Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
Define best in this case then I have another question/comment for you.
|
Despite what anyone would like to be the case, every type of skill has a very few who are truly the best....the basic bell curve holds true in just about any endeavor. You've got a lot of average officials, a moderate amount of pretty good and fairly poor officials, and a few that are pathetic and a few that are outstanding.
The funny thing is that 80% of a group, when surveyed will think they are above average (several studies have shown this sort of inflated sense of a person's own abilities). But, that can't, in normal situations, be true. At least 30% of the officials are worse than they think they are....probably more as a few humble officials are actually better than average that don't think so.
THe real question is whether you want the best on the tournaments or those that are "good enough". The difference between the best and the "good enough" will not always be visible and will matter even less, but it will eventually matter.
The difference shows up in the number of mistakes. The best still make them, but make fewer (or smaller mistakes). Most time, such mistakes don't have any material impact...but if you make enough more, eventually one will happen in a situation that matters.
Many of the average officials would probably do a fine job on most of the games....but the odds of a problem increase. How "deep" you go really depends on the acceptability of the increased risk of an unfavorable situation.
Of course, determining the "best" is a difficult proposition...and an entirely different question.