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.