ratings
 

How do the ratings work in your area?

In Missouri each Coach of every varsity contest anonymously rates the official on a scale of 1-5. The ratings are averaged out to give you one score. There are also 6 categories in which a Coach can mark you need improvement or you exceed expectations in. Those categories are verbal communication skills, physical appearance, effort, control, consistency and professionalism.

It will always be skewed b/c most of the time a coach will only rate an official if he feels the official screwed him in some way.

We have an overall rating system. Coaches only contribute to a small percentage of that system. Most of the stuff we control. I do not sweat it and never have and I have done well not worrying about it in my career and in all my sports.

Peace

In my area, the evaluations (if they are done during the year) are mostly by retired officials who were well respected when they called games. In theory, every official is to be evaluated once during "live action" be two or three different members of the committee and their reports are given to the assignor. In reality, the evaluations are done at camps in the area. Fortunately our chapter puts on one that is considered among the best in the state so there are excellent officials giving feedback to both the campers and the assignor.

I know I was not evaluated during this last season because they are supposed to speak with you after the game and go over their report (and I know one of the committee members and asked if an evaluator just forgot to meet with me). So as you can see...theory and practice are completely different. A member of our chapter can request an evaluation but I don't think anyone has made a request because they don't want to risk shooting themselves in the foot with one bad (or below average) game. In theory an evaluation is only suppose to be used to find officials who are ready for "better games"...see theory and practice comment earlier in post.

In South Carolina, every official has a rating on a 100-point scale when the season starts.

25 max points–exam score (percentage multiple by 25)

25 max points–experience credit (you get points every year until your fifth year when you get the full 25)

25 max points–peer ratings (scale of 1-10, average computed and multiplied by 2.5)

20 max points–state clinic, meetings, and exam attendance

5 max points–cooperation (points deducted for turnbacks, etc.)

Evidence from our state shows differently.

How it works, to answer the OP, is that officials complain about it no matter what it is or isn't instead of focusing on something they can control.

This is true. The best answer is to ignore the ratings system and focus on self improvement - go to camp, break down film, ask for honest evaluation from respected peers.

The problem with all rating systems is the lack of consistency in the person completing the evaluation. In the past I worked in a state where coaches rated officials on a scale 1-5. One coach said that he would never give an official greater than a 3, no matter the circumstance. This was not typical of coaches in the schools served by the association because the average rating of varsity officials was always greater than 4.5.

If you worked several games for that coach, your rating would suffer due to no reflection of your actual performance but rather than luck of your assignments.

The main point is this: No system is perfect, most have serious flaws. But, they are not going to go away. You should focus your personal improvement on things you can control: appearance, mechanics, rules knowledge, judgement. Go to camp, break down film, and critique yourself. Do those things, and you will be respected as an official no matter what evaluation system is in place.

In Missouri, the coaches have to rate their officials for each game or they get fined and possibly banned from postseason play.

I don't put much stock into it anymore. It's quite humorous really. I just finished my 8th season of basketball. My ratings in my 7th and 8th seasons were worse than my rating in both my 5th and 6th seasons. There is no way that I was a better official three or four years ago than I am now. It all depends on what games you work and who you happen to piss off.

They tracked that fact in our system and foul that there was only a .02 or .01 percentage difference in the ratings for the winning or losing coaches. We have a problem is to get coaches to actually rate officials. Not getting a rating often hurts us more than getting a bad rating as the more you get the better your percentile.

But as I have said in other topics of this, we have a 40 point rating. Each category is worth 5 points. And we control things like what we get on the rules test, camps we attend, frequency of camps we attend and even promotion process is on us as officials. And after it is all said and done, there is a person that looks at the numbers and makes decisions based on their own personal criteria when making actual assignments.

Peace

Embrace The Change ...
 

We used to have peer ratings that contributed 80% of our overall ratings. The other 20% was refresher exam, availability, and meeting attendance.
All four officials at a site, two junior varsity, and two varsity, rated everybody else at the site. We've been doing it that way for over thirty-five years.

Everything changed this year. Now we only peer rate our partner, and the refresher exam, availability, and meeting attendance, have nothing to do with the overall rating. And the peer rating itself isn't set in stone. We now have a committee of observers that observe, and rate, all officials, and this committee can use, or not use, the peer ratings.

Grrrrr. I just checked my rating (I'm from Mo), and apparently I am a worse official this year than I was last year :rolleyes:

Missouri
 

As I've stated, I am a new basketball official. I only had one varsity game this past season and I was rated very low by both coaches. IMO, didn't have any issues during the game and it was pretty much a blowout. Several other new officials I have talked to in the same situation had the same thing happen to them. It drives me nuts that this anonymous system could possibly effect me down the road for postseason or better assignments. I really wish that coaches would have to tell you what they mean by a needs improvement score in a category. If the system is designed to help an official by providing that feedback, it should be more informative.

