RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: Txgarza on December 12, 2021, 05:07:35 PM
-
6A1 TBD
6A2 Frisby, Tyler
5A1 Marcenelle, Houston
5A2 Theodore, Ft Worth
4A1 Herron, Dallas
4A2 Prine, Houston
3A1 Hall, Tyler
3A2 Bain, Tyler
2A1 Tilley, Ft Worth
2A2 Robertson, San Angelo
Congratulations to all.
-
6A1 TBD
6A2 Frisby, Tyler
5A1 Marcenelle, Houston
5A2 Theodore, Ft Worth
4A1 Herron, Dallas
4A2 Prine, Houston
3A1 Hall, Tyler
3A2 Bain, Tyler
2A1 Tilley, Ft Worth
2A2 Robertson, San Angelo
Congratulations to all.
Looks like your list is a little light.
1A1 South Plains
1A2 South Plains
-
6A1 TBD
6A2 Frisby, Tyler
5A1 Marcenelle, Houston
5A2 Theodore, Ft Worth
4A1 Herron, Dallas
4A2 Prine, Houston
3A1 Hall, Tyler
3A2 Bain, Tyler
2A1 Tilley, Ft Worth
2A2 Robertson, San Angelo
Congratulations to all.
6A D1 is Houston.
-
6A D1 is Houston.
6A D1 Morgan, Houston
-
6A D1 Morgan, Houston
Slightly unusual for a chapter to work a Championship game involving a school they service during the year. Not good or bad, just unusual.
-
Slightly unusual for a chapter to work a Championship game involving a school they service during the year. Not good or bad, just unusual.
Yes unusual but not for these teams. When they meet in 2018 and 2019 the 2 coaches agreed to flip a coin to use Dallas or Houston Chapters. Apparently North Shore won the toss this year.
-
There was (at least) one game last year (2A D2) that was the same way. I believe the non-local team was the one that selected the chapter, they requested the exact same crew as the year before.
-
Coaches have to much power and have for a long time. These games should be assigned by UIL/TASO and NOT picked by coaches. The way it works today if total definition of "Conflict of Interest". No one can ever convince me that coaches are not in bed with some officials/Chapters. And people complain about Washington DC. It happens at all levels, Politics!!!
-
Completely agree. And TASO is either complicit or incompetent in getting that changed.
The current system benefits chapters where TASO has a vested interest, so why change it? Who cares about all the small, or more-distant chapters.
I’ve yet to see a tangible benefit that TASO has worked for or implemented that benefited small chapters or even attempted to address inequalities of selection, or even to dispel the myth that larger chapter crews are better.
It’s actually an easy fix - TASO/UIL selects chapters, (and then chapters select crews), or you don’t get officials.
But let’s keep the current system, since it favors larger chapters with more votes.
-
So you think UIL and local chapters do not have politics, favorites, etc? SMH
Coach selection may not be the favored way but do not kid yourself that everything would be peachy with UIL and chapters making the decision
-
Of course they do. But the lower you can push down those decisions the better off everyone is. Local chapters always have politics, but it’s better to have that at the local level than statewide. Having coaches pick is the worst possible way (IMO) to select officials.
-
So you think UIL and local chapters do not have politics, favorites, etc? SMH
Coach selection may not be the favored way but do not kid yourself that everything would be peachy with UIL and chapters making the decision
The UIL should not be involved at all. But, considering the UIL is a division of the University of Texas, it won't change without legislative intervention. And just try to get state legislators - of which a huge number, if not a majority, are UT grads - to strip any amount of power away from UT. Not likely to happen. The only hope would be to have another office, independent of the UIL, established by the Legislature to take officiating assignments OUT of the UIL, and oversee officiating assignments for UIL athletic contests. Ideally, that would be totally independent of any other institution, but even such an office within a University system (A&M, Texas Tech, UT) could work, as long as they do not report to the same Vice Chancellor as the UIL. Then you would stand a chance of having an assignment system that could spread the assignments - particularly higher round playoffs and championship games - around the state, giving greater incentive to members of all chapters to improve.
I would envision such an office utilizing TASO, as it exists, to make regular season assignments, and then this office would approve/make playoff assignments, based upon a detailed assignment policy.
I must be asleep at my desk again. Somebody call me and wake me up...1-800-NOT-HPNN.
-
So you are saying we need to elect more Aggies? LOL
-
So you are saying we need to elect more Aggies? LOL
First off, Yes. If we switched out all the sips with Aggies this state would run much smoother.
