How to Review an Official

Who Should Review an Official?

There are two ways in which people can provide feedback to the WFTDA about officials’ skills and performance: Overviews and Evaluations. An Overview of Officiating Skill (OOS), is an in-depth peer assessment of an official’s strengths and weaknesses over a long period of time or many games/tournaments/scrimmages/practices. The OOS is a requirement for certification. The Evaluation Form is much shorter and to-the-point, to provide feedback on the official’s performance at one specific event (game or tournament). This section describes each form in detail to assist people providing evaluations in preparing for and completing these documents.

HOW TO COMPLETE AN OVERVIEW OF OFFICIATING SKILL (OOS)

An Overview of Officiating Skill (OOS) is a long-form evaluation designed to capture an official’s performance over the prior two years. These are the most important part of a certification review process, and the sole evidence of performance for officials wishing to enter the system at Level 1.

NOTE: If you would like to fill out an OOS in a language other than English, you can! Email certification@wftda.com in advance and we will try to find a translator.

These are the most important evaluations of an official’s performance. Evaluators should be the people an official seeking certification has worked with the most, and who best understand the official’s officiating.

Overviews of Officiating Skill do not expire, but we want the most up-to-date picture of an official as possible, so we ask that an official seeking certification should complete all of the other application materials, including passing the test and completing the coursework, before having an OOS completed. OOSes are confidential to Certification so an official will only see compiled feedback from these in the overall Certification review summary.

Certification requires a different number of and different types of OOSes for different levels. However, Certification would like the OOSes to come from people in the following roles:

  • “One must be written on behalf of a Roller Derby League (not necessarily WFTDA or MRDA member league).” The individual best suited for providing this assessment is a skater who the official seeking certification has officiated over the past two years, or the period of time the official has officiated prior to seeking certification. Independent officials can also ask a league representative such as a GTO.
  • “One must be from a Head Official (Head Referee for referee, Head NSO for an NSO, or a League’s Head Official).” For newer officials who are applying for Recognized or Level 1, the league’s Head Official, or someone who has been a close mentor, would be the best person to complete the OOS. For Certified Officials and officials with significant experience seeking Level 2 or Level 3, this should be written by someone who has observed the official seeking certification for more advanced sanctioned or regulation games, including a frequent Crew Head Official or Tournament Head Official of tournaments officiated.
  • “One may be from any additional Official.” The individual best suited for providing this assessment is an official that has worked with the official seeking certification during a significant number of games or scrimmages, and it must be someone different from the “Head Official.” We suggest that this come from someone with whom the official seeking certification has worked as a peer, or from someone who has worked under the official when the official was the Crew Head. For officials applying for Recognized or Level 1, it could also come from a second mentor.
  • “One must be from an official who meets one of the following criteria: Staffed at a WFTDA Continental Cup, Playoff, or Championship tournament; THO of an NGB tournament; or is already certified at Level 3.” This requirement is for Level 3 applications only. The individual best suited to submit this OOS is someone who would otherwise be qualified to fill out an OOS as a Head Official or an additional official, but must be a different Official from the individuals selected to provide an assessment in those roles.

All of the above categories are designed to be very broad, in case an official doesn’t have someone that exactly fits a title or category for some reason. As a general rule, an official seeking certification should only ask who can provide meaningful responses to all of the questions, and people should only agree to write an OOS if they feel like they can provide meaningful perspective on the questions for the official seeking certification.

The OOS is designed to take about an hour to complete, but could take longer, and includes the following questions:

  • Email Address and Evaluator Name of the person completing the OOS. This is to ensure that the person submitting the evaluation is authorized to do so, to send a receipt confirmation and to follow up in case of a future appeal.
  • How long have you been involved in roller derby, and in which roles?
  • In what role are you completing this overview? See the above categories of individuals who may submit and OOS. Evaluators should inquire with the official seeking certification to ensure that they select the correct role needed for the certification application, as individuals may qualify for more than one.
  • Officiating Identity. All Certified Officials who have registered with Certification are listed in a dropdown menu. Please select the official being assessed and if the official is not listed on the form, they need to register before you may complete their OOS.
  • How Long Have You Known The Official?
  • Describe your relationship with this official outside of Roller Derby. For example, if you are personal friends, are romantically involved, or have any other relationship beyond the league’s representatives.

After the above questions, you will be asked to fill in all the information you have about their performance in specific positions. There are many things to note, along four axes of officiating performance: Skill, Support (of others), Mentorship (of others), and Procedure & Temperament. For these, we are interested in your direct and specific observations. You don’t need to fill something out for every position, but if you have trouble covering many of these bullets for any of the role-specific positions, please discuss it with the applicant to make sure you are the best reviewer for this official. You may also want to note the roles for which you cannot provide much info, so they can ask other evaluators to do so.

