RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: Arbitrator on October 25, 2011, 11:47:05 AM
-
z^
So now that the :!# Dancing Monkey of Manor Road has improvised this "new and improved" UIL Officials Evaluation Form which can be used for virtually all UIL sports by anyone ranging from the Coaches, their Administrators, Uncle Lester and Aunt Martha; and basically anyone that can meander their way into the Manor Road website. Now there isn't anybody who can't rate the "Stripes" on Friday nights. And the questions are so objective that I'm all too positive that we'll all grow and flourish from having read the quality evaluations that we are currently receiving. Even the Zebraware form leaves much to be desired, making it so that if a coach doesn't like one call from any given crew member, he can richly "ding" the entire crew for just one bad call. Now if the tiphat: Good UIL Dr. were going to try to get this format right, then why didn't he invite the TASO leadership into their planning session? So he just turns it over to some moron down the hall, hoping that they'd come up with something better than the previously used "UIL 1-5 Coaches Evaluation Cards."
From having been evaluated on that "most objective" new UIL form, one cannot help but think that the :!# Dancing Monkey consulted with some of his Simian friends down I-35 at the San Antonio Zoo. But with all due respect, I think that even those chimpanzees could have come up with something far better all by themselves without :!# L'il Tony's chairmanship.
And now there's reports of Head Coaches that are delegating the filling-out of that form to their Assistants and even to their Secretaries. Now how's that for being objective? I am now of the opinion that there are really no benefits to an "officials evaluation" by the coaches. While a few of them do use their time in giving us useful information, the vast majority either refuses/neglects to fill it out or just uses it for political purposes to "ding" officials who have had their losing games. Like a plethora of our officiating cohorts, I now firmly believe that you just can't put any credibility into any of the available officials evaluation forms.
If :bOW Manor Road truly wants to entertain doing something fruitful, then they should come up with a form for sports officials to rate their UIL Coaches. But in retrospect, I really don't think that that would be beneficial either! z^
-
I don't put any more credence into this new form than I ever did the old form the coaches filled out and mailed in. It is all a waste of time.
-
In Michigan - our ratings come from the coaches - and our playoff chances as well... doesn't make much sense to me but I don't have a better idea either! pray:;
-
Does any college conference or the NFL permit coach's comments/evaluations to be a significant part of an official's evaluation?
-
Until the day the majority of coaches become well-versed in the rules and mechanics that officials are expected to follow, any evaluation by coaches is useless. Evaluations by coaches serve one purpose: To make coaches feel better. And those states that give them the power to decide playoff officials are doing the coaches, players and officials a huge disservice.
Much better to have an evaluation from someone who can sit in the stands or watch film, has a standardized criteria to follow, and can dispassionately evaluate how officials conduct themselves on the field. Considering that he's focused on a million other things during the course of a game, head coach is in perhaps the worst position to provide that evaluation.
"Was the official polite?" "Did he keep me informed?" Yes, a coach can answer that. Was an official in the correct position to make a illegal forward pass call or did he administer under the all-but-one principle? No way.
-
And those states that give them the power to decide playoff officials are doing the coaches, players and officials a huge disservice.
What about the places that allow coaches to pick their officials for each of their games..... pi1eOn
-
What about the places that allow coaches to pick their officials for each of their games..... pi1eOn
^flag
As long as the selection process is mutually done between the two competing coaches, I can't really see a problem with it! z^
-
;D ;D ;D Of course you don't, you are probably one of those 34 game hogs ;D ;D ;D
-
^flag
Not even remotely close! z^
-
Brand new uniforms, spit shined shoes, fresh shaved face, and in good physical condition, and the losing coach gives me a ding on Appearance? How so?
-
Brand new uniforms, spit shined shoes, fresh shaved face, and in good physical condition, and the losing coach gives me a ding on Appearance? How so?
^flag
Could it possibly be that appearance-wise, you look far better than the coach does? Just a thought! z^
-
Brand new uniforms, spit shined shoes, fresh shaved face, and in good physical condition, and the losing coach gives me a ding on Appearance? How so?
