IAABO Board 36 Official Evaluation

IAABO Board 36 Official Evaluation

Official:______Evaluator: ______

Date/Time:______Level: Teams: ______

Please fill out completely and include detailed comments at the end. It is very important to give constructive feedback.

Category Item Criteria Score

(Unsatisfactory - Excellent)

1. Professionalism/Appearance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Did the official display a professional attitude towards coaches, players, fellow officials and administration?

Was the proper dress code (to and from game) appropriate? Was the official’s uniform neat, pressed and sized properly? Did the official arrive on time?

1. Mechanics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Were proper mechanics used and were they sharp and clearly communicated to their partner (s) and table?

Did the official make preliminary signals and utilize a strong, sharp whistle

1. Areas of Coverage/Positioning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Was the official consistent on both ends of the floor throughout the entire game? Did the official stay within their

primary area of coverage? Was post play addressed? Was last second shot clock responsibility covered?

1. Judgment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Did the official referee the defense (advantage/disadvantage),hold their whistle, and see the whole play?

1. Communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Did the official communicate in a professional manner with coaches and players when necessary? Were warning communicated to coaches, players and partners? Were double whistles quickly, consistently and correctly handled? On free throws was the shooter and number of shots communicated?

1. Game Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Was the official able to maintain the tempo of the game and not let it get out of control? Did the official handle dead ball situations (help partners, and monitor players)? Did the official have consistent knowledge of the game clock time, 35 second shot clock, team fouls (one or two shots) and score?

1. Rules Adjudication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Did the official show a proper knowledge and application of rules? Did the official demonstrate an understanding of the “Point of Emphasis” and intent of the current rules?

Revised November 2011

Comments:

Areas of Strength:

______

______

______

______

______

Areas of Improvement:

______

______

______

______

______

Evaluation Levels:

Unsatisfactory: Is deficient and inconsistent in the performance of all duties related to pre-game and on-court activities.

Does not use proper mechanics or demonstrate a complete understanding of the rules and their application. Lacks confidence and the ability to utilize preventative officiating techniques.

Needs

Improvement:The official demonstrates deficiencies in more than one area and his/her overall performance negatively impacts the game or the crew’s ability to perform as a cohesive unit. The official obviously lacks knowledge, hustle, confidence, communication, preparation, etc.

Satisfactory:Meets the minimal requirements in the performance of their duties as it relates to pre-game and on-court performance.

Good:Performed duties similar to (Excellent) with some minor exceptions, i.e. minor mechanic or interpretation lapses. These minor inconsistencies do not affect the flow of the game or crew’s ability or confidence

Excellent:Completely and consistently performed all duties related to pre-game andon-court activities. Official demonstrates proper and consistent use of mechanics; rules interpretation, application and communication. Displays confidence and practices preventative officiating techniques.

* (Needs Provide comments and further explanation below

Improvement)

______

______

Revised November 2011