Ratings
 

Does every state have an official rating system? Here in Missouri the coaches rate you from 1 to 5 on various criteria (1 being the best, 5 the worst). The state association uses this as part of thier criteria for post season assignments. They also tell you any areas where a coach has marked that you need to improve. I got a 'needs to improve' on 'verbal communication' (I will cop to that), and then a couple on 'consistency'. I didn't see that one coming because I try to be very consistent. In any event, it just strikes me as strange that coaches are evaluating me vs another ref or assigner or something. How do other states do this?

My association in Texas does not use coaches as part of our evaluation. Ours are done primarily off of peer evaluations by a ghost evaluation committee. Our board will re-evaluate those that either get inconsistent peer evaluations or would like to appeal their rating. I find it to be very fair.

Communication could be valid. Consistency is usually the same as "call it both ways". They see you call a block on them, they want the next collision on the other end to be a block even though it could only be a charge.

Coaches, in general, are unlikely to be fair judges of officials. They are naturally biased and want everything to go their way. The more it does, the more they like you...and the other coach doesn't.

I was reading some fan discussion boards recently and fans of both teams thought the officials were strongly favoring the other team. That, of course, it not even possible. They just see what they want where anything less than 80% for their team is unbalanced.

How 'bout if we rate you?
 

Precisely here in a midwestern state also beginning with the same letter as yours.
My guess: good officials in your state have more "needs improvement" in the category entitled "consistency" than any other.
Reason: coaches' definition "consistent" differs from ours.
All things being equal, it's pathetic that any state association would consider myopic ratings such as these for any purpose whatsoever.
Sad to say, some do.

In NC, coaches have no role in rating officials, nor do we have a role in rating them.

The Constitution State ...
 

In my little corner of Connecticut: Peer ratings (for the most part) that impact one's regular season, and post season, conference assignments (number, and level of games). Some officials aren't pleased with the system, but we haven't come up with anything better, despite decades of trying.

For state (entire state) tournament games: Coaches vote, the more votes, the farther one goes into the tournament. And the coaches here do a pretty good job of selecting the best officials. My local board had about fifty officials selected for the state tournament (boys and girls), and with one possible exception (in my opinion) they all deserved to be there.

So how did you get all those coaches to vote for you? :eek:

Exactly

An state sport administrator makes all of our assignments. They consider an overall rating system that consists of 40 points and 8 different categories that make up 5 points each. Only two involve any input from coaches (Top 15 list and varsity ratings) and that at the end of the day is just data. The administrator uses whatever criteria she or he chooses to use to decide who works the State playoffs and the State Finals. Your coach's ratings can be high and you still may never go past a certain level in the playoffs. Actually it appears ratings are only used as a way to separate individuals that are close together, but it is clear that other things are factored in to playoff assignments. Things like geography, years of experience, what games you have worked (conferences) and if you follow IHSA procedures. There is even a factor to what race or gender you are as they look for officials that represent what is on the floor.

Peace

I am in your state.

Every official I have talked to since I started working basketball has the most marks under "Needs Improvement" under the "Consistency" column. It doesn't matter if it's a second year official or 10th year official. You could have 10 close plays in a game and get all of them right, and at least one of the coaches is going to mark you down for consistency.

The level of games and the sex of the participants also plays a role in my experience. Lower class (Smaller school) games and girls games are going to hurt your rating before you even walk on the floor.

In other words: Don't worry about it.

Michigan and Missouri basically use the same system. Coaches rate officials on a 1-5 scale and can listed improvement categories. Certain ratings are needed for certain levels of post-season play.

Pleased To Meet You ...
 

I just pass out my card so that they can remember me.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5478/9...bbd11068_m.jpg

No Home Jobs ...
 

In a small state like Connecticut, for state tournament games, geography doesn't come into play. We travel the entire state.

Local board affiliation does come into play. For state tournament games, we can work games involving both teams from our local board, or we can work games where neither team uses our local board officials. We cannot work games where one of the teams uses our local board officials, and the other doesn't.

Also, at least one female must be part for the crew on the floor (not an alternate) for girls state tournament finals. Some of our male officials get slightly peeved at this, they sit home while a less qualified official, because she has a vagina, gets the game.

Same here in Washington.

At one point in time, our Assoc. allowed Coaches to "blacklist" up to 3 officials they did not want to see that season. We started tracking some of those lists...and we found that- in almost all of the cases - the officials being blacklisted were 1)officials who had T'd that coach the previous season, or 2)officials on the game which was that team's worst loss the previous season.

So we stopped doing the "Blacklist".

"I Rate Those Who Don't Take Care of Business Higher"
 

Once heard an interview with a prominent coach from a large city in our state who claimed, as I recall it, "I don't think any official is worthy of a 5 and a 3 is average, so I try to give most of them 4's if I can."
It seemed clear that for years he had the numbers reversed.
And this guy's ratings determine post-season assignments to some extent?

Sometimes I wish I knew exactly how officials are rated in NYC but then again I'm glad I don't. Coaches have a say and there are observers who travel to games. The likelihood of being seen by an observer is low given their numbers compared to the number of schools/games. We don't rate each other.

For public school BV there are three assignors, two for public school GV. They choose the playoff crews *but* after we reach the city quarterfinals - which is when we go three-person - the governing body (PSAL) approves each of the crews, something I only found out a few weeks ago. That's the main reason we find out about late-round playoff assignments with relatively short notice. Last year for me it was 12 hours, this year was 15 hours. It's crazy but now that I'm lucky enough to be in the mix I've learned to keep my bag packed until the very last day.