Maybe you're just ugly and he was looking for more than just an official?
-
Brand new uniforms, spit shined shoes, fresh shaved face, and in good physical condition, and the losing coach gives me a ding on Appearance? How so?
You should know that it is impolite to turn down the dip the loosing coach offered you during the post game handshake. It is obvious that you think you are better then him. I purposely black out a couple of teeth when I talk to coaches so they dont think I am showing them up.
-
Brand new uniforms, spit shined shoes, fresh shaved face, and in good physical condition, and the losing coach gives me a ding on Appearance? How so?
Dude had a coach one week game me a 100 on appearance and everything else. He looses another week and I am a 60. Really, I got that fat and ugly in two weeks?
-
Dude had a coach one week game me a 100 on appearance and everything else. He looses another week and I am a 60. Really, I got that fat and ugly in two weeks?
Maybe he was thinking about your referee.....................
-
Dude had a coach one week game me a 100 on appearance and everything else. He looses another week and I am a 60. Really, I got that fat and ugly in two weeks?
Maybe it's one of those 2 at 10 and 10 at 2 type of things but in reverse.
-
Dude had a coach one week game me a 100 on appearance and everything else. He looses another week and I am a 60. Really, I got that fat and ugly in two weeks?
Now you know how your wife feels once a month. :)
-
Does any college conference or the NFL permit coach's comments/evaluations to be a significant part of an official's evaluation?
No, not directly. That 's the job of the coordinator (NCAA) and Director of Officiating (NFL), each of whom reports directly to the commissioner of their respective organizations. They have unilateral authority to hire & fire officials. Coaches/ADs/presidents/chancellors/commissioners/owners/any other team personnel can (and do) contact those folks to complain about calls and/or performance of individuals, and even entire crews. But the coordinator/director is there to insulate the officials from the complainers, and to objectively evaluate specific rulings, as well as the overall performance of individuals and crews. Egregious, frequent, or repeated errors by an individual or a crew are addressed by the coordinator/director. Likewise, staff failures are the responsibility of the coordinator/director. The commissioner is responsible to the schools/teams to ensure the coordinator/director is meeting the requirements of the position.
No team personnel should ever have the ability to hire, fire, or influence an official in any way, even by mutual consent of the participants. Just as police, prosecutors, judges and juries must be insulated from those they serve, so must sports officials be insulated from the teams they serve. Unless a conflict of interest can be shown, no prosecutor or defendant can select the judge that will preside over a trial. Analagous relationship for sports officials - teams simply can not be allowed to directly select the officials. There must be a qualified intermediary of some kind. NCAA and professional sports recognize and embrace that fact. So must the UIL.
-
Our crew has received 3 evaluations this year on ZebraWare. Twice we all got 100 from the losing coach that was on the road. We thought that was a pretty good evaluation! Then, we have an absolute barn burner and the winning home coach gives us an 80 on rules knowledge because his receiver who was lined up off the line of scrimmage-outside the tackle was flagged for blocking below the waist back toward the center of the field.
We know that this evaluation is incorrect, but if we are going to disregard that, we also must disregard the 100's when we know deep down that we weren't perfect. It is a BS system. Some coaches try to be fair, but mostly it just depends on the W or the L.
-
Some coaches try to be fair, but mostly it just depends on the W or the L coach's knowledge of the rules.
FTFY
-
"...some coaches try to be fair, but mostly it just depends on the W or the L coaches knowledge of the rules."
FTFY
^flag
... or quite possibly the coaches inherent lack thereof! z^
-
"Are Evaluations of Officials by Coaches Absolutely Necessary?"
Only to those who are willing to use every avenue afforded them to help them improve.
I believe that there is something to be gained from every evaluation that we receive, no matter how subjective or objective it may be. No matter how complementary or derogatory, no matter whether the coach won or lost.
