Out of Chapter Requests from Playoff Teams

[JeffTheRef]

Curious to get everyone's opinion when 2 teams that share the same Chapter meet up in the playoffs and request a crew from outside their Chapter.

[Cowtown Ref]

If that chapter isnt good enough to do a playoff game for those teams, then they shouldnt be good enough to do all those teams scrimmages and subvarsity games next year.

[TxBJ]

I don't like it, but at the end of the day it is their choice.

[dammitbobby]

If that chapter isnt good enough to do a playoff game for those teams, then they shouldnt be good enough to do all those teams scrimmages and subvarsity games next year.

THIS x1000

[JBall]

If that happened I would talk with my crew to see if we wanted to scratch them all year.

[Joe Stack]

Its probably going to come down to the crews and the officials to take matters into their own hands because few boards and/or secretaries want to get into the business of telling schools no -- especially for this reason. It can also invite TASO scrutiny (or there's a perception it can).

Thus, I encourage everyone to accept or reject games individually or as crews as it relates to schools who do this. If it bothers you, don't work the schools. If it doesn't bother you, go ahead. As far as I'm concerned, your position is just that.

As for me, schools that do this bother me immensely, but what bothers me more is TASO chapters that willingly accept such assignments. A chapter that doesn't like schools in their area using other chapters for playoffs yet jumps on these games when they get the call is BS. The policy should be, "we will not accept such games unless we get the assignment directly from UIL."

The only caveat I would say here is that if you are in a small(er) chapter and you already have several assignments for that date, please treat this situation with some level of understanding. I think it is reasonable for a coach to feel that a chapter of, say, less than 40 total members may have only 1-2 playoff worthy crews and if they're not available, going outside the chapter shouldn't be frowned upon. There are crews in my chapter that I don't feel are "playoff ready."

[dammitbobby]

I didn't do a great job tracking chapter membership numbers this year, but using last year's numbers, there are no chapters with less than 40 members.

Smallest chapter numbers from last year, and how many playoff games overall they have worked in 2022, and then this year, so far (including this week):


        22      23
49*   0       0
69    19      22
78     4       11
83     14     6
91     0       0
111   13     8
112   43     30
113   11     13
119   12     17
124   11     15
137   30     22
153   9       8
196   1       12
197   51     51
203   0       0

So while I understand your point, it also doesn't hold water, IMO - for these smaller chapters, size is largely irrelevant, it's all over the place. Chapter getting blanked the entire playoffs, especially multiple years, should be concerning to all of us, including TASO ( I don't think UIL gives a hoot), and they should be working to understand why this keeps occurring. I have been unsuccessful in getting data for previous years, but I would bet it shows similar trends for some chapters.  And yes, some of this is geography related - but a lot of it is not. There are several factors that move these numbers. Some we can't do anything about, some we can.

It hadn't occurred to me to look and see how many times this has happened (home chapter for both schools was not selected), I may look at adding that in the future (if I can get listings of who serves what schools.)


* I have heard that this chapter is down to single digits and will likely fold, lots of defections to another chapter the last two years.

[Cosmokramer1]

This subject comes up almost every year and many have a difference of opinion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I'm of the opinion that a few have mentioned.  Not only would I no longer work for either of those schools but I would also support seeing the chapter leadership reach out to both teams and ask for their input regarding their decision.  That is, if you can get an honest answer from either of them.  I've seen it addressed before and both coaches proceeded to attempt to blame the other.  They always come up with an excuse as to why they went that direction but, to me, it's not excusable.  My response is if they cannot find 5 or 7 officials they agree to use then it's impossible for them to then find 5 or 7 to use for their games next season (at all levels).  When that occurs a simple, "we are sorry you feel this way and I'm sure another chapter will take good care of you next season" will suffice. 

If there's one thing the shortage of officials has allowed us to benefit from is there will always be somewhere else to work.  If a school(s) doesn't want us there, we shouldn't want to be there. 

[Joe Stack]

I didn't do a great job tracking chapter membership numbers this year, but using last year's numbers, there are no chapters with less than 40 members.

