Consistent Judgement

[Hartsy]

My evaluations from coaches are generally positive. When there is a negative comment made it often is in the category of Consistent Judgement. I'm wondering a couple of things. Should I pay much attention to this, given it is from a coaches perspective? If consistency IS a problem in my calls/no calls, how do I improve on it? Do other officials get more comments about this than in other areas? That should be a good start.

[Adam]

In general, it's a canard. I'd ask an actual official to evaluate you and see if they have any issues with your consistency.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

My evaluations from coaches are generally positive. When there is a negative comment made it often is in the category of Consistent Judgement. I'm wondering a couple of things. Should I pay much attention to this, given it is from a coaches perspective?

Nope. We are rated by coaches not only on a number scale (1-5 with 1 being the best), but they can mark areas on the rating where we "need improvement". They are things like control, professionalism, appearance, consistency, verbal communication, etc. When the ratings come out after the season each year, every official I talk to has by far more "consistency" marks than anything else. That should tell you something.

If consistency IS a problem in my calls/no calls, how do I improve on it? Do other officials get more comments about this than in other areas? That should be a good start.

Yes....see above.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

My evaluations from coaches are generally positive. When there is a negative comment made it often is in the category of Consistent Judgement. I'm wondering a couple of things. Should I pay much attention to this, given it is from a coaches perspective? If consistency IS a problem in my calls/no calls, how do I improve on it? Do other officials get more comments about this than in other areas? That should be a good start.

Video. If you can, find a family member to tape a few games that you work. And even better, try to get two different angles. You can often rent an SD camcorder for cheap for use over a weekend. Two of them wouldn't be too much money, I don't think.

Watch the game within 48 hours to keep it fresh in your mind.

[bainsey]

On our soccer board, both coaches and officials rate us. For basketball, coaches don't presently get a say in ratings, though a pilot program is under development.

There was a story a few years ago in Referee magazine that showed that, overall, coaches rate officials more fairly than other officials do. Granted, coaches may be looking for different things, but ultimately, they're not competing for the same jobs as you, and that plays a factor.

I believe it's erroenous to completely dismiss a coach's viewpoint. You can certainly consider their motivation during an evaluation, but you may be surprised what you learn.

[JRutledge]

Consistency from a coach means, "Call the way I want you to call the game in our favor." I do not listen to coaches about consistency when the plays they try to say are not consistent are not the same.

Go to camps and learn from other officials to know what that really means. And it does not mean because we have a block call on one end, we must have a block call on the other end. Then opponents in the game run the exact same offenses and defenses with the same type of skill on both ends, I will worry about being consistent the way they wish.

Peace

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

My evaluations from coaches are generally positive. When there is a negative comment made it often is in the category of Consistent Judgement. I'm wondering a couple of things. Should I pay much attention to this, given it is from a coaches perspective? If consistency IS a problem in my calls/no calls, how do I improve on it? Do other officials get more comments about this than in other areas? That should be a good start.

That's good feedback for you to have. Two things to consider:

1. Not being consistent can mean that you call the same types of plays different ways. Coaches and players want to know how you are going to call the game. What you call a block or a handcheck needs to be the same for both teams and at all points in the game. Veterans are perceived as consistent, more often that newer guys, because even if coaches disagree with your style/philosophy, they know what you are going to do. Familiarity, combined with an individual consistency, leads to credibility. Coaches (and partners) like known quantities.

2. Not being consistent means that you have more calls that do not seem to fit the game than others. Again, in the hypothetical world, you call what you see, perceptions be damned. It the real world of officiating, whistles should fit into the game as often as possible. There are times when they don't, either by us making mistakes or it just has to be done, but the guys who are perceived as consistent generally stay away from routinely making these calls that draw negative attention.

How do you improve them? Be self-aware, question yourself after each game, get honest feedback from partners/mentors, and watch film when possible.

[jeffpea]

the key to making consistent calls during the game is having good "recall"...meaning, you need to be able to remember plays from earlier in the game and have a similar play that just occured have a similar result with a similar play that happened earlier in the game.

no two plays are EXACTLY the same, but they can be similar. if you had a shooter get bumped at one end and you/your partner called a foul...then a shooter that just got bumped at this end should probably have a fould called as well...

typically, your recall gets better with experience. the game will slow down for you and you will not only see plays more clearly, but you will be able to recall previous plays to help you judge whether a foul should or should not be called.

simply focus on recalling plays from earlier in the game. it's a skill that you can improve on w/ practice...

once you get good at this, then you can confidently tell a coach who is complaining about your call..."same play as in the first half, coach"....

[26 Year Gap]

I've been under two different systems. One is under present officials [partners] rating game performances. This had some inherent errors such as agendas. Since it had a direct correlation on post-season assignments, there was a degree of protectionism. The other has others who are not actively working games do evaluations. This system is better in my opinion than the former or having coaches provide ratings.

