Changing the Mindset About Football Officiating Evaluations

If you have officiated football for any length of time, chances are you have received an evaluation that you did not completely agree with. Maybe the evaluator said you were out of position. Maybe you were told that your communication needed improvement. Maybe you received a lower evaluation than you expected after what you thought was a good game. And, if we are being honest, most of us have had the same first reaction at some point: “I don’t agree with that.” That’s human nature.

Officials take pride in their work. We spend countless hours studying rules, attending meetings, watching film, traveling to games and trying to get every call right. We want to perform well. So when someone points out something we could have done better, it can sometimes feel less like coaching and more like criticism. But there is another way to look at it. Don’t take the ding, take the lesson. An evaluation should not be viewed simply as a grade on a game. It should be viewed as another tool we can use to become better officials.

Why Do Officials Sometimes React Negatively?

One of the challenges with evaluations is that they can feel personal. An official may think, “I’ve been doing this for 15 years. Why is someone telling me how to officiate?” Another official may think, “I worked hard all night, made the calls I was supposed to make, and now I’m being told what I did wrong.” There is also a natural tendency to remember the difficult plays we got right and question the plays an evaluator says we got wrong. That’s especially true with judgment plays. We all have a story. We can explain why we were positioned where we were. We can explain why we made a particular decision. We can explain what we saw or what we thought we saw. Sometimes that explanation is absolutely legitimate. Sometimes the evaluator may have a different perspective. And sometimes, after discussing the play and reviewing the applicable rule or mechanic, we may discover that the evaluator was right. That’s why an evaluation should begin a conversation, not end one. The goal isn’t for the evaluator to “win” the discussion. The goal is for the official to leave the discussion with something useful.

What I Have Learned as an Evaluator

One thing I have learned through evaluating officials is that you can learn something from almost every game. I’ve also learned that evaluating officials is not as simple as finding mistakes. An evaluator has a responsibility to recognize what an official did well, identify areas that can be improved, and explain the observation in a way the official can actually use. There is a big difference between saying: “You were out of position.” and saying: “Your initial position was good. As the play developed, your angle became restricted. On a similar play, consider widening your position earlier so you can maintain a better view of the action.” The second observation gives the official something to work with. That’s the difference between criticism and coaching. As an evaluator or assigner, you also see something that officials don’t always see when they are on the field: patterns. An individual official may have one play where positioning wasn’t ideal. That doesn’t necessarily tell us very much. But if we see the same positioning issue several times during a game, it becomes an area worth discussing. The same is true with communication, mechanics, game awareness, dead-ball officiating, crew coordination and preparation. An evaluation provides a snapshot. The purpose is to determine what we can learn from that snapshot.

New Mexico Is Changing the Way We Develop Officials

One of the most interesting developments in high school football officiating is taking place in New Mexico. The New Mexico Activities Association (NMAA) and New Mexico Officials Association (NMOA) have been moving toward a more structured approach to evaluation, observation and development. Instead of treating an evaluation as a one-time grade that disappears after the game, the goal is to use observations, film and feedback as part of an ongoing development process. That changes the conversation from “How did I score?” to “What can I learn from this?”

Technology is helping make that change possible. New Mexico is using OfficiateIQ as part of its evaluation process, giving evaluators and administrators a centralized way to document observations and provide more consistent feedback to officials. Rather than relying only on a conversation after a game or a handwritten evaluation that may never be revisited, a digital platform can help create a record of what was observed, identify recurring areas for development, and give officials a clearer picture of what they should work on.

That matters because one evaluation is only a snapshot. A series of evaluations can reveal a pattern. An official may receive one comment about positioning and think, “That’s one play.” But if similar observations appear across multiple games, the official has something much more valuable: evidence of a development opportunity. The same can apply to communication, dead-ball officiating, game awareness, mechanics, crew coordination or rule application.

This is where New Mexico’s approach has the potential to change the face of high school official training. Evaluation is no longer simply about identifying what happened in one game. It can become part of a continuous learning cycle: observe, document, discuss, practice, apply and evaluate again. Film review can provide the evidence. The evaluator can provide the coaching. The official can take the information into the next game. The process then starts again.

The NMAA’s officiating structure already recognizes the importance of evaluation and observation. The Commissioner of Officials is responsible for the evaluation and observation program, as well as maintaining NMAA/NMOA Hudl accounts and distributing film to evaluators for breakdown and follow-up with officials and coaches. That creates an important connection between what happens on the field, what appears on film and what an official is told afterward. (NMAA, Commissioner of Officials responsibilities).