Second, there is no perfect system. When I was a younger official, i was totally against coaches pick. As i have aged (like cheese? :) ), i am ambivalent to it. Since there is no perfect system, coaches have every incentive to make sure the crew can (A) call the game and (B) arent going to cheat them. So, in the end, its the devil you know vs the ones you dont... and make no mistakes, there are devils in all the other picking systems too....
-
But that logic assumes that only coaches are capable of making sure that the officials they select are capable, and aren't going to cheat them. Of all the people involved in high school sports, coaches are at the bottom of the list of people who need to be making decisions regarding qualifications and impartiality.
I'm 100% onboard the train that says this is the worst possible system that could be in place. ANY other halfway rational system would be an improvement. I'm not content to have the worst possible system in place, simply because a perfect solution doesn't exist, or a better solution still has flaws.
But I do agree with you about Aggies running things LOL.
-
First off, Yes. If we switched out all the sips with Aggies this state would run much smoother.
Second, there is no perfect system. When I was a younger official, i was totally against coaches pick. As i have aged (like cheese? :) ), i am ambivalent to it. Since there is no perfect system, coaches have every incentive to make sure the crew can (A) call the game and (B) arent going to cheat them. So, in the end, its the devil you know vs the ones you dont... and make no mistakes, there are devils in all the other picking systems too....
Spot on. I have also been around long enough when coaches rarely picked officials. Almost no chapter worked in crews. When a chapter would assign officials to work a game, it was often not the best officials, just the best connected officials. No perfect system, but make no mistake, these coaches talk and get recommendations from other coaches they trust when making these selections. They have to live with their choices and they know it. They are not making random selections.
-
Just an opinion. Not be critical in any manner whatsoever. To me, the following is based on a combination of mechanics (50%), rules application (25%) and judgement (25%).
1. 6A D2
2. 1A D1
3. 4A D1
4. 5A D2
5. 2A D2
6. 1A D2
7. 3A D1
8. 3A D2
9. 6A D1
10. 2A D1
11. 5A D1
12. 4A D2
-
Cosmo
May need to check your list
1AD3?
5AD1 is listed twice
Having said that, I was not able to watch any of the games so I have no opinion
-
Are any of these available for replay on Ballysports/Youtube? If so I can't find them on either (logged into both)
-
Cosmo
May need to check your list
1AD3?
5AD1 is listed twice
Having said that, I was not able to watch any of the games so I have no opinion
Sorry about that. Typo's. List is updated.
-
The crew for 4A D1 was excellent, stayed on top of everything and worked well together. Just hope the L is doing alright after that hit he took to the face.
-
Sorry about that. Typo's. List is updated.
Almost updated. 1AD2 is listed twice.
-
The UIL should not be involved at all. But, considering the UIL is a division of the University of Texas, it won't change without legislative intervention. And just try to get state legislators - of which a huge number, if not a majority, are UT grads - to strip any amount of power away from UT. Not likely to happen. The only hope would be to have another office, independent of the UIL, established by the Legislature to take officiating assignments OUT of the UIL, and oversee officiating assignments for UIL athletic contests. Ideally, that would be totally independent of any other institution, but even such an office within a University system (A&M, Texas Tech, UT) could work, as long as they do not report to the same Vice Chancellor as the UIL. Then you would stand a chance of having an assignment system that could spread the assignments - particularly higher round playoffs and championship games - around the state, giving greater incentive to members of all chapters to improve.
I would envision such an office utilizing TASO, as it exists, to make regular season assignments, and then this office would approve/make playoff assignments, based upon a detailed assignment policy.
I must be asleep at my desk again. Somebody call me and wake me up...1-800-NOT-HPNN.
It'll never be changed overnight. But, two things TASO could do, that could hep set the stage for change in the future:
1) Implement a rule that says crews/officials can only call one championship game/year. 'Sorry coach, the crew you wanted has already been requested, and they are therefore unavailable, pick again.'
2) Implement a more aggressive rule that says crews/officials can only officiate one championship game in a three-year cycle. 'Sorry coach, that crew/official worked a championship game 2 years ago, and are ineligible to call another one until after next year, pick again.'
TASO would have a much stronger leg to stand on, regarding changes, if they put something like 1 or 2 to a membership vote (to my knowledge, they have never done so, for anything). That way if UIL/coaches complain, they could at least say, 'Hey, this is what our members - your game officials - wanted', and it would be less likely to be perceived as TAO leadership advocating for the change.
