Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

I have a feeling where this is going to go


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

In a perfect world, advancement would depend on proficiency, and nothing else. But until we get there, other factors have to be taken into account, like historical barriers that exist without regard to ability. We need officials. Women are an untapped resource. Advancing women -with ability - on a faster track than their male counterparts is a recruiting tool, and justified on that basis alone. The tricky part is balancing that fast track with not putting people in over their heads, setting them up for failure.

Very slippery slope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, DE said:

Very slippery slope.

Indeed, a challenge. But that’s not a reason to shy away.

How about in a slightly different context? You’re an official. Would you support a policy that dictated every year the 6 best crews in the state worked the finals, without taking into account any other factors?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Indeed, a challenge. But that’s not a reason to shy away.

How about in a slightly different context? You’re an official. Would you support a policy that dictated every year the 6 best crews in the state worked the finals, without taking into account any other factors?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Indeed, a challenge. But that’s not a reason to shy away.

How about in a slightly different context? You’re an official. Would you support a policy that dictated every year the 6 best crews in the state worked the finals, without taking into account any other factors?

The issue there (similar to advancing certain officials) is the evaluation is subjective. There isn't a huge difference between the 5th best crew and the 20th best crew and maybe even the 50th best crew. Polling and tournament selection for the NCAA tournament are no different. Set up a process and use that process. That's what the IHSAA does. Their process is not intended to find the best crews. It's intended to assign a ranking number to each crew to make it easier to assign. In general the better crews rank higher and the really bad crews rank low. But the big pile in the middle get figured out by "popularity". Not necessarily those who intentionally create popularity but those who are the most involved. Officiate multiple sports, current or former coach or administrator, played college sports with a lot of coaches or administrators, lots of years of experience are all examples. And having that recognizable person as your referee makes a huge difference because that's the person on the ballot. But the IHSAA created the process and they follow the process and most of the crews working the last 2 rounds are good crews. They aren't necessarily the best 6-12 crews, but they are good crews that are well respected by a larger number of schools.

4 hours ago, Bobref said:

In a perfect world, advancement would depend on proficiency, and nothing else. But until we get there, other factors have to be taken into account, like historical barriers that exist without regard to ability. We need officials. Women are an untapped resource. Advancing women -with ability - on a faster track than their male counterparts is a recruiting tool, and justified on that basis alone. The tricky part is balancing that fast track with not putting people in over their heads, setting them up for failure.

The same thing is true of hiring and advancing officials. If a D2 conference has 4 openings there are many factors at play. There are probably 50 strong candidates to take those 4 spots. If a woman or minority is selected for one of those spots over someone who has been in that queue longer it's not that they aren't qualified or better/worse than others in the pool. They maybe just go the invitation sooner than they would have if they weren't a minority or male. There are plenty of examples of people who have benefitted from that for a variety of reasons. Some have definitely advanced before they were ready, but they almost always struggle. Some will rise up though and make sure they are successful. A former Colts player got into officiating a few years ago and LOVED it! He got on to a high school crew his first year. He was working toward getting into D3 college when he got a call inviting him to join the MVFC (D1-FCS). He had never worked a college game and they wanted him in D1! Is that fair to others? Probably not. But you have to understand why. He called me to ask what I thought he should do. He was afraid he wasn't ready for that level and may fail. I told him they feel he's ready and because of who he was they would probably give him a little more rope than others. He was an avid learner and very humble and he worked really hard at it! By all accounts he did well but did make some mistakes due to his limited experience. Unfortunately knee issues from his playing days caused him to retire, but I have no doubt he would have made it to the NFL as an official.

Keep this in mind. Sarah Thomas advance a little quicker than others (especially that jump to D1). Yet it still took her 25 years of officiating to get to this point. It's not like she just started 5 years ago. There is no reason woman can't be just as good at officiating as men and getting more women involved will go a long way to alleviate our officiating shortage. We should be celebrating her accomplishments!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, JustRules said:

The issue there (similar to advancing certain officials) is the evaluation is subjective. There isn't a huge difference between the 5th best crew and the 20th best crew and maybe even the 50th best crew. Polling and tournament selection for the NCAA tournament are no different. Set up a process and use that process. That's what the IHSAA does. Their process is not intended to find the best crews. It's intended to assign a ranking number to each crew to make it easier to assign. In general the better crews rank higher and the really bad crews rank low.