We must be able to look at these evaluations with an open mind and glean from them any and all helpful information that we can use to help our self and our crew get better. We must use all tools at our disposal to objectively evaluate our crew both as a unit and as individuals. In order for us to get better we first and foremost have to be honest with ourselves and be able to accept with an open mind any corrective criticism that we might receive.
If I receive an evaluation from a coach that says that I have horrible judgment and that I have inept communication skills; I need to evaluate myself and be completely honest with myself. Maybe he was right or maybe not. Maybe I got screened out on a face mask play and was almost certain that his player got face masked but did not actually see the act and therefore passed on the flag. Maybe I talked to the opposing coach after a penalty enforcement and failed to explain it to this coach. If I had done these things in a game you were coaching, you may have been inclined to give me a similar evaluation. Even though this coach's evaluation sounds very harsh, we must put ourselves in his shoes and see it from his perspective in order to try to understand the true meaning of a one sentence (sometimes less) evaluation that usually has further reaching implications.
The point is, to not take the evaluation personal even though it may sometimes seem to be. The point is to try to determine why a coach may have given you such an evaluation and to commit to making any improvements that you can make so as to reduce the likelihood of that same negative evaluation from reoccurring.
In the case of my example above, I would need to re-read the when in question memo to see if I was correct or incorrect by passing on this possible foul. I would also need to make sure that if I gave an explanation to one coach, I would need to give the other coach the same courtesy or at least make sure he was not expecting a visit from me before putting the ball in play after the explanation to the other coach.
I am a big proponent of film review and I believe it is the single most important tool that we have. However, the film does not show every official on every play; not to mention what goes on on during dead ball action. It also does not usually convey attitudes or intention very well. I know that these evaluations and game films are not the best, but let's use what we can from them to help us all get better. If we just keep an open mind, we should be able to use all of these tools to help us get better. I hope that this is the goal of each official. If not, it should be.
I think if we are honest with ourselves and evaluate ourselves, we will know when a coach just has an axe to grind or if the evaluation he submitted should be given it's due diligence.
-
^flag
With all due respect, I can readily see that the intent of the original evaluations was a token gesture on the part of the UIL to simply let their coaches have the opportunity to grade the TASO football officials on only a handful of generic criteria, albeit on a 1-5 scale. As set forth, it left quite a bit to be desired and rapidly evolved into just another sordid piece of UIL recommended/mandated paperwork that the coaches were implored to fill out and submit. These carried so much importance that most football officiating crews were extremely lucky if they got a return ratio from the coaches exceeding 50%.
Sensing this, someone in a leadership role over on :bOW Manor Road thought that it would be a grand idea if they were to implement a "new and improved" officials evaluation form, one that could be used for all UIL sanctioned sports ranging from football to tiddley-winks, asking a series of jaded questions that could pretty much accenuate the negative connotations from the legitimate evaluators(coaches/administrators) to the pseudo-evaluators(friends/family/et. al.) who in all probability wouldn't know an NCAA football rule or a prescibed mechanic if it bit them on the backside. This new version has richly established itself as being nothingmore than a sheer waste of taxpayer revenue in order to promote the seedy self-serving agenda purported by the tiphat: Manor Road Ringmaster.
Now there are a handful of head coaches over the years that I have come to know and trust who will either submit written attachments to those reports that I can benefit from. But the most beneficial critique that I could ever get from the coaching community are their notes and observations that they submit along with the DVD of the game film. More often than not, these coaches seem to have more rules/mechanics questions than anything else.
Seeing that there are no viable evaluation forms for coaches to grade officials either at the NCAA or at the NFL level, should speak volumes about what good that such UIL-sponsered evaluations even offer. Are there any other state athletic organizations who would even offer a similar or even a more viable form? If so, I'd like to see it posted on here for our due examination and consideration. But until such time that that comes to happen, I for one, feel that it's imperative for the coaches to get out of the officiating business, just as it would be for officials to not get involved in the coaching profession! TASO is far better equipped to run an officials evaluation program either at the state, regional, or the local level: and certainly not those over-educated pi1eOn state-funded charlitans in residence over there on Manor Road. JMHO! z^
-
^flag
With all due respect, I can readily see that the intent of the original evaluations was a token gesture on the part of the UIL to simply let their coaches have the opportunity to grade the TASO football officials on only a handful of generic criteria, albeit on a 1-5 scale. As set forth, it left quite a bit to be desired and rapidly evolved into just another sordid piece of UIL recommended/mandated paperwork that the coaches were implored to fill out and submit. These carried so much importance that most football officiating crews were extremely lucky if they got a return ratio from the coaches exceeding 50%.
