Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I will say this and be done with it. I had a friend in another sport go to another state and had to take that state's test to work games. Well he passed with flying colors and was based only on this test to be able to work a position he was not normally qualified to work, but had little experience at that other position. He even laughed about how he was eligible to work deep in the playoffs because he tested with a certain score. Not that he had much experience at that level even working varsity games from his previous state, but now he was one of the top guys in the state at an unfamiliar position. That is the position that drives me crazy. The test does mean something, but it does not mean that much to vault someone from not being known to the best person over a test score. Silly, and more silly if you ask me. And I am glad I live in an area that you will not get a single game based on a silly test.
Peace
|
I agree with your conclusion here...that is a silly application of a test result.
I only maintain that someone that scores poorly should be excluded from top assignments, not that someone who scores well should be given top assignments. The top assignments should be given to those that score sufficiently well, are sufficiently fit, AND have demonstrated that they have all of the other elements necessary to be a quality officials. The test (rules or fitness) is just ONE piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle.