Non-refs evalutating officials

[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?

[Junker]

Doesn't look bad, but for #1 are you going to explain coverage areas? A non-official may not know when an official is "taking care of their business".

[BayStateRef]

Shorten the list.

Re-order the list so that the "most important" thing is first.

[grunewar]

Anything on appearance or hustle?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Junker

Doesn't look bad, but for #1 are you going to explain coverage areas? A non-official may not know when an official is "taking care of their business".

Good point.

The question isn't about the official making/passing on calls in/out of his/her area. It's a general impression kind of question. Were there moments when the observer thought to herself, "The ref needs to take care of that."? If so, did the official step up and take care of it? Or did he/she shy away from the situation and let his/her partner deal with it? It could be answering questions, dealing with unusual situations, general handling of a rough game, etc.

Maybe I need to reword that one.

[Back In The Saddle]

Okay, I've reworded, re-ordered, and shortened the list. It now reads:

* Do the participants have a good experience with this official working the game?

* Does the official make calls? Do the calls generally seem reasonable?

* Does the official communicate well? Or are players, coaches, table crew, and partners often wondering what just happened?

* Is the official willing to "be the bad guy"? Or does he/she seem to need approval from players, coaches, fans.

* Does the official appear to "handle" things? Or does he/she noticibly defer answering questions, handling situations, making calls to his/her partner?

* Does the official hustle and keep up with the game? Does he/she seem to know where to be? Is he/she often at the other end of the floor from the play?

* Does the official blow the whistle with confidence and appear to use proper signals?

Any other thoughts?

[Dan_ref]

I would limit it, more like this

1. Was the official on time? Did his appearance meet your expectations?

2. Does the official communicate well with the participants?

3. Does the official communicate well with the table crew? With you and other game supervisors?

4. Did the official keep control of the games?

5. Do the official's calls match the game?

6. Does the official help you keep things running on time?
7. Other comments?

[SMEngmann]

My list would be the following:

1) Is the official believable? By his/her appearance, hustle, signals and presence, does the official look like he/she is connected with the game.

2) Call selection: does the official call obvious plays and not interrupt the game needlessly.

3) Communication: how well does the official appear to work with his partner? How does the official handle being questioned by participants/fans.

4) Dead ball/game awareness: does the official have command of the dead ball situations and timing situations, or does he/she constantly confer with the scorer's table and delay the game.


I think these 4 points are general enough that a non-referee can evaluate refs, particularly at the youth level.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Okay, I've reworded, re-ordered, and shortened the list. It now reads:

* Do the participants have a good experience with this official working the game?

* Does the official make calls? Do the calls generally seem reasonable?

* Does the official communicate well? Or are players, coaches, table crew, and partners often wondering what just happened?

* Is the official willing to "be the bad guy"? Or does he/she seem to need approval from players, coaches, fans.

* Does the official appear to "handle" things? Or does he/she noticibly defer answering

questions, handling situations, making calls to his/her partner?

* Does the official hustle and keep up with the game? Does he/she seem to know where to be? Is he/she often at the other end of the floor from the play?

* Does the official blow the whistle with confidence and appear to use proper signals?

Any other thoughts?

Bits,

Please don't take this as being cavalier, but I am pretty sure you will only get one answer [from an unasked question]:

Which official looks and seems to be the most affable.

All the useable questions will be moot.

But, I do hope it works for you !

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by mick

Bits,

Please don't take this as being cavalier, but I am pretty sure you will only get one answer [from an unasked question]:

Which official looks and seems to be the most affable.

All the useable questions will be moot.

But, I do hope it works for you !

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.

[BillyMac]

Here's what our local board uses:

RATINGS GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION

REACTION TIME
Reacts quickly enough to make a decision at the moment of its occurrence.
Makes quick and positive decisions, especially with respect to the “close ones”.
Takes the time to prevent an error from being made.

INTESTINAL FORTITUDE
Remains consistent when calling violations or fouls - without regard to the score, whom it may hurt, or how it may effect future relations with the coach.

CONFIDENCE
Exhibits a confident manner i.e. attention to detail, alertness, firmness, and timeliness of his/her reaction to a situation.
Has a resonant, strong voice that is supported by proper mechanics for purpose of clarification.

POISE
Has a quiet influence on the game that relieves tensions and creates a steady effect upon contestants (both players and coaches alike).
Has control of his/her emotions.
Is courteous and polite.