Smallest chapter numbers from last year, and how many playoff games overall they have worked in 2022, and then this year, so far (including this week):


        22      23
49*   0       0
69    19      22
78     4       11
83     14     6
91     0       0
111   13     8
112   43     30
113   11     13
119   12     17
124   11     15
137   30     22
153   9       8
196   1       12
197   51     51
203   0       0

So while I understand your point, it also doesn't hold water, IMO - for these smaller chapters, size is largely irrelevant, it's all over the place. Chapter getting blanked the entire playoffs, especially multiple years, should be concerning to all of us, including TASO ( I don't think UIL gives a hoot), and they should be working to understand why this keeps occurring. I have been unsuccessful in getting data for previous years, but I would bet it shows similar trends for some chapters.  And yes, some of this is geography related - but a lot of it is not. There are several factors that move these numbers. Some we can't do anything about, some we can.

It hadn't occurred to me to look and see how many times this has happened (home chapter for both schools was not selected), I may look at adding that in the future (if I can get listings of who serves what schools.)


* I have heard that this chapter is down to single digits and will likely fold, lots of defections to another chapter the last two years.

40 was a purely hypothetical number. It could be twice that or more, especially if the chapter is based in a college town where there is significant turnover year to year. I worked basketball for 2 years in the College Station chapter way back when and at the time, roughly half the chapter were like me - they were "transient" members who were only going to be there 1-2 years and then leave. Thus, if they were new officials (I already had a year under my belt) and this was football rather than basketball, AND we're talking crews, its a good bet that the 3rd or 4th sent out crew (maybe 5th or 6th, but whatever number) is going to have a first or second year official on them almost due to necessity. That's one thing for normal Friday night varsity games but quite another for playoffs ESPECIALLY given the availability of other chapters. When I was that level, I'm sure I thought, "yeah, I can do that." Now, I'm like, "hell, no, that's NOT a good idea..." for many reasons. Nothing really to do with seniority, jealousy, or anything else other than quality on the field.

Not trying to hijack, just wanted to make sure the point was clear. I agree that chapters being shut out is a problem. A BIG problem.

[dammitbobby]

I get what you're saying, and you're not wrong... but it circles back to coaches picking crews, or UIL picking chapters. (side note: I did find out that when coaches request UIL to pick a chapter, they have the option of specifying which chapters UIL is to pick from. That is bonkers.  If TASO won't do anything to improve selection, I sure wouldn't mind them leaning on UIL to at least say 'no, if you're wanting UIL to pick, we're going to pick, you don't get scratches in this scenario.' Or, even saying the pick will come from a chapter with a lower amount of, or the lowest amount of, playoff games.

https://www.uiltexas.org/form/officials-request/football.php

I'd even support chapters turning back UIL-assigned games to move the need in our favor, at least a little bit.

It's like the meme of a stick guy, holding a stick, poking TASO on the ground, saying, c'mon, do SOMETHING.

I don't know what a realistic solution is.  But saying 'all systems suck, so let's just stick with this one' doesn't help anyone and only makes the problem worse.

(and not to threadjack but we have three universities in this town, and less than 5 officials for football are in college, as far as I know - the problem we have, is football season and especially training starts way before they get back into town. If anyone has ever cracked that nut, I'd love to hear how you did it, it is a big pool but we haven't found a way to make it work yet.)

[JeffTheRef]

This subject comes up almost every year and many have a difference of opinion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I'm of the opinion that a few have mentioned.  Not only would I no longer work for either of those schools but I would also support seeing the chapter leadership reach out to both teams and ask for their input regarding their decision.  That is, if you can get an honest answer from either of them.  I've seen it addressed before and both coaches proceeded to attempt to blame the other.  They always come up with an excuse as to why they went that direction but, to me, it's not excusable.  My response is if they cannot find 5 or 7 officials they agree to use then it's impossible for them to then find 5 or 7 to use for their games next season (at all levels).  When that occurs a simple, "we are sorry you feel this way and I'm sure another chapter will take good care of you next season" will suffice. 

If there's one thing the shortage of officials has allowed us to benefit from is there will always be somewhere else to work.  If a school(s) doesn't want us there, we shouldn't want to be there.

I completely agree.  IMO the Chapter should no longer cover those schools starting next season, at any level.  It's disrespectful to the entire Chapter membership, some of whom covered their scrimmages in the heat of the summer with no pay, covered sub-varsity games long into the night, and/or likely drove long distances one-way to cover Varsity games.  A Chapter should stand up for its Members and not cover any school who is that disrespectful   There are plenty of other schools to cover who appreciate a Chapter Member's efforts, professionalism, and commitment level.

