Professionalism

[zebraman]

You just nailed what is wrong with coach input. It can cause officials to worry about things like whether or not a T was given to a coach and "maybe that's why they rated us low." What a coach thinks of us should never come into play when we are trying to do what is right for the game. That sucks that you are in a system where coaches can do that. Many coaches rate higher on whether or not they won. They'll really rate low if they lost a close one and go through the tape and find a call or two they didn't like. Don't sweat it. It's a waste of energy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zebraman

You just nailed what is wrong with coach input. It can cause officials to worry about things like whether or not a T was given to a coach and "maybe that's why they rated us low." What a coach thinks of us should never come into play when we are trying to do what is right for the game. That sucks that you are in a system where coaches can do that. Many coaches rate higher on whether or not they won. They'll really rate low if they lost a close one and go through the tape and find a call or two they didn't like. Don't sweat it. It's a waste of energy.

Well in my state they did find that there was only about .02 difference in ratings of losing teams and winning teams. But I do agree it makes officials worry about things that they should not worry about when it comes to ratings. And there will always be coach's input on what we do on some level. I agree it should not be the only way, but they will give input whether we like it or not.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And there will always be coach's input on what we do on some level.

Here in my little corner of the Constitution State, coaches have absolutely no say in regular season ratings, rankings, assignments, etc.

This all changes for the state tournament, where assignments are entirely controlled by coaches. The more "votes" you get, the further along you go in terms of state tournament assignments.

Every year I look closely at the state tournament list (which is published), and the officials that make it all the way to the quarterfinals, semifinals, and championship games.

The coaches do a real good job of selecting high quality officials. I can remember only one official from my local board, in the past five years, that I didn't not consider highly qualified to work state tournament games. And full disclosure; although I do receive a few "votes" every year, I have never been selected for the state tournament list.

The smart coaches know that if they can "work" officials, or if officials allow coaches to "work" officials, then it's probable that opposing coaches will be able to "work" officials as well. Although we like to believe so, coaches aren't stupid. With very few exceptions, coaches want the most highly qualified officials working their games, officials who are going to get the calls right, whether the calls go against them, or for them.

[zebraman]

I agree that most coaches would be able to pick the best officials most of the time. However....... giving power over the selection of the officials to the coaches is just an obvious conflict of interest. When I was working junior college ball, the coaches had input. They pretty much ranted and raved and screamed and nobody did anything about it because they knew that they'd get rated down if they took care of business. The officials who had the cajones to control the benches always took a beating on coach ratings. They loved the guys who would let them be jackasses.

[26 Year Gap]

The ADs actually would be better for ratings for several reasons...they know who makes the games on time so they don't have to worry about the crew being shorthanded, they know the coaches that are jackwagons--many of whom may have pre-dated their hiring date as AD, they can see how games are managed (even though there may be a bit of the home team rooting interest at play), they know who leaves a mess behind post-game that they have to clean up before going home, and they do not have to be concerned about officials or assignors 'carrying a perceived grudge'.

Officials can officiate, coaches can coach (and know that if they are out of line, the magic tea cup will appear), and ADs can know that the professionalism they bestow on officials will be returned.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

The ADs actually would be better for ratings for several reasons...they know who makes the games on time so they don't have to worry about the crew being shorthanded, they know the coaches that are jackwagons--many of whom may have pre-dated their hiring date as AD, they can see how games are managed (even though there may be a bit of the home team rooting interest at play), they know who leaves a mess behind post-game that they have to clean up before going home, and they do not have to be concerned about officials or assignors 'carrying a perceived grudge'.

Officials can officiate, coaches can coach (and know that if they are out of line, the magic tea cup will appear), and ADs can know that the professionalism they bestow on officials will be returned.

You're assuming the AD's actually are present and/or watch the games. That is often not the case.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by zebraman

They loved the guys who would let them be jackasses.

Even if they let the other coach be a slightly bigger jackass, maybe gaining some type of edge? There are most certainly exceptions, but most coaches want officials that can make the correct calls, hustle up, and down, the court to get into proper position, communicate well with players, coaches, and the table, manage the players to prevent unsporting conduct, taunting, fights, etc., and who can just officiate the heck out of the game. That's the officials that I wanted to work my middle school games back when I was coaching in the olden days. I couldn't give a rat's ass if they let me rant, and rave, or not, just as long as they didn't allow the opposing coaches to rant, and rave. As a coach, if an official wanted to take care of business, then I had no problem with him doing his job, whether he's took care of business with me, or with an opposing coach. And that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Even if they let the other coach be a slightly bigger jackass, maybe gaining some type of edge? There are most certainly exceptions, but most coaches want officials that can make the correct calls, hustle up, and down, the court to get into proper position, communicate well with players, coaches, and the table, manage the players to prevent unsporting conduct, taunting, fights, etc., and who can just officiate the heck out of the game. That's the officials that I wanted to work my middle school games back when I was coaching in the olden days. I couldn't give a rat's ass if they let me rant, and rave, or not, just as long as they didn't allow the opposing coaches to rant, and rave. As a coach, if an official wanted to take care of business, then I had no problem with him doing his job, whether he's took care of business with me, or with an opposing coach. And that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Most coaches are paranoid and they also don't realize how much they are ranting and gesturing. The guy on the other bench is always being "worse than I am." The blue coach wants us to keep the red coach muzzled, but the blue coach needs to vent because we are missing way more calls against him and he isn't being nearly as demonstrative as the other guy.

[Rich]

I'm starting to think a few officials on this forum need to take deep breaths and repeat:

"Coaches aren't out to get us."
"Coaches aren't out to get us."
"Coaches aren't out to get us."
"Coaches aren't out to get us."
"Coaches aren't out to get us."
"Coaches aren't out to get us."

Except for the ones that are, of course.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Most coaches are paranoid and they also don't realize how much they are ranting and gesturing. The guy on the other bench is always being "worse than I am." The blue coach wants us to keep the red coach muzzled, but the blue coach needs to vent because we are missing way more calls against him and he isn't being nearly as demonstrative as the other guy.

So I sit them both down. If that's going to get me left off the state tournament list, then so be it, at least I can face my fellow officials, and sleep at night. Around here, the officials, with a few exceptions, that take care of business, get the "votes", and work deep into the state tournament. I'm sure that it's not the same in other parts of the country, so again, my usual recommendation, when in Rome, check your local listings.

Cher - Bang Bang - YouTube

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here in my little corner of the Constitution State, coaches have absolutely no say in regular season ratings, rankings, assignments, etc.

Making assignments and having input are not always the same exact thing. I am sure they have some input even if that input is indirect or with the people that make the actual decisions. Because if the coaches have a complaint, they will complain to someone. Now that might be taken for the most part as a grain of salt, but if their are a series of the same complaints coming over and over, I bet that has some influence on someone.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Making assignments and having input are not always the same exact thing. I am sure they have some input even if that input is indirect or with the people that make the actual decisions. Because if the coaches have a complaint, they will complain to someone. Now that might be taken for the most part as a grain of salt, but if their are a series of the same complaints coming over and over, I bet that has some influence on someone.

Peace

I think any system (peer, observer, assignor-power) weeds out officials who received the same complaints over and over again.