Coach's Question, Need Help Responding

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Never went to a college camp for women's basketball. The guy I worked for assigned by the Women's and the Men's side in a D3 conference. He assigned officials to both sides and was fired as a result from that conference. That says all I need to know about that side.

Peace

Yeah, I agree about THAT side!!

Also, not sure how Title IX would play into the argument. This is a case, for lack of a better term, of "Serperate But Equal". On the NFHS side, so long as the officials calling the games are certified (based on whatever that criteria would be) then there is no Title IX issue. Now if a school/district/state were using "certified" officials for the one and not the other, THEN you might have a problem. On the NCAA side you have an even split on the "corporate" side in Indy, both men and women are provided the same resources and each have their own, seperate, evaluation procedures. So they are good there.

[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.)

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not sure what you are saying "nope" to, because your system is still not like the system that many (not all) work in. I do not get any games from an association. I get games only from assignors. I get games from places where the assignor belongs to a completely different area or association than where I am located. And the assignor that gives high school games does not refer to the guy that assigns JH games.

"Nope" was supposed to mean "No, the system I work in is not like the system you work in." My apologies, I should've phrased it more clearly.

Good for you. But I work for about 12 different people and one does not care what the other one is doing. And when playoffs and other considerations are being made, I am not working a JH game (even in my back yard) and turn away the college game even with the travel. Not going to happen. The only thing I will not do is take a game at one level and then take another game at that same level. My goals are not to work the Men's league championship game so all levels have different priorities.

True enough, one assigner doesn't care what the other one is doing. And there's some games that I'd definitely prefer to work over others (I'd rather work a high school game then a rec league game, and I'm sure most everyone here feels the same way). Thing is, if assigner A gets me a game on Thursday night, and assigner B calls me 2 days later with a game on the same Thursday night, I don't feel that it would be right for me to accept the game from assigner B and then have to turn around to assigner A and say "sorry, something's come up, I can't do that game on Thursday". If I do that too many times, pretty soon I'm not going to get calls from assigner A anymore. Better to tell assigner B "Sorry, I'd love to do the game(s), but I'm already booked on Thursday."

Luckily, it works out without too much problem, because there's very little non-varsity high school or junior high games on weekends. My travel team assigner primarily does weekend tournaments, and my rec league assigner does almost exclusively evening games (after non-varsity high school games are finished) or weekends.

You say that this is your second year, you will learn soon enough.

That's the plan. I'm still in the "get as much game experience as possible" mode. I'm sure that in a few years, I'll be as jaded and devoid of my idealism as the rest of you.

[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.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

these 2 coaches brought up was why is it that they see top notch officials not doing Varsity Girls...

There are many reasons why. Unless you know about all of them first hand, why would you even consider answering the question? If these same coaches know the assignor, which I'm sure they do, then I would direct them to contact that person. He/she is making the decision to use or not use certain officials on their games.

[just another ref]

Who draws the line between "top notch" and the rest of the field?

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

True, but it might come to the point where those unwilling to work girls games won't be offered boys games. That doesn't constitute "force," though they will have a choice to make.

That already does happen with some commissioners. And some officials simply choose not to work those conferences.

I don't really care one way or another, although I will be the first to admit that I'm forced to call a different game in 90% of my girls games than I call during the boys games. The girls are simply not athletic enough to play through what would easily be considered incidental contact in a vast majority of boys games. I consider myself able to adjust to the differences in the games, although I probably am not the best judge of how well I do that.

[Texas Aggie]

you could make a Title IX case here

No, you can't. I didn't bother reading your reasoning since the conclusion you have here is absurd. We as officials don't take federal funds. There's also a number of other statute specific qualifiers that I don't recall off the top of my head.

[Texas Aggie]

Policies that have the effect of differential treatment for men and women are routinely overturned in court, no matter what their rationale is.

Care to give some examples?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

True enough, one assigner doesn't care what the other one is doing. And there's some games that I'd definitely prefer to work over others (I'd rather work a high school game then a rec league game, and I'm sure most everyone here feels the same way). Thing is, if assigner A gets me a game on Thursday night, and assigner B calls me 2 days later with a game on the same Thursday night, I don't feel that it would be right for me to accept the game from assigner B and then have to turn around to assigner A and say "sorry, something's come up, I can't do that game on Thursday". If I do that too many times, pretty soon I'm not going to get calls from assigner A anymore. Better to tell assigner B "Sorry, I'd love to do the game(s), but I'm already booked on Thursday."

I do not have much of a problem with anything you said here. I am not talking about someone calling you 2 days before anything. That is always dicey unless the person asking knows the situation that you are currently in. But most assignors where I am from not only understand this, they would be glad that you are hired by someone that is put you at a higher level. And it is a lot easier to find someone for a rec. league than it is a high school game on a big night like Friday.

A lot of this discussion is local anyway. What happens in your area or my area is not likely to apply to everyone.

Peace

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

No, you can't. I didn't bother reading your reasoning since the conclusion you have here is absurd. We as officials don't take federal funds. There's also a number of other statute specific qualifiers that I don't recall off the top of my head.

While I agree that Title IX is not applicaple, it actually CAN be argued that we take federal funds. School districts receive federal funds which they use to set their budget. Since athletics is a line item on the budget, which is put together based on those federal funds, and funds distributed from that line item COULD be argued to be federal funds thus required to meet federal requirements.
It is "the long arm of the law" There is no such thing as a 'free lunch" I would bring up Hillsdale College here but that is a thread hijaker!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

While I agree that Title IX is not applicaple, it actually CAN be argued that we take federal funds. School districts receive federal funds which they use to set their budget. Since athletics is a line item on the budget, which is put together based on those federal funds, and funds distributed from that line item COULD be argued to be federal funds thus required to meet federal requirements.
It is "the long arm of the law" There is no such thing as a 'free lunch" I would bring up Hillsdale College here but that is a thread hijaker!

In which case football officials would be required to work volleyball, softball, or some girls sport in order to satisfy the requirements. The slope doesn't need to be that slippery to get there.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Judtech

While I agree that Title IX is not applicaple, it actually CAN be argued that we take federal funds. School districts receive federal funds which they use to set their budget. Since athletics is a line item on the budget, which is put together based on those federal funds, and funds distributed from that line item COULD be argued to be federal funds thus required to meet federal requirements.
It is "the long arm of the law" There is no such thing as a 'free lunch" I would bring up Hillsdale College here but that is a thread hijaker!

You could try to argue anything in court if given the chance. But to do this on that law would seem to be a stretch. I am not a lawyer like TA, but not sure how anyone could make a separate group work games they are not obligated to work. Even if you assign someone a game, the people could flat out turn it down. Unless the schools control whether officials take a game or not I am not sure how they would be able to guarantee the top officials work both genders. Most of all this would be very subjective anyway. Who decides who the top officials are anyway?

Peace