[Etref]

Some of the playoff process fiasco rests with UIL instead of having area teams play each other first round, they are now automatically pitted against another area with neutral sites. Crew is either from the neutral site or another area ( see El Paso)

[dammitbobby]

My understanding was the opposite - for the El Paso teams, I thought they had to flip home/home with their opponent, not neutral site, and if they won, the opposing coach would automatically scratch their home chapter (just because they could). There were 5-6 playoff games in El Paso last year, and I think 2 this year, and all games in El paso the last few years have had non-local crews.

[Etref]

My understanding was the opposite - for the El Paso teams, I thought they had to flip home/home with their opponent, not neutral site, and if they won, the opposing coach would automatically scratch their home chapter (just because they could). There were 5-6 playoff games in El Paso last year, and I think 2 this year, and all games in El paso the last few years have had non-local crews.

Wow

[dammitbobby]

Ive been mulling it over, and here's possible solution (or at least improvement):

For the first round of playoff games only, the chapter that normally serves the venue chosen, will provide the crew for that game. Would love to see TASO push a change this this to UIL (or something similar.)

It shows progress without tearing everything down and starting over (which IMO should happen, but never will, until some scandal about officials being in cahoots with a coach to get picked happens... and tbh as much as I want to believe everyone in officiating has integrity, there's some who don't and finagle for games and talk to coaches and whisper in their ear to get selected.)

[JBall]

You know an aspect of this that I fear is being overlooked is I know Taso is trying to push retention of officials but overlooking how playoff assignments could be affecting that.  If a chapter knows they are not gonna get any playoff assignments but another neighboring chapter will but you can't or won't transfer would you just quit?
Does lack of playoff games for a chapter lower moral and cause some officials to quit putting in time to get better? This affects how games are called at all levels.

I know nothing said here will affect Taso wanting to change how playoff games are done.  I would like to see a rotation system put in place for championship games and a limit on how often crews and chapters can do each classification and division. 

If every chapter knew they had to be ready for a playoff game how much harder would some work to improve?  For smaller chapters this would be huge but bigger chapters  will never go for it.

[Etref]

Topics like this and similar ones have been ongoing since I join SFOA many, many years ago. There will never be a perfect solution

[dammitbobby]

Nope, never will be.  Doesn't mean that we can't at least work towards improving the current system.

@etref (and others from SFOA days) - how were playoff/championship assignments handled in the past, pre-TASO? My understanding is that coaches picks came into being in the early 80's, but I don't have anything definitive on that.  If that is relatively true (that coach's picks haven't been around forever), what was the response from the officiating community when that became a thing?

[Etref]

I started in mid 80’s so before my time. Don’t recall much discussion about being better or worse . We had coaches “scratch “ but not picks.
No set crews at the time some coach before or during year could scratch individual officials. Playoffs the coach would contact the Chapter secretary and request officials for a game. Usually they would give a list of 8-12 officials they would like and secretary would select crew. Of course secretary also had to balance who to use in other games also.

[ElvisLives]

I started in '74, and I don't recall anything being any different. The root of this evil is the UIL 1204. I honestly can't say when the UIL 1204 was first established, but, scratches/selections have been going on ever since I can remember, and the UIL 1204 is what allows that:
"All officials must be satisfactory to both parties and agreed upon in advance."

