|
Walter,
We have a very similar system, but it is peer only (we have evaluators, but their input is just for self-improvement and not input to the ratings).
Here is some of our criteria lifted directly from our ratings form:
Superb game management, handles difficult situations decisively and positively, makes the calls the game needs, understands the rules and applies them with common sense, calls game consistently, respects partners and helps them be comfortable, fosters positive communication with coaches and players, manages the clock and bench decorum, maintains composure and professionalism, puts forth consistent hustle and effort, contributes to good pre-game preparation and displays standard NFHS mechanics.
We had considered going with the "R/U1/U2" rankings within each ratings category, but we opted for H/M/C (high, medium, capable) instead and here's why:
Some of our officials couldn't seem to understand that just because an official was assigned as the R (or U1 or U2) for the game being observed, it DIDN'T MEAN that they automatically should be placed in the R (or U1 or U2) category. Seems silly, but that's what we encountered. If I understand what you're trying to do, you're trying to separate officials who are in the same category (4A/3A, 2A/1A etc.) but may have a slight difference in abilities. As deecee said, there isn't much difference between an R and a U. I have heard some assignors say that they are looking for R's and not U's so I know that there is a "leadership" factor in there, but you might find that some of your rating officials don't understand that concept.
Z
[Edited by zebraman on Nov 1st, 2005 at 07:47 PM]
|