Getting evaluated
All second year officials will be evaluated in conjunction with the two-year cadet training program established in 2010. This evaluation will serve as the field test, assessing officials’ competency at the varsity level.
Other officials will be evaluated throughout the regular season. Selection of officials to be evaluated might be, but is not limited to, (1) by assignor request (2) by targeted selection by the NJILOA executive board or (3) by officials’ request. The Evaluations Committee will make every attempt to evaluate each official who requests an evaluation. Those requests will be filled based on schedule and evaluator availability.
Poor Evaluations (Less than 70%)
Any official who receives a score less than 70% on an evaluation will be enrolled in the O.V.A.L. program (Officials Viewing and Learning). A score of less than 70% requires an official to complete one (1) OVAL.
Officials Viewing and Learning – O.V.A.L. Program
The Officials Viewing and Learning (OVAL) Program is new to the NJILOA for 2011. One (1) OVAL consists of:
a) on one of an official’s off days, or when they are officiating a Junior Varsity game only, they will attend the varsity game.
b) The official completing the OVAL should attend the pregame, watch the game, take notes and have questions for the varsity official(s). The referee on the varsity game will go through each of the issues and questions that the OVAL participant has either after they have completed the Junior Varsity game or Varsity game if they are not officiating a doubleheader
c) The purpose of an OVAL is to observe how experienced varsity officials handle real game situations
d) OVALS will be assigned to an official following a score of less than 75% on an evaluation, and will be assigned by the Evaluations Chair or one of the re-assignors
e) Failure to complete the necessary OVALs following a poor evaluation will result in the forfeiture of varsity games in the future
f) Any official who is required to participate in the OVAL program will be recycled back into the pool of officials who are being evaluated. This evaluation will take place as soon as possible pending scheduling and availability
Field Test – Second Year Officials
All second year officials will be evaluated using the standard NJILOA Evaluation Form and are required to score no less than 70% on their evaluation to be eligible for varsity competition. Any second year official who scores less than 70% will be required to participate in the OVAL program. Until a score of 70% is achieved, an official is ineligible to officiate varsity level contests
Evaluators:
All NJILOA Evaluators were selected through nomination of the Executive Committee. All Evaluators shall be trained with regard to scoring, points of emphasis and filing reports prior to serving as an Evaluator on any contest. It is the mission of the Evaluations Committee to provide consistent, fair assessments of our officials which take into account the criteria set forth in the NJILOA Evaluations Mission Statement.
The following are criteria on which evaluators should lean when deciding how to score officials during an evaluation:
Rules Interpretation
Knowledge:
Score of 1-6: The official applied rules incorrectly, made up or mis-used rules repeatedly during the contest
Score of 7-8: The official did well for the majority of the game, with few mis-applications of the rules
Score of 9-10: The official did a superior job applying the rules and had no errors
Enforcement:
Score of 1-6: The official rarely called fouls or threw too many flags, thusly affecting the play of the game. This could include non-calls and missed calls. The tone of this type of game bordered on, or was, out of control
Score of 7-8: The official called the majority of necessary fouls, but missed several others. The tone of this type of game could be agitated though not out of control.
Score of 9-10: The official made all the necessary calls in the game. The tone of this type of game is intense but in control.
Consistency:
Score of 1-6: The official was not consistent in the application of the rules from team to team
Score of 7-8: The official was mostly consistent, with one or two errors
Score of 9-10: The official was consistent throughout the entire game in the application of rules to both teams
Game Management
Judgment:
Score of 1-6: The official had poor judgment in making calls. This could include the over or under-application of rules
Score of 7-8: The official used good judgment for most of the game. There were few missed or non-calls which impacted game play
Score of 9-10: The official exercised excellent judgment throughout the entire game. There were no missed or non-calls which impacted game play
Poise:
Score of 1-6: The official appeared rattled by a coach, uncertain of calls, required conferences with the other official consistently or for extended periods of time. This official seemed generally unsure of him/herself
Score of 7-8: The official was composed and confident for most of the game, but may have gotten frazzled toward the end of the game or in a difficult situation
Score of 9-10: The official was composed and confident all game. He/She handled tough situations quickly and was confident in making the correct call
Demeanor:
Score of 1-6: The official looked apathetic, reluctant or hesitant in being too passive or was unapproachable, agitated and confrontational in unwarranted situations
Score of 7-8: The official handled situations effectively, but concentration failed near the end of the game or at certain points.
Score of 9-10: The official was even handed throughout the contest. He/she handed out stiff penalties for infractions that warranted them and was affable with players and coaches
Communication:
Score of 1-6: The official did not communicate with his/her partner on the field well. They did not come together when multiple flags were thrown. Coaches seemed displeased with his/her communication or lack thereof with the benches.
Score of 7-8: The official had minor communication errors with fouls and handled coaches fairly well for most of the contest
Score of 9-10: The official was on the same page with his/her partner and communicated quickly and concisely with each other and with coaches. Any coaches’ questions were handled expediently despite whether or not the coach agreed with the outcome
Field Presence
Appearance:
Score of 1-6: The official was wearing the incorrect uniform, his/her clothing was dirty or excessively wrinkled, patches were missing or misplaced on the uniform.
Score of 7-8: The official looked presentable but as the game wore on the official became disheveled and did not re-tuck in his/her shirt or re-organize themselves at halftime
Score of 9-10: The official was dressed the proper uniform, it was pressed neatly and tucked in the entire game, it looked as though it had been freshly washed
Hustle:
Score of 1-6: The official could not stay with the play up and down the field, they walked and did not run to their position and consequently was frequently out of position on big plays, they did not run the ball out to the end line
Score of 7-8: The official ran in as the lead but walked in as the trail, was in position for most of the game but missed one or two calls because they were out of position
Score of 9-10: The official ran to his/her spot the entire game, chased balls to the endline and was where he/she needed to be to be in position to make every call
Mechanics:
Score of 1-6: The official used improper signals or none at all when making calls, didn’t verbalize calls or blow the whistle when the ball went out of bounds. There was significant confusion as to what calls this official was making
Score of 7-8: The official used good hand signals to make calls but was disjointed in communicating fouls to the table. The official was in position on changes of possession but might have used the wrong signal or call in a situation
Score of 9-10: The official used all the proper hand and verbal signals when making calls. Out of bounds calls were crisp and there was little confusion as to what calls this official was making all game.
