Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zebraman
There is no perfect evaluation system. Even an independent observer system is imperfect because it's almost impossible to find observers that everyone can agree on. Also, most observers are friends with at least some of the officials (so they would have some bias).
|
Then there is the issue of personal preference and bias. What works for one official doesn't always work for another. So a single observer, with his/her personal experience, is going to approach those evaluations from his/her point of view. If your style and the evaluator's don't mesh, how will that affect the rating?
Throw multiple evaluators into the mix (and how could a reasonably sized association be well served by just one evaluator?) and you get different points of view, different weight given to different attributes, etc. It's a practically intractable problem.
Here the varsity officials are required to turn in 10 evals of other officials each season in order to be eligible for the post-season. I spent some time recently perusing those evals (the names are removed from public view, but the evals are available for all to see). It's very plain to see how different evaluators appreciate different criteria, and use different point scales in evaluating the same categories, and finally come up with very different overall ratings.
I had to chuckle recently as I read an evals I received. In that game there was a, shall we say tense moment, with a coach in which I could have T'd him, but managed to fairly quickly bring him back from the edge. One varsity official questioned why I didn't T him. The other, in his written eval, gave me kudos for my patience in handling the coach.
A completely objective evaluation is a mythical creature.