Sensing this, someone in a leadership role over on :bOW Manor Road thought that it would be a grand idea if they were to implement a "new and improved" officials evaluation form, one that could be used for all UIL sanctioned sports ranging from football to tiddley-winks, asking a series of jaded questions that could pretty much accenuate the negative connotations from the legitimate evaluators(coaches/administrators) to the pseudo-evaluators(friends/family/et. al.) who in all probability wouldn't know an NCAA football rule or a prescibed mechanic if it bit them on the backside. This new version has richly established itself as being nothingmore than a sheer waste of taxpayer revenue in order to promote the seedy self-serving agenda purported by the tiphat: Manor Road Ringmaster.
Seeing that there are no viable evaluation forms for coaches to grade officials either at the NCAA or at the NFL level, should speak volumes about what good that such UIL-sponsered evaluations even offer. Are there any other state athletic organizations who would even offer a similar or even a more viable form? If so, I'd like to see it posted on here for our due examination and consideration. But until such time that that comes to happen, I for one, feel that it's imperative for the coaches to get out of the officiating business, just as it would be for officials to not get involved in the coaching profession! TASO is far better equipped to run an officials evaluation program either at the state, regional, or the local level: and certainly not those over-educated pi1eOn state-funded charlitans in residence over there on Manor Road. JMHO! z^
One problem with your fantasy, it isn't just the official being "evaluated" by the coach that reads these. People in positions of authority within a chapter read these also, and those are the ones that have to take these coaches evaluations for what they are, garbage.
I just don't agree with you that there is much to be gained by a coach's eval of officials. And if you think any and all eval are good, then you must think that the UIL's idea to allow anyone, fan, parent, player, water boy, etc, to evaluate is a good idea also. Nope, cannot agree. It serves nothing other than allowing someone to vent.
-
One problem with your fantasy, it isn't just the official being "evaluated" by the coach that reads these. People in positions of authority within a chapter read these also, and those are the ones that have to take these coaches evaluations for what they are, garbage.
I just don't agree with you that there is much to be gained by a coach's eval of officials. And if you think any and all eval are good, then you must think that the UIL's idea to allow anyone, fan, parent, player, water boy, etc, to evaluate is a good idea also. Nope, cannot agree. It serves nothing other than allowing someone to vent.
^flag
Doc: We're on the exact same page inasfar as coaches evalutions are concerned; they are nothing more than a venting tool on their part and can richly be viewed as nothingmore than a popularity contest on the part of both coaches and officials. As is, they serve no useful purpose whatsoever! I can't ever recall that I even remotely agreed with the UIL evalution process of officials even from the git-go; not 32 years ago and certainly not now. There is no "fantasy" on my part inasfar as the evaluation process is concerned. The only real credence that I would even possibly offer is that a head coach recently sent me a film with something of an egregious nature that either I or a member of my crew had missed. Case in point: said coach returned a DVD with a note enclosed where there was some extremely ugly "head-to-head" contact on a particular block that was almost right in front of yours truly. I didn't see it at the time but after viewing the film, I stood totally convicted. I learned a hell of a lot more from that than I would if I had just looked at some standardized UIL Evaluation or Zebraware Evaluation form. And I would wager that a lot of other officiating folks would have as well.
I'm strictly attempting to point out that the evaluation process as is, whether it is put forth by the UIL or by Zebraware, or anyone else in coaching circles is inherently flawed. If I must be graded, then I would much rather be done so by my learned brethren in stripes through an organization like TASO.
