Mike, what you quoted from Illinois is similar to what I had to fill out for Nebraska when I was coaching. They said to think of a 5 as a person you'd think would be good for a state championship game, while a person who rates a 1 shouldn't even be touching the floor in a varsity game.

REPLY: The problem with a coach being asked to subjectively evaluate an official's performance and his perceived ability to officiate various levels of the game is just that -- its subjectivity. Leave subjectivity to supervisors' observations. The coach should be asked simple questions that have unequivocal answers that can't be disputed. Answers to questions that are subjective in nature--especially with regard to an official's knowledge, positioning, and judgement--will invariably be filtered through the lens of the coach's last experience (i.e. "game") with the official. That may lead to inflated or deflated extremes, neither of which add any value to an evaluation process.

I agree. Personally, I don't like it very much because it is subjective. The IHSA says they believe that coaches can be objective in giving out there ratings just like we could be objective about evaluating a contractor who is doing work for us. Whatever....

Fortunately, playoff selection is based upon a number of other factors and NOT just coach's ratings.

I do know that Nebraska uses the ratings in deciding who gets postseason assignments, but I don't know how much weight they carry. I would almost assume it doesn't carry as much weight as the evaluators' ratings (I would hope not!).

Football may differ from basketball, where I've done my work, but I'm of the opinion that coaches ratings are not only justified, but needed. After a year of coaches ratings, you see trends with officials, and those trends are what should be evaluated. In hoops, one of the biggest complaints from a losing coach is "did not call the same at both ends of the floor." Obviously, that's pretty useless, but when we (I was on the board) were reviewing coaches ratings, we threw out the non-important and emphasized what seemed to be coming up all the time.

Should it be a sole decider of post season assignments? No. Should it even be a factor? That's up to the organization, but if you as an official are trying to improve, it should be an important consideration. The coach mistakingly rating the wrong official aside, coaches are knowledgable of the game, but are looking at the game differently than a neutral observer. This perspective, simply because it is biased towards their team winning, shouldn't be discounted. It can be an important source of information.

And the fox should rate the hens!

Coaches, players and anyone else who have a subjective approach to any game in any sport should not be the sole decision makers of an officials performance.

What is needed is a truly objective rating system based upon an official's performance on the field on a particular game. If an official blows a call in one game he/she should not be penalized in a subsequent game. An example, if an official's bad call in the opinion of a coach cost his team the game. And that coach feels the official incompetent, can he truly objectively rate the official in a future game?

Not to say coaches opinions should be totally disregarded but they are not equipped or focused enough to offer an adequate objective rating of an official that he official can use to improve his/her on field performance.

Ed:

Wouldn't you agree that over the season, with, say 15 football assignments, or 40+ basketball assignments, that a consistent critique from coaches would be useful? Yes, much of the critique, especially from losing coaches, may not be useful, but that doesn't discount what is. Coaches are about the only ones who can evaluate how a coach handles an official, even though the evaluator would read the coaches review differently than the coach wrote it.

In Texas, UIL requires coaches to agree on district game varsity officials, whether 2 or 3 in hoops, or 5 in football. They have a "draft" in the spring (football, Dallas Chapter) and a listing (basketball, Dallas chapter) that forms the basis of game assignments. Playoff games are assigned based on coaches agreeing, i.e., "we'll get the Austin chapter to assign the officials, but I don't want any Aggies on that crew..."

So, in terms of "fox guarding the henhouse", sorry, but my experience is they already do.

How can a coach generate a useful critique if he is truly coaching?

Could I generate a useful critique of his coaching if I am officiating?

Point being, with all that occurs during a football game seldom does anyone have a chance to critique accurately the other's job. Plus, generally, coaches don't understand mechanics and the nuances of the rules. And, that is not their job. I don't understand a cover 2 (in reality I do) defense and why you would use it; plus, from the referee's position I cannot even see what happens in the defensive backfield. So, can I critique his calls.

It would be helpful to have a coaches view of what a coach sees in an official. Generally, most ratings at the HS level by coaches is a number which tells you absolutely nothing, or, maybe it tells you what the coach thinks of you as a person. But, that has nothing to do with your performance on the field.

My ideal for ratings would be a Q&A sheet with no numbers attached. Questions would be either True/False or a scale from one to five. Weighs would be applied during the scoring. Coaches would have coach specific questions and observers would have official specific questions. In other words a coach would never be able to rate an official on position. While an observer would rate the official on position.

Do I believe a rating system of this type would ever reach the schools. In some states where the officials control, yes. In states where ratings administration lies in the hands of school administrators don't bet on it.