Career No-nos.

Originally Posted by RookieDude

and even what each official's score is on the yearly test.

In my area we have review sessions where we have access to all the test questions, and share the answers among everyone. Almost everyone gets perfect scores.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

In my area we have review sessions where we have access to all the test questions, and share the answers among everyone. Almost everyone gets perfect scores.

Which defeats the whole purpose of a test.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Which defeats the whole purpose of a test.

Exactly. Nothing like making it so they don't have to know the rules very well.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not being found guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it. Perhaps they did but worked out a plea to not go to court. That doesn't make it right just because they got off with it. Perhaps in the above case, every one of them actually did what they were charged with.

If you worked out a plea agreement, you have admitted to some kind of crime. You avoid court to not get the harshest of penalties if convicted.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Which defeats the whole purpose of a test.

Not necessarily. Not all test are valued or used the same way for the same purposes.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

In my area we have review sessions where we have access to all the test questions, and share the answers among everyone. Almost everyone gets perfect scores.

Similar here. About a dozen review sessions are held. Your ticket into a review session is your test with questions answered (just answers, right, or wrong, answers). No answers, no entry into the session. We go over the questions, and answers. It used to be all the questions, now it's just what are deemed to be the difficult questions. Everyone in attendance gets full credit, which counts 5% of our annual rating, which counts toward our annual ranking, which determines the number, and level, of games that we are assigned.

Those individuals that don't attend one of these review sessions can send in their answers to the rating committee, who will correct it, and assign a score. Since the review sessions are held over a period of two weeks, a non attendee can get the answer sheet from a colleague who did attend an earlier review session. As a result, most of these non attendees get full credit on their test.

Those that don't attend a review session, or don't send in their individual answers, don't get any credit for the test portion, 5%, of their annual rating, which determines the number, and level, of games that we are assigned. For the most part these are officials who only belong to our local board to pay their dues, and maintain their "certification" to wear the IAABO patch, so that they can work their recreation, travel, Catholic middle school, AAU games, etc. These guys don't care at all about their local board rating, and are just satisfied working a few subvarsity assignments every year, with no intention of moving up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Our Assignor likes "full disclosure". Our entire association just got the email last night showing every member's ranking (1st to last), amount of Varsity games last year, how many schools each official got "rated" by, and even what each official's score is on the yearly test.

The closest we come to this is that we have a committee that, at the end of the season, reviews a list, from our assigner, with names redacted, of our 325 members in rank order, and the number, and level, of games assigned, to insure that our assigner is fairly assigning games. Around these parts, school don't rate, 80% of our ratings are from colleagues.

Originally Posted by RookieDude

"It doesn't matter what system you have for ranking...the cream always rises to the top."

Probably true.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

In my area we have review sessions where we have access to all the test questions, and share the answers among everyone. Almost everyone gets perfect scores.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Which defeats the whole purpose of a test.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly. Nothing like making it so they don't have to know the rules very well.

We had to go to a system similar to that used by AremRed due to the prevalence of cheating.

Before going to the system that we currently use, we all took our tests as individuals with an open book format. We sent in our test answers, which were corrected, and our test score counted 5% of our annual rating, which determines the number, and level, of games that we are assigned.

The main problem was that several members were always able to get their hands on answer sheets, often from IAABO colleagues in other states, that took their tests at an earlier time than us. If you knew a local board member with an answer sheet, it was just a matter of copying the correct answers, many never even looked at their test questions, and just sent in the correct answers to our local board's rating committee.

Others cheated in a slightly different way, forming "exclusive only by invitation" review sessions where one could attend by having already answered all the questions on the test. At least one person in one of these exclusive groups would have the answer sheet, and we would review both the questions, and the answers, with individuals correcting any answers that they may have answered incorrectly. Then the individuals would send in their answer sheets, with correct answers, to the local board's rating committee.

All of the above board members would get perfect scores, or near perfect scores in the not so rare situation where IAABO made a mistake on the answer sheet. Those who didn't know anyone with an answer sheet, or those who didn't "belong" to one of those exclusive review groups, or those who didn't want to cheat in any way, would do what they were supposed to do, answer their questions in an open book format, and get the score that they got, often quite low, due to the tricky wording that is infamous on all IAABO review tests.

Several years ago the leadership of our local board just threw their hands up in surrender, and came up with the officially sponsored review sessions that we now have today (see BillyMac's post #81 above).

