Association Culture ...

[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...

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Showers? Secure dressing rooms?

I don't know about these places. Places we go to get ready include a teachers' lounge where people are coming in and out all the time, a band room, the end of the bench, coach's offices and training rooms. A few places have good places to change but often that is only if it is a boy's game.

I work varsity only at generally smaller schools. My partner and I come dressed but with our regular winter outerwear on. Can't shower if there is no shower.

Do I care? Not really. I am there to work the game to help the players.

I like a lot that your members need to confirm games. Our regulations require it but unless there is an issue, I don't know if all the officials do it. I do find that younger people don't like rules as much as guys my age (late 50's) so our association tries to not be overburdensome.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Rich

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...

I agree almost 100%. Some veteran guys are great when the sh!% hits the fan. The problem is, they're the ones causing it to splatter. Generally speaking, you're absolutely right. The only point I'm making is that guys who are ready shouldn't be held back because they haven't worked some arbitrary number of years. Those guys are sometimes not 20, but 30 and cops or retail store managers with a fabulolus resume when it comes to dealing with sh!%. I don't make them wait if they demonstrate proficiency, and consequently, the cream of the newby crop wants to work for me.

I like giving able young guys opportunities. It's great having 25-year-olds with five years of experience dealing with situations. They don't become proficient by watching. I think any association that has a policy of making every official wait X number of years before they can get varsity assignments ought to revisit that policy.