Rating Systems

[mikesears]

I started a new thread for you eventnyc

It would be really cool to get the rating/evaluation system from all 50 states.

Posted by eventnyc
Sorry I didn�ft get a chance to post this last night. Coaches are supplied with rating forms by the officials that work their games. Rating forms are supplied by BOCES (Board of Cooperative Educational Services). All sports use the same form. The scale is listed for the coach to apply a score, as follows:

Excellent 10-9
Above Average 8-7
Average 6-5
Below Average 4-3
Poor 2-1

Any rating 4 or below in any category requires a comment.

There are 7 areas to rate:

Â�Â* ATTITUDE (Poise-Professionalism)
Â�Â* PROMPTNESS
Â�Â* APPEARANCE (Physical Condition and Attire)
Â�Â* RULES (Knowledge and Application)
Â�Â* MECHANICS (Position - Coverage - Signals - Hustle)
Â�Â* GAME CONTROL (Handling of Players - Coaches - Fans)
Â�Â* JUDGEMENT (Common Sense - Consistency)

And the:

Â�Â* OVERALL RATING

I�fd be interested in other rating systems. Should we start a new thread?

[/b]
Seems we get this question every year, but here we go anyway

In Illinois, officials are supposed to be rated by coaches after every varsity game. Other certified (our highest level) officials can rate fellow officials one time per season as well.

Illinois uses the following scoring system:

1. State Final Playoff Official.
2. Sectional Playoff Official
3. Regional Playoff Official
4. Varsity Official Only
5. Sub-Varsity Official Only

If a coach gives someone a 5, it must be accompanied by a written explanation.

The IHSA tracks these numbers and uses them for playoff assignments ONLY. These "ratings" are only one of several factors included in determining who gets playoff games.


If I've misstated anything, I am sure someone from Illinois will correct me.

[Edited by mikesears on Sep 1st, 2004 at 10:17 AM]

[OverAndBack]

This must have been why I heard a veteran official last week say that they were giving the coaches the list of who was on the crew "so they can give us our fours."

If it's like any officiating ratings systems I've seen before, the coaches go with the average rating across the board unless you do something really well or you really tick them off.

But having to actually think about it is not something most coaches are that into. Whatever requires them to not have to actually justify their thoughts on an official, they'll do.

I'm new, but it seems like this would create inertia to keep officials where they are, and create logjams, and not necessarily reward the best officials.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: In the conferences we typically work (most of northern NJ) there is no 'formal' rating of officials by coaches. However, I'm sure that there is some informal exchange between coaches and assigners.

I love eventnyc's list of attributes for a supervisor's use. But does anyone have any confidence in a coach's ability to evaluate their RULES KNOWLEDGE, MECHANICS, and maybe even JUDGEMENT?

[JRutledge]

I will tell you; this system is ten times better than what it was before.

The coaches used to sit at a meeting and pick the officials that "qualified" to work the playoffs and the State would pick from that list. So the coaches were the gate keepers of all playoff assignments. At least in this system the ratings are just one of many factors that the state can consider. Our board just sat down on Monday to decide our Top 15 list, another factor in the playoff system.

There are people that received playoff games today that could not smell the post season in the old system. There were many people that accused the IHSA as playing favorites and only hiring based on "political ties."

Officials are never going to be happy with a system they do not benefit from. I also think that this system is really not for the officials. This system is for the state to decide with independent evidence what others think of those officials. Unless someone can figure out a way to have officials at every game evaluating the officialÂ’s performance, we need something to provide information about those officials independently. No system is perfect and neither is our system.

Peace

[Simbio]

In Utah there are four different ranks for officials: 100, 200, 300, 399. Each ranking has 12 in each of the 5 positions. 100 officials are in the top 12 in their position. 200 officials are the next 12 in their position. 300 are the next 12 in their position. 399 are the rest of the officials. Rankings are based on scores on Part I and Part II tests, meeting and clinic attendance, and evaluations. 100 and 200 officials are required to evaluate their entire game crew for at least 6 games. Crews are always shuffled so that you work with an entirely different set of officials each week. The evaluation sheets read like this with a place for comments at the bottom. You do not evaluate yourself. You score between 1 and 5:

Definitions of Rating Scale:
5-Outstanding-Excellent knowledge and skills. Excellent mechanics. Superior performance.
4-Very Good-Above average knowledge & skills. Great Mechanics. Commendable performance.
3-Average-Sufficient knowledge & skills. Good mechanics. Performs at an acceptable level.
2-Needs Work-Some knowledge & skills. Poor mechanics. Results in weak performance.
1-Poor-No knowledge and skills. No mechanics. Has significant performance problems.

You score in each of these categories:

1) Professionalism: Proper preparation, attitude, physical conditioning, & pre-game punctuality. Addresses players and coaches in appropriate manner. Acts in a dignified manner.

2) Teamwork: Ability to work with fellow officials. Cooperation makes the crew better. Takes constructive criticism. Takes active part in pre-game.

3) Position & Coverage: Anticipates game situation, hustle/moves with a purpose. Gets in proper position to make call. Knows and watches keys.

4) Mechanics & Signals: Demonstrates proper signals at the appropriate times. Follws proper mechanics for position. Proper spacing and movement.