CONSISTENCY
Is consistent in all calls regardless of situation or point of time in the game. For example consistency in the determination of a block vs. a charge.

JUDGMENT
Uses fair and unbiased judgment and common sense in applying the rules of the game.

COOPERATION
Has the ability to work effectively as a “team” with his/her fellow official
Is not overly sensitive to constructive criticism.
Has a sense of loyalty to fellow officials, a willingness to share the responsibility and avoids attempts to shift the blame.

KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPER APPLICATION OF THE RULES
Presents a thorough knowledge of the rules of basketball
Appears to make his/her decision with consideration to the effect the calling, or equally as important, the not calling of a rule violation will have. (i.e. advantage / disadvantage)

MECHANICS OF OFFICIATING
Utilizes proper mechanics, up-to-date techniques and procedures as detailed in the Officials Manual.

APPEARANCE AND CONDITIONING
Is in excellent physical condition and exhibits hustle and energy
Official’s uniform and overall appearance is neat, clean and well kept.

[BillyMac]

Here's something that I've been working on. It's only a first draft:

Self Knowledge: Officials know the game, not only rulebook knowledge, where they pride themselves on the “one-rule, one-interpretation” principle, but also on the court practical knowledge.

Court Presence: Officials have a keen eye. They control the action on the court by their demeanor.

Composure and Poise: Officials don’t panic. They have discipline and remain in control under adverse conditions.

Ability To Adjust: Officials have the ability to adjust their game. Officials are aware of their own mistakes and can adjust to team patterns and unusual situations.

Ability To Lift Game: Officials have the ability to come back when not at their best. Whether a poor call or a series of missed calls, officials accomplish what it takes to get the game successfully completed. Officials rise to the occasion, and as the pitcher who is brought into the game in the last inning is referred to as “the closer,” the official is referred to as “the finisher.”

Tempo: Official always lets the players create the game tempo within the spirit and intent of the rules. An official knows when to stop the game to make it better, and not to interfere.

Ability To Learn: Officials attend interpretation meetings, attend camps and clinics, and learn from previous games. They think about what errors they may have made and apply appropriate rules, principles, or mechanics to ensure the same mistakes do not replicate.

Drive To Improve: Officials are never satisfied. They always want to improve and get better.

Knowledge and Proper Application of the Rules
The development of this quality is one of the prime functions of IAABO—one rule, one interpretation. A letter-perfect knowledge of the rules is essential, but in itself, does not guarantee good officiating. The official must know the relationship of one rule to another. Further, it is important to have a background for the rules, to understand the reason for a rule. If the official interpretation of the rule in its application in play situations is clear,

Mechanics of Officiating
Have a thorough knowledge of the Manual. Up-to-date techniques and procedures are fully explained in the Manual. Proper mechanics and floor coverage is imperative to be a good official.

Appearance and Physical Condition
Unless an official is in excellent physical condition, reaction time and the ability to keep up with the high level of play will be less than satisfactory. Credibility with coaches and the fans is also negatively affected. The official uniform should be clean and well kept.

Cooperation
The ability to team with your fellow officials is absolutely essential. Each must have trust and confidence in the other; there must exist the greatest harmony. Each should welcome the support of the other, with neither attempting to dominate the game. Remember a team of officials officiates the contest. Occasionally, personalities clash, temperaments, mannerisms, tactics seem to conflict rather than to blend. When these differences become evident, and seem fundamentally difficult to resolve, then those officials should not work in the same contest. Each may be an excellent official in his/her own right.

Reaction Time
One either has it or one does not. A little practice, and one reaches the maximum of their potential in this all-important quality. Additional practice does not seem to change the results materially. A person who does not possess above average reaction time has little chance of becoming a top-level official. Split second decisions must be made. The tempo of the game is such that unless the official can react quickly enough to make a decision at the moment of its occurrence, subsequent play is often confusing and leads to rough play. In addition, he is often surprised to find that he has developed a habit contrary to the rules. By alert
officiating, with respect to reaction time, the official is making a player immediately aware of mistakes and thus helping to correct them. By acting on player behavior the official diffuses a potentially volatile situation.

Intestinal Fortitude
No explanation is needed here; courage, guts, strength, character, call it by any name; the ability to identify something happened and the courage to blow your whistle.