This is absolutely true, but this philosophy has not been well-explained over the years. I would venture to guess that a majority of officials believe playoff advancement is strictly a numbers game. Frankly, if you look at the information disseminated by the IHSAA on the process, it’s understandable that there’s confusion.

But, on the main point, I ask @DE, what do you think the effect on the officiating community would be if the same 10 or so crews just rotated through the finals, year after year, with no one else having a realistic chance to break into that select group? Because that is one possible outcome of a 100% merit-based, competitive selection process. I consider it one of the more likely possibilities. What do you think the long range effect of that would be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, JustRules said:

The issue there (similar to advancing certain officials) is the evaluation is subjective. There isn't a huge difference between the 5th best crew and the 20th best crew and maybe even the 50th best crew. Polling and tournament selection for the NCAA tournament are no different. Set up a process and use that process. That's what the IHSAA does. Their process is not intended to find the best crews. It's intended to assign a ranking number to each crew to make it easier to assign. In general the better crews rank higher and the really bad crews rank low. But the big pile in the middle get figured out by "popularity". Not necessarily those who intentionally create popularity but those who are the most involved. Officiate multiple sports, current or former coach or administrator, played college sports with a lot of coaches or administrators, lots of years of experience are all examples. And having that recognizable person as your referee makes a huge difference because that's the person on the ballot. But the IHSAA created the process and they follow the process and most of the crews working the last 2 rounds are good crews. They aren't necessarily the best 6-12 crews, but they are good crews that are well respected by a larger number of schools.

The same thing is true of hiring and advancing officials. If a D2 conference has 4 openings there are many factors at play. There are probably 50 strong candidates to take those 4 spots. If a woman or minority is selected for one of those spots over someone who has been in that queue longer it's not that they aren't qualified or better/worse than others in the pool. They maybe just go the invitation sooner than they would have if they weren't a minority or male. There are plenty of examples of people who have benefitted from that for a variety of reasons. Some have definitely advanced before they were ready, but they almost always struggle. Some will rise up though and make sure they are successful. A former Colts player got into officiating a few years ago and LOVED it! He got on to a high school crew his first year. He was working toward getting into D3 college when he got a call inviting him to join the MVFC (D1-FCS). He had never worked a college game and they wanted him in D1! Is that fair to others? Probably not. But you have to understand why. He called me to ask what I thought he should do. He was afraid he wasn't ready for that level and may fail. I told him they feel he's ready and because of who he was they would probably give him a little more rope than others. He was an avid learner and very humble and he worked really hard at it! By all accounts he did well but did make some mistakes due to his limited experience. Unfortunately knee issues from his playing days caused him to retire, but I have no doubt he would have made it to the NFL as an official.

Keep this in mind. Sarah Thomas advance a little quicker than others (especially that jump to D1). Yet it still took her 25 years of officiating to get to this point. It's not like she just started 5 years ago. There is no reason woman can't be just as good at officiating as men and getting more women involved will go a long way to alleviate our officiating shortage. We should be celebrating her accomplishments!

GREAT information.  Thank you.  I thought she did fine Sunday.  Only noticed her twice.  The delayed false start call on Hill (KC) and the potential interception by David (TB).  I did ask @Bobrefa question about why the LJs changed.  Had never noticed that before.

As I said, there are many fantastic officials in all walks of life, but to "advance" people because of their gender, skin color,  whatever, and not their merits and hard work, is very wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DE said:

GREAT information.  Thank you.  I thought she did fine Sunday.  Only noticed her twice.  The delayed false start call on Hill (KC) and the potential interception by David (TB).  I did ask @Bobrefa question about why the LJs changed.  Had never noticed that before.

As I said, there are many fantastic officials in all walks of life, but to "advance" people because of their gender, skin color,  whatever, and not their merits and hard work, is very wrong.

