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.