Confidence
Factors which reflect the confidence of the official and which gain the confidence of the players, coaches, and spectators are many. Probably most effective is court presence. Movement which denotes certainty, sometimes to a degree of cockiness, transmits the aura of confidence and control. Decisive action, not hasty, but with no element of hesitation is highly desirable. Leave no question of doubt, portray possessiveness and certainty to win acceptance. Never be apologetic or hesitant as an official. A resonant, strong voice, properly pitched, carrying conviction, displaying firmness, can do much to breed confidence. A baritone quality is best, a high-pitched voice is poorest. The use of the voice supplemented by pantomime for the purpose of clarity is
desirable. Few officials have mastered the acting stage of their art. Most have not developed the techniques of using their voices and motions effectively. Officials tend to be too timid in this phase. They are definite in conveying decisions to players and spectators. As a result they sometimes display mannerisms and mechanics that create distrust and oftentimes disbelief by players and coaches. On the other hand, it must be emphasized that dramatics carried to the extreme are definitely frowned upon. Such tactics take attention from the game and players, and focus it upon the official. This must not be so. The happy medium must be made. The whistle can do much to give a feeling of certainty. A sharp, staccato, single sound, can make it talk. Develop your own style, but always do so within the framework of the accepted signals and mechanics.

Poise
Players and coaches are under considerable tension; consequently, any actions which will produce calmness and emotional control should be employed. The better official will inject sufficient pauses and quieting maneuvers to create a steadying effect upon the contestants. He/she will do this throughout the game, and particularly toward the end. There are many play situations in which the official’s quiet influence can be a saving grace. The official may employ varied tactics to relieve the tension. They are actions which are seldom noticed and yet are tremendously effective. For example, the difference between the official who in effect says, “Unfortunately,
you’ve made a mistake that has placed your opponent at a disadvantage, and I have no alternative but to penalize you according to the rules,” as compared to the official who, with a show of belligerency, says, in effect, “There, I caught you that time.” It seems that the best officials are those who remain human and approachable. Usually they are accepted even when they are wrong. At least, everyone is more charitable toward them when there is a disagreement. Oft-times the presentation of a brusque exterior is a cloak behind which to hide inferior ability. The oft-quoted expression, “A soft answer turneth away wrath,” applies here. When handling the ball out-of-bounds, the official can restore poise by even unhurried action rather than hasty impatient motion. Likewise, hesitation on the free throw, to permit adjustments at the lines and to give clear, complete information on the
number of shots, tend to ease the situation considerably. A pause before announcing a decision, after blowing the whistle to stop play, is effective; and coupled with a steady voice, is doubly so. As has been stated, the subtleness of tactics of this kind hides the intent, but nevertheless produces the desired results.

Consistency
The greatest virtue which an official can possess is consistency. He/she may have an incorrect interpretation of a rule; he/she may practice techniques contrary to those to which a team is accustomed; judgment on some play situations may be in conflict with the commonly accepted interpretations - but with it all, if the official’s practice and decision are exactly the same under the same or similar circumstances, players can readily adjust their play to fit the official. They may be surprised and confused momentarily, but when they discover that the official is unwavering in procedures, they can reorganize and continue with confidence. Probably the greatest inconsistencies occur in judgments on charging and blocking. The official should give this play much thought and attention, and learn to call it consistently. Have the courage to withhold a whistle despite contact if no advantage has been gained. If a highly technical call is made and then a flagrant act is passed on the players are placed in a position where they cannot establish a flow. Some officials may never be able to attain a high degree of consistency and they should be eliminated, just as incapable players are gradually cut from the squad. However, much can be done to point the way.

Judgment—Based on Rules
If basic principles are established which will be a guide for determining the legality of play and the responsibility for acts committed, the foundation upon which to and sound judgment will be built up through experience in handling contests. Practice will clear the cobwebs in this all-important phase of the art.

[26 Year Gap]

I guess you have to assume Padgett's rule is covered. Any way to get a dvd of the game to review in addition to the evaluation?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I guess you have to assume Padgett's rule is covered. Any way to get a dvd of the game to review in addition to the evaluation?

Well, I'm a little squeamish about asking her to verify that they are all following Padgett's First Law.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here's what our local board uses. . .

Here's something that I've been working on. It's only a first draft

Bill, I'm sorry if this comes across the wrong way, but you're doing it again. You cut-and-paste these HUGE complicated posts that don't help AT ALL with the original question. The question is about observation guidelines for people who are NOT officials, and likely have no idea about a referee's ability to "lift a game" or mechanics or willingness to learn, etc.

It's nice that your board has stuff like that, but it would probably be more helpful to the original poster if you actually addressed his question instead. JMHO.