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not being found guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it. Perhaps they did but worked out a plea to not go to court. That doesn't make it right just because they got off with it. Perhaps in the above case, every one of them actually did what they were charged with.

Right on the money. In every case I noted, they were guilty as charged. In four instances, the offense took place (amazingly) either immediately before or after a HS contest...on school property or adjacent. At least two pleaded no contest to avoid a guilty verdict. Most others found guilty.

My whole point is that as an official for school contests, one should understand that any "outside the lines" transgression is going to reflect on your status as an official and affect your career. If that seems unfair, maybe consider another avocation. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Right on the money. In every case I noted, they were guilty as charged. In four instances, the offense took place (amazingly) either immediately before or after a HS contest...on school property or adjacent. At least two pleaded no contest to avoid a guilty verdict. Most others found guilty.

My whole point is that as an official for school contests, one should understand that any "outside the lines" transgression is going to reflect on your status as an official and affect your career. If that seems unfair, maybe consider another avocation. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

As long as each one was handled individually, it seems fair. I would just hate for there to be a situation where an official was black-balled because he was arrested for a crime that was actually committed by a one-armed intruder.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

I'd add another one that I've observed more frequently in the past 5 years:

Engage in inappropriate behavior outside the lines.

....
Officials arrested for assault
....

There's a pretty low standard for swearing out an assault charge, and it doesn't have to include any bodily contact.

You and Camron are comfortable in that ending an official's career?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There's a pretty low standard for swearing out an assault charge, and it doesn't have to include any bodily contact.

You and Camron are comfortable in that ending an official's career?

Not always. I'm sure the specific circumstances surrounding the incident are pretty relevant.

The one instance I'm aware of dealt with a member of the opposite sex ("battery" may actually be the correct term...I don't know the difference). It was pretty high profile. Word got around quickly. The official involved wasn't well liked or highly rated to begin with. Some coaches and AD's just used it as fuel to marginalize him. He lost his schedule that season. The association tried to assign him the following year after things settled down and the coaches still scratched him (which is their option in our area).

I'm not advocating that it should automatically be a career ender. I'm just saying that officials are going to be under a microscope when it comes to off-field/court behavior...whether that's fair or not, that's the way it is.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There's a pretty low standard for swearing out an assault charge, and it doesn't have to include any bodily contact.

You and Camron are comfortable in that ending an official's career?

I am comfortable that it CAN end their career. It shouldn't always, but in some cases, it should. And it shouldn't take a guilty conviction to do so.

That is not to say that an accusation should be enough but more along the lines of civil law where a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are plenty of wrongful death suits out there where the defendant was found not guilty of murder. This seems to be the same thing.

[JetMetFan]

I was feeling left out so I figured what the heck...

Dressed/not dressed: For HS I work in two different states (NY/NJ) and I've seen two different things. In NY, specifically NYC, we're to come to the game in street clothes (no ripped jeans, etc.). If we don't come to the game in street clothes our assignor better know why beforehand (either they okayed it because you got a last-minute call or the site doesn't have adequate dressing facilities). If the AD or one of the coaches doesn't rat you out, there might be an observer in the stands who'll do the honors.

In NJ I've noticed folks coming to games with their gear on much more often but NJ assignors often give people two games on a day (4P & 7P) at two different sites so it's a matter of expediency. I've never pulled a double in NJ but I have in NYC and I changed back into my street clothes before heading to the second game and I'd do it in NJ if the situation came up because that's how I was trained.

Jewelry: My HS assignors don't tend to bother people about wedding bands but they're a definite "no" with my college assignors. For medic alert situatons both the HS and college folks I work for tell those who need them to use the necklace and tape it down.

Past legal transgressions: NYC HS took care of that for the most part starting in the '08-09 school year when the DOE implemented a fingerprinting requirement for anyone who regularly works as a contractor with the agency. Let's just say I got a few more assignments that season when our ranks took a bit of a hit. As far as NJ HS and NCAAW I could be working with people on work release and I wouldn't know because they don't check. I know NCAA runs background checks on officials who work the Div. 1 tournament (not sure about D2 or D3) which is more about gambling but obviously they'll pick up other stuff.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I've noticed folks coming to games with their gear on ... assignors often give people two games on a day at two different sites so it's a matter of expediency.

Acceptable here as well.