Local politics blues

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Anything is possible, but I know a lot of people that do none of those things and are fine in their careers.

Peace

Well it was a definite problem around here since my area only had one assignor for HS games for multiple decades. Our system is different than your system.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well it was a definite problem around here since my area only had one assignor for HS games for multiple decades. Our system is different than your system.

All systems are going to be different because you have different people running them. Never stated that it does not happen, but there are a lot of people that use excuses or act like they were wronged when others have been through the same process.

And often people that say they are wronged think there is some special procedures that they have to go through, rather than admitting they did not do everything they could normally to get to a certain point. Case in point the examples that Camron gave about the individuals that were identified to him.

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

An interesting thread - because where I am, coaches have ZERO official input into game assignments, playoff or otherwise. Officials as a whole also have no official input.

For everything below the college level, local associations provide officials to various games, and the association sends the clients a bill. The client then pays the bill.

Certainly local assignors have an ongoing dialogue with coaches, AD's, etc., but playoff and provincial championship assignments are made by a committee of senior officials and/or local executive officers.

Our system must seem downright dictatorial to you folks

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

An interesting thread - because where I am, coaches have ZERO official input into game assignments, playoff or otherwise. Officials as a whole also have no official input.

For everything below the college level, local associations provide officials to various games, and the association sends the clients a bill. The client then pays the bill.

Certainly local assignors have an ongoing dialogue with coaches, AD's, etc., but playoff and provincial championship assignments are made by a committee of senior officials and/or local executive officers.

Our system must seem downright dictatorial to you folks,eh?

Fixed it for ya! No charge.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

An interesting thread - because where I am, coaches have ZERO official input into game assignments, playoff or otherwise. Officials as a whole also have no official input.

For everything below the college level, local associations provide officials to various games, and the association sends the clients a bill. The client then pays the bill.

Certainly local assignors have an ongoing dialogue with coaches, AD's, etc., but playoff and provincial championship assignments are made by a committee of senior officials and/or local executive officers.

Our system must seem downright dictatorial to you folks

You cannot say coaches have no input and then say the assignors talk to them. They might not be the decision makers, which is the way it should be, bu they still have input.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot say coaches have no input and then say the assignors talk to them. They might not be the decision makers, which is the way it should be, bu they still have input.

Peace

Coaches talk to us during the game. Do they have input on your calls?

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot say coaches have no input and then say the assignors talk to them. They might not be the decision makers, which is the way it should be, bu they still have input.

In the sense that if they want to call an assignor and make comments, they can - but very seldom does that have any appreciable effect on who gets what playoff games and where. And they certainly aren't casting votes or filling out ballots, or hiring officials directly like apparently happens where you folks are. That's the point I was trying to make.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Coaches talk to us during the game. Do they have input on your calls?

Input is one thing. Acting on that input is another. We all get a lot of the former - but the latter...?

Our system must seem downright dictatorial to you folks,eh?

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Fixed it for ya! No charge.

Eh, thanks...ya hoser

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Input is one thing. Acting on that input is another. We all get a lot of the former - but the latter...?

That was my point. Having a conversation is not equal to having input. It is only input if the conversation has an impact on the decision which follows.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Coaches talk to us during the game. Do they have input on your calls?

Not the same thing. Assignors talk to coaches for different reasons. They may talk to them to identify a problem and maybe to then follow up on that information themselves. A court official does not have the same working relationship.

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

In the sense that if they want to call an assignor and make comments, they can - but very seldom does that have any appreciable effect on who gets what playoff games and where. And they certainly aren't casting votes or filling out ballots, or hiring officials directly like apparently happens where you folks are. That's the point I was trying to make.

All I am saying in your example they have input. That does not mean the impact of that input is great or that their influence is even significant. It just means they have some say and it is up to the assignors to decide how much influence they ultimately at the end of the day. I would suspect it only goes so far by assignors that have an officiating background.

Peace