Football Coaches Evaluations

[JasonTX]

Coby, I'm not sure of the numbers, but I would guess there are more chapter using Arbiter than ZW, and Arbiter does not have an evaluation section for coaches.

To your point about a coaches evaluation "meaning something," I could not disagree more.  Their "evaluation" is very subjected and uneducated (as it relates to what officials should be graded on).  A true evaluation must be done by an unbiased observer educated in the rules and mechanics of high school football in Texas.  All else is garbage.

Actually Arbiter does have an evaluation section.  We get about 95% response from our games.  It is much better than what the UIL rating card has.  Each official gets their own score.  You can then view what the average is for the whole chapter as a whole and what each official is averaging.  It is set up to where if a coach puts a low score he must include a comment before it will let him submit it.

[allen]

When I get a good rating, I think the coach is a genius and recognizes real talent.  When he gives a poor rating, I think he's a sore loser.

Hahaha, exactly.

I think its great that they have a venue to give us feedback, but I also think MOST officials know better than most coaches whether we did a good job or not that night.

I do wish more coaches would provide comments with their evaluations.  (Except for those time where you already have an evaluation by the time you drive back from your game!)

[Cowman52]

Same story, ? Verse----we have one coach that has scratched everyone in the chapter,  then relented and picked a few to work his games, then his hand picked officials don't get him the results he expected and the low evaluations come hard and heavy.
 Has the div 4 s mainly, except the white hat, and latest gripe is the officials getting worked by the coaches.
Can't help but think the inexperience will blow up one night, and at a critical point too no doubt.

[TexDoc]

Actually Arbiter does have an evaluation section.  We get about 95% response from our games.  It is much better than what the UIL rating card has.  Each official gets their own score.  You can then view what the average is for the whole chapter as a whole and what each official is averaging.  It is set up to where if a coach puts a low score he must include a comment before it will let him submit it.

Well you learn something every day.  As far as I know, our chapter does not have that option enabled.  I wonder if it comes with an additional expense.  The only reason I could see using it is to appease coaches or if a crew or an official consistently gets low grades.  Otherwise, it isn't worth any time spent looking at them.

To take another angle on this issue, I would like to, as an official, give an evaluation of the coaches on a team to the UIL.  If the UIL sees a trend of coaches misbehaving, they can start asking questions of the coaching staff.  It should be a dual edged sword.

[TXMike]

Based on past history (sideline control) I suspect UIL will say...did you penalize them? If not then they must not have been all that bad.

(You could always file a UIL Incident Report, even if there were no flags. Not sure how much attention it would receive)

[Coby]

I just think that it is very funny/hypercritical that my chapter: Allows coaches to pick officials for regular season games therefore giving them the power to make that decision. However, when it comes time to have a board assigned playoff game those same coaches comments and evaluations are not used in the magic formula.

We can not have it both ways.  If they are "expert enough" to pick a crew for a regular season game then they should be "expert enough" to have their evaluations and rankings mean something in the ranking of crews.

[TxSkyBolt]

(You could always file a UIL Incident Report, even if there were no flags. Not sure how much attention it would receive)

Doc receiving attention?  Well knock me over with a feather 

[TxSkyBolt]

We're the same way.  What does it take to get coaches out of the selections?

[El Macman]

Balls.

[Welpe]

We're the same way.  What does it take to get coaches out of the selections?

Hope and change?

[TxSkyBolt]

Balls.

I'm afraid you're right.

[TexDoc]

Balls.

 

[psv]

We're the same way.  What does it take to get coaches out of the selections?

As a good friend of mine says "The Inmates are running the asylum."

A question out of ignorance: Do all chapters let the coaches pick crews?  I thought it was a statewide thing.

[TxSkyBolt]

No not all.

[TexDoc]

No, there are still some sane chapters out there.  Austin, North Texas and some others I think.

[Joe Stack]

Based on past history (sideline control) I suspect UIL will say...did you penalize them? If not then they must not have been all that bad.

Forget UIL. TASO has done that. At least, their former President.

I submitted a game report about a coach and CLEARLY explained why I did not assess a Technical foul (basketball game, obviously) -- hell, I spent more time explaining why I didn't give a T than what the coach had done (which was a pretty long list, and made a LONG report). Response was that I should have given one or perhaps 2 T's. Didn't even read the report. It would have been much better had they responded specifically to my comments even if they did disagree (like our chapter President actually DID)! As far as I know, UIL did nothing about a totally out of control coach who desperately needs to change professions.

[El Macman]

As a good friend of mine says "The Inmates are running the asylum."

A question out of ignorance: Do all chapters let the coaches pick crews?  I thought it was a statewide thing.