And if :bOW Manor Road continues to persist in its evaluationary pursuit of officials, then by golly, we as officials should be able to grade coaches/coaching staffs in some form of binding procedure. Even though I don't exactly see whether something of this nature would be any more fruitful than officials evaluations, I would bet the farm that that particular idea hasn't quite hit any of the overpaid and over-worked brain cells that Manor Road has to offer! z^
-
Sorry! I quoted the wrong posting! I meant to quote the one above yours.
-
Sorry! I quoted the wrong posting! I meant to quote the one above yours.
^flag
Absolutely no offense taken, kind Sir! z^
-
The coaches verbally evaluate for four quarters. These evaluations like "you suck", and "that guy over there is f-ing us" provide so many good learning opportunities. Nothing good comes from these types of evals. Video and questions about plays yes, a bitch form, no.
"Are Evaluations of Officials by Coaches Absolutely Necessary?"
Only to those who are willing to use every avenue afforded them to help them improve.
I believe that there is something to be gained from every evaluation that we receive, no matter how subjective or objective it may be. No matter how complementary or derogatory, no matter whether the coach won or lost.
We must be able to look at these evaluations with an open mind and glean from them any and all helpful information that we can use to help our self and our crew get better. We must use all tools at our disposal to objectively evaluate our crew both as a unit and as individuals. In order for us to get better we first and foremost have to be honest with ourselves and be able to accept with an open mind any corrective criticism that we might receive.
If I receive an evaluation from a coach that says that I have horrible judgment and that I have inept communication skills; I need to evaluate myself and be completely honest with myself. Maybe he was right or maybe not. Maybe I got screened out on a face mask play and was almost certain that his player got face masked but did not actually see the act and therefore passed on the flag. Maybe I talked to the opposing coach after a penalty enforcement and failed to explain it to this coach. If I had done these things in a game you were coaching, you may have been inclined to give me a similar evaluation. Even though this coach's evaluation sounds very harsh, we must put ourselves in his shoes and see it from his perspective in order to try to understand the true meaning of a one sentence (sometimes less) evaluation that usually has further reaching implications.
The point is, to not take the evaluation personal even though it may sometimes seem to be. The point is to try to determine why a coach may have given you such an evaluation and to commit to making any improvements that you can make so as to reduce the likelihood of that same negative evaluation from reoccurring.
In the case of my example above, I would need to re-read the when in question memo to see if I was correct or incorrect by passing on this possible foul. I would also need to make sure that if I gave an explanation to one coach, I would need to give the other coach the same courtesy or at least make sure he was not expecting a visit from me before putting the ball in play after the explanation to the other coach.
I am a big proponent of film review and I believe it is the single most important tool that we have. However, the film does not show every official on every play; not to mention what goes on on during dead ball action. It also does not usually convey attitudes or intention very well. I know that these evaluations and game films are not the best, but let's use what we can from them to help us all get better. If we just keep an open mind, we should be able to use all of these tools to help us get better. I hope that this is the goal of each official. If not, it should be.
I think if we are honest with ourselves and evaluate ourselves, we will know when a coach just has an axe to grind or if the evaluation he submitted should be given it's due diligence.
-
The coaches verbally evaluate for four quarters.
Amen. 'Nuf said.
-
Had a coach call me over during a time out last night after I called a foul on one of his players for roughing the QB. He says, so did you call that because his hands came down on the QB's facemask? I said, well no, because he hit the QB late. The kid jumped up to try to block the pass, landed, two steps and nailed the QB. The coach said "well that's bull crap."
My reply was, thanks for the compliment coach, let's play football. So, I can relate to the comment about coaches verbally evaluating for 4 quarters.
-
Not saying that all the evals (verbal or written) that we receive are unbiased. All I am saying is that they may provide an otherwise undiscovered opportunity for us to make some necessary adjustments. Then again, they may just be a total waste of time. After all, anything that would inspire me to double check my method of officiating by actually reading or re-reading the rule or mechanic that applies to that particular situation would be an absolute waste of time; right? ;)
We are all creatures of habit. Sometimes we develop good habits and sometimes we develop bad habits. The reading and re-reading of the rules and or mechanics will afford us an opportunity to reinforce good habits and destroy bad habits by replacing them with good ones.
