Rating officials in Illinois

[CLAY]

Just received my high School basketball (IL) officials handbook, and with it was a letter stating that officials can no longer rate other officials on the IHSA web site. If I understand what the letter was saying, Officials were rating other officials to high based on scores recieved from coaches rating the same official. Is there any officials out there from Illinois who could give a better explaination for the this change?

clay

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by CLAY
Just received my high School basketball (IL) officials handbook, and with it was a letter stating that officials can no longer rate other officials on the IHSA web site. If I understand what the letter was saying, Officials were rating other officials to high based on scores recieved from coaches rating the same official. Is there any officials out there from Illinois who could give a better explaination for the this change?

clay

Officials were (umm, allegedly):

1) Rating some officials too high ("helping out a friend")

2) Rating some officials too low ("screwing the enemies / helping out a friend in 'competition' with the official")

3) Rating some officials even though they hadn't seen them work (in conjunction with 1 and 2)

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Officials were (umm, allegedly):

1) Rating some officials too high ("helping out a friend")

2) Rating some officials too low ("screwing the enemies / helping out a friend in 'competition' with the official")

3) Rating some officials even though they hadn't seen them work (in conjunction with 1 and 2)

As Mickey Crowley told us at camp, "The only thing worse than not having a rating system is having a rating system." And he mentioned exactly the above reasons.

[JRutledge]

I am a representative of IACAO for one of my associations. So we tend to hear the information from very "knowledgable" officials and leaders.

The story is that an unnamed association sent out an email to all their members, urging for all Certified Officials in the association to give all 1s to their membership. Well because this was email, it got circulated to the IHSA and on April of this year the right of Cerified Officials rating official was taken away in all sports.

Dave Gannaway was appartently very upset about this and did not understand why more ratings from officials had more of a "bell curve" as did the coaches overall ratings. And it was expressed to him by other very prominant and experienced officials, that it was an accepted practice for Certified Officials to rate fellow officials a 1 or 2 and nothing else. If you were to give an official a rating higher than a 2, then you would tell that official what they need to improve on yourself. I agreed with this "unofficial policy" and did not give an official lower than a 1 all year (first year certified). Also the issue was that Gannaway was going to investigate whether officials were rating officials on the same night they worked a game. So for example if I have a game at Naperville North, how can a rate a fellow official if I am at Rock Island Alleman that same night. Everything I am saying is what was said at the Delegates Meeting during the IHSA Official's conference.

My understanding is that the right of C Officials to rate fellow officials will be restored by the time football season starts. At least that is what they say. We will see, but that is what was said after they have fully investigated the situation.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

As Mickey Crowley told us at camp, "The only thing worse than not having a rating system is having a rating system." And he mentioned exactly the above reasons.

Well Chuck, is it better than having a evaluation system for playoffs (the only reason there is any kind of rating system to begin with) with coaches having all the imput and not sharing with the public what was decided? Right or wrong, at least this rating system has information that can be seen by the official, rather than back room dealings, which was the old system.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Well Chuck, is it better than having a evaluation system for playoffs (the only reason there is any kind of rating system to begin with) with coaches having all the imput and not sharing with the public what was decided?

Beats me. Why don't you email Mickey and ask him? He's the one who said it. I'm just telling you what he said.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Beats me. Why don't you email Mickey and ask him? He's the one who said it. I'm just telling you what he said.

You are the one that posted it, so I would assume that you understood what he meant, or had a take on it yourself.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge

You are the one that posted it, so I would assume that you understood what he meant, or had a take on it yourself.

I understand Mickey's comment, I just wasn't sure what you were asking.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Officials were (umm, allegedly):

1) Rating some officials too high ("helping out a friend")

2) Rating some officials too low ("screwing the enemies / helping out a friend in 'competition' with the official")

3) Rating some officials even though they hadn't seen them work (in conjunction with 1 and 2)

What's to prevent coaches from doing similiar things?

[ref5678]

What's to prevent coaches from doing similiar things?

Some one needs to tell the IHSA that

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

What's to prevent coaches from doing similiar things?

Nothing, but I don't think there's the same level / amount of personal issues between coaches / officials -- that is, a coach isn't likely to rate all officials from one association as a "1" (the highest) just because the officials are from that association.

As Jeff alluded, the coaches ratings are more spread, reflect experience (a new official is more likely to get a lower rating and is more likely to be a worse official than an experienced veteran -- and I recognize that there are plenty of exceptions to that rule), and more mirror the "top-15 lists" that coaches, assignors and associations submit.

[JoeT]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Nothing, but I don't think there's the same level / amount of personal issues between coaches / officials -- that is, a coach isn't likely to rate all officials from one association as a "1" (the highest) just because the officials are from that association. [/B]

I agree. I am a varsity coach and an official (although less and less the latter) in Chicago, and I seriously doubt that most coaches would even know which association anyone is in.

Problem is, there's a whole lot of other things most coaches don't know about officiating (which is acceptable since they're not officials). I've often wondered about the validity of some coaches' reviews when few (those who don't officiate) could tell you where an official's primary area of responsibility lies in a given situation.

I agree it's better to have a rating system than not. But I certainly feel for guys who don't feel like they get a responsible rating from coaches.

[Edited by JoeT on Aug 15th, 2003 at 10:27 AM]

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JoeT

I agree it's better to have a rating system than not. But I certainly feel for guys who don't fell like they get a responsible rating from coaches.

The state makes it clear that this is supposed to be a "Ranking" system, not a "rating / evaluation" system.

And, at least here, coaches get a say in how officials are ranked.