Bobref

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.

Lots of very thoughtful comments so far, and I think the discussion is only going to get better as we move to the next phase. It is, however, a little disappointing that we’ve not had more input from non-officials. Coaches, administrators, fans as well, all have a stake in this. I’d certainly like to hear their various points of view. So, from the comments so far, here are what seem to be the legitimate goals of an officials’ playoff selection and advancement process (in no particular order of priority): Make sure the best officials are working the upper levels of the playoffs. Provide appropriate incentives for officials to develop and improve. Insure that growth in officiating proficiency is directly linked to playoff advancement. Provide all stakeholders with appropriately weighted input into the process. Serve as part of an officials’ retention strategy. Now the task is to examine the current system to see how it matches up with those goals. Next: A detailed explanation of the current system.

In your opinion. Personally, I think Roncalli is a great story. A dominant team for a long time, they went to 4 straight championship games in the early 2000s. Then they went 25-27 over the next 5 yrs., and never got beyond a 2nd round sectional game. Then they slowly began to build back up, but they didn’t win a sectional again until 2014, and by 2016 they had a 15-0 state champion. Then they took a dip, going 18-15 the next 3 seasons before their championship last season. The point is, between the success factor and the up and down nature of high school classes, Roncalli’s success has been cyclical … just like that of every other program that is considered “dominant.” You don’t like Roncalli winning championships? Have a little patience. History tells us there will be a “down” cycle soon.

I’m betting Mills gets fined for the cheap shot after the winning TD.

This puts the officiating crew in a very uncomfortable position. On the one hand you’ve got a coach who says his team was ready at the appointed time, and now he’s going to be disadvantaged by the delay. On the other hand, you don’t want to send kids out there who haven’t warmed up sufficiently. It’s a player safety issue. The officials simply have to err on the side of player safety. So, give the late arriving team enough time to do their regular warmup, and then make a report to the IHSAA about the late start.

I worked one of those. Lindsay vs. Sharpe. Classic.

This is also something I hear from a lot of officials. But it’s still not a goal. The vote is simply a component of the process. The overriding question is “what are you designing the process to accomplish?” Think big picture, long term. We’ll talk details later.

In terms of goals, I was thinking more along these lines, as examples, and in no particular order of priority: To reward officiating performance appropriately To incentivize officials to develop and adopt best officiating practices To select and assign officials to the tournament at levels commensurate with officiating performance To decrease the likelihood of officiating error materially affecting a contest at each level of the tournament To serve as part of a recruitment and retention strategy as a response to the shortage of officials Any of these a good or bad idea? Others? C’mon, I know we have a lot of smart people out there. This part of the process is less about officiating and more like Management 101.

I have found these sentiments to be very common among current officials. But we’re still focusing on means and methods. We need to first articulate the goals we want a playoff selection and advancement system to work toward. You can’t draw a road map without a destination.

It has long been the policy in Indiana that, after a crew works a state final, the highest level they can achieve the following year is sectional final. They can then advance one level per year, if their score warrants, so that they are again eligible to work a final in 4 yrs.

That is left to the discretion of the Referee. But if I were the R, I’d certainly give that option strong consideration.

Don’t ask … don’t tell. 😂

OK, I did get it to play, finally. It’s clear that @Yuccaguywas correct: the ruling on the field was illegal touching, not intentional grounding. You can tell because the flag was not thrown by the Referee, as it would be for IG, and at one point the Referee clearly starts to give signal 16, illegal touching. The video is supportive of the call. Also, the QB is not just under duress. He is going down as a result of contact. The errant throw was likely affected by the contact, so I would be extremely reluctant to call IG in this situation. From what I can see in the video, the crew handled a difficult play well. As an observer, my only criticism would be that when the crew gets together to discuss, or the official goes to the sideline to talk to the coach, keep your hands to yourself. Nobody needs to be hugging anybody to discuss the play. Looks creepy. Maintain a professional demeanor out there.

