Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne Shade
There needs to be a way to say that a head ref did a good or bad job and to determine who is not right for the job. Tests and questionaires only get you so far in the evaluation of a person's skills and performance.
Part of that evaluation could be team and key regional personel feedback but most really should be video review or in person evaluation. Why not have the committee of championship head referees review random matches from each regional and evaluate the play calling and the refereeing procedures utilized by the head referee? Head referees would receive feedback on how they can improve and those that are not performing up to par can be replaced.
This is the second part of training. Without the evaluation, the training has very little value.
|
And how do you know whether that is or is not happening now? (I don't mean to be harsh here. I'm just pointing out that we don't know everything that goes on in the background.)
Head Referees have been replaced in the past.