If there are some chapters that have somehow managed to cajole the schools into letting their assignor make assignments truly independent of institutional input, then let's stand and applaud. But do it quietly. Don't attract attention, because the individual institutions have the UIL-given right to "mutually" select officials. If the schools have voluntarily given up that right to those chapters - hats off  to those chapters. Perhaps they could share how they managed to make that happen.
But, the fact remains, all UIL schools have the right to select officials by mutual agreement. At any minute, those schools that are allowing chapters to make all assignments without school involvement could change their minds and insist on having "mutual consent," and the chapter(s) would have no recourse.
That will only change when the pool of officials that allow this practice to continue grows so small that the UIL would have no choice but to change the policy. That will only happen if officials across Texas shows solidarity and refuse to work unless the policy is changed. It wouldn't take 6 weeks, as in the NFL. It would only take 1 week. And it ain't like this is a union thing where the rank and file are asking for pensions, big pay raises, etc. No. Just stop allowing coaches to select officials.
UIL: Keep the varsity fee shcedule as it is, work with TASO to develop a viable two-way system of accountability, with some level of due process (for schools and officials), and give 100% assignment authority to TASO. Everybody will win, I guarantee it.

[JasonTX]

Our coaches do not get to pick their officials.  Coaches can view their crews 14 days in advance.  We allow for 2 scratches.  We have very few coaches that scratch.  We do consider requests if we ever get any but we don't always fulfill those requests due to chapter policy.  Officials cannot work for a school again until 14 days have elapsed.  Officials cannot work for the same school more than 3 times in the season.  Regular season games are assigned by the secretary.  Playoff games are assigned by the President, Vice President, and Secretary with only those who meet the requirements being available for assignment.  We do allow for coaches picks for playoffs but only if that official meets the requirement.  Off the top of my head:  1.  Officials cannot miss more than 3 chapter meetings.  2.  Must work at least 3 varsity games at the position being considered. (wing officials are interchangeable). 3.  To qualify for 6 man, you must work at least 3 varsity games at the position being considered.  4.  Attend a TASO certified clinic or district meeting.

Each year we work hard at putting the max number of officials in.  Some do get more than 1 in the year due to the qualifiers above eliminating some officials who would have otherwise been assigned.  I think last year we were close to 50% of our members getting a playoff game and somewhere around 5-10% of them worked their first one.

[TexDoc]

If there are some chapters that have somehow managed to cajole the schools into letting their assignor make assignments truly independent of institutional input, then let's stand and applaud. But do it quietly. Don't attract attention, because the individual institutions have the UIL-given right to "mutually" select officials. If the schools have voluntarily given up that right to those chapters - hats off  to those chapters. Perhaps they could share how they managed to make that happen.
But, the fact remains, all UIL schools have the right to select officials by mutual agreement. At any minute, those schools that are allowing chapters to make all assignments without school involvement could change their minds and insist on having "mutual consent," and the chapter(s) would have no recourse.
That will only change when the pool of officials that allow this practice to continue grows so small that the UIL would have no choice but to change the policy. That will only happen if officials across Texas shows solidarity and refuse to work unless the policy is changed. It wouldn't take 6 weeks, as in the NFL. It would only take 1 week. And it ain't like this is a union thing where the rank and file are asking for pensions, big pay raises, etc. No. Just stop allowing coaches to select officials.
UIL: Keep the varsity fee shcedule as it is, work with TASO to develop a viable two-way system of accountability, with some level of due process (for schools and officials), and give 100% assignment authority to TASO. Everybody will win, I guarantee it.

I may be getting overly technical, but coaches don't have the right to mutually select officials at all. What they do have is the permission to scratch at will. I think the chapters just decided it was easier to just let them select.

[El Macman]

I may be getting overly technical, but coaches don't have the right to mutually select officials at all. What they do have is the permission to scratch at will. I think the chapters just decided it was easier to just let them select.

Incorrect. Quoting the 2012 UIL Football Manual: "Officials must be mutually agreed upon in advance."

You may be referring to the UIL assignment portion of the manual, for use when the schools can't mutually agree. Then the UIL office steps in and contacs a 'neutral' chapter and requests officials. The schools are still offered the opportunity to scratch folks in that chapter (no limit), then the chapter can assign from those remaining.

The schools have the right to mutually select officials. The conflict of interest is staggering.

[JasonTX]

I may be getting overly technical, but coaches don't have the right to mutually select officials at all. What they do have is the permission to scratch at will. I think the chapters just decided it was easier to just let them select.

What we have decided was that if you didn't scratch them then you have agreed to use them.  Previously I posted we allow 2 scratches, but obviously if a coach really don't want someone then I won't send them.

[TxSkyBolt]

Incorrect. Quoting the 2012 UIL Football Manual: "Officials must be mutually agreed upon in advance."