That simple statement gives either coach, or both coaches, the ability to select specific individuals to officiate their games. When it comes to a game at a neutral location - especially playoff games - coaches will almost always refuse to allow officials from the 'home' chapter of their opponent to work the game. So, then they look for another chapter. If the home chapter of the host site is acceptable, then what happens is that the coaches will contact their buddy coaches in that area, and get recommendations. You know how that works. Referee X may not know diddly about officiating, but Coach Reference may love Referee X because he/his crew allows coaches to wander out past the numbers between downs, and stand on the field during the down, and/or let's them get away with having no linemen actually on the line, or let's them get away with snapping the ball without coming to a stop from a huddle/shift. Etc., etc. So, Referee X gets recommended. Since neither coach actually knows Referee X, they trust their coach buddy, and that's who they request - exclusively. If the chapter can't/won't assign that official/crew, then they'll go to another chapter. Geography plays a huge role. If they are playing in Abilene, they ain't about to get a crew from El Paso, when they can get one from within 100 miles.
I am aware that, for their local area schools, a small handful of chapters have managed to pull off not allowing the coaches to select officials. The teams get who the chapter assigns. More power to them. I hope everybody can pull that off. But, all it takes is one coach to refer to 1204 and say: "NO. I want Referee X, or I will get officials from another chapter."
Until the ability to select and indiscriminantly scratch officials is completely REMOVED from the UIL, this will never change. The UIL will never voluntarily relinquish that ability. Since the UIL is a department within the University of Texas (a political sub-division of the State of Texas), it would take action by the Texas Legislature to force a change. And, in a Legislature dominated by UT grads, what are the chances of that happening? I mean, what else do they have to worry about? What? School finance? The border? Federal government intervention in state business? Oh, yeah - high school sports officiating.
Sadly, high school officiating in Texas will NEVER be as good as it can be until the competing institutions are removed from the officiating selection process.
If that was a good practice, why doesn't the NCAA or professional sports do that? That's what I miss most about FBS football. Coaches had no say in who worked their games. We worked hard to know the rules, philosophies, and mechanics, and our supervisor had our backs. We were free to officiate as we are supposed to do. It was good.

[JBall]

I started in mid 80’s so before my time. Don’t recall much discussion about being better or worse . We had coaches “scratch “ but not picks.
No set crews at the time some coach before or during year could scratch individual officials. Playoffs the coach would contact the Chapter secretary and request officials for a game. Usually they would give a list of 8-12 officials they would like and secretary would select crew. Of course secretary also had to balance who to use in other games also.

Some good things said here but I have reviewed the uil policy and in general it's pretty vague.  Honestly part of their own policy 1204 f I wonder how often that is followed at all.  Since I  am sure most of Taso board are not affected or concerned about this and uil has a new head, would a good old fashioned letter writing campaign would show our concerns and get them to consider changes?  Their site has an email and they have a process to amend their policy.  I wonder if they even know a chapter has not gotten playoff games in 2 years.  If they want better officials across the state uts in their best intrest.

[dammitbobby]

I started in '74, and I don't recall anything being any different. The root of this evil is the UIL 1204. I honestly can't say when the UIL 1204 was first established, but, scratches/selections have been going on ever since I can remember, and the UIL 1204 is what allows that:
"All officials must be satisfactory to both parties and agreed upon in advance."

That simple statement gives either coach, or both coaches, the ability to select specific individuals to officiate their games. When it comes to a game at a neutral location - especially playoff games - coaches will almost always refuse to allow officials from the 'home' chapter of their opponent to work the game. So, then they look for another chapter. If the home chapter of the host site is acceptable, then what happens is that the coaches will contact their buddy coaches in that area, and get recommendations. You know how that works. Referee X may not know diddly about officiating, but Coach Reference may love Referee X because he/his crew allows coaches to wander out past the numbers between downs, and stand on the field during the down, and/or let's them get away with having no linemen actually on the line, or let's them get away with snapping the ball without coming to a stop from a huddle/shift. Etc., etc. So, Referee X gets recommended. Since neither coach actually knows Referee X, they trust their coach buddy, and that's who they request - exclusively. If the chapter can't/won't assign that official/crew, then they'll go to another chapter. Geography plays a huge role. If they are playing in Abilene, they ain't about to get a crew from El Paso, when they can get one from within 100 miles.
I am aware that, for their local area schools, a small handful of chapters have managed to pull off not allowing the coaches to select officials. The teams get who the chapter assigns. More power to them. I hope everybody can pull that off. But, all it takes is one coach to refer to 1204 and say: "NO. I want Referee X, or I will get officials from another chapter."
Until the ability to select and indiscriminantly scratch officials is completely REMOVED from the UIL, this will never change. The UIL will never voluntarily relinquish that ability. Since the UIL is a department within the University of Texas (a political sub-division of the State of Texas), it would take action by the Texas Legislature to force a change. And, in a Legislature dominated by UT grads, what are the chances of that happening? I mean, what else do they have to worry about? What? School finance? The border? Federal government intervention in state business? Oh, yeah - high school sports officiating.
Sadly, high school officiating in Texas will NEVER be as good as it can be until the competing institutions are removed from the officiating selection process.
If that was a good practice, why doesn't the NCAA or professional sports do that? That's what I miss most about FBS football. Coaches had no say in who worked their games. We worked hard to know the rules, philosophies, and mechanics, and our supervisor had our backs. We were free to officiate as we are supposed to do. It was good.