For officials, the real benefit is not the OfficiateIQ software itself. The benefit is the information the software helps organize. An evaluation should still be a conversation between people. Technology should not replace coaching, judgment or experience. It should make those things more useful by helping evaluators be specific, consistent and able to identify trends over time.

Imagine an official receives an evaluation noting that his initial position was good but that he failed to adjust when the runner changed direction. Instead of that observation becoming a single “ding,” the official can use it as a development point. If a similar issue appears later, the official and evaluator can look at the progression: What happened the first time? What changed? Did the official recognize the issue? Did the mechanic improve? That is development that can be measured through experience and repeated observation.

This approach also changes the role of the evaluator. The evaluator becomes less of a scorekeeper and more of a coach. The question is no longer simply, “What did this official do wrong?” The better question is, “What information can I give this official that will help him perform better the next time he steps on the field?”

New Mexico’s model is particularly important at the high school level because officials come with different levels of experience. Some are first-year officials. Others have decades of experience. A structured evaluation process can give both groups something they need: newer officials receive specific direction, while experienced officials receive objective feedback that can expose habits or blind spots they may not recognize themselves.

The larger lesson is that technology does not make an evaluation developmental. People do. OfficiateIQ, film platforms and digital records are tools. The culture surrounding those tools is what determines whether officials see an evaluation as punishment or as an opportunity to improve. New Mexico’s effort demonstrates how technology, film and human coaching can work together to move officiating development from a once-in-a-while activity toward a continuous process.

Evaluations Are Not Punishment

I think one of the biggest mindset changes we can make is separating an evaluation from punishment. An evaluation should not automatically mean:

• You had a bad game.
• You are a bad official.
• You are being disciplined.
• You are being downgraded as a person.
• Your experience isn’t respected.

An evaluation simply says: “Here is what was observed during this game.” That observation may include things you did well and things you can improve. Nobody expects a football official to have a perfect game. I’ve never met an official who couldn’t identify something they would do differently if they could go back and work a game again. That’s part of officiating. We are constantly learning.

A Realistic Example

Consider a play where a runner breaks through the line and heads toward the sideline. The official is in a good initial position, but as the play develops, the runner changes direction. The official remains stationary and ends up trailing the play instead of adjusting his position. The call itself may be correct. The official may have seen the action and ruled appropriately. But the evaluation identifies a positioning opportunity. A poor evaluation might say: “You were out of position on the play.” That doesn’t provide much value. A developmental evaluation might say: “Your initial position was good. As the runner changed direction, consider adjusting your position earlier to maintain a better angle and stay connected to the action.” That observation isn’t saying the official is a bad official. It’s saying: “Here’s one thing you can work on.” That’s useful information. And that’s what an evaluation should provide.

Another Example: Communication

Consider a different situation. A dead-ball situation develops after a play. Players begin talking to one another. Nothing rises to the level of a foul, but the situation is starting to get some attention. The official is standing nearby but doesn’t immediately move into the area or communicate with the players. Nothing happens. The game continues. Was the official wrong? Maybe not. But an evaluator might identify an opportunity for improved game awareness and preventive officiating. The conversation might be: “There was no foul on the play, but you had an opportunity to recognize the developing tension and move toward the players earlier. A calm presence and brief communication may help prevent the situation from escalating.” Again, that’s not a criticism of the official’s character. It’s a coaching point. It gives the official something to consider the next time a similar situation develops.

Different Levels, Different Standards

There is another issue that comes up when discussing evaluations: officials who work at different levels of football. A college official may evaluate or mentor a high school official. A high school official may mentor a youth official. A veteran official may work with someone who is relatively new. Different levels of football have different rules, mechanics, philosophies and responsibilities. Those differences matter. When evaluating an NFHS official, the applicable NFHS rules, approved mechanics, state association requirements and local expectations should remain the standard. An evaluator should never tell a high school official, “That’s how we do it in college, so that’s how you should do it.” But that doesn’t mean experience from another level has no value. A college official may have useful observations about positioning, timing, communication, game management, preparation, film study or professionalism. The key is knowing where the advice applies. Learn from the principle while applying the rules and mechanics of the level you are working. That’s an important distinction.

What Should an Official Do When They Disagree?