Couldn't agree more with your last sentence.  Now prepared for everyone to judge me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bobref said:

This is absolutely true, but this philosophy has not been well-explained over the years. I would venture to guess that a majority of officials believe playoff advancement is strictly a numbers game. Frankly, if you look at the information disseminated by the IHSAA on the process, it’s understandable that there’s confusion.

But, on the main point, I ask @DE, what do you think the effect on the officiating community would be if the same 10 or so crews just rotated through the finals, year after year, with no one else having a realistic chance to break into that select group? Because that is one possible outcome of a 100% merit-based, competitive selection process. I consider it one of the more likely possibilities. What do you think the long range effect of that would be?

bolded dictate b/c I do not think anyone wants their choices to be dictated by someone else.  I hope that makes sense.

That is why I didn't answer that part.

Would I like it if only the same 10 crews rotated through the finals?  If they are rated the best (which I guess would be a different discussion) than I would have no problem with it.  I would work harder to break into one of those crews.

I do understand what you are saying Bob.  As an entire, I see how that can deter folks from wanting to continue to officiate (which I would question do they REALLY want to put all the work in to be the best?)

Good discussion guys.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DE said:

bolded dictate b/c I do not think anyone wants their choices to be dictated by someone else.  I hope that makes sense.

That is why I didn't answer that part.

Would I like it if only the same 10 crews rotated through the finals?  If they are rated the best (which I guess would be a different discussion) than I would have no problem with it.  I would work harder to break into one of those crews.

I do understand what you are saying Bob.  As an entire, I see how that can deter folks from wanting to continue to officiate (which I would question do they REALLY want to put all the work in to be the best?)

Good discussion guys.  Thanks.

"I would work harder to break into one of those crews."

Wow, what a amazing concept...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, temptation said:

Couldn't agree more with your last sentence.  Now prepared for everyone to judge me...

There is only 1, I care who judges me.  🙂

I enjoy learning from experienced people who enjoy dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, temptation said:

"I would work harder to break into one of those crews."

Wow, what a amazing concept...

🙂

As most of us know, that is not very common now a days.

I too fall into that trap from time to time.  I want the advancement NOW.  Then I realize by talking, working, studying, analyzing, etc., that in a certain sport, I still need more time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DE said:

GREAT information.  Thank you.  I thought she did fine Sunday.  Only noticed her twice.  The delayed false start call on Hill (KC) and the potential interception by David (TB).  I did ask @Bobrefa question about why the LJs changed.  Had never noticed that before.

As I said, there are many fantastic officials in all walks of life, but to "advance" people because of their gender, skin color,  whatever, and not their merits and hard work, is very wrong.

The officials who are advancing quickly have the merits and hard work as those who feel slighted. As with anything, the people who are hiring are basing it a lot on trust and the little they can observe. It's not unlike recruiting. Are the 2500 best athletes getting recruited to FBS and the next 2500 to FBS, etc.? Absolutely not. The recruiters are relying heavily on the information given to them by the HS coaches they trust, their individual meetings with people, and observing them either in person or on film. Is a coach's son or the younger brother of a current player going to get an advantage over someone else? Absolutely. Because you are taking less of a risk when someone you know and trust can vouch for them. Doesn't mean you always made the right decision, but that is human nature. Being the son of a current NFL/D1 official is a huge help. Being a former NFL/D1 player is a huge help.

One of the biggest helps right now is appearance and physical fitness. Is that fair? Does it make you a better official to be fit? Marginally maybe because you may be in better shape. But thinner doesn't always mean better shape. But perception is reality. If you see a heavy guy out there officiating and he makes a potentially bad call, your first thought is going to be "he was out of position or he's too fat to do this." I have known several very good officials who didn't advance entirely because of their weight. Supervisors would pick other officials who were also qualified but not as good as the heavy official. Is that fair? No, but they are all honest about it. And fans don't want to see old or heavy officials on the court/field/pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JustRules said:

The officials who are advancing quickly have the merits and hard work as those who feel slighted. As with anything, the people who are hiring are basing it a lot on trust and the little they can observe. It's not unlike recruiting. Are the 2500 best athletes getting recruited to FBS and the next 2500 to FBS, etc.? Absolutely not. The recruiters are relying heavily on the information given to them by the HS coaches they trust, their individual meetings with people, and observing them either in person or on film. Is a coach's son or the younger brother of a current player going to get an advantage over someone else? Absolutely. Because you are taking less of a risk when someone you know and trust can vouch for them. Doesn't mean you always made the right decision, but that is human nature. Being the son of a current NFL/D1 official is a huge help. Being a former NFL/D1 player is a huge help.

