Non-refs evalutating officials

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I'm trying to put together some general guidelines for a game administrator, who has never refereed, to evaluate officials for me. I can't be at her site one night for this tourney, so I'm relying on her to help me determine which officials to move on to the semis and final. I haven't ever seen most of these officials work, and they're all volunteers with limited training.

Here's what I've come up with. It's intended to give her a somewhat more informed basis for forming general impressions, without getting technical. What do you think?

1. Does the official appear to take care of his/her own "business" or does he/she frequently defer calls, rules, and/or decisions to his/her partner?

2. Does the official communicate well with the participants? Or do players and partners wander around, scratching their heads, wondering what's going on?

3. Does the official communicate adequately with the table crew? Or are you left guessing what they called?

4. Do the official's calls match the game? Or is there a noticible gap between the players' skills and the way the official calls the game?

5. Does the official blow the whistle with confidence?

6. Does the official appear to use proper signals?

7. Can the official handle being "the bad guy"? Or does he/she constantly seek the approval of the players, coaches, fans.

8. Does the official help you keep things running on time?

9. Do they show up, preferably 15-30 minutes before their game, properly attired?
10. Do the players have a good experience when this official is working?

Volunteers. No Pay. No Training.

My List:

1. Did they show up on time.
2. Games Covered.
3. Kids had fun and no one got hurt.

This is all you can expect.

[ma_ref]

Have to agree with the last post. If you really care about all that criteria, then you should be using certified officials for your games. I'm assuming this is an in-town league, so hiring real officials may be cost prohibitive. You'd probably be better off just doing a quick league-wide survey of coaches and having them send you a list of the people they think are the top 4 or 5 officials (no specific criteria...just who they think are qualified in general), and then you could choose from that.

Evaluating officials is a good thing...it's how we improve ourselves, and if we can't take criticism from our peers then we're in the wrong business. But critiquing volunteers, in much the same way as professionals, is another thing. It's like the old saying, "You get what you pay for." Voluteers = $0 cost, so don't expect too much. I hope I don't sound too harsh, and you can choose to ignore my .02 cents, but that's pretty much how I see it.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

You may be right. Either way, if the officials all perform about the same, and there are no major problems or obvious incompetence, I can live with affableness as the distinguishing criteria.

Bits,
That was my point.
Any obvious incompetence, unidentified by the unlearned observer, could easily be masked by a quick smile and by the rules knowledge of the coaches and fans. (e.g., A gutsy and proper call by one official may be roundly booed, while an improper application, which may be the expected call, may seem to be adjudged competetent by the observer who is mirroring the fans and coaches.)