Burocracy and evaluation

[dvasques]

Guys, many questions coming up from or talks here...

How does the officials associations work? Tournaments hire associations and the associations appoint the officials to games?
Who evaluates officials during games?
How much do teams complaints are taken into consideration by the evaluators?
What type of punishment is given to officials? And to what kind of mistakes?

Again, thanks a lot for all the helping so far

[James]

I'll start off.
Germany has an association in each 'state'. They are in charge of their own training, assignments and evaluations. The exception is the top level of officials who are trained together to have consistency. The idea is that the 'A' level officials will be training the others so they get the good information and pass it on.

We don't have tournaments, just games. The games are registered at the beginning of the year with the association, and the assigner puts the officials in as needed (we don't have 'crews') - with an eye to a mix of experienced and newer refs and the qualification level needed for the games (higher level teams get more experienced refs). The game report goes to the league organizer and to the assigner, and the refs get paid cash at the game.

The state organizes its own evaluations - and can vary a lot in different areas (and in different years). Usually done by the officials that are on the training board and have extra time.

I don't really know about how team complains are handled, but when a team has forfeited (not shown up) or has an ejection they have to pay the league money (with a forfeit also the other teams for some expenses).
Complaints against officials are probably heard and if there is something to be said about it (video to be seen with an obvious mistake) the people involved will be talked to and maybe a general email sent around with a correction or how to handle a theoretical situation, but generally there is no punishment.

When a game is over it is official.
The exception that I can think of is that one team played with a player that was suspended or not registered. Then the game would be annulled in retrospect.

I have only heard about punishment for officials for not showing up when scheduled - in which case they get a warning, and if it happens again they are dropped. Or a few warnings for not being prepared.
The assigner might keep certain officials from certain games if there is the perception of a problem, or if the official does not handle the level of play well enough, but that is more organization than punishment.

[BNE-Ref]

In Australia, we have associations at two levels; national and state. 

The national association (Australian Gridiron Officials Association) has responsibility for standardisation on issues such as the training of officials, the production of a set of training resources, the mechanics used, the evaluation of officials, the production of the annual rules and mechanics exam, the accreditation of officials and the running of national clinics.  The AGOA is also responsible for assigning officials to the national competitions.

Each state then has their own association.  The state association is responsible for local training and recruiting, and for assigning officials to games.  There are some variations from state to state, but generally, the state association enters into a contract with the state league (or leagues - some states have multiple leagues) for the provision of officials and the payment of game fees.  Game fees are generally paid to the state association, which then pays the officials.

Formal evaluations for national accreditation are handled centrally by the AGOA.  Each state association will also likely run their own evaluations.  Evaluations for Level 1 and 2 officials can be handled internally by each state, but Level 3 officials need external (outside their home state) evaluations for accreditation/re-accreditation.

In my local state, the state training officer (me) reviews the video of most games, particularly on plays where some form of issue has been identified.  A report is produced and circulated to the whole state association for learning purposes.  Each crew is also encouraged to review their own games and produce a report, which is also available to all officials in the state.  There is also a formal game report which is sent back to the league office.

We don't work in crews, due to limited resources.  Most of us will have a preferred position, and a secondary position.  The state assigner will try to balance positional expertise with experience in game assignments.

I'm quite happy to share privately with any of you copies of the evaluation and accreditation documents, and examples of reports and the contract, if it would help, particularly for those from countries where the game is still in its relative infancy.  PM me.

[dvasques]

Guys, I don't want to open a new topic so I'm bringing mine old one back to the top.

I'm trying to implement a system of regular testing the officials down here. I know NCAA does it but I am trying to find out the details of it.

How regular are the testings? weekly? bi weekly?

How is it taken? Officials send the answers via email? Or is there an online way of answering it?

Do the NCAA grade every test and send the grades back to the officials or is it just a self evaluation process?

I was thinking of testing our guys weekly here and I sent out the first test yesterday. Our tournment started last weekend.

I've already heard a third of my officials (nationaly) complaining that they don't have time to answer the test. I've uploaded the questions yesterday and I want the answers by the end of thursday.
That might be too tight so I started wondering how is it done out there

help, please?

[BNE-Ref]

If I tried to institute a weekly or fortnightly test here, I would get that test shoved up you-know-where.  In terms of on-paper evaluation, what we have is a national competency test (done online) by all registered officials.  Level 1 (beginning) officials get 30 multiple choice questions, based mainly on mechanics and rules which require instant reaction from the officials (no penalty enforcement) and is set at a 65% pass level.  Level 2 (75% pass mark) and 3 (85% pass mark) officials get 100 questions, including play situations and penalty enforcement.

We deem the competency test to be valid for 12 months from date of passing, and I try to have two offerings per year (we don't have a national "season" as such, with different states playing at different times).  Questions are drawn randomly from a wider pool, hence one "re-sit" is permitted within each offering.  It is all done online, with officials and the state and national trainers getting immediate feedback on results.