Coaches evaluating Officials

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

This last year, I had a season with four highly-charged games and my ratings went down due to four "poor" ratings. I don't *know* that there is a direct correlation, but the previous year I did not have ANY "poor" ratings.

What confuses me about the ratings is that this past year I had more top AND bottom rankings and less in between rankings than in previous years. (E.g., in 2005, I had 5 ratings of "excellent," 9 ratings of "good," 7 ratings of "average" and 0 ratings of "poor" -- in 2006, I had 10 ratings of "excellent," 4 ratings of "good," 3 ratings of "average" and 4 ratings of "poor"). Did I get better or worse?

That is precisely my point made above. In all probability, your poor ratings came from the losing coaches in those "highly-charged" games...while the winning coaches probably contributed 4 of those excellent or good votes. When there are close, controversial calls that you get right, only one side is going to agree with you. If there are 2-3 of them near the end, one coach is almost always going to think you're a poor official.

While it is possible for many (maybe even most) coaches to rate officials objectively, there are few enough ratings that those that can't can really pull down the average....which can be a big deal when such ratings are a factor in tourney advancement.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... when such ratings are a factor in tourney advancement.

Which, in my opinion, they never should be. Precisely the for the reason that you articulated to bgtg19 about his experience.

[refnrev]

In our system, as Rut said, we're rated after every game. The last time I saw the ratings difference between winning and losing coaches it was very small. I'm not sure of they still do, but if they gave you a worst possible rating they used to have to explain why. Coaches also have to state if they won or lost the game. I also think that have to explain if they base their ratings on one big call in te game or not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by refnrev

In our system, as Rut said, we're rated after every game. The last time I saw the ratings difference between winning and losing coaches it was very small. I'm not sure of they still do, but if they gave you a worst possible rating they used to have to explain why. Coaches also have to state if they won or lost the game. I also think that have to explain if they base their ratings on one big call in te game or not.

A simple yes or no is insufficient to me.
What coach is going to say "yes" here?
May as well ask people to voluntarily admit if they've been convicted of child abuse.