Association Culture ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why not come up with some "best practices" that have seemed to work, instead of mandating rules that have holes in actual application.

All of these "customs" worked for over twenty of the thirty-one years that I've officiated. As I said earlier, our recent problems with these customs seems to be related to a sudden influx of new officials unlike anything we've ever seen in the history of our local board, and the "more democratic, less dictatorial" style of recent leadership.

Nothing mentioned in my article is mandated. It's expected, but not mandated. There is no penalty for not following any of these expectations.

We're just trying to be a professional organization, one that we can all be proud of. Many years ago, athletic directors would often comment on how professional we were compared to other sports associations, that we never seemed to act in a "get in, get out, get paid" manner, we arrived professionally in dress clothes (ties, and maybe jackets back then), and that we were always trying to help, and educate each other. We seldom hear comments like those anymore. How sad?

[REFANDUMP]

It seems odd to me that varsity officials would be getting evaluations done by JV officials who in many cases would want to take their jobs.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

It seems odd to me that varsity officials would be getting evaluations done by JV officials who in many cases would want to take their jobs.

Which is why there is a proposal on the table that the newer subvarsity officials (first year, second year, maybe third year) not rate varsity officials. The reasoning behind the proposal is that officials with only a few years under their "black belts" may not know how to properly rate varsity officials.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Which is why there is a proposal on the table that the newer subvarsity officials (first year, second year, maybe third year) not rate varsity officials. The reasoning behind the proposal is that officials with only a few years under their "black belts" may not know how to properly rate varsity officials.

I'm more curious about the reasoning behind having JV officials rate varsity officials anyway.

1. Why do you need an evaluation every single game? That seems excessive and overly burdensome.

2. In general, I wouldn't think it's appropriate to have evaluations done by lesser officials actually count towards anything meaningful.

IOW, I agree with the proposal you mention, but I don't think it goes far enough. I don't think officials should be giving evaluations until they're working varsity games, at least not evaluations that carry any weight towards rankings, assignments, or status. Why would a 5 year JV ref have any input to give a 20 year varsity ref? I don't get it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why do you need an evaluation every single game?

The more ratings an official gets, the more accurate the ratings are going to be.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The more ratings an official gets, the more accurate the ratings are going to be.

Not if they're being done by officials who have no business giving evaluations.

And I didn't say the evaluations should be done by people "eligible" for varsity.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't think officials should be giving evaluations until they're working varsity games.

Around here, officials who work three seasons after their "cadet" season are eligible to work some varsity games. Maybe it won't be high level varsity games. Maybe it won't be a ton of varsity games, but they are considered eligible.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Around here, officials who work three seasons after their "cadet" season are eligible to work some varsity games. Maybe it won't be high level varsity games. Maybe it won't be a ton of varsity games, but they are considered eligible.

I'm starting to take nearly all the best young officials away from the old-guard association where I live in the sport I officiate. I occasionally see second-year guys who can already work rings around some of the old guard, and they work varsity--NOW. If they get the job done with white on their shoes, viva la blanca, I say. Tenure in and of itself doesn't mean a whole lot to me. If a second-year guy and a ten-year guy are approximately even in ability, they get about the same amount of work.

Don't misunderstand--nearly all of my top guys have a few notches in their belts. Experience matters, but it isn't all that matters. If a guy is ready at age 20, he's ready. Ask the California Angels and the Washington Nationals.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Publius

Nearly all of my top guys have a few notches in their belts.

I assume that the belts are all black.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Publius

I'm starting to take nearly all the best young officials away from the old-guard association where I live in the sport I officiate. I occasionally see second-year guys who can already work rings around some of the old guard, and they work varsity--NOW. If they get the job done with white on their shoes, viva la blanca, I say. Tenure in and of itself doesn't mean a whole lot to me. If a second-year guy and a ten-year guy are approximately even in ability, they get about the same amount of work.

Don't misunderstand--nearly all of my top guys have a few notches in their belts. Experience matters, but it isn't all that matters. If a guy is ready at age 20, he's ready. Ask the California Angels and the Washington Nationals.

There is the rare 20 year old who's ready, but you have to count experience somehow, too. I'm less interested in technical proficiency at times and more interested in how an official reacts when the s&@# hits the fan. I'm not saying that a more experienced official will handle situations better, but I've probably had to see more situations and deal with more crap than a second year official, and that should count for something.

Of course there's always the official that has one year of experience 25 times...