I am interesting in hearing the pro and cons of coaching rating officials.

Do you think coaches ratings should be used in promotion, playoff assignments, etc.?

Why or why not?

I don't have a problem with coaches rating officials as long as it is paired with other "ratings" from non-coaches. In other words, don't evaluate officials just on what the coaches think. Have other officials, etc. involved in the process as well.

What kentref mentioned is how they do it here in Nebraska, when it comes to giving out postseason assignments.

Coaches don't want us to have any influence in their promotion or demotion so I wouldn't want them to have an influence on mine. In our chapter the coaches are asked to rate us based upon our performance not based upon the result of the game. One game the winning teams coach rated me 5 out of 5. The losing teams coach rated 1 out of 5. Which one do you use? In most cases the coaches aren't even watching the officials as they are watching their players. In order to rate an official you have to be an expert at mechanics and that would require watching the officials. When we are rated by coaches we ask that they put comments on the rating card and these ratings are strictly for the officials to review to see what improvements they can make.

We are working on a system here.
 

In our league a few of us are working on a system.

When I went to officiate in another part of the state last year (as part of an official's exchange program the state association implemented) I was impressed with how the private school league does things.

Officials rate coaches (we did this as a crew after the game) and the coaches rate the officials. Also, there is at least one observer from the official's association and I believe there is at least one observer from the league itself.

The best rating system (and the most fairest IMHO) is one that includes officials, coaches, league authorities, athletic directors, etc.

It must have worked for me: I got a review that pointed out the good things I did and the areas where I needed to work-on. Its a great motivator to know that people care enough about you to compliment you but also try to help overcome your weaknesses...

Rating did help me.
 

I did get a state play-off assignment this year. One of the observers said I earned it which made be feel great.

I think unbiased observers from the league and other officials make the best and least partial observers.

However, I also believe that you need to include the coaches, mainly because its important to be rated from many different points of view.

I believe that we should be rated for every game.

The reason why ratings should be done every game is because its the best way to make us improve and standardize the proper mechanics and rules applications.

Re: Rating did help me.
 

I definitely agree there should be some sort of rating system. Using officials as the observers is in my opinion the best method. As I stated previously the coaches at least in my neck of the woods don't know much of anything about officiating and its mechanics. Very few would know whether or not a penalty was correctly adminstered or if the official was out of position. In my opinion the only portion of a coaches observation that you could possibly use is the coaches impression of the officials professionalism towards the coach

Coaches ratings should have very little effect on your post season assignments and/or advancements. Personally, I believe that the ratings should be used for improvement purposes only. In otherwords they have to write out comments and not just check 1-5. That's me though.

my .02
 

I am not in favor of coaches rating officials primarily for 3 reasons:

1. Most coaches can't connect an official with a name; especially difficult when working assignments vs. crews as we do

2. Coaches do not understand mechanics, philosophy, and many don't know the rules. How can they rate you on these fundamentals when they do not have a general, let alone thorough understanding of the criteria for determining the ratings?

3. Ratings will clearly reflect their emotions which many times are governed by whether they win or lose. We provide games cards that we encourage coaches to use to rate us per game. It's amazing how good we are on the nights that a coach wins and how terrible we are on the nights that they lose.

I remember back when I was coaching, we were asked two questions on the ratings forms for officials. We were asked to give a score for those officials we had for our games, and then we were also asked to check them off if we felt they were post-season caliber officials. I lost just about every game, but still rated the officials on their quality. Every one of the officials that I had a chance to rate, I gave high ratings and recommended them for postseason work. I think about 3/4 of the ones I checked for postseason actually ended up doing some postseason games.

That's interesting.

1. How did you come up with a score?

2. Do you think other coaches who rated officials used the same or similar criteria?

They asked us to rate them on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best. As for other coaches, I have no idea how they handled it. What I did was look for professionalism, game management, and mechanics (I was a ref who quit to become a coach-never again-came back to reffing).

The coaches in our area use the same 1 to 5 scale but these ratings are nothing except for self improvement. They have no effect on our games. I once worked a game and during the pregame with the coach I noticed on his desk that the rating card was already filled out. Some were given a 2 and others a 3 and we haven't even worked the game yet.

REPLY: Very interesting exchange. I don't especially like the idea of coaches rating officials. It doesn't happen formally here in NJ, although I'm certain that our assignors do get informal calls from coaches.

However, if any state/organization does formally solicit input from coaches, I would recommend that they develop a separate questionnaire that does <b>not</b> use the same rating scale or questions as an officiating supervisor would use. While the supervisor's rating would be in terms of rules, mechanics, etc., a coach's rating should be related solely to areas of the official's required and necessary interaction with him, e.g. questions related to the pregame meeting between the referee and coach ("Did the referee meet with you prior to the game? Y - N") or an official's professional demeanor dealing with the coach and his team. Maybe even a question regarding the official's appearance. But...Don't ever ask a coach to comment on the officials' application of the rules or his application of approved techniques, or his ability to officiate playoff caliber football. He just does not have the tools to comment on such matters.

In Illinois, coaches are required to "rate" officials after every varsity game. They rate us on a scale of 1 to 5 with the following applying to those ratings...
1. State Finals Qualified
2. Sectional Qualified (2nd round)
3. Regional Qualified (1st round)
4. Varsity Qualified
5. Sub-Varsity Only

These are used in conjunction with other ratings and factors to determine playoff assignment and promotions.

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.