Option 2 gets you further down the road of change; option 1 causes less friction.
Unfortunately, I don't think TASO has any interest in advocating for any changes that would benefit those outside larger chapters. I've been critical of TASO in the past, because I don't see the value that they provide to me as a member, in advocating for me, in areas like this. Maybe they are, and if so, they are just doing an spectacularly bad job at communicating what all they are working on, that benefits all members.
As it stands now, I have to pay a $65 tax every year, for which I get nothing (that I can see) in return.
-
It'll never be changed overnight. But, two things TASO could do, that could hep set the stage for change in the future:
1) Implement a rule that says crews/officials can only call one championship game/year. 'Sorry coach, the crew you wanted has already been requested, and they are therefore unavailable, pick again.'
2) Implement a more aggressive rule that says crews/officials can only officiate one championship game in a three-year cycle. 'Sorry coach, that crew/official worked a championship game 2 years ago, and are ineligible to call another one until after next year, pick again.'
TASO would have a much stronger leg to stand on, regarding changes, if they put something like 1 or 2 to a membership vote (to my knowledge, they have never done so, for anything). That way if UIL/coaches complain, they could at least say, 'Hey, this is what our members - your game officials - wanted', and it would be less likely to be perceived as TAO leadership advocating for the change.
Option 2 gets you further down the road of change; option 1 causes less friction.
Unfortunately, I don't think TASO has any interest in advocating for any changes that would benefit those outside larger chapters. I've been critical of TASO in the past, because I don't see the value that they provide to me as a member, in advocating for me, in areas like this. Maybe they are, and if so, they are just doing an spectacularly bad job at communicating what all they are working on, that benefits all members.
As it stands now, I have to pay a $65 tax every year, for which I get nothing (that I can see) in return.
Option 1 is already a rule. One championship game per year. The championship game assignments come from the UIL. Coaches can still request a specific crew but it goes through the UIL. That crew must accept the first game request that comes in. For example if a 2A game requests Crew Doe, but crew Doe is thinking they have a shot to be requested for the 6A game. Crew Doe must accept the 2A game as they will not be allowed to choose the 6A game should it be a request for them as well. Take the 2A game or none at all. This includes all leagues. If you get picked to work a TAPPS championship you are no longer available to work any other championship in any other league.
-
Is any of this documented somewhere, policies in place, etc? Because I’ve not seen anything even remotely close to that, written down anywhere.
-
What motivation does an official have to continue to officiate if he has called a state championship game?
-
Work another one. I know some who have worked multiples.
Also continue to improve is a big motivation, none of us has ever worked a perfect game
-
My point is…..some want to limit how many championships an official can work. If an official has worked one, then what is his motivation to continue to officiate?
-
My point is…..some want to limit how many championships an official can work. If an official has worked one, then what is his motivation to continue to officiate?
That won't fly. One per year is the rule. No limit to a number in a career.
-
Is any of this documented somewhere, policies in place, etc? Because I’ve not seen anything even remotely close to that, written down anywhere.
Page 7 of the TASO football operating procedures. They are in your members portal.
-
The point isn’t to limit how many championship games an official can work - the ultimate goal is to get coaches out of the election process, and also to ensure that as many officials as possible have the opportunity to call a championship game.
If your objective, your goal, is solely to call a championship game, and you feel you have no other motivation to be an official, then IMO you’re doing this for the wrong reasons. Or at least, not the same reasons as me.
Like most officials, I’ll likely never call a championship game. If I do, great, but I’m still going to want to keep calling, and keep improving, and get better. I derive quite a bit of satisfaction from this avocation, and it’s not tied to just calling a championship game.
You may have other reasons, those are mine.
-
Page 7 of the TASO football operating procedures. They are in your members portal.
Can you send me a link, or point me to where it is located, tomorrow? I've looked high and low for this and can't find it, even when searching.
Edit: Did find these on chapter websites (but can't find in TASO portal):
Tyler chapter: http://tylerfootballofficials.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/TASO-Football-Operating-Procedures.pdf (this one looks dated though)
Fort Worth: https://www.fwfo.org/Forms/Upload/182.pdf (doc says 2021, but file name is 2017)
-
It'll never be changed overnight. But, two things TASO could do, that could hep set the stage for change in the future:
1) Implement a rule that says crews/officials can only call one championship game/year. 'Sorry coach, the crew you wanted has already been requested, and they are therefore unavailable, pick again.'