One of the biggest helps right now is appearance and physical fitness. Is that fair? Does it make you a better official to be fit? Marginally maybe because you may be in better shape. But thinner doesn't always mean better shape. But perception is reality. If you see a heavy guy out there officiating and he makes a potentially bad call, your first thought is going to be "he was out of position or he's too fat to do this." I have known several very good officials who didn't advance entirely because of their weight. Supervisors would pick other officials who were also qualified but not as good as the heavy official. Is that fair? No, but they are all honest about it. And fans don't want to see old or heavy officials on the court/field/pitch.

I know what you are saying, but have you seen some of the officials working these pro games?  😉

Good stuff.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DE said:

🙂

As most of us know, that is not very common now a days.

I too fall into that trap from time to time.  I want the advancement NOW.  Then I realize by talking, working, studying, analyzing, etc., that in a certain sport, I still need more time.  

I know that sometimes we fail at making sports to "real life" analogies, but don't you want the BEST/MOST QUALIFIED people teaching your children?  The BEST/MOST QUALIFIED mechanic working on your car?  The BEST/MOST QUALIFIED person in charge of your financial investments?

Instead, we are being told by many that what you look like/what gender you are supersedes credentials and qualifications.

What a time to be alive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, temptation said:

I know that sometimes we fail at making sports to "real life" analogies, but don't you want the BEST/MOST QUALIFIED people teaching your children?  The BEST/MOST QUALIFIED mechanic working on your car?  The BEST/MOST QUALIFIED person in charge of your financial investments?

Instead, we are being told by many that what you look like/what gender you are supersedes credentials and qualifications.

What a time to be alive...

Good stuff here too.

As a newer official, I know there is A LOT I can improve on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, temptation said:

I know that sometimes we fail at making sports to "real life" analogies, but don't you want the BEST/MOST QUALIFIED people teaching your children?  The BEST/MOST QUALIFIED mechanic working on your car?  The BEST/MOST QUALIFIED person in charge of your financial investments?

Instead, we are being told by many that what you look like/what gender you are supersedes credentials and qualifications.

What a time to be alive...

Absolutely. But again, all of those are subjective qualifications. In our D3 conference there are 42-45 staff officials. I would say at least 20-25 of them are eligible and qualified to work in D2. Some maybe a little more than others but any of them could do the job. And in the footprint of the GLVC there are 4 or 5 other NAIA/D3 conferences that have similar numbers of eligible and qualified people. That means there could be 1000 people with similar qualifications that be hired for the 3-4 spots available. As with any job there are going to be things that help put your name near the top of the list. Right now trying to have more minorities and more women and more fit officials are goals so the similarly or equally qualified people from those groups will be more likely to get the opportunities.

There are situations where someone does advance well before they should, but they either rise to the situation and do well or struggle and are removed. It happens every year at all levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, JustRules said:

Absolutely. But again, all of those are subjective qualifications. In our D3 conference there are 42-45 staff officials. I would say at least 20-25 of them are eligible and qualified to work in D2. Some maybe a little more than others but any of them could do the job. And in the footprint of the GLVC there are 4 or 5 other NAIA/D3 conferences that have similar numbers of eligible and qualified people. That means there could be 1000 people with similar qualifications that be hired for the 3-4 spots available. As with any job there are going to be things that help put your name near the top of the list. Right now trying to have more minorities and more women and more fit officials are goals so the similarly or equally qualified people from those groups will be more likely to get the opportunities.

There are situations where someone does advance well before they should, but they either rise to the situation and do well or struggle and are removed. It happens every year at all levels.

Now address my analogies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, temptation said:

Now address my analogies.

