|
In another thread I noticed it seems coaches do the ratings.
In my limited research I have found coach ratings to be subjective and not a true measure of an official's performance. Example, a number of rating systems use a 1 to 5 scale with various categories. Can you rely on those ratings to determine what you need to improve?
NASO has an evaluation sheet that uses phrases to describe various expectations of officials. Example, was the official properly positioned?
I personally think the NASO idea is better because the official has something concrete he can review for improvement.
How do you feel about that type of system versus the 1 to 5?
Lastly, what has been the experience with associations that use evaluators to determine ratings. Are they fair? Who does the rating?
|