Coaches evaluating Officials
 

This has been talked about before, I'm sure. I never thought too hard about it until I saw some reviews of my own. I just didn't know what to take away from it.

I had overall good scores, my worst overall evaluation was 'average', and that from a coach who saw fit to rate me 'average' in every category. What interests me is that I also received two overall perfect scores (out of 8 evaluations), but was rated by one coach as 'poor' on rules and mechanics, who commented that I "may not be able to make it" as an official.

My hunch is that coaches evaluting on mechanics and rules knowledge is not too valuable, but I could pay attention to how they rate my appearance/professionalism, court presence, hustle, etc.

Any thoughts?

They ought to be forced to provide examples of "mechanics and rules knowledge" errors that prompt them to evaluate them so poorly.
Do these evals have any affect on your assignments, post season, or advancement? If not, I'd tend to agree with your assessment.

While there are some that will do a reasonable job, coaches evaluating you, in general, is largely useless. The rating will tend to track win/loss. If you make calls they disagree with, your rules knowledge will be lacking. If you make calls they agree with, your rules knowledge will be high.

They don't have a clue where you should/shouldn't be regarding mechanics and they would rarely be watching you unless you blow the whistle....so how would they know 90% of the time.

Even the other non-game related categories will be swayed by emotion.

The best evaluations are done by fully independant parties who have nothing to gain/lose from the event.

Of course, if you're getting good evals from losing coaches, you can probably, at least, accept that they're trying to give an honest answer and not just ding you because they lost.

We have a rating system that coaches participate in, but it is not an evaluation system. All they can do is rate us based on what they think based on 5 different categories.

1--State Final Official
2--Sectional Level Official
3--Regional Level Official
4--Varsity Level Official
5--Lower Level Contest only

Coach’s ratings are combined with Certified Officials ratings that can only amount to 5 points in a 40 point system. I understand in every rating the coaches make, they have to answer if there is a single call that shaped their opinion of that official. From what I understand most coaches say "no" to that question.

The bottom line is whether you have a rating or evaluation system, coaches are going to have some say. There might be a system in place or some basic feedback. The rest is going to be left up to the people that do the assigning how much they listen to it. In my state's case ratings only play 1/7 of the overall picture and are not the end all be all of how you are evaluated. I think often as officials we concern ourselves with too many things we cannot control. Ultimately, we cannot completely control what a coach thinks of us. Do the best job you can and it is more likely you will be noticed for more things than what a rating says.

Peace

Ratings by coaches is pointless. They don't know enough about officiating to have any say in what is right and what is wrong.

Plus there is the problem it creates of some officials wanting to please the coach to get a better rating instead of making the proper call for the game.

I believe that coaches should not be allowed to rate officials at all, and certainly the coaches should not have any say in which officials work which games whether that is regular season or postseason. It compromises the integrity of the game.

Nevada, you know, holding in your emotions and opinions like this is only going to hurt you in the long run.

Let it out.

Oh, do you want to know how I really feel? :D

I hear what you are saying Nevada...but, what would you say to those that believe officials are like independent contractors. And the schools have a right to hire whatever contractors they wish. It's the school's money...it's there gig...let the schools have a say in what officials will be working their games.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with these opinions...just saying. ;)

In my state the officials are independent contractors. We sign a contract at the start of each season.
However, it is not the individual schools that hire the independent contractors. It is done through an officials association which contracts with the state office. All of the member schools agree to let the state office handle the officials for all of the contests.

This way no individual school, coach, or AD has any say in who the officials are. That is handled by the adminstrators of the state office and the board of the officials association.

To respond more directly to the setup in your question, I believe that there needs to be a layer of separation between the schools and the officials. Allowing the schools to hire whoever they wish would, in my opinion, affect the integrity of the game.

Just throwing the idea out, why don't we rate the coaches

Really trying to ferment the feces aren't you? :D

True, but I'm just wondering if my ratings from the coaches will match the ones he/she gave me

What's the harm?
 

I can't see what's the harm in coaches providing feedback on refs performance? I think most of the more experienced refs know how to weed out comments motivated by win/loss, and take onboard valid comments.

That's a fallacy, Jeff. Nearly all officials who are working the playoffs will be certified, have attended a camp, got a high score on the test, work the minimum nunber of games, ... IOW, almost all of them will have 30 points out of a possible 30 (or whatever the numbers are) on all non-rating criteria.

The only differentials are the top-15 lists and the coach and official ratings. And, even here, the power points are based on percentile -- everyone above 90 gets 5 points (again, or whatever the specifics are). So, there's a huge pool of officials with 40 points, a huge pool with 39 points, etc.

I think it's just desinged to give some apparent mathmatical rigor to what is (and must be) a subjective system. And, I'm not objecting to the subjectiveness.

I did not say it was the only part. Actually the assignors consider other things like availability, geographic location, years of experience, class you tend to work and many other things we will never know about like what kind of other procedures you follow when observed. The Power rating is only a part of what our sport's administrators consider. And this is why I personally never worry about what the rating is that much. There are people that have worked playoff games that are not Certified officials and I had one of the administrators admit that if they see you working a lot of big games, that raises their opinion about you because they know you can handle a bigger crowd and a higher profile game. So those cross-town rivalry games that you work will mean more than if you are constantly working the bottom teams in a conference. And our system is at least made more explicit than most.

The bottom line is no matter what system you work coaches will have a say. If anyone works college and you think a coach does not any say in your ability to stay at that level, you are sadly mistaken. Coaches are always going to have some say even if it is not wrapped up in a systematic rating system.

I almost forgot this last statment. You would be surprised how many officials work post season games that are not Certified Officials. ;)

Peace

In Michigan, coaches ratings of officials are, basically, everything in terms of advancement to tournaments, etc. There is a requirement that an official attends a rules meeting before the season, and then works a minimum number of varsity games ... and ... that's it. The rest is all based on coaches' ratings. You get rated better by coaches and you go further in the tournament.

This is, however, slowly beginning to change. This year, for example, Michigan is introducing an online rules test which is voluntary but which will be "considered" by the committee which makes tournament assignments. Also -- and Bud will be interested in this -- Michigan officials are about to begin a ratings process where we evaluate the schools (game management, coaches, players, fans, facilities, etc.).

That's how things are done, now let me express my opinion. I think that coaches *comments* would be useful. Yes, some comments will be misguided. You just dismiss those. But even if there is a perception problem, it may be helpful to know that there is a perception problem. Comments, great. Unfornately, in Michigan, we don't get any comments. We only get *ratings*? And ratings don't seem to communicate much; at least not clearly. 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?

Coaches ratings of officials in Michigan is "here to stay," as an MHSAA administrator put it, but at least they are trying to introduce a few other pieces to the overall picture.

I happen to subscribe to the outlook that Jeff articulated above. Only worry about what is in your control. Do the best you can and that's it. Let the rest take care of itself. Unfortunately, that does mean, IMO, that biases (race, weight, hair, etc.) enter into the picture.... *Most* of the bias against me is that I'm not quite as good as that other official....

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.

Probably off topic, but we have a coach at one of our local high schools who is a former college official and now is an evaluator for a D1 conference try-out camp. The conference supervisor is an employee at the high school.

No pressure ref'n at that school. :o

Now, thats one coach I wouldn't mind evaluate me!

Sounds like a plan to me. !

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

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.