Using your analogies I only need 1 of each of those (assuming 1 teacher per class). If I only demand the best/most qualified then I need only the #1 best anywhere in the world. That's obviously not logical. I want someone who is good and qualified and loves what they do. There could be other teachers or mechanics or financial advisors better than mine, but they may not be available or in my school or in my city/state. Are they qualified? If women are minorities are under-represented in any of those areas, I'm perfectly fine with their companies hiring/promoting them if they are qualified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JustRules said:

Using your analogies I only need 1 of each of those (assuming 1 teacher per class). If I only demand the best/most qualified then I need only the #1 best anywhere in the world. That's obviously not logical. I want someone who is good and qualified and loves what they do. There could be other teachers or mechanics or financial advisors better than mine, but they may not be available or in my school or in my city/state. Are they qualified? If women are minorities are under-represented in any of those areas, I'm perfectly fine with their companies hiring/promoting them if they are qualified.

Ah, you punted.  We are talking about the best officials in the STATE yet now you wanna talk about national/worldwide.

Simply put, as a parent you want your child to attend the best school in your area, with the best teachers.  You want the best doctor, mechanic, financial advisor, (insert any other profession here) in your area or availability.

Could you imagine this one:

"Sir, we have the most qualified doctor in the area in our hospital, but he/she will be in the operating room next door.  I hope you understand, but this doctor will do just fine."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, temptation said:

Ah, you punted.  We are talking about the best officials in the STATE yet now you wanna talk about national/worldwide.

Simply put, as a parent you want your child to attend the best school in your area, with the best teachers.  You want the best doctor, mechanic, financial advisor, (insert any other profession here) in your area or availability.

Could you imagine this one:

"Sir, we have the most qualified doctor in the area in our hospital, but he/she will be in the operating room next door.  I hope you understand, but this doctor will do just fine."

That was no “punt.” The problem is with your question, not his answer. Because your questions: “Wouldn’t you want the best ....” starts from a false premise: that it is possible to determine with confidence who is the “best” at anything, when the evaluation process includes significant subjective elements. Yes, we all want the best doctor, teacher, mechanic, etc.  But it is not possible to say with confidence who is the “best” at any of those things. So it it with officiating. The process @JustRulesdescribed is more in the nature of “stratiification” of crews, as opposed to ranking them. Visualize it this way. Crews are placed in 1 of 5 groups, based on the evaluation process (whatever that is):

Level 1 — Not qualified to work in the tournament

Level 2 — Qualified to work in the Sectional

Level 3 — Qualified to work to the Regional

Level 4 — Qualified to work to the Semistate

Level 5 — Qualified to work the the State Finals

Once crews are evaluated and placed at their appropriate level, other factors can be used to determine assignments at that level. But this sort of process does away with the nonsensical notion that a crew with a 4.87 rating score is somehow “better” than a crew with a 4.85 score.

This is, in essence, the process @JustRuleswas describing. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bobref said:

That was no “punt.” The problem is with your question, not his answer. Because your questions: “Wouldn’t you want the best ....” starts from a false premise: that it is possible to determine with confidence who is the “best” at anything, when the evaluation process includes significant subjective elements. Yes, we all want the best doctor, teacher, mechanic, etc.  But it is not possible to say with confidence who is the “best” at any of those things. So it it with officiating. The process @JustRulesdescribed is more in the nature of “stratiification” of crews, as opposed to ranking them. Visualize it this way. Crews are placed in 1 of 5 groups, based on the evaluation process (whatever that is):

Level 1 — Not qualified to work in the tournament

Level 2 — Qualified to work in the Sectional

Level 3 — Qualified to work to the Regional

Level 4 — Qualified to work to the Semistate

Level 5 — Qualified to work the the State Finals

Once crews are evaluated and placed at their appropriate level, other factors can be used to determine assignments at that level. But this sort of process does away with the nonsensical notion that a crew with a 4.87 rating score is somehow “better” than a crew with a 4.85 score.

This is, in essence, the process @JustRuleswas describing. 

Folks travel from hours away (out of state) to go to Riley Hospital because it is well-known as the best pediatric facility in the midwest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...