Post by FredFan7 on Nov 17, 2010 23:07:35 GMT -5
There was a request for me to come up with some sort of grading policy or rubric for people to post their observations instead of saying a crew or official did "great," "fine," or "lousy."
First of all, any judgments we make on this site are purely subjective. Sometimes we can't agree amongst ourselves if it was DPI, OPI, or nothing. There are many times we think an official is playoff caliber and doesn't even get an alternate spot.
Second of all, some of us are tougher graders than others. I admit that I'm a much more easy grader than others.
With that in mind, here is how I will grade an official or crew.
A+: an official or crew did an outstanding job. They were presented with a very tough game, tough calls, and a very tough situation and rose to the occasion and got it right and the game was the better for them being there that day. An example of this would be when Markbreit threw out Charles Martin:
A: The crew did a very good job that day, had the right mechanics, had good communication, made the right calls, but the game itself wasn't a gut-buster. For instance, I thought Blakeman's crew did a great job on MNF when the Eagles beat the Redskins 59-28, but face it, the game was over in the first quarter and they really didn't have much to call that made an impact. The crew also kept the game moving.
B: The crew did a solid job, had good mechanics, had minimal errors in judgment calls (in our opinion), kept the game moving, didn't chop up the flow.
C: Sum this grade up as, "The crew (or official) did not have their best day." The crew or official made mistakes in judgment, chopped up the game flow, didn't communicate very well, and they helped bog the game down.
D: The crew or official had several errors, showed bad mechanics over the span of the game, were indecisive in making rulings and enforcing penalties, and really bogged the game down. Its a performance where I'd find myself watching the crew and saying to myself, "Come on, guys, get it together!" For instance, I'd give rookie referee Dick Hantak a "D" in this sequence for indecisiveness in enforcing the penalties after a melee and for really bogging down the game: (as an aside, Jack Fette, the LJ on this crew went to the Super Bowl that year so you can hang everything on the entire crew. As another aside, the replay official did his part in holding things up.).
F: The crew mis-applied a rule, made a grievous timing error, missed a down, failed to administrate the game properly, or did such an irresponsible job on the field that the game turns into a travesty.
There is a caveat to this. If a game features 8 false starts, 4 illegal formations, 5 offsides, 3 delay of games, 6 holds, and 4 facemasks one might be tempted to say that the crew really stunk up the joint and grade them down. However, a game like that might make the officials look like they are injecting themselves into the game, but when a team can't get out of its own way, well, the flag flies.
So, to sum up, this is how I'd grade officials. I will try to use these letter grades when I post my observations instead of use "good" "bad," or "OK."
First of all, any judgments we make on this site are purely subjective. Sometimes we can't agree amongst ourselves if it was DPI, OPI, or nothing. There are many times we think an official is playoff caliber and doesn't even get an alternate spot.
Second of all, some of us are tougher graders than others. I admit that I'm a much more easy grader than others.
With that in mind, here is how I will grade an official or crew.
A+: an official or crew did an outstanding job. They were presented with a very tough game, tough calls, and a very tough situation and rose to the occasion and got it right and the game was the better for them being there that day. An example of this would be when Markbreit threw out Charles Martin:
A: The crew did a very good job that day, had the right mechanics, had good communication, made the right calls, but the game itself wasn't a gut-buster. For instance, I thought Blakeman's crew did a great job on MNF when the Eagles beat the Redskins 59-28, but face it, the game was over in the first quarter and they really didn't have much to call that made an impact. The crew also kept the game moving.
B: The crew did a solid job, had good mechanics, had minimal errors in judgment calls (in our opinion), kept the game moving, didn't chop up the flow.
C: Sum this grade up as, "The crew (or official) did not have their best day." The crew or official made mistakes in judgment, chopped up the game flow, didn't communicate very well, and they helped bog the game down.
D: The crew or official had several errors, showed bad mechanics over the span of the game, were indecisive in making rulings and enforcing penalties, and really bogged the game down. Its a performance where I'd find myself watching the crew and saying to myself, "Come on, guys, get it together!" For instance, I'd give rookie referee Dick Hantak a "D" in this sequence for indecisiveness in enforcing the penalties after a melee and for really bogging down the game: (as an aside, Jack Fette, the LJ on this crew went to the Super Bowl that year so you can hang everything on the entire crew. As another aside, the replay official did his part in holding things up.).
F: The crew mis-applied a rule, made a grievous timing error, missed a down, failed to administrate the game properly, or did such an irresponsible job on the field that the game turns into a travesty.
There is a caveat to this. If a game features 8 false starts, 4 illegal formations, 5 offsides, 3 delay of games, 6 holds, and 4 facemasks one might be tempted to say that the crew really stunk up the joint and grade them down. However, a game like that might make the officials look like they are injecting themselves into the game, but when a team can't get out of its own way, well, the flag flies.
So, to sum up, this is how I'd grade officials. I will try to use these letter grades when I post my observations instead of use "good" "bad," or "OK."