[BillyMac]

Consistency, Consistency, Consistency
Written by Tim Sloan, Bettendorf, Iowa
Released on MyReferee
Copyright© Referee Enterprises, Inc.

In basketball, consistency is a term that few can define but almost everyone can recognize and appreciate in a crew. Provided that a referee doesn't make the game dangerous or take the competitiveness out of it, the good coaches and teams will adjust to what the zebras give them. In fact, you can often pick those coaches' voices out from the mob behind you. Instead of asking, "How could you call that a foul?" they're reminding you, "If you're going to call it at that end. ..."

Consistency for basketball officials really exists on four levels and it's important for their upward mobility to succeed on all four of them.

Self-consistency. Most have heard the debate about whether a foul in the first quarter should necessarily be a foul in the fourth quarter or vice versa. Generically, a foul is a foul. But if you divide them up as safety, advantage-disadvantage and game control fouls, there are many successful officials who preach flexibility on the latter. They feel that you can change the mood of a game for the worse by being too rigid or too loose at the wrong times. Maybe so, but you still have to maintain a level of predictability during a game. If you're like most, trying to deliberately change your standard for calling a foul during a game is like trying to write with your other hand. It's clumsy, frustrating and not very pretty. Changing your standard depends too much on your current mindset. So, it's reasonable to believe that self-consistency over the course of a game breaks down as a result of other factors. Some of the principal ones are fatigue, attitude toward the game and comfort.

Fatigue is an easy one. An official whose heart isn't getting enough blood to the legs isn't getting enough to the brain either. Attention to keys and concentration dwindle as the game wears on and so do the responses. There is no real substitute for being in condition to handle the game. Attitude toward the game changes when the official forgets what I consider to be the golden rule: "You're paid to be here so it doesn't matter what you think of the experience." Call the game and don't cheat them with "good enough." Comfort doesn't refer to the fit of your compression shorts. It means how you're reacting to your surroundings: Do you feel safe? Are people or surroundings distracting you? There are people who can sleep soundly in an orchestra pit and there are referees who can cheerfully blank out the most hostile of environments and keep on doing their jobs. They don't let the fear of a lynching change how they call a game. Learn to deal with stress or learn to manage the issues that threaten you. The great officials can do that.

The bottom line is that the participants need to be able to trust you if you want to keep getting called back. And having the physical and emotional tools to call it consistently is paramount.

Consistency within the crew. Mechanically, I think it's far easier for referees who have never met to work together in a three-person crew than two. That's because they can focus on a more confined area and have to rely less intuitively on their partners to watch their backs for them. There's less of a need for a "system." That goes for crews who have worked together for years, too. Unfortunately, the flip side of that "independence" is the same partners might have more trouble staying "in sync" with one another during a game. If they're paying less attention to what their comrades are doing, they're probably not calling exactly what the others are calling either. You want everyone calling it the same way.

Crewmembers have to establish a reputation for working to the same standard in the same situations throughout the game. Unless you can find identical triplets somewhere, it inevitably means that even the best officials have to exercise some give-and-take in their judgments to leverage their success as a crew.

Consistency from crew to crew. One of the most underestimated factors in a crew's potential for success this week is what the coaches had to put up with last week. If the officials come in and put on a completely different show than the last gang did, one crew's going to get it in the neck. Somebody in authority has to be communicating with crews and telling them how their products differ - good or bad. It's even more critical that those crews listen and adjust. A great way to get booted out of a conference is to shrug off how you differ from other crews and say, "Take it or leave it." They'll leave it.

Perhaps the right word isn't consistency but capability. In manufacturing, a consistent process is one that always gives the same result but that result isn't necessarily the one you want. A capable process is one that consistently gives the desired results. Assigners want officials who reward their confidence in them by turning in capable performances night after night.

Fortunately, capability is a quality you can develop if you're willing to work at it. And it certainly pays off when you do.

Source: Arbiter

[Raymond]

We get no coach's evals at the HS level here.

If we did the only ones I would care about and give any credence to would be "professionalism" and "communication skills". Other than that there is nothing a coach can offer me about officiating.

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

We get no coach's evals at the HS level here.

If we did the only ones I would care about and give any credence to would be "professionalism" and "communication skills". Other than that there is nothing a coach can offer me about officiating.

+1

Coach, you're not qualified to critique me!

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

we get no coach's evals at the hs level here.

If we did the only ones i would care about and give any credence to would be "professionalism" and "communication skills". Other than that there is nothing a coach can offer me about officiating.

+2

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

We get no coach's evals at the HS level here.

If we did the only ones I would care about and give any credence to would be "professionalism" and "communication skills". Other than that there is nothing a coach can offer me about officiating.

That's about how I feel about it. My 'Professionalism' scores, thankfully, are good. There isn't a category for communication, unless it falls under 'Proper Mechanics'.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Consistency from a coach means, "Call the way I want you to call the game in our favor." .....

Similar to "Call it both ways" = Call it my way!

As has been said, coaches have no business rating officials outside of categories like professionalism and communication.