I know in my head that it's because I'm the new guy and you have to start somewhere, but damn. The same thing happened in softball and now I have a really good rating there. I know I have a lot to work on, which is why I'm studying the book when I can, talking to mentor and other peers, and attending camps when I can. But still frustrates me to no end that coaches are the only ones who do ratings.

Or maybe I just suck that bad.............I suppose it is possible.

WOW:eek: I just check mine too. I really stink. :o I am in the 'Probation' category.

Is the Missouri system to help you improve or is the system in place so they can use an objective system to help make decisions?

Are not human beings making the assignments? I would doubt unless stated that the human beings making the assignments are not considering other factors. That is just a guess on my part, but this is why I have a problem with how we focus on ratings.

Peace

Missouri ratings are two-fold. They are used as a guideline for selecting officials to work post-season games. Playoff games, beginning with the sectional round, are selected by the state association. Officials for post-season games prior to sectionals are drafted by each district committee, which is usually comprised of the host athletic director and a few other administrators/coaches from participating schools. Ratings are also used to identify officials that may need to attend mechanics clinics again in order to improve. Ratings are divided into quartiles. Third and fourth quartile officials (bottom 50%) may be required to go through additional training at the mechanics clinics.

missouri
 

I don't think it is designed to help one improve, but I've always tried to view it that way. I've never run into a rating this low for softball so it was pretty upsetting to see it in basketball.

Again, the biggest frustration is that it is only coaches with input on the rating. In Missouri it's supposed to be broken down this way:

1-State level official
2-District/Sectional Official
3-Varisty Official
4-Sub Varsity
5-Not ready to officiate

The only time the coach has to be specific in any way is if they give a 5. At that point, they have to write a report to the state office. So, it doesn't help anyone get any better.

As stated, the state uses these ratings in order to select those officials to do sectionals and beyond. While I have a few years to go before I get that far, I'd like to think am better than what I was rated.

I wouldn't get too hung up on your ratings. For instance, the year I was selected to officiate the state finals was the same year I had one of my worst ratings years.

The only thing I care about in regards to what a coach rates me on is communication.

Yep. I worked three playoff games this year and my rating was not as good as it was 2-3 seasons ago.

I'm from Mo as well..

Just checked mine ..................dang , I should only do sub Varsity ball

Makes one wonder .....

I have equal number of ratings for "Needs Improvement" as I have for "Exceeds Expectations" for Consistency .

Oh well,,,,,,

My state used to have about 10 areas that coaches could put as a part of their ratings that were associated with "Needs to Improve" like consistency, mechanics, appearance. I am so glad my state got rid of those things. Coaches have no idea what those things are unless they might have officiated. And even if they had officiated at some point, chances are they were not very accomplished if they are coaching. Half the time a coach complains about even something like communication, they often are mad because you will not address them when they want you to, not when it is appropriate, they claim you do not communicate well.

Peace

This is why I wouldn't care how a coach rated me, even in terms of communication...

In one game, you could spend time explaining legitimate questions to a coach that asks respectfully. In the same game, the other coach may be yelling and pleading for calls from the tip. You tell him he has said enough and needs to stop. Ratings? One coach is going to say you were a great communicator and answered his questions thoroughly. The other is going to say you are a poor communicator.

Add to that the fact that some high school officials are in this for the wrong reason so you get one guy who was buddy-buddy with the coach and now you are taking care of business. Odds are his communication ratings are high and yours are low. In reality, you may be the better official.

At the college level, this is a little different because the baseline should be more consistent. Therefore, if I'm told I'm a poor communicator by a college assignor, I'd take steps to improve. High School? Not so much.

I agree...... I had coach this year upset with me because I did not discuss a call (don't know how I could) as lead --- across the lane during action. During the timeout he really "gave it to me " because of this and at that point I gave him the stop sign. I'm sure he rated me highly in the communication department ??

Just a few weeks ago I talked with a friend of mine who is a coach and discussed "communication" with him. I told him that I continually hear coach's stating this is what is lacking from officials etc.. etc.. I told him many times when I try to communicate with the coach it's really just an opportunity for him/her to complain (bit&# session). He said that for the most part that I was probably right ..............this coach rarely says anything to officials. He said he doesn't says anything to the officials because it "takes away from his in-game coaching" and that his players might feed off of it.

Oh, well............till next year