Also: If there are games involving schools that are assigned by different people each assignor picks one. If it's a three-person game, the assignor who has the home school sends two officials.

The Michigan rating system is a joke in my opinion. I know that I have gotten poor ratings simply because the coach did not understand the rules, not because of anything that I did wrong.

I also find it funny that very few 5's are given out. The reason? Giving a 5 requires that the coach document the reason for the rating of 5. Therefore the worst coaches normally will give is a 4, even when a 5 is deserved.

The worst one I saw was a varsity volleyball coach who had all the officials sign in with their number on the official volleyball ratings form. This itself is not a problem, but when the rating of 3 is already circled for every official who has signed and not yet signed the form, we have a problem. I got a 4 from this coach because I refused to sign the paper since it had a rating assigned before I worked the match. She got my number from another team, and rated me down for not going along with her sham rating.

So with all these ratings systems that states, organizations or associations are using, doesn't someone make the decision of who actually works the playoffs? In other words isn't someone make the final decision of who is working? I hear a lot about ratings, but you are telling me their hands are tied and cannot use some discretion on any level?

I find that hard to believe. Even in our ratings system it makes it very clear that they can use other criteria and I know they often do when saying who is going to work the State Finals. And at least here, that is often more controversial than the ratings themselves in my experience.

Peace

Here in basketball different units handle your home playoff games.For example-Our school is serviced by the Inland unit of the California Basketball Officials Association.This year's home playoff 2nd rd game was covered by the Foothill Unit (our neighbors to the north). The game we scouted was covered by officials from our Inland unit.The section office assigns officials in basketball I believe.

In volleyball the area assignors maintain control thru the semifinals.The section officials rep must approve all quarterfinal assignments before assignors send them out. Semifinal and Championship round assignments are sent out from the section office.

In terms of ratings both sports have a ratings/evaluation committee charged with attending games and observing officials.

Having coaches have any say in officials ratings is like asking for feedback from inmates on the judge from their trial.

Ideally I would like to see evaluators, ex officials or coaches, but who don't do either anymore do the evaluating. I would gladly pay and extra $20-$30 a year in fees so that these 5 or 6 can just evaluate officials. Their evaluations would weigh the heaviest on a ratings committee made up of officials that are elected and who would determine ratings.

Officials would require 3 evaluations in a year to qualify for advancement AND at least work 2 games with ratings committee members to see them in action. Truth is in any year a small percentage is up for advancement. This is very basic but a system like this I think would work best.

No coaches, no officials should evaluate in these cases. Higher officials can do an evaluation and submit it as part of an officials body of work for the year but this would have the least weight in the determination process.

Oregon:

Local assignors cover all games up to the round of 16. There some basic requirements on who they can use: minimum test score of 90, must have taken state training class within the last few years. Other than that, they can assign whoever they like to the games.

For the round of 16, most are are still covered by the local assignors but the state somewhat shuffles a few around so each association has a number of games proportional to the number of schools they serve.

For the round of 8, each association, through whatever method each organization chooses, sends officials to each tournament proportional to the number of schools at that level served by the association....for a total of 12 at each tourney (1A to 6A). The state must use those 12 officials. Portland selects its officials by vote of the members and coaches.

Each tourney is a combined boy/girls tourney and each official almost always works games for both. Each official will get at least 3 games, possibly 4.

There are 6 games per day. The state assigns the 12 officials to the quarterfinals and some of the consolation bracket games before everyone arrives. After observing officials for the first 2 days, state observers assign the semi-finals. After the semifinals are played (and observed), the state observers assign the last day: championships, 3rd place games, and 4th place games (boys and girls)....from the 12 officials.

And that is my point. I am sure most states have some basic requirements that are asked of the officials. Even here you must have taken the state exam and passed it. You must have attended a clinic in 3 years and the type of clinic also helps as well. And all these things go into your Power Rating, but as I stated they can choose anyone they want to to work in the post season or to work at the level they wish. The Power Rating I think is used honestly to weed out people that do not do the basics. But when the assignments go further in the post season, the administrators basically can make other decisions they like. And for example there have been people in the State Finals recently that had not very many years of experience and one of the reasons is where they were located or what they were used to working (that is partly my opinion). And a couple of those individuals did not go through the same process to get to the State Finals as others have in the past. So while many sit around and complain about their Power Rating, they administrator is choosing people based on a non-listed criteria to decide who works in the State Finals. And for the record that is his/her right to do so and weigh what is most important to them or the sport. After all if someone goes into the playoffs and does not do the job properly, they will have to hear about it I am sure. It also must be noted that the Administrator of the sport (one per gender) are not officials or past officials. They are people that worked in schools and more likely had a playing and coaching background than any officiating experience in that sport. So just like anything in life, people complain that these individuals do not choose the "best" officials to work the state finals. And our state has had a long standing, unofficial policy of only giving an official 3 State Finals and one championship game if they work at State 3 times. One of the reasons is so that officials of all kinds of areas can get the opportunity too and not the same 12 going every year. And for HS purposes, I think that is a good overall policy. But that does not eliminate the crying and whining from officials that do not advance or who eventually works deep in the playoffs.

Assigning playoff games are always going to be subjective with some objective data being used. What data is used is often the problem.

Peace