Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
You are going to find many mechanics that have someone suggesting it should be done this specific way ...
|
It depends on who that "someone" is? If that "someone" is an evaluator (or maybe an assigner) who will have a major impact on one's "movement up the ladder of success" in that local organization, then one should take it as more than a simple suggestion. Same thing if that "someone" is a local trainer (clinician) who is educating everyone in that local organization, expecting them all to do it that one, consistent, way (the same one, consistent way that the evaluators (assigner) will be observing and basing their evaluations on).
On my local board, mechanics are only a small part of one's evaluation by those who can have an impact one's assignments (number and level of games). Things like play calling, game management, and court coverage are much more important, but mechanics are still part of the equation, and they're usually the easiest forms of advice to follow. Some new officials may have difficulty calling a block/charge, or keeping coaches under control, but they can certainly stand where they have been taught to stand during a time out (which may include moving one's position to discuss a situation with one's partner, or walking over to the table to double check something, some flexibility can be a good thing).
On the other hand, if the trainers (clinicians), evaluators, and the assigner are not on the same page regarding mechanics, and the evaluation, and importance, of such, then things can become problematic. I don't work for such a disjointed, inconsistent, local organization (but I'm sure that they might exist somewhere).
Again, the usual caveat, "When in Rome ...". Some organizations may be a lot more flexible when it comes to mechanics, and the evaluation, and importance, of such, than others. That doesn't necessarily mean that one way is good, and one way is bad, they're just different.