-
^flag
I still firmly believe that if an official is to receive a critical evaluation of his rules knowledge, mechanics, et. al., it should definitely come from a learned member of the officiating community as opposed to a member of the coaching profession, primarily for the following reasons:
1. A coach, more often than not, has way too much emotionally tied up in the outcome of those games and can rarely ever inject any objectivity into an evaluation. And more often than not, their grades pretty much reflect upon the outcome of their contests with the better grades being doled out for their "W's" and the substandard grades being handed down for the "L's."
2. A coach is much more a tactician of the X's and the O's. The only time that most coaches will ever get into a rule book is to see if there is a rule, per se, that might aid his coaching strategy in a given area. Quite frankly, a lot of well-meaning coaches will only consult with the the "brain trusts" of the officiating community when they are earnestly trying to find a rule that might aid their cause in the running of a particular offensive or defensive scheme, or on a particular play of sorts.
3. :bOW Manor Road doesn't provide any discernible football rules or mechanics training to the coaching community. They just really aren't equipped to do so, as richly evidenced by their hiring of folks from the tiphat: :bOW :!# high school basketball community to place in their lofty administrative positions; the same folks who wouldn't have a clue about a complex football rule without the direct consultation with someone in a learned position from the officiating community. Those Manor Road :bOW "Dupes" may well have all of those doctorial sheepskins dangling from their Manor Road office sheetrock; but if a timed, open-book examination on the NCAA football rules were ever administered to them, I honestly don't believe that there is one in that office that could even attain a cumulative score of 40.
Unless, of course, that a 40 is the minimum score that is required to attain a doctorate over there at the Forty Acres these days in order to qualify for the interview list at the :bOW Manor Road Road Offices for one of those hallowed administrative positions offering up to a 215K publicly funded salary. And of course, football rules and mechanics have little to be desired at the UIL, since the great majority of their time is either engaged in raising revenues to sustain their own sordid existence not to mention their blatent attempt to usurp high school officiating organizations to aid their cause in the drastic reduction of game fees for officials, and the subsequent redistribution of the football gates over to the UIL and to those lackey school districts that so richly give Manor Road their unswerving loyalty and undying support.
4. The coaching community isn't exactly getting their football rules and mechanics training from the THSCA, TASO, the State Board of Education, or even the NCAA. They should consider themselves lucky to even get a rule book. And those that do, usually only get one book for the entire coaching staff to share. Which would go to show why so many of us, as officials, continually receive those phone calls and emails from chagrined coaches seeking some kind of a rule interpretation.
Now I greatly respect a select handful of our football coaches, because that vast minority of them are truly self-made rules mavens. They all too often must buy their own rules books, attend our clinics, and have come to know, master, and embrace the NCAA football rules ever bit as well as they know their football gameplan strategy. That small sample of coaches are the ones that are truly a credit to the game.
But as long as the coaches, administrators, and all of the others deemed by :bOW Manor Road to have the capability to grade us as officials, then they should be ever bit as open to have officials grade them in their chosen profession. After all and as officials of the game, our grading and evaluating of those folks would make just as much "nonsense" as them being enabled to grade and evaluate us as officials of the game. z^
-
The evaluations are needed but it is all screwed up. Most coaches don't even know all the rules much less what mechanics are required. The unfortunate problem is we don't have enough qualified persons to evaluate.
The only way we can get any true evaluation is to have retired officials from our chapters appraise crews at home games. Unfortunately, most retired officials don't even want to be around the chapters when they retire.
