Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I do agree with that, but rules tests also do not prove the ability for someone to show knowledge either. Those are silly too. And if it determines what level a person can only work that year, those are even dumber tests. In my opinion which is why what you work should be decided by people that observe you work, not by some test that ultimately means nothing when you have to memorize a word or specific phrase out of the rulebook. I do agree that we should be able to show some level of fitness, but that can be determined by more than a physical test. I can see you run once down the court and determine if you can keep up. A time on a clock is not going to determine that IMO.
Peace
|
Great points. Sometimes, it is helpful to have an impartial observer (i.e. someone who is not a member of that association) make that determination. If a guy is constantly getting beat (meaning on a break, that the official cannot get into a good position to see the play, but not meaning he has to beat the players down court and be standing at the end line waiting for them to arrive) or hangs back at T, or just looks like he is going to keel over mid-way through the 2nd qtr., it can be difficult for those who have been close to that official for a number of years to broach the subject. Especially, if that individual does a lot FOR the association.