|
|||
After reading the first post in this thread, I'm not sure exactly how it turned into this.
Sara's evaluator said he wanted to see preliminary signals. Now I don't think it really matters how important we think preliminary signals are, but what does matter is that the evaluator said he wanted to see them. When an evaluator tells me I'm doing something wrong, I fix it without question. If your area doesn't believe in giving preliminary signals, great, but if you officiate in an association like mine where everything is expected to be done by the book, then you better do it by the book.
__________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
We agree 100%.
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
As far as calling the game, I agree that it is the most important thing, and that part of the evaluation went well.
He told me to use preliminary signals for two reasons: 1) Sometimes I seemed like I was in a rush to get to the table, so he said by giving a preliminary signal, I would have to slow down and everything would go more smoothly. 2) He said that it is not one of those things that make or break an official, but it is one of the small things that may, down the road, help seperate me from other official(s). I didn't know people got so passionate about preliminary signals.
__________________
Sara |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Sara |
|
||||
Quote:
|
Bookmarks |
|
|