|
It has been a very long time since I've posted a question on this board. It's nice to be back! Here's my question...How do you go about evaluating officials within your group? Do all the officials get evaluations or is it "by request"? I live in Pennsylvania where officials are organized by "Chapters". Each chapter is responsible for professional development and evaluating/observing their own officials. Our chapter has no explicit module for evaluating our officials. So, I'm interested in knowing what other groups are doing with regards to this issue. Let me know...I've been appointed by my chapter to "research" the topic. Thanks in advance for your input.
Cheers! Becky |
I belong to an association in Utah...We have the requirement of each Varsity official must have 10 evaluations turned in each season. They evaluate the JV or Sophmore officials game before their game. We started it last season. It seems to have worked out okay. This year we started evaluating our varsity officials. We have 8 evaluators in different areas. Not absolutely everyone will be seen but its a good start.
|
|
Quote:
DOGHEAD -- long time?!?! It's been forever! How are you doing? I hope you're getting some great games. e-mail me with details. |
Varsity officals have to evaluate 10 other sophmore or JV officials
|
In Michigan, we have a form that is given out at the annual state association meeting each year(one big meeting each at the central office where all of the state's official associations can come and get answer to questions.
I was told back before the girls basketball season started at a local association meeting that state wanted us evaluate on every game that we did. Basically, while you were working your game, you were also trying to evaluate your partner(s) on the job they were doing. Some conference supervisors here Michigan have retired officials come and evaluate officials as well, other then that the only other thing that we have here in Michigan are the coach's ratings. |
I'm in Texas. Each Chapter can develop their own method of evaluating officials. Some smaller Chapters are very informal due to the territory they cover and the limited availability of officials. Others are more formal in their evaluating and rating process. In Ft. Worth we have two clinics we put on each year to evaluate new and veteran officials. One is a two-person camp and the other a 3-person camp. In addition, we recently developed a formal evaluation form derived from a combination of several internet resources (NASO, TASO, & other officiating associations). Finally, our Assignor identifies officials that need to be evaluated (usually transfers) and sometimes our members request to be evaluated if they are trying to move up. The ratings given are from 1 thru 5 with 1 being the most proficient. An official with a rating of 1 or 2 is eligible to work varsity assignments. A rating of 5 indicates a new official with no officiating experience.
Doghead, I would like to issue one word of caution since it appears you and your group are just developing an evaluation system. If at all possible, make sure the system you develop has some mechanism to reevaluate every official each year. This will enable your chapter to ensure each official is working games that correspond to their CURRENT skill level. I have officiated in two different states. I started in Northern CA (NCOA) and am now in TX (Ft. Worth Chapter TASO). The two are very different in their methods of evaluating officials. But they are (or were when I left in 2000) the same in at least one crucial way. Once an official had reached the top rating, they could not be reevaluated. That is to say, once an official has demonstrated they can no longer work at the level they had once achieved, there is no mechanism to lower their rating and make sure they are put in games that are appropriate for their current skill level. But, this is a very sensitive area due to the fact that these officials often times represent the bulk of your chapter's expertise & experience. You don't want to alienate these officials so that they feel they are no longer useful. Their knowledge is invaluable and would be a terrible loss to your chapter. Anyway, hope this helps and sorry for the long post. I also hope I did not misrepresent the current state of affairs regarding my fellow officials in Northern CA. I learned a lot from them. They were the ones that helped me develop the love I have for officiating today. Have a great year. [Edited by rpirtle on Dec 8th, 2003 at 01:01 PM] |
extensive system
State of Wash. is made up of independent Boards or Associations. They each dev. their own system (or lack thereof). Our Assoc. in Spokane uses the following:
1) From the previous years, all officals are assigned to one of 5 classifications (pools 1-5) 1 being most proficient, 5 least. They have very detailed descriptions, but I won't go into those here. 2) All officals rate each other twice a year; mid-season and end-of-year. These are officials you have either worked with or seen in school ballgames only. These ratings account for 25% of your final rating-(25% for mid-season & 25% of end-of season). 3) We have a rating committee consisting of a cross-section of each of the pools. They are assigned to view "x" number of school games and tabulate ratings during the season. They then meet at the end of the year and develop a consensus rating for each official. Again, this rating comprises 25% of final rating. 4) Our assigning secretary rates each official. His rating will be the last 25% of your final rating. 5) Misc. Our Executive Board determines the break for each pool. 1-20 Pool 1, 21-35 Pool 2 etc. These break points are not necessarily the same from year to year. First year officials are not rated nor are allowed to rate others. Transfer officials are given Floor Trials to determines pool placement. There are other specifics, but that is the baics of ours. |
Try this one on for size. The Observations link is out form.
http://home.officiating.com/sowb/policy.htm Go to EVALUATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS [Edited by Ron Pilo on Dec 8th, 2003 at 02:59 PM] |
Garote..Which association do you belong to SL, Ogden, or Provo?
Our evaluation system used a 100 point scale. It was weighted. I heard it was going to change some.. It was on our website but of course the server crashed, and I cant fix it because of where I am at...but what we have done is track over time... The thing we have noticed is that you must be able to quantify and wtach over time... Otherwise all you are getting is a quick snapshot of the officals abilities... The Lower guys can also request an evaluation if they have not had one...a JV board member will assist... If the official wants an evaluation, he also just needs to get a hold of the varsity guy and ask so it works out well |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37am. |