[APG]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Excellent points. I also note another comment that some of the guys who didn't do well on the physical test were long considered among the association's best officials. Now an arbitrary test has determined that reputations made on the court are no longer relevant? Because somebody invented a test? Where is the empirical evidence that 14 seconds in a shuttle run is significant enough to determine who does and who does not ref a basketball game?

Looks to me like an attempt to thin the ranks (no pun intended) and eliminate the competition by substituting arbitrary physical tests for valid game evaluation. If your partner is waddling to a meeting, he or she is waddling up and down the court, and it should be noted and acted on in evaluations. It is absurd to base officiating ability on a test imposed by a group of people who would naturally invent a test they could pass and declare it the minimum standard.

I've worked with gazelles who can memorize the rule book but who still know nothing about basketball

Most people already take at least a rules test to determine if they are eligible to officiate, and/or to decide what levels they are eligible to work. With the line of thinking in your post above, I'm assuming you have a problem with that also? Literally everything you have against a physical test could be applied to any test(s) you already have to take.

Whether we like it or not, there should be a minimum level of physical fitness required to work games...it's part of the job...just like we test officials for a minimum amount of rules/mechanics/floor/etc. knowledge.