My suggestion is that one crew sits out each week at the beginning of the season and evaluates a crew with suggestions for improvement, not criticize, praise those who do well and reward crews who prove they can handle certain games. This would make crews who want to improve move up the ladder and create some competition among fellow officials. Each crew has to draw for the week they are to evaluate, and they do not know whom they will evaluate until the week of their time to evaluate. At least the crews would all be evaluated by district openers. I believe this would improve the younger and lesser experienced crews. I was fortunate to have our TASO President evaluate and give our crew some valuable advice after the game. Coaches, Administrators, and other personnel are not qualified. We have only a fifty/fifty shot of getting both coaches agreeing to our performance on the field.
-
I was surprised there was one Yes vote. Then I was amazed when there were two Yes votes. Now I am downright flabbergasted that the percentage is managing to stay above one percent. What is wrong with you people? The question is "Are evaluations by coaches absolutely necessary?" At best they are mildly entertaining. In fact, they have virtually no redeeming value. Coaches that are qualified to evaluate officials are rare - definitely less than 1% of the entire coaching community. Even if they have some minuscule value, they certainly aren't absolutely necessary. If the question was, "Are evaluations by coaches of any value to you?", I might understand the voting percentages. But that's not the question. Absolutely necessary? About as much as a rain coat in the Gobi Desert.
I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. Went to visit the home head coach in his office before the game, and the UIL evaluation card was pinned on his tack board, already filled out. We all got 2s.
Yeah, absolutely necessary.
-
I was surprised there was one Yes vote. Then I was amazed when there were two Yes votes. Now I am downright flabbergasted that the percentage is managing to stay above one percent. What is wrong with you people? The question is "Are evaluations by coaches absolutely necessary?" At best they are mildly entertaining. In fact, they have virtually no redeeming value. Coaches that are qualified to evaluate officials are rare - definitely less than 1% of the entire coaching community. Even if they have some minuscule value, they certainly aren't absolutely necessary. If the question was, "Are evaluations by coaches of any value to you?", I might understand the voting percentages. But that's not the question. Absolutely necessary? About as much as a rain coat in the Gobi Desert.
I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. Went to visit the home head coach in his office before the game, and the UIL evaluation card was pinned on his tack board, already filled out. We all got 2s.
Yeah, absolutely necessary.
^flag
This revelation simply pays credence to the fact that the whole intent of :bOW Manor Road in coming up with their so-called "Officials Evaluation Cards" was not to foster any kind of a working relationship between the coaching and officiating communities, but simply to offer a "bitch" forum to the coaches where they could whine and moan about the quality of officiating that they had received. Now it was not all that uncommon for crews to merit "1" ratings and deservedly so. But if a certain coach had the fur stand up on the back of his neck over one call, it then gave him venue to ding the entire crew with a "5" and not even be compelled to give an explanation. Sure there was an "explanation" slot on those cards, but there wasn't much written verbage of any kind ever placed there.
Now these cards were supposed to be sent by the coaches to the UIL and then they were allegedly distributed by the UIL to the various TASO football officiating chapter secretaries. My question is: why did they have to go to :bOW Manor Road in the first place? Was there some kind of a :sTiR: secret contest going on over there that they weren't sharing with us? Did the officials that garnered the highest grades qualify for a brand new Corvette courtesy of Manor Road? Or did :bOW Manor Road just use those inept grades to assert itself as some kind of judge or arbitrator( ^flag -thinking I'm going to be sick!) into exactly who it gave its political blessings to as far as receiving those most heralded "UIL Assignments?" I think we all know exactly what their goals were!
Which is leading me to ponder the question: Given both it's long-term as well as it's short-term inepitudes, can the UIL truly justify it's existence anymore? Has it succeeded in losing it's confidence and credibiliity with both the Texas coaching and the officiating communities?
-
Just to clarify, the evaluation card 'incident' to which I referred was probably 30 years ago. But old cards/evalauation system or new cards/evaluation system, high school coaches evaluating officials is worthless.
-
What is bad was when those cards were already filled out before the game was even played. That tells you how much the coaches thought about the ratings.
-
I'm not sure there is a more definitive statement than this as to the worth(lessness) of coach's evaluations:
I got a perfect score from a coach this year for a game that I didnt work and that didnt get played.