Bobref

WHME Ch. 46 is reporting that Lake Station has forfeited its 1st round sectional game to North Judson due to an insufficient number of available players.

Probably not very well. … All the turds would be offended. 😂

In light of the thoughtful comments by @JustRulesand @Yuccaguy, the obvious question is: Does the current “regulatory” component of the process favor “more experienced” officials in a way that is contrary to the goals we’ve identified?

So, as we can see from the above, fully 50% of the “score” an officiating crew accumulates toward tournament selection and advancement comes from “regulatory” items, i.e., requirements or tasks that must be accomplished. In practice, most of these items are easily accomplished, with the result that this portion of the “score” does not provide much differentiation between crews. It is weighted somewhat toward experience, providing a few more points for length of licensure, tournament experience, and past tournament success. Again, those few points do not provide much differentiation between crews, and the potential differentiation is even mitigated by the fact that these points are calculated with respect to the 3 most experienced officials of the crew. So a crew having a couple of less experienced officials is not penalized. Measuring the current system against the goals we’ve articulated yields, IMO, a mixed grade: 1. Make sure the best officials are working the upper levels of the playoffs. 2. Provide appropriate incentives for officials to develop and improve. 3. Insure that growth in officiating proficiency is directly linked to playoff advancement. 4. Provide all stakeholders with appropriately weighted input into the process. 5. Serve as part of an officials’ retention strategy. The “regulatory” component of the process does little to directly advance these goals, but that does not mean it isn’t an important part of the process. Because the component is slightly weighted toward experience, you could say it advances goal #1 slightly, if you accept the assumption that more experienced officials, especially those with experience in the upper levels of the tournament, are more likely to represent the “best” officials. It may also provide some assistance in achieving goal #5 in that it does promise a slightly easier path to advancement for the officials that “stick it out.” But to the extent the goals are intended to identify the most proficient officials and advance them accordingly, this part of the process does little to accomplish that, since it does not actually measure officiating proficiency, nor does it differentiate between crews in any significant way. In practice, of the 140 or so crews that apply for the playoffs, the range of points generated by this component of the process is very narrow. So, the differences between many, many crews in this component of the scoring system are measured in very small fractions, if any. Rather, this component simply attempts to establish a minimum level of competency by creating milestone tasks that must be accomplished to increase the chances of advancing. That’s not to say that establishing that level of competency is not important – it is. We just can’t look to this part of the process to satisfy most of the goals we’ve identified for the system. For that, I believe we have to look at the "evaluative" component of the process: the 50% that is supposed to be based on officiating proficiency. Let's hear some thoughts on this part of the process, and then we'll move on to the other 50% of the system: the school or coaches' vote.

It’s not just that. It’s the fact that they haven’t yet put a whole game together, quarterback position unsettled, close escapes against mediocre teams. They’re just not a playoff team, even if they somehow go 11-1.

Unfortunately, I think their history of lopsided defeats from that position is finally going to start to work against them, unconsciously, of course.

Ditto.

Evidently, you’re not much of a lawyer, either. 🤣😂

Did I just see that Elkhart set a home & home series with Carmel, starting next season? Kudos to Elkhart. Seems like they have decided to be a player.

Perhaps a moderator could excise the officials’ name from that first post. You are correct that this is not something an official can take upon himself, and impose on the teams without their agreement. The proper recourse is to report this to Asst. Commissioner Faulkens at the IHSAA, as opposed to calling out the official by name on a public forum.

See Bishop Noll.

Good for these two sets of kids? No doubt. Good for Indiana high school football in general? Not so much.

This goes back to the definitions in the rule book, as most interpretations do. A player doesn’t become a kicker until he kicks the ball. Therefore, until there’s a kick, he’s just like any other player. The fact that he’s only 5 yds. deep has several implications, but none of them pertain to the kicker, as he’s always entitled to special protection regardless of the formation. The roughing the kicker rule excuses contact on the kicker when it is “unavoidable” because it is not reasonably certain a kick will be made. Does the player do anything that is “un-kickerlike?” Is the player contacting the kicker attempting to block a kick, or tackle a ball carrier (which is what the kicker is before he kicks the ball)? These are factors that go into the judgment process. But ultimately, the burden is always on the defense to avoid contact if possible.

So, this is how the process works currently. This is taken from a publicly available IHSAA document that I've edited to remove the non-football stuff. This same process applies to all IHSAA sports, which itself is one of the problems. But more on that later. TOURNAMENT OFFICIALS RATINGS SYSTEM The ranking of contest officials applying for an IHSAA tournament series event shall have two components: In this post, we're first going to examine the components that make up 50% of the "points" a crew can accumulate toward their ranking which are, more or less, completely within the control of the officials. Individual Criteria (50% of total rating) Each crew that applies for the IHSAA tournament series must meet the minimum requirements for working the tournament. Five (A – F below) individual criteria will total 50% of the officials overall score for tournament advancement. A. Previous Tournament Experience (5%) State 5 points Semi-state 4 points Regional 3 points Sectional 2 points Applicant 1 point Previous tournament experience will be considered over the last 10 years for all sports. In football, each crew member should verify their highest level of tournament advancement in Arbiter. The numbers for each of the 3 crew members with the most tenure will be added together and divided by 3, which will represent the previous tournament experience of the crew. B. Previous Tournament Assignment (any level) (5%) 5+/6 5 points 4/6 4 points 3/6 3 points 2/6 2 points 1/6 1 point Previous tournament assignments will be considered over the last six (6) years. In football, the numbers for each of the 3 crew members with the highest number of tournament assignments will be added together and divided by 3, which will represent the average previous tournament assignments for the crew. C. Years of Licensure in Respective Sport (5%) 7+ 5 points 6 4 points 5 3 points 4 2 points 3 1 point In football, each crew member should verify their years of licensure in Arbiter. The numbers for each of the 3 crew members with the most tenure will be added together and divided by 3, which will represent the average years of licensure. D. Test Score - Part II: Pass/Fail [Score of 90-100% to Qualify for Tournament] E. Number of Contests Worked (20%) 8 or more = 5 pts.; 7 = 4 pts.; 6 = 3 pts.; 5 = 2 pts.; 4 = 1 pt. Minimum games required to work the tournament series: Football 4 Note: All regular season games must be entered into the tournament application to be counted towards an official/crew number of games calculated. F. Association Meeting Attendance & Member in Good Standing (15%) 8 meetings = 5 pts.; 7 meetings = 4 pts.; 6 meetings = 3 pts.; 5 meetings = 2 pts.; 4 meetings = 1 pt.

Ball remains alive following an interception, so he can run it out.