You may be referring to the UIL assignment portion of the manual, for use when the schools can't mutually agree. Then the UIL office steps in and contacs a 'neutral' chapter and requests officials. The schools are still offered the opportunity to scratch folks in that chapter (no limit), then the chapter can assign from those remaining.

The schools have the right to mutually select officials. The conflict of interest is staggering.

Seems to me "mutually agreed upon" is not synonomous with "mutually selected."  A chapter can assign officials and coaches can scratch "not agree upon."

[Welpe]

The schools have the right to mutually select officials. The conflict of interest is staggering.

Yup, what you get instead is a lot of talk about "game management decisions" as a way of justifying things like not ejecting players for obvious fighting. In other words, "We want to get picked next year so we're not going to eject his player."

As much as I love the state of Texas, this is one thing that they got absolutely wrong.

[TexDoc]

"Officials must be mutually agreed upon in advance."

This says nothing about being hand selected, only that the officials assigned to the game are agreeable to both parties.  If what you're saying is that coaches must select officials, than there are bunch of chapters not doing it right.  I really don't think that's the case.  Officials do not have to be selected by coaches, I'm quite sure of that.

[El Macman]

"Officials must be mutually agreed upon in advance."

This says nothing about being hand selected, only that the officials assigned to the game are agreeable to both parties.  If what you're saying is that coaches must select officials, than there are bunch of chapters not doing it right.  I really don't think that's the case.  Officials do not have to be selected by coaches, I'm quite sure of that.

There has to be mutual agreement, and there is no effective difference between "mutual agreement" and "hand selected." The institutions can approach a chapter and say, "We mutually agree to use these 5 guys from your chapter. If they aren't available, then we'll go to another chapter." That has happened, and is still happening. It is completely in compliance with UIL policy. And, if the relationship with those institutions is needed enough, the chapter will find a way to comply.
Is that the predominant culture? Thankfully, no. As many are indicating, many of their institutions typically cooperate by making a limited number of pre-season scratches, and then allow the chapter to make assignments. By doing so, the institutions imply their "mutual consent." But they are cooperating. Unless you have a written contract binding the institutions to specific assignments, then, at any time, those institutions can stop cooperating and invoke their UIL-given right to "mutually agree," and can hand pick (or mass-scratch, however you choose to look at it) officials to work their contests.

But right here is TASO's problem. Instead of seeing the elephant in the room and trying to get rid of it, so many TASO folks just try to clean up the crap it leaves on the carpet. When someone points out the error of their understanding, instead of acceding and looking for a real, permanent solution for ALL of TASO, their feelings get hurt and they get defensive, and refuse to accept that they didn't correctly understand the UIL policy - which is the heart of this issue. Somehow they lose sight of the elephant in the room, even though it is threatening to trample them into oblivion.

See the big picture. The problem isn't that coaches can "mutually agree" or "scratch." The problem is that they are involved in official selection at all!  The conflict of interest is so great that I can't find an appropriate adjective. Mind-boggling. Staggering. Flabbergasting. Of Biblical proportions. None of those are even adequate. Let's let the citizenry select which police officers will be on duty at any given time. Let's let the defendant select the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury. Let's let the convicts select the corrections officers.

Until coaches are 100% OUT of the official selection process, Texas high school officiating will never be as good as it can be.

The UIL says they want accountability. Easy enough. Establish a three-person review board for each sport, with a TASO member, a UIL member, and a former or standing judge that has never been a coach or official. If an institution wants to bring issue with a game, a play, or an individual official, they may do so by putting up a $5,000 cash 'bond.' If they receive a favorable judgment, the bond is refunded, and the related official(s) will receive some sort of sanctioning - from a letter of reprimand to suspension (details - that can be worked out).  If they receive an unfavorable judgment, they lose the bond (to whom? I don't care - they just lose the money). That will discourage irrational sour-grapes gripes. The sitting judge can receive a stipend paid equally by the UIL and TASO.

In exchange, require that all UIL get out of the officiating business entirely, require schools to use TASO officials, and keep the current UIL compensation schedule for varsity contests. They may go to any chapter they want, for any assignment. They will be allowed a maximum 10% pre-season scratch of officials in any chapter (for fixed crews, scratch one individual, and you are scratching the whole crew, and they all count against the 10%). But, they may not request any official. And, they may not scratch any official during the season, without going through the accountability process mentioned above.

There. I have presented the problem, and how to fix it. Rather like the coach that asks about a rule, you give him the answer, and then he wants to argue about it. Coach, you asked a question; I gave you the answer; if you don't believe me, I can't help you. Fellas, I given you a plan; if you won't put it (or some comparable plan) to work, I can't help you. Doing nothing will change nothing.

If not me, who? If not now, when?