Quote:
Originally posted by just another ref
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, I think a high test score does indicate a good knowledge of the rules, and that is certainly a step in the right direction.[/B]
|
Well we are just going to have to disagree.
Quote:
Originally posted by just another ref
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.
|
What does one have to do with the other? I simple said that test do not prove officiating ability, officiating a game does. You can get a 100 on a test and be a wonderful official, but just because you got a high score does not prove that you can official, possess good judgement, hustle, deal with conflict or handle pressure. Test scores to me prove nothing. Especially when the NF asks true/false questions and you can be wrong because you do not know the word for word explaination of what a rule or section is. Basically it shows your ability to memorize words in a book, not make proper calls on a court or field. Because many of us talk about using common sense and not calling obscure rules, but you will never learn that by answering test questions. If that was the case, then there would be no need to attend association or chapter meetings of any kind. All an official would need to do is read the rulebook and step out on the floor and TA DAAAA, you have yourself a good official. And if you believe it does, good. You have every right to your opinion. But as
tharbert clearly said in his post, we do not go around questioning folks about their test scores. We do not go around judging officials base on how high they got that year or in past years. They give you an opportunity to open the rulebook and read the passages and finding the situations things might need to be applied, but it does not tell you when to really apply certain rules and when not to apply them at all. The rules state clearly that we are to give a T for a coach out of the box, but that is not the common sense application that many officials hold. And it is the common sense part that can make or break an official. I think three seconds comes to mind.
Peace