Interesting Question

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I meant working with the same partner all season often leads to the use of non-standard mechanics. Assigning different partners forces everyone to be on the same page rather than a separate page for each team.

IMHO and IME, I disagree.

Since most associations do a terrible job of teaching mechanics, if at all, much less agree on a set of mechanics, or requiring as a function of employment them to be understood and deployed (elaborate pre-season testing, review and supervision), assigning different partners is guaranteeing poor mechanical officiating.

If you have an association with a set of quality leaders, they can match up partners according to strengths and weaknesses, temperament, physical capabilities, etc. All derived from the testing, reviews and supervision.

But that isn't what happens all too often. The Big Dogs in the association want to work with each other after pancakes 'n beer. This dooms proper matchings; they have no interest in being astute leaders, only their self-interests. Which games with which other Big Dogs and the paychecks that come their way.

And IHOP pancakes and cheap beers of course.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

If you have an association with a set of quality leaders, they can match up partners according to strengths and weaknesses, temperament, physical capabilities, etc. All derived from the testing, reviews and supervision.

Sure, if every official was available any time you needed them and were willing to drive as far as needed. In actuality, it's impossible to make these pairings, especially with 100+ officials and thousands of games, so organizations are forced to pair partners by availability. This doesn't mean organizations can't pair officials with different abilities, but there's no way you can match them perfectly.

The only exceptions are when officials are being evaluated for promotion to higher-level games. Pair them with more experienced and stronger officials to evaluate them.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best


If you have an association with a set of quality leaders, they can match up partners according to strengths and weaknesses, temperament, physical capabilities, etc. All derived from the testing, reviews and supervision.

Originally Posted by yawetag

Sure, if every official was available any time you needed them and were willing to drive as far as needed. In actuality, it's impossible to make these pairings, especially with 100+ officials and thousands of games, so organizations are forced to pair partners by availability. This doesn't mean organizations can't pair officials with different abilities, but there's no way you can match them perfectly.

Wasn't shooting for perfection. Availability is one of the criteria that you snipped from my post (i.e. "etc)

The only exceptions are when officials are being evaluated for promotion to higher-level games. Pair them with more experienced and stronger officials to evaluate them.

Fair enough.

[rcaverly]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

The Big Dogs in the association want to work with each other after pancakes 'n beer. This dooms proper matchings; they have no interest in being astute leaders, only their self-interests. Which games with which other Big Dogs and the paychecks that come their way. And IHOP pancakes and cheap beers of course.

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Why is it that so many officials on this forum have the unending desire to be statesmen or comediennes and impending need to test coach's patience? This was uncalled for, imo.

Do those shoes fit?