SKILL

  • Rules knowledge, including illegal actions
  • Attention to detail for the role

SUPPORT

  • If the official knows the standard practices and tournament-specific practices of the roles
  • Interactions with other officials; ability to partner or work collaboratively with a crew
  • Interactions with referees in other roles; ability to support other referees
  • Interactions with “the other side” (on or off skates), including clarity and volume of penalty calls

MENTORSHIP

  • Mentorship of others who are learning the role; ability to train others in the role
  • Ability to support referees working this specific role, even when working in a different role

PROCEDURE AND TEMPERAMENT

  • Descriptions of situations where the official seemed stressed or frustrated in this role
  • Any times the official avoided or forgot the standard practices
  • Any adaptations or improvements the official made in procedures for this role, which may have helped them or the game
  • Ability to adapt to a crew head or tournament head’s request, especially when a process or practice is requested that the official does not usually perform
  • Any patterns you have seen, including scenarios where the official commits errors or becomes confused

Referees are also asked a few specific SKILL bullet points:

  • Skating skill, and if skating ever distracts the official or other referees on the track
  • Ability to identify who initiates actions
  • Knowing the impact of an illegal action

NSOs have their own specific SKILL bullet points:

  • Accuracy of paperwork
  • Performance in the role, including correct math and accuracy of timing
  • Attention to detail for the role, including ability to focus and remain engaged in the game

Finally, there is a section on officiating experiences outside of specific roles:

  • What sort of demeanor did the Official display before during and after events?
  • Are there any situations in which the official performs above and beyond your personal expectations?
  • Are there any situations that appear to challenge the official? How do they perform when personally challenged or stressed?
  • Describe a time when you provided feedback to the official regarding a struggle, or a time when you observed the official receiving feedback. How did they receive feedback? How did they adapt based on that feedback?
  • Has the Official demonstrated the ability to organize, communicate, and execute plans? Include examples.
  • When in a leadership position during a game, how did the Official give feedback to other Officials? If you have not observed this official in a leadership role, you may leave this question blank; leadership roles include being Crew Head, but may include other positions as well, especially if paired with newer officials in order to assist them while completing a role.
  • How effectively did the Official communicate with the organizers, teams, and other Officials? Many officials, even when not in a Head Official capacity, may interact with others in larger settings.
  • Anything else you would like to share? We are interested in your additional thoughts.
  • Would you want to work with this Official again? Please rate the extent to which you would want future games to include this Official in this role. On a scale of 1 (Definitely Not) to 5 (Definitely) the assessor is asked to rate the extent to which they would want the official to be staffed in the assessed role(s) in future games. This information is not shared with the official.
  • Evaluate a Referee (Skating Official)

How to Complete an Evaluation Form for a Certified Official

Anyone involved in an event (game or tournament) may use the Evaluation Form to provide feedback on a Certified Official’s performance at the event. Certified Officials may also use this form to provide a self-evaluation! These are much shorter and only apply to the specific events in a game.

Certification estimates that an evaluation should take 15 minutes to complete.The evaluation form requests the following information:

  • Email Address and Name of the person completing the evaluation. This is to ensure that the person submitting the evaluation is authorized to do so, to send a receipt confirmation and to follow up in case of a future appeal.
  • Role in the event of the person completing the evaluation. Options are: CHO (Crew Head Official), THO (Tournament Head Official), Peer Official, Skater/Coach/League Representative, Official Evaluator, or self.
  • Official to Evaluate. All Certified Officials who have formally opted in to receive evaluations are listed in a dropdown menu. Please select the official being evaluated and follow instructions on the form if you have issues finding an official. If an official is not listed on the form or the master spreadsheet, they may not have opted in to the system or are not certified. If you wish to contact Certification on an official for whom this system is not available, email certification@wftda.com.
  • Shared Performance Analysis. This is a paragraph field in which the evaluator should describe the official’s in-game performance, and how the performance affected the game. This information will be shared with the official being evaluated. The performance analysis is always shared with the official.
  • Broader Feedback. In this paragraph field, you can note how performance or conduct shown in this game may have an impact beyond the game in question and should be considered by Certification in the official’s review, even if the specific performance or conduct did not have an effect on this specific game.
  • Share Broader Feedback? The evaluator has the option to share the broader feedback with the official. Providing or sharing the broader feedback is not required.
  • Would You Want to Work With This Official Again? On a scale of 1 (Definitely Not) to 5 (Definitely) the evaluator is asked to rate the extent to which they would want the official to be staffed in the evaluated role in future games. This information is not shared with the official.
  • Type of Evaluation. Indicate if this evaluation applies to a Single Game or to a Multi-game/Tournament. The selection will submit to a page to obtain information for the selected evaluation type:

Single Game

  • Enter the High Seed/Home Team – please type the full name of the league and team, no abbreviations.
  • Enter the Low Seed/Away Team – please type the full name of the league and team and do not use abbreviations.
  • Date of Game
  • Game Status. Select Regulation, Sanctioned or Other Game. WFTDA Strength Factor Challenge and Mock Sanctioned games should be considered sanctioned.
  • Roles Fulfilled. Select the role(s) in which the official performed.
  • Game Association. Select WFTDA, MRDA, JRDA or Other.

Multi-Game Event or Tournament

  • Enter the Event Name.
  • Enter the Start Date and End Date of the event.
  • Enter the Count of Sanctioned Games and/or the Count of Regulation Games. WFTDA Strength Factor Challenge and Mock Sanctioned games should be considered sanctioned.
  • Description of Other Games. For any games evaluated please describe why they don’t fit in the categories above (association, rule changes, etc.) and how many of these games are being evaluated.
  • Positions Evaluated. Select the role(s) in which the official performed.
  • Teams Involved – Please list the leagues and teams competing in the games evaluated. Do not use abbreviations.
  • Game Associations. Select WFTDA, MRDA, JRDA or Other.
Back to top