5) Judgement: Decisiveness. Advantage/Disadvantage. Intelligent application of the rules. Game common sense. Knows rules. Calls point of attack fouls Handles challenges appropriately.

6) Game Control & Awareness: Demonstrates poise and proper control. Sideline control/communications. Dead ball Officiating.

7) Rules: Demonstrates rule knowledge, penalty enforcement, and effectively reports fouls. Consistency with rules application.

8) Communications: Effectively communicates with other officials, players and coaches. Relays information back and forth across field.


[Edited by Simbio on Sep 1st, 2004 at 02:02 PM]

[SoGARef]

We give a card to the coaches that lists the officials and position for that game. It asks for comments and can be returned to our assignor (Ex. Sec. of the association). About the only time these cards are returned is when a coach is upset and wants to "black ball" a certain official or the whole crew. Coaches tend to hold associations hostage in this state with "black balls" or the threat to change associations. The state association claims to not allow this, but it is still widely prevalent. Until the state takes away individual associations from contracting with each school and does the assigning from the state level this will be a problem. The state conducts at least one evaluation of each crew each year which is done by a state trained evaluator (usually a retired official).

The selection to playoff games is pretty much up to the home team, but will usually be a third party association. If neither school can agree on the officials, the state assigns them. When it gets to the semi-finals and finals all crews are selected by the state association and this is tightly controlled by the powers that be.

As a side note, we work as crews all year long; however, when it is play off time the crews are broken up and usually referees are used to make up the play off crews.

Starting this year a coach cannot protest a game, but he can submit an Unacceptable Officiating Report.

[Edited by SoGARef on Sep 1st, 2004 at 06:27 PM]

[JasonTX]

The coaches fill out a rating card but it doesn't count towards anything. Mainly just for us to view to see if there is anything that is commented on for us to improve. I don't feel as if a coaches rating should be used for any purpose other than what I mentioned. Case being, last year I went to a school and while doing the pregame with the head coach I noticed on his desk that the card was already filled out.

[SWFLguy]

I wonder about rating systems----
but one thing that someone brought up here
is this:
a ratings system will usually help a good official
break through the "good old boy" sytems that
prevailed in the past !!
nothing is perfect---
but younger officials need to have a chance
to improve enough to get big games
and play-off games or they won't stay around for long !!
And let's face it--- is there an official's chapter
that is not "long in the tooth" ??
My big/better games are all behind me (age 65)
and I am happy for the newer younger guys who
deserve the top games !!

[Jim S]

Washington: Ratings go by the local association. In Seattle we fil out an evaluation on every official we work with. 10 classifications.
Preperation
Attitude
Rules Knowledge
Signals
Mechanics
Hustle
Poise
Alertness
Communication.

Each is given a rating of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 (Don't ask!)
A rating of 0 or 2 requires a written explanation.

There is a coaches card that we hand to every HC before a game. It asks them to rate each member of the crew as:
Excellent
Very Good
Average
Poor
Unsatisfactory
There is a spot for comments about each official if desired.
These cards are mailed back to the association and are not seen by the official.
They are not used to rate officials, but are used to identify any problems.
The Washington Officials Association also has evaluators that travel the state and rate officials. These are retired officials who have been trained to view a game with an eye to what the crew is doing both as individuals and as a crew.

[OverAndBack]

I still can't believe Utah makes you work with different people every week. I would think, just from the short time I've been in this, that cohesion among members of a crew makes for a better crew, and better serves the participants of the game.

How do people like it out there? Just seems odd to me.

[Rich]

Originally posted by OverAndBack
I still can't believe Utah makes you work with different people every week. I would think, just from the short time I've been in this, that cohesion among members of a crew makes for a better crew, and better serves the participants of the game.

How do people like it out there? Just seems odd to me.

I worked in a system like that and found it strange that when I moved to my current state I was expected to work with the same people, week after week.

I mean, how do you learn from a large number of people and see things done differently when you have to see the same guys all the time?

(IOW, it works both ways.)

[OverAndBack]

I can see that point, and it's a good one. But I think the participants are better served by having a cohesive unit officiating.

I've heard it said many times - "There are three teams on the field. The two in football jerseys and the one in stripes."

Why not give the one in the stripes the best chance at being a team?

At lower levels here, it's mix and match - you will get to see a variety of people and learn from them. But the varsity level here seems to be made up primarily of crews who stay together long-term.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by OverAndBack
I can see that point, and it's a good one. But I think the participants are better served by having a cohesive unit officiating.

I've heard it said many times - "There are three teams on the field. The two in football jerseys and the one in stripes."

Why not give the one in the stripes the best chance at being a team?

At lower levels here, it's mix and match - you will get to see a variety of people and learn from them. But the varsity level here seems to be made up primarily of crews who stay together long-term.

O&B,

Different states (and even areas) do it different ways. I think both systems have advantages and disadvantages.

[OverAndBack]

I can see advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

I cast my vote in favor of crews. But that's just me.

[JRutledge]

O&B,

I agree with you about the "crew concept." I feel that it is best to have a crew working together as well. I think you know your partners and can make many decisions without having to learn a new person's personality every week. But I do feel that being with a crew you can get in a routine and not try to get better as easily. But that depends on the individuals you have on the crew. There are many +s and -s as it relates to both systems. I think the crew concept is a better system and the NFL uses a crew system during the season and now even the playoffs.

Peace