Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Missouri High School Football Officials
Survey
Home
News
Locker Room
District Assignments
Meeting Dates
Officials Roster
Become an Official
Associations
Photographs
Related Links
Quizzes
Contact Info.

NASO conducted a survey of 2,500 NASO members, 700 of which responded.  The intent of the survey was to obtain officials views concerning the various issues that surface in a discussion of accountability in officiating.

 

#1 Which of the following best describes your view?

           

43%- Officials owe a lot more the game than the game owes to officials

41%- Officials owe as much to the game as the game owes to official

12%-Officials owe a little more to the game than the game owes to officials

2%- The game owes a lot more to officials than the officials owe to the game

2%- The game owes a little more to officials than the officials owe to the game

 

 

 

 

#2 Should officials be expected to adhere to higher standards of ethical and moral conduct than the general public?

 

            85%- Yes

            15%- No

 

 

 

#3 Should officials associations implement a code of conduct for member officials?

 

            91%- Yes

            7%- Maybe

            2%- No

 

 

 

#4 Who should be primarily responsible for implementing some form of covenant with sports officials?

 

37%- State of regional governing organizations  (MSHSAA)

24%- Local officiating organizations

18%- National governing organizations              (NFHS, NCAA)

17%- Individual leagues or conferences

3%- National officiating organizations                (NASO)

1%- Covenants are not necessary

 

 

 

#5 Should organizations or individuals that assign, evaluate or require the use of officials have some form of a covenant in place?

 

            81%- Yes

            16%- Maybe

            3%- No

 

#6 Responsibilities the institutions governing officiating have to officials.

(Rate each action on a scale of 1 through 5 in terms of importance and priority for action 1 = high importance and a high priority, 5 = low importance and low priority.)

 

1.54- Supporting officials in controversial situations

1.62- Providing effective officiating training opportunities

1.63- Providing timely information concerning venue/time changes, cancellations, ect...

1.79- Giving performance evaluation feedback to officials

1.95- Establishing safe and private locker rooms for officials

1.95- Providing better game site management support

2.03- Establishing fair game fee structure

2.11- Ensuring adequate representation for officials in league/conference matters

2.41- Making sure that training and administrative requirements are not excessive

2.45- Making mandatory-meeting sites conveniently located

2.45- Recognizing officials for their achievements

2.65- Getting input from officials organizations on game assignments

2.83- Establishing affordable and consistent uniform requirements

2.84- Giving officials consistent access to amenities such as towels, beverages, etc. at game sites