You're not wrong.  But I do think we (TASO) has a mechanism to provide influence here.  Every year we hear 'TASO can't do anything' but here we are starting with a policy next year that a crew can't work a semi then a championship (or something to that effect), and one already in place that you can't work two championship games in the same season. That flies directly in the face of the UIL/coach mentality that they get to pick whomever they want, when they want - TASO has directly impacted the pool of officials available to call a particular game, and I don't recall hearing anyone throw a fit about it.

There's no reason can't do the same thing incrementally, and say 'The pool of officials you can pick from for your championship game is X,' where X can be restrictions and limitations decided by TASO. I agree there's no likelihood of getting UIL to change their rule/constitution/whatever it is.  'Sorry coach, that official/crew is unavailable/not eligible, you'll need to pick another is what they get told right now, if they want a crew that is already assigned a championship game - there' no reason it can't be extended to other criteria, except that large metro chapters like it the way it is, and TASO executive membership (as far as I know) all are members of large metro chapters... either that, or they don't think smaller chapters are qualified.

It angers me when fellow officials, who for the most part (if not all) reside in large metro chapters who enjoy large amounts of championship and playoff opportunities, say 'The coaches just want officials they can trust.' That's BS, no they don't. They want officials for the exact reasons Elvis mentioned above.  That's codespeak for 'We don't think the smaller chapters can handle the games, and only the metro crews are experienced enough and capable enough to do that.'  I'll even throw TASO leadership into that category - there's no other reason that an organization whose purpose is supposed to benefit ALL members, not just metro chapters, has done next to nothing to address disparities and inequities that have existed since its founding - it's either because they largely benefit from the current system, or they don't think smaller chapters are up to the task.

#IsaidwhatIsaid

@JBall I don't have any previous years data, I've asked multiple times for it but haven't been able to get it. But I would bet there's at least one more chapter that has gotten zero games for a lot longer than two years, and I'd also bet there's a handful of chapters that have worked 10 or less playoff games total in the last decade, and I'd also bet there's chapters that have never gotten a game above the regional round, ever. And I'll acknowledge there's some different factors that go into that, but the largest by far is the current system.

[dammitbobby]

"NO. I want Referee X, or I will get officials from another chapter."

The simple solution for that is for smaller chapters - particularly those west of Fort Worth - to band together and collectively tell them nope, sorry, not available. I was talking with a fellow official a few weeks about El Paso, and he said, 'We're all playoff whores (himself included) - we'll never reject a game to help those less fortunate.'

And he's not wrong. And until we decide to do that, we'll have the same thing every year, TASO isn't interested in working to make things better.

[dammitbobby]

You're not wrong.  But I do think we (TASO) has a mechanism to provide influence here.  Every year we hear 'TASO can't do anything' but here we are starting with a policy next year that a crew can't work a semi then a championship (or something to that effect), and one already in place that you can't work two championship games in the same season. That flies directly in the face of the UIL/coach mentality that they get to pick whomever they want, when they want - TASO has directly impacted the pool of officials available to call a particular game, and I don't recall hearing anyone throw a fit about it.

I have heard a couple whispers from different folks that this is no more - that TASO has removed the up-and-coming crew restriction policy as a gesture of goodwill towards coaches.

Anybody hearing the same, or otherwise?

[FWREF]

So the long and short of this is that TASO won't support a chapter that tries to not cover a school for this. Let's say a certain school doesn't use a chapter for 3 years in a row in the playoffs, even though that chapter covers their varsity and sub-varsity schedules and has for years. Chapter leadership has meeting after meeting with them about it each year and receive assurances that the issue will be corrected. It never is so the chapter finally tells the school that they will not cover said schools games the next year.  The school calls TASO, TASO tells the chapter in question that they have no choice but to cover the schedule or there will be consequences.