paid evaluators

[jdw3018]

I'm curious, iiicream, do you have a specific rating system your association uses? Or do you just provide general feedback? Did you receive any training on how to observe/rate/provide feedback?

Just interested in how different areas are making this work...

[iiicream]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I'm curious, iiicream, do you have a specific rating system your association uses? Or do you just provide general feedback? Did you receive any training on how to observe/rate/provide feedback?

Just interested in how different areas are making this work...

I use a general evalutaion form provided by our association. It has 9 areas to evaluate using a 1-below avg, 2-avg , 3-above avg.

The categories include: Consistency, game management, professionalism, reaction under pressure, feel for the game (judgment/knowledge), coverage, appearance, NFHS mechanics, NFHS signals.

I then check the official's overall ranking: above avg, avg, needs improvement.

I received no official training. Just using my 20+ years of officiating as a basis to rate the officials.
At the bottom I offer my comments and recommendation.

[jdw3018]

Sounds like a good process. I'm also a believer in the 1-3 type scale, rather than a 1-10 scale.

Nine areas - below, at, or above - plus your specific comments gives a lot of information. Thanks for sharing.

[amusedofficial]

I'm not a big fan of grades, since one evaluator's seven may be another's five, but a 1-2-3 based on below average, average and above average, in areas that mean something, would probably yield meaningful results, but comments should be mandatory, and evaluators should not have access to previous evaluations done by someone else, lest a comment made on an off-night become engraved in stone.

"On my ship, superior performance is standard; standard performance is substandard and substandard performance does not exist. I kid you not"

Phillip Francis Queeg prior to his retirement and second career as a girl's JV coach.