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?

:)

One way to ease your mind: Have an official you trust watch a few of your games and give you feedback. Coach evaluations can be hit or miss dependent upon whether they win or lose.

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.

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

Survey Says ...
 

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.

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.

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

Jackass, Rat's Ass ...
 

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.

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 ...
 

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

Yes, that is how it is in my area. However, coaches don't have input.

:) I don't think they're out to get us. I think they are advocates for their team that are always looking for an advantage. It's our job as officials to control the game and make sure that they don't get any unfair advantages.

Worry about what your partners, observers, and supervisors have to say about your professionalism.

And maybe the ADs and game admin who deal with you away from the court.

My views on professionalism usually have nothing to do with technical fouls. Are you hustling up and down the court, and getting in position? Are you officiating the game the same from beginning to end? Is a blowout officiated the same as a close game? Can I communicate with you or are you standoff-ish? On a foul, do you always give the mechanic in addition to the player number? Do you always make sure my team wins? Just kidding about the last one. Seriously, work hard, be consistent, and do all the little things.

Collectively, coach ratings can be useful. Take all the ratings and average them — and, assuming you collected enough data, you'll have a pretty good ranking of your officials from top to bottom. From what I have seen, this often mirrors ratings by other officials and observers ... There are differences, of course, but the same officials tend to be in the top quadrants across the board.

Individually, coach ratings of "needs improvement" as well as "excellent" can both be summarily ignored. They don't count for much and are often based on the coaches last experience with that official, whether he won/lost the game, etc.

And Don't Try To Join Under Another Name ...
 

Brad: You have forfeited your official membership in the He Man Coaches Haters Club. You have forfeited any dues that you may have paid. Please turn in your badge, and secret decoder ring. No due process is needed here. We have you quoted on the internet, and, according to Abraham Lincoln, the dead president on the five dollar bill, we are supposed to believe everything that we read on the internet, and as we all know, "Honest Abe" would never lie about the internet.

Bwahahaha nicely played :)

Now I'm kind of interested in how well coach ratings and observer / official ratings reflect each other ... I was really only commenting based on my observation, which isn't really analysis of the data. Definitely going to look at this.

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.

I can tell you, there are differences in how I officiate a blow out vs a close game (this is the expectation in my area, not my preference). That said, the one thing I focus on in blow outs is hustle, making sure I'm still in position.

This point makes me wonder if you also officiate, or have at some time. Or do most coaches look for the foul mechanic?

I would think so.

What does "usually do not have anything to do with TF's" mean to you coach. It does not seem to fit with your overall statement.

Little Rascals/Our Gang reference. Nice.

That said, if we spend much time wringing our hands over the lower part of our ratings, shouldn't we spend just as much time patting ourselves on the back over the higher marks?

Of course, we typically don't do the latter, so why do the former? Pay attention to the collective.

Same here. The bigger the score difference, the less/more advantage contact creates for one team vs the other.

Seems to fit his overall statement perfectly to me. None of the rest of his paragraph has anything to do with Technical Fouls. He's saying whether you do or don't call them has nothing to do with his interpretation of your professionalism ... and with the exception of those few officials who issue T's with vehemence and vitriole, I agree with him.

I don't start the game standoff-ish, that always results from less than professional communication from the coach.

Just relax. It's one data point. Coaches will give higher marks for professionalism for people they know and are comfortable with. Aggressive officials always get lower marks in this area when they are new or unknown, and if they are good officials, it is seen as "toughness".

Professionalism is really pretty easy. Earn your money. Show up on time, look good, know the rules, physically hustle/show passion for what you are doing, and treat everyone in the gym with the respect that they deserve. The last thing, and toughest thing, is to be the biggest person possible if someone doesn't show you the respect that you are showing them, while doing your job. You will never do it perfectly every night, but over time, you will maximize how "professional" you are, and my guess is that your ratings in this area will be pretty good if you consciously try to do these things.

Last point, coaches that hold grudges over legitimate T's are not terribly successful and don't last long, as a rule. No different than officials that hold grudges. Coaches and officials that are successful have to work together well. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

I'm The Barber of Seville ...
 

Thanks. Not too many of the young'uns on the Forum would get the reference.

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.50291...50281&pid=15.1

And of course, by "young'uns", you mean anyone born after 1950.

For the record, I was born in the late 70's and I got the reference.

The OP mentioned that he didn't give a single tech, but didn't do so well on the ratings. That's why I mentioned it as usually not being a professionalism issue. I can't think of many times when I considered a T or no T a lack of professionalism. How did that not fit with what i said?

I have, but not anymore, except volunteering at school functions (teacher/student game, e.g.).

I don't know about other coaches. I always look for the mechanic when it's on my team. I especially want to know if I didn't get a good view of the play.

Gotcha. I always give one, but I'm sometimes more deliberate with it if I know it's something the coaches couldn't see. Even then, I occasionally have the coach ask if I forget and simply show pc or TC.

I would not worry much about this as "Professionalism" is a subjective term and means different things to different people. It could be as simple as the coaches not knowing your face, their perception of how confident you were, or any number of other subjective things. Plus you said the ratings are over the place and and probably not statistically valid with such fluctuation and a small sample size.

I would think professionalism would encompass overall things like how officials administer the game and communicates information. But again, its subjective and who knows what some of the coaches were basing this on.

Your assignor's and fellow officials have a much better sense of what professionalism means in regards to officiating. And I would worry what they have to say about this.

I think, in general, coach's evaluations have merit but must be taken in context. And whatever terms are on their evaluation should be clearly defined by whichever powers that be are using and giving them out.