2) Implement a more aggressive rule that says crews/officials can only officiate one championship game in a three-year cycle. 'Sorry coach, that crew/official worked a championship game 2 years ago, and are ineligible to call another one until after next year, pick again.'
TASO would have a much stronger leg to stand on, regarding changes, if they put something like 1 or 2 to a membership vote (to my knowledge, they have never done so, for anything). That way if UIL/coaches complain, they could at least say, 'Hey, this is what our members - your game officials - wanted', and it would be less likely to be perceived as TAO leadership advocating for the change.
Option 2 gets you further down the road of change; option 1 causes less friction.
Unfortunately, I don't think TASO has any interest in advocating for any changes that would benefit those outside larger chapters. I've been critical of TASO in the past, because I don't see the value that they provide to me as a member, in advocating for me, in areas like this. Maybe they are, and if so, they are just doing an spectacularly bad job at communicating what all they are working on, that benefits all members.
As it stands now, I have to pay a $65 tax every year, for which I get nothing (that I can see) in return.
Unfortunately you're not too far off on this take and your comments about TASO. TASO is valuable in coordinating communications with the UIL and providing a centralized use of mechanics with the attempt for all to be consistent. I can only image how bad, or inconsisten, things would be if TASO did not provide this guidance. However, when it comes back to the process of allowing coaches to select officials TASO seems to elect to stay out of this process, unless it is to benefit someone directly. Not to get in to it here but there's a specific reason why there's now a TASO rule stating you can only officiate one state championship game in a season. It goes back several years ago when someone was requested for two games, he worked both games. But, there is a value of what TASO provides it's members. But I will also say this, it's certainly not for the insurance. I've heard numerous recent stories of officials getting hurt officiating (not just football) only to have to deal with this insurance not paying out for said injury. The insurance provided is pretty much useless.
-
As I said before,
School Superintendents make up the UIL. The staffin Austin (Breitaupt,et al) work for them and are motivated to do what they want. The Superintendents want the control (coaches).
Would we all like to work a Championship game…… of course. Are we likely to……….nope.
-
As I said before,
School Superintendents make up the UIL. The staffin Austin (Breitaupt,et al) work for them and are motivated to do what they want. The Superintendents want the control (coaches).
Would we all like to work a Championship game…… of course. Are we likely to……….nope.
I do not disagree with anything you said. My only comment in response is, as I've heard it stated by many others, if TASO wants to say they do not get involved with the coaches selection process then they should not of created their own policy stating officials can only work one state game a year. That in itself is getting involved in what coaches might want and contradicts what TASO says they will not do. Personally, I do not want to see an individual work multiple games. But if it's up to the coaches, then leave it up to the coaches 100%.
-
:thumbup
-
One group that isn't being mentioned is the THSCA. Texas High School Coaches Association. If a rule or policy doesn't have their blessing it will never see daylight. That's the group who would have to agree with removing coaches from the assigning process, not the UIL. Here's a trivia question. Where is the UIL policy that states coaches are allowed to request officials by name?
Another tidbit. Many of you remember the day when the "sixman" playoffs would use a split crew between the two chapters that had teams playing against each other. What happened to doing that? Well, the assignors at that time made a pact that we would no longer do that. Coaches would have to choose one chapter. Been that way for at least 10 years and there's not a rule that says they can't use split crews but the assignors made an agreement amongst themselves to not allow it.
-
Please don't forget that the rules you are mentioning about limiting how many Championship games a crew can work in a season is something that is determined by the TASO Football Division Board. This Board is primarily made up of elected members. If you want to change it then run for a position on the Board and build a consensus with others to make the change.
-
Please don't forget that the rules you are mentioning about limiting how many Championship games a crew can work in a season is something that is determined by the TASO Football Division Board. This Board is primarily made up of elected members. If you want to change it then run for a position on the Board and build a consensus with others to make the change.
Now this statement is a little comical. We all know there's no way a person in a smaller chapter can run for and win the election of President, Vice-President, etc. This has been tried many times and the larger chapters have the voting majority that prevail. That only leaves the district director and that itself also becomes political. If fact, I know of one district that has an agreement in place that the director position will rotate among chapters and the chapter that is designated for the given period simply assigns the director. There's no formal election process that takes place. So getting on the Board is not as simple as running for a position.
-
Now this statement is a little comical. We all know there's no way a person in a smaller chapter can run for and win the election of President, Vice-President, etc. This has been tried many times and the larger chapters have the voting majority that prevail. That only leaves the district director and that itself also becomes political. If fact, I know of one district that has an agreement in place that the director position will rotate among chapters and the chapter that is designated for the given period simply assigns the director. There's no formal election process that takes place. So getting on the Board is not as simple as running for a position.
