[just another ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge
My position has been that test of any kind do not prove rules knowledge or officiating ability in any way.
....if I had to choose an official, I would not take someone that just got a 99 on their NF test and want to work with them. I want to work with officials that had some "court presence" and could handle themseleves under pressure better. Mainly because in my mind, the guy that got the 99, might crack under pressure and not make competent decisions when they are under the gun.

I agree that it is a possibility that out of a given group of officials the one with the best test score could conceivably be the worst official. But, [/B]I think a high test score does indicate a good knowledge of the rules, and that is certainly a step in the right direction. As I read the above post it sounds like you believe a high score is not only not a positive thing, but is indeed a negative. Is
this the case? Is it your belief that the guy who scored 99
is not capable of having court presence? Is he more likely to crack under pressure than the guy who scored 72? I don't get that.