Here’s another uncomfortable truth: The evaluator isn’t always going to be right. Evaluators are human. Officials are human. Judgment plays can be difficult to evaluate from film. Different camera angles can produce different perspectives. There can be legitimate disagreements about positioning, timing, mechanics or rule application. So what should an official do when they disagree with an evaluation? Listen. Ask questions. Review the rule or mechanic. Discuss the play professionally. And then determine whether there is something you can take from the conversation. You don’t have to agree with every observation to benefit from an evaluation. Sometimes the lesson isn’t, “The evaluator was right.” Sometimes the lesson is, “I need to look at this play from a different perspective.” That’s development.

What Should an Evaluator Do?

The responsibility doesn’t rest entirely with the official receiving the evaluation. Evaluators have responsibilities, too. A good evaluator should strive to be:

• Fair.
• Specific.
• Respectful.
• Knowledgeable.
• Consistent.
• Focused on the applicable level of football.
• Focused on the play rather than the personality.
• Focused on development rather than punishment.

Most importantly, an evaluator should be able to answer a simple question: “What can this official do with this information?” If the answer is nothing, the evaluation probably needs to be reconsidered. Simply identifying a mistake isn’t enough. We should help the official understand what happened, why it matters and what they can do differently the next time.

The Evaluation Should Not End With the Evaluation

One of the best questions an official can ask after receiving an evaluation is: “What should I work on next?” Pick one or two things. Don’t try to fix everything at once. If the evaluation identifies positioning as an area for improvement, concentrate on positioning. If communication is the issue, pay attention to communication. If game awareness is the issue, look for opportunities to recognize developing situations earlier. Then take that lesson into the next game. That’s where evaluations become valuable. The objective isn’t to produce an official who never makes a mistake. That’s impossible. The objective is to produce an official who recognizes mistakes, learns from them and doesn’t repeat them unnecessarily.

We Are All Still Students of the Game

One of the things I appreciate most about football officiating is that there is always something else to learn. I’ve seen experienced officials teach newer officials. I’ve seen newer officials ask questions that caused experienced officials to go back and look at a rule. I’ve watched film where I thought I knew exactly what happened on a play, only to see another angle and realize there was more to the play than I initially understood. That’s football officiating. Experience should give us confidence. But experience should never convince us that we have nothing left to learn. We should continue to study the rules, review the case book, watch film, attend clinics, discuss plays, listen to other officials and seek constructive feedback. The moment we believe we have nothing left to learn is probably the moment we most need to take another look at our approach.

Three Questions After Every Evaluation

The next time you receive an evaluation, try asking yourself three questions:

1. What did I do well? Identify the things you want to continue doing.

2. What can I improve? Don’t look for ten things. Find one or two areas that can make you a better official.

3. What will I do differently next week? Turn the evaluation into an action item.

That’s the difference between receiving an evaluation and actually using one.

Changing the Culture

If we want to improve officiating, we need to create an environment where officials are willing to receive constructive feedback. That starts with how we talk about evaluations. An evaluation shouldn’t automatically be called a “ding.” It shouldn’t be something officials fear. It shouldn’t become a personal argument between the evaluator and the official. It should be part of the normal process of becoming better at our craft. And that requires both sides to change the mindset. Evaluators need to understand that they are coaches, not prosecutors. Officials need to understand that receiving feedback doesn’t mean they are being labeled a bad official. The discussion should be about the play, the rule, the mechanic, the positioning, the communication or the decision not about the person.

Don’t Take the Ding—Take the Lesson

Every official has had a game they wish they could do over. Every official has missed a call. Every official has been out of position. Every official has misunderstood something. Every official has received feedback they didn’t particularly like. That’s not a sign that we are failing. It’s part of the profession. The question is what we do with that information. The next time an evaluation lands in your inbox, don’t immediately focus on the score or the criticism. Take a breath. Look at the play. Listen to the explanation. Check the rule or mechanic. Ask questions. Then ask yourself: “What can I learn from this?” Maybe the evaluator identified something you hadn’t noticed. Maybe you disagree with the observation but discover another perspective worth considering. Maybe you realize you have been making the same mistake for years. Whatever the outcome, there is an opportunity to learn. That’s why evaluations matter. They aren’t designed to tell us that we are bad officials. They are designed to help us become better ones. Football officiating is not a destination. It is a process. We learn. We apply. We improve. And then we do it again. So the next time you receive that evaluation, the one that makes you say, “I don’t agree with that”, don’t take the ding. Take the lesson.