[Scuba_ref]

We have a 1 to 10 rating with specfic criteria attached to each whole number. All officials that have a rating of 5 or higher (from the previous year) receive a ballot with the name of each official in the association on it and with instructions to provide a rating for each official we have worked with or observed.

Those ballots are then averaged with the highest and lowest rating for each official thrown out. The result is a list ranking every official in our association with a number rating that dictates what level of ball they can officiate.

This list is then sent to the top 15 ranked officials in the association and those officials rate everyone a second time - the first go is basically an exercise in creating the list of 15. This second ranked list is the final list and is used by the assignor to assign games in the regular season and the playoffs. There is a small coach's component that gets added to the number but it really doesn't have a large impact on an official’s final rating.

There are definite flaws with this system as it can appear to be a popularity contest; you can't move someone up or down more than a certain amount without written reasons; there is no accountability for rules knowledge or association meeting attendance; and, we have a working assignor (so if you rate him poorly does that affect your schedule?)

We are slowly trying to shift the mentality within the association and introduce some objective criteria into the rating process but that is a difficult sell. Currently many feel that the system is a way of oppressing officials when really the goal should be to get everyone rated as high as possible to bring the whole association up.