Professionalism
I recently was reviewing the rankings as provided by coaches and especially in the areas of professionalism. I was on both ends of the spectrum - either exceeds expectations or needs improvement. Let me also just say at the outset that I really hate coaches giving rankings on officiating crews - I am not a person who has been working in this area for 20 years, so not everyone knows my name like others. I am not sure how coaches can go back and evaluate officials when they don't remember their names. But thats another topic.
I am really struggling with this area and maybe because I am trying to define what "professionalism" means in the context of officiating. I did not have a single coach technical this year, in fact I felt that in most of the games I officiated, I personally did not have those situations where professionalism could be called into question. What's a little frustrating is that I actually felt overall this year, I handled coaches and players much better than in years past, yet my evaluation makes it appear that I got worse. The crews I worked with had very few problems, of course we had a coach here or there where we needed to take care of the situation, but for the most part it was a good year. I try to not put too much stock in this, but this is an area where its hard to read a book on, or study the rules more. Am I missing something or should I just let it go? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just be honest with yourself: Were you late for games? Were you out on the court by the 15-minute mark? All of that stuff that we can control. If you're improving in those areas then you'll be okay. If I'm one of your assignors and I see those disparate ratings I probably make a note to myself to get out to see you. No one should go from 0 to 60 from game to game. I'd have to see you for myself. By the way, not calling technicals doesn't necessarily mean we're more "professional." Sometimes part of the profession - or vocation, as it is - means we have to do what we have to do. |
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.
|
Quote:
Peace |
Survey Says ...
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
a better idea
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. |
Quote:
|
Jackass, Rat's Ass ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. :D |
Bang, Bang ...
Quote:
Cher - Bang Bang - YouTube |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55pm. |