Professionalism

[packersowner]

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by packersowner

I try to not put too much stock in this.

..........just let it go?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by packersowner

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.

[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

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.