There is some controversy over this type of scenario. The rule says this is IG: “A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver.” The critical word is “intentionally.” One interpretation is that the QB must know that there is no eligible in the area, and throw it anyway. The fact that it’s not a foul if the receiver slips down, or cuts the wrong way, and the pass goes into a vacant area, would seem to support this interpretation. If that’s the case, the QB under duress could mistake an ineligible for an eligible receiver and throw the ball in his direction. If the ineligible purposely touches the ball, it’s a foul for illegal touching, which is enforced from the spot of the touching, not from where the pass was thrown. If he doesn’t touch it, it’s just an incomplete pass. I can’t get the video to play anymore. But if @Yuccaguyis correct and it was actually ruled illegal touching, not IG, then all of this could have been avoided by giving a proper preliminary, and then final, signal. In this case it would be signal 16, not signal 36.

Officials, please review the Manual, p. 36. It has a section on dealing with “Victory” formation.

This is an important point, I believe. The playoff selection and advancement process can be used to make all officials raise their game -- and everyone benefits -- but only if officials perceive there is a direct link between advancement and becoming proficient in mechanics, rules knowledge, philosophy, etc. I do not believe that perception exists at present.

Please, these are all good thoughts, worthy of discussion. But let’s do this in an orderly fashion. It starts with answering a fundamental question: What goals should an official playoff selection and advancement process be designed to accomplish? You can’t evaluate the present system, or suggest improvements, without having first decided what your goals are.

I honestly think the outcome of this game will have a significant impact on the career trajectory of Matt Nagy. I believe Nagy has one, and only one, way to save his job in Chicago. He’s got to become Justin Fields’ “Quarterback Whisperer.” And then he’s got to hope Fields shows steady growth from here on out. That, more than wins and losses, will determine his fate.

True, but incomplete. While a school must turn in a coaches’ vote, there is, to my knowledge, nothing in place that requires a school to vote for every crew they see. More on “sampling bias” in a subsequent post.

I believe a 1 vote counts as a vote.

We all have. But that’s why all 5 people on the crew need to be paying attention during penalty enforcement. Anyone can have a brain cramp. But all five?

If you’re getting “1” votes, you’re probably not going to need to be concerned about whether you’re getting enough votes to qualify.

This is the first of a 4-part post, the goals of which are: To inform those who do not know how official playoff selection and advancement works. In particular, to explain how the coaches' vote system works, both in theory and practice, and why it is the major determinant in an officiating crew's playoff advancement. To critically examine the coaches' vote system. To offer suggestions as to how the system might be improved to better achieve the articulated goals. In this first post, I've attached an IHSAA public document which explain the process in summary fashion. There is another IHSAA document, publicly available, which goes into painstaking detail how each component of the selection process is calculated. And if I can figure out a way to get it to upload, I'll do that. But before we get too far into the weeds on the way the current process works, I'd like to hear from coaches, fans, officials, anyone out there who has an interest in seeing these games officiated well, in answer to the following question: What goals should an official playoff selection and advancement process be designed to accomplish? And, we might as well get straight from the outset, it is not the purpose of this discussion to serve as a b*tch session for officials who don't like the system and/or are unhappy with their playoff advancement. We will critically examine aspects of the current system. But we do so in the spirit of evaluating the current system in light of the goals we identify, and then discussing how the system might be improved. Finally, there are a lot of really smart and experienced people out there who might know comparatively little about officiating, but know quite a bit about how to devise an evaluative process in order to further some articulated goals. I'd really like to hear some out of the box thinking from those people. Tournament Official Assigning Policy Football.pdf

In truth, most good coaches don’t use this kind of stuff. But it is routine to discuss potential “trick” plays in the pregame conference with coaches, and most coaches understand that this sort of thing should be discussed in advance, so everyone is on the same page. Although, I once had a Hall of Fame coach in a semistate tell me he was going to shift suddenly on 3rd or 4th and less than 5. I told him it was a foul. He did it anyway, and we flagged it as a false start. Incredibly, he did exactly the same thing in the final the next week … with exactly the same result. SMH