Coach's Question, Need Help Responding

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

IDK mbyron... we have the accept/decline boxes for every game we are offered via Arbiter.

Personally, I check the accept box for any assignment offered, regardless of gender or level. Many of our Big Dawgs will not travel past certain limits or work a 2 person game or even work girls games.

Most assignors don't offer the more skilled officials girls games anyway, unless its part of a double-header.

We are required to work a certain amount of girls & lower-level games to be considered eligible for post-season.

All in all, I stick by my original comment. Lets face it unlike college & up, at the HS level they need us more than we need them.

I only turn games down do to scheduling conflicts I hadn't had a chance to block on arbiter.

In CO, officials have to work a certain number of girls games and a certain number of jv games to be eligible for post season. Most try to "double dip" on the requirement by working JV girls games.

The fact that some states have this as a requirement shows that the preference is widespread. Whether it's perception or not really doesn't matter, but there are some officials who would rather work a JH boys game than a varsity girls (or even a college women) game.

The only way this would be a Title IX issue would be if schools or assigners were offering bigger incentives for the boys games (higher fees, 3-whistle vs 2-whistle, etc.)

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The only way this would be a Title IX issue would be if schools or assigners were offering bigger incentives for the boys games (higher fees, 3-whistle vs 2-whistle, etc.)

As a matter of law, that is not true. Discrimination does not have to be intentional or bigoted, but can be an "accidental" effect of apparently disparate choices. Policies that have the effect of differential treatment for men and women are routinely overturned in court, no matter what their rationale is.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As a matter of law, that is not true. Discrimination does not have to be intentional or bigoted, but can be an "accidental" effect of apparently disparate choices. Policies that have the effect of differential treatment for men and women are routinely overturned in court, no matter what their rationale is.

Nothing about either of my suggestions is necessarily purposeful discrimination. I could easily see a push, for example, to have three officials in boys games while the girls get two. Frankly, without Title IX, we'd probably already see that.

My point was that Title IX affects schools, not privately contracted officials and their choices of which games to work. It seems to me, from my limited perspective, that the schools would only have to show they've done as much as they can to equalize the officiating.

If officials were liable, you'd see football officials forced to work volleyball.

[Adam]

If anything, I would simply tell the coaches that I really have no insight into that; but he's welcome to contact the assigner to find out why.

I really like the snarky reply regarding coaches, however.