UIL/Coaches Evaluations of Officials

[TexDoc]

Sorry!  I quoted the wrong posting!  I meant to quote the one above yours. 

[Arbitrator]

Sorry!  I quoted the wrong posting!  I meant to quote the one above yours.

 

Absolutely no offense taken, kind Sir!   

[WABill]

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.

[GoodScout]

The coaches verbally evaluate for four quarters.

Amen. 'Nuf said.

[TexDoc]

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.

[foureyedzebra]

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.

[Arbitrator]

 

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.  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      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  "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  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  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.   

[carrollyp1]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[Arbitrator]

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.

 

This revelation simply pays credence to the fact that the whole intent of 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  Manor Road in the first place? Was there some kind of a  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  Manor Road just use those inept grades to assert itself as some kind of judge or arbitrator(     -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?

[El Macman]

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.

[JasonTX]

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.

[Getting Fat]

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.