" officials to tournaments as often as they're eligible over 20 years, when other officials who work just as hard never get to go. If there are 50 who are good enough then over the course of several years all 50 of them should get to go. I find it incredibly offensive that certain people can have the gall to get up in front of the association and claim that if certain people go to the torunament, our reputation will suffer. That person will never get my vote again.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I disagree completely. Tournaments are competitions for the players, and should not be for the refs. Anyone who is good enough should be able to have a turn. There's no rationale for sending the "best" officials to tournaments as often as they're eligible over 20 years, when other officials who work just as hard never get to go. If there are 50 who are good enough then over the course of several years all 50 of them should get to go. I find it incredibly offensive that certain people can have the gall to get up in front of the association and claim that if certain people go to the torunament, our reputation will suffer. That person will never get my vote again.

I couldn't agree more. When I hear that so-and-so has gone 6 times to a state tournament my first thought is that 5 qualified officials got passed over so this one person could go six times.

There are hundreds of officials in each state that would do themselves and their associations proud and aren't given the chance on the big stage. When I rule the world, people will get to go once per lifetime.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

I couldn't agree more. When I hear that so-and-so has gone 6 times to a state tournament my first thought is that 5 qualified officials got passed over so this one person could go six times.

There are hundreds of officials in each state that would do themselves and their associations proud and aren't given the chance on the big stage. When I rule the world, people will get to go once per lifetime.

I disagree that people should only go one time. I think it should not be an automatic if you go one time that you must go multiple times (like seems to be the case most of the time in my state). I do not think everyone that puts on a whistle should get a shot either.

Peace