From Ref to Evaluator - Coach Perspective

[iref4him]

I was evaluating the officials for a double header. Two varsity coaches, who came to scout the teams playing, saw me and came over to ask me how my recovery was going. They asked me what I am doing and I told them that this year I am evaluting officials since I am able to officiate. I asked them to sit and watch with me for a minute or two and get their perspective.

I asked them what they thought of the officiating so far. They said they thought it was ok. Just about then, a blocking foul was called. I asked them if they thought the official made the correct call. Both of them said yes. I asked them where was he when he made the call. What was his angle? Did he referee the defense? Did he give the right signal? Did the other officials freeze after the call to watch the other players? Did the calling official stay with the play to make certain there was nothing happening afterward? Did the ball go through the basket (it did)? The official did not count the basket yet, did the non-calling official tell him the ball went in? Did he stop and give good signals? Are the other officials getting the players to the line?

After a few more plays we talked about positioning, angles, primary, weakside, strongside, dead bal officiating, etc. The coaches did not realize how much goes into the officiating perspective and mechanics and what to look for. I asked them how do they rate the officials then. Both agreed that it is more about rapport, commuication, and if they know the official or not. With known commodities, they know what they get. New faces are hard to determine what will happen until they see them enough. So they don't rate officials as officials, but whether they feel comfortable with them or not. SO, I asked them, it really doesn't matter how good they are, you just want to communicate with them and feel comfortable with them. Both said basically yes. So I asked them who is better at evaluating the officials, officials or coaches. They agreed it's officials, but they still insisted on communication, comfortability, and iknown commodities.

Interesting perspective.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by iref4him

I was evaluating the officials for a double header. Two varsity coaches, who came to scout the teams playing, saw me and came over to ask me how my recovery was going. They asked me what I am doing and I told them that this year I am evaluting officials since I am able to officiate. I asked them to sit and watch with me for a minute or two and get their perspective.

I asked them what they thought of the officiating so far. They said they thought it was ok. Just about then, a blocking foul was called. I asked them if they thought the official made the correct call. Both of them said yes. I asked them where was he when he made the call. What was his angle? Did he referee the defense? Did he give the right signal? Did the other officials freeze after the call to watch the other players? Did the calling official stay with the play to make certain there was nothing happening afterward? Did the ball go through the basket (it did)? The official did not count the basket yet, did the non-calling official tell him the ball went in? Did he stop and give good signals? Are the other officials getting the players to the line?

After a few more plays we talked about positioning, angles, primary, weakside, strongside, dead bal officiating, etc. The coaches did not realize how much goes into the officiating perspective and mechanics and what to look for. I asked them how do they rate the officials then. Both agreed that it is more about rapport, commuication, and if they know the official or not. With known commodities, they know what they get. New faces are hard to determine what will happen until they see them enough. So they don't rate officials as officials, but whether they feel comfortable with them or not. SO, I asked them, it really doesn't matter how good they are, you just want to communicate with them and feel comfortable with them. Both said basically yes. So I asked them who is better at evaluating the officials, officials or coaches. They agreed it's officials, but they still insisted on communication, comfortability, and iknown commodities.

Interesting perspective.

In other news, water is wet.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

In other news, water is wet.

But Chuck Norris is not.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

In other news, water is wet.

LOL I was sort of thinking the same thing but didn't want to say it. That was an outstanding response.

[rockchalk jhawk]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But Chuck Norris is not.

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But Chuck Norris is not.

Go to the Google search engine.
Type in "Where's Chuck Norris".
Click on "I'm Feeling Lucky".
Read everything carefully.
Enjoy.

[irp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But Chuck Norris is not.

When Dr. David Banner gets angry he turns into the Hulk. When the Hulk gets angry he turns into Chuck Norris. When Chuck Norris gets angry he turns into the Stig.

[bbcoach7]

The OP sounds about right to me and should come as no surprise at all. Break down what each is doing (coach/referee) durring a game and it makes sense.

If I'm in the stands watching a game, it would be possible for me to to observe things like the officials angle, or did he referee the defense, or did he give the right signal, or did the other officials freeze after the call to watch the other players, etc, etc. But I really don't care about these things. They are all examples of things I should be paying attention to if I was there to evaluate officials. However I never have watched a game to evaluate officials. So for me to observe the officials would be like going to a concert and watching the "roadies;" or going to a stage play and watching the sound and light guys. WTF would I ever desire to do that??? I'm there to watch the "show" or in this case the athletes playing the game.

When I watch a game from the stands, I watch the game, specifically the players. More specifically I rarely watch the ball, or the player with the ball. When I watch a game, I'm doing research (that's what I tell my Wife ) I'm there to study what the teams are trying to execute and maybe learn something new. Watching away from the ball makes what they are running much more clear.


If I'm coaching in a game, I am certainly not watching the referee's; at least not until the whistle chirps. Nor would I want to, nor should I be observing the officials between whistles. I should be paying as much attention to the referee's angles, etc, equal to the amount that the referee's pay attention to me drawing on my dry erase board durring a time out. While the clock's running, I am watching the 10 players on the floor. During a game, my observation of a referee has to do with things like do they seem consistent in their calls, and our relationship, or "rapport." Some ref's I know I can talk to a little bit; not argue with, but ask for a clarification, or crack a joke with.

If one or both are awful, (hey, it happens, some coaches are lousy too, and BOTH can continue to be lousy at lower levels) my concern is are they equally awful on both ends of the floor? While not desirable, I can accept that better than does it appear that we are getting all the calls against us (never really happens, a bad ref is bad on both ends). Do they communicate with me? I realize there's no obligation to do it, but I really appreciate a quick explanation -even while running by- when I don't know what just happened. This kind of thing does require either some pre established rapport, or real good people skills, because some referee's might just assume any question is the start of an argument. It's not. Chances are you tell me what just happened that I didn't see, and I'm going to reply, "Good call," whether it went against my team or not.

FROM THE OP: "Just about then, a blocking foul was called. I asked them if they thought the official made the correct call. Both of them said yes. I asked them where was he when he made the call. What was his angle? Did he referee the defense?..."

I think this line of questioning hilites the difference between how a coach would evaluate a referee, and how a referee would evaluate a referee. The coach is going to watch the game. He's going to evaluate the referee on this block call strictly on whether he thought it was a block or not. Probably will not even be very aware of the referee's positioning etc, until the chirp. Perhaps I missunderstand, but if a referee is evaluating a peer by keeping his eyes on the official (peer), this would be proper I assume, but runs counter to what I'm interestred in- was the call correct or not?

Quite frankly, after reading in here for a couple years now, I don't really believe it's appropriate for coaches to evaluate referee's. It's just as bizzare as the opposite idea. Really, what's being evaluated when I evaluate you? Personality? I don't have the knowledge or the understanding of the technical as well as mechanical expertise of your job. And I really had no idea how much I didn't know until I was exposed to you guys in here. This place ought to be mandatory reading for all coaches, and they can't post a reply for at least 1 year.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by bbcoach7

This place ought to be mandatory reading for all coaches, and they can't post a reply for at least 1 year.

Can this go for table personnel too?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Can this go for table personnel too?

Touche!