The rotation of the district director position help the smaller chapters have representation. Some districts have 3 or 4 chapters and within those is a bigger chapter that could run the table every election and the smaller chapters would never get to represent. These are just "gentlemen's agreements" and every election cycle those positions are still announced and anyone within those districts could still run if they wanted. There are many opportunities to serve without being on the board.
-
Here's a trivia question. Where is the UIL policy that states coaches are allowed to request officials by name?
There is no such rule, per se. What is does say, in effect, is that coaches must agree on officials. Somewhere in our history, some chapters have interpreted that to mean coaches pick officials as a way of agreeing to them.
-
There is no such rule, per se. What is does say, in effect, is that coaches must agree on officials. Somewhere in our history, some chapters have interpreted that to mean coaches pick officials as a way of agreeing to them.
Coaches must agree on officials show what ends up happening is the coaches will tell the chapter the officials, by name, they want/require and that if they don't get those specific individuals they take their services elsewhere. And most chapter leaders then accommodate that request to avoid losing the game to another chapter.
-
Coaches must agree on officials show what ends up happening is the coaches will tell the chapter the officials, by name, they want/require and that if they don't get those specific individuals they take their services elsewhere. And most chapter leaders then accommodate that request to avoid losing the game to another chapter.
That is what happens, alright.
-
Coaches must agree on officials show what ends up happening is the coaches will tell the chapter the officials, by name, they want/require and that if they don't get those specific individuals they take their services elsewhere. And most chapter leaders then accommodate that request to avoid losing the game to another chapter.
That works during the playoffs, definitely. But that doesn't work during regular season very well because a school expects a chapter to cover not only varsity but also all of the sub varsity games they have. The schools in middle ground, between two chapters, have the ability to choose which of those chapter they will use, but that doesn't fly when the school is very near one chapter's center. The travel distance, availability of officials from a more distant chapter, and extra pay for mileage quickly become factors.
-
That works during the playoffs, definitely. But that doesn't work during regular season very well because a school expects a chapter to cover not only varsity but also all of the sub varsity games they have. The schools in middle ground, between two chapters, have the ability to choose which of those chapter they will use, but that doesn't fly when the school is very near one chapter's center. The travel distance, availability of officials from a more distant chapter, and extra pay for mileage quickly become factors.
So, geography plays a factor? :o
Of course it does, contrary to what some folks might think. Particularly after the 3rd round of playoffs, when the game sites tend to move within the I-35/I-45/I-10 triangle. If there are perfectly qualified folks within 50 miles, why pay for perfectly qualified folks that are 100 miles away? So, perfectly capable and qualified folks located in El Paso, Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, and other 'outlying' areas tend to get left out of the discussion. Not the officials' faults. It is a flaw in the system, which contributes to folks leaving the avocation. They don't have much incentive to continue to work hard to get these assignments. Officials have egos, too. They want the top assignments, and most are willing to make the effort required to earn those assignments. But, if simple geography virtually eliminates them from consideration, then, at some point, it just doesn't make sense to continue bustin' hump.
-
So, geography plays a factor? :o
Of course it does, contrary to what some folks might think. Particularly after the 3rd round of playoffs, when the game sites tend to move within the I-35/I-45/I-10 triangle. If there are perfectly qualified folks within 50 miles, why pay for perfectly qualified folks that are 100 miles away? So, perfectly capable and qualified folks located in El Paso, Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, and other 'outlying' areas tend to get left out of the discussion. Not the officials' faults. It is a flaw in the system, which contributes to folks leaving the avocation. They don't have much incentive to continue to work hard to get these assignments. Officials have egos, too. They want the top assignments, and most are willing to make the effort required to earn those assignments. But, if simple geography virtually eliminates them from consideration, then, at some point, it just doesn't make sense to continue bustin' hump.
There are many stories such as what we experience and I'm sure all chapters see the same thing, especially those that you just named. There was a 3rd round game in my backyard, not far from Oklahoma, and the two teams went with a chapter near the ocean. It doesn't make any sense to me to bypass several chapters who are a whole lot closer and "neutral" chapters at that, in order to get one that is the furthest away. I know a lot of it is superstitions by coaches. I've seen a ton of playoff games by nearly all the chapters in person, and there really isn't a distinguishable difference. Maybe one day the coaches will realize we all follow the same rules and wear the same type of uniform. hEaDbAnG