Coaches evaluating Officials

[Hartsy]

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?

[Adam]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

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?

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Adam]

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

Let it out.

[Nevadaref]

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

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[budjones05]

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

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by budjones05

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

Really trying to ferment the feces aren't you?

[budjones05]

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

[kiwiref]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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