In case you haven't hear...Joey Crawford

[MajorCord]

I posted this in another thread, but it seems appropriate here as well.

Check this 87 year old official out.

http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=303...ort.com&cid=29

[GarthB]

A fact of life is that we are all products of our experiences. Thus, our view of the world is different in our 20's and 30's than it is in our 40's and 50's.

Age isn't a learning experience, experience is a learning experience. What the younger set will discover eventually is that there is no universal truth about aging or about physcial ability at any age.

I learned to respect the physical prowress of those older than me when a 70 year old kicked my a$$ in a pick-up racquetball game at the Y when I was 22.

There are several 60+ and a few 70 year olds in our basketball association. Some should hang it up. Some know their limitations and work an appropriate level of ball, and some can run rings around a 20 year old.

Age isn't the issue. Performance is the issue. Any blanket policy would rob the activity of some excellent officals at all levels. Of course that would mean more games for 20 year olds. Maybe that's what this is really about.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Age isn't the issue. Performance is the issue. Any blanket policy would rob the activity of some excellent officials at all levels.

Amen.

Similarly, it would be just as ridiculous imo to put in a policy that you couldn't officiate D1 or NBA games before the age of...say...30 or 35 because you aren't experienced or mature enough yet to work at those levels until then. Or maybe even establish an age requirement that you must be a minimum of 25 years old before you can officiate a high school varsity game, for the same reasons. That would be Nevadian logic of the finest kind also.

Think that your son, the up-and-coming baseball umpire, would like that one, Garth?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Amen.

Similarly, it would be just as ridiculous imo to put in a policy that you couldn't officiate D1 or NBA games before the age of...say...30 or 35 because you aren't experienced or mature enough yet to work at those levels until then.

Or maybe even establish an age requirement that you must be a minimum of 25 years old before you can officiate a high school varsity game, for the same reasons.

That would be Nevadian logic of the finest kind also.

Yep, sure is. I happen to think that both of those make good sense. There is no way that a 21 year-old is ready to control a HS environment.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, sure is. I happen to think that both of those make good sense. There is no way that a 21 year-old is ready to control a HS environment.

There are 19 and 20 year olds controlling professional baseball games.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by GarthB

There are 19 and 20 year olds controlling professional baseball games.

Yeah in the minor leagues with players who are barely out of HS. And I still believe that they are not ready for that. There is just not enough of an age gap for there to be the required respect factor with the participants. There isn't the proper sense of an authority figure.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yeah in the minor leagues with players who are barely out of HS. And I still believe that they are not ready for that. There is just not enough of an age gap for there to be the required respect factor with the participants. There isn't the proper sense of an authority figure.

This level is beyond high school. The managers and coaches are working in it for a living and are intense. These young umpires do great work at game management at an age you don't think they're ready for high school ball.

And, as you say, this isn't just the opinion of a single person. This is the opinion and the standard of an entire industry.

To say that age counts more than performance is inane and further proof of the old adage: Youth is wasted on the young.

Welcome to the list Neverref. Say hi to Old School while you're in there.

{Ignore List} = Open
{Neverref} = Add
{Ignore List} = Close

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

There are 19 and 20 year olds controlling professional baseball games.

There are 19 and 20 year olds running divisions in the military during a war. I guess war is not as hard as blowing the whistle in a game.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There are 19 and 20 year olds running divisions in the military during a war. I guess war is not as hard as blowing the whistle in a game.

Peace

While I agree with you in principle, this is NOT true. I doubt there are ANY 19/20 year olds running divisions in any military branch since divisions have thousands of soliders and are headed by very senior officiers (generals)...and there are NO 19/20 year old officiers, much less generals.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, sure is. I happen to think that both of those make good sense. There is no way that a 21 year-old is ready to control a HS environment.

I guess a veteran that has fought in the war can handle bombs flying around them but they cannot handle a HS game?

You really need to stop characterizing everything based on age. I am sure there are many 21 year olds that could not handle a HS game, but I am sure there are many that can. Some kids younger than 21 have done more in their lives than someone that is 30.

The thing about officiating is some people either has it and others will never get it. Age has little or nothing to do with how good you are as an official.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess a veteran that has fought in the war can handle bombs flying around them but they cannot handle a HS game?

You really need to stop characterizing everything based on age. I am sure there are many 21 year olds that could not handle a HS game, but I am sure there are many that can. Some kids younger than 21 have done more in their lives than someone that is 30.

The thing about officiating is some people either has it and others will never get it. Age has little or nothing to do with how good you are as an official.

Peace

Of course, there is nothing that can compare to being in the hostile situation of a war zone. That life experience changes a person forever. BTW it is the general opinion of most veterans who served that they were just scared kids who had no idea what they were getting involved in.

But, since you brought up military service, do you know what is the maximum age for the draft or enlistment? How about the reserves? I'm sure that you are aware that they all have age limits. Why? Why don't they just go on performance and evaluate each individual?

Additionally, why does our country set an age limit to vote and to drink alcohol? Perhaps we believe as a society that people under those ages are not mature enough to make informed decisions in those areas. Why don't they evaluate each individual for those?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Of course, there is nothing that can compare to being in the hostile situation of a war zone. That life experience changes a person forever. BTW it is the general opinion of most veterans who served that they were just scared kids who had no idea what they were getting involved in.

But, since you brought up military service, do you know what is the maximum age for the draft or enlistment? How about the reserves? I'm sure that you are aware that they all have age limits. Why? Why don't they just go on performance and evaluate each individual?

You analogy does not fly. For one you said a 21 year old could not handle and there were example they could handle situations a lot tougher than a HS game. The Military is a completely different institution with completely different objectives. Officiating has little to do with the military. You cannot enter the military for medical reasons that you can officiate a basketball game. And the military does go on many performance evaluations. If you cannot do the job you will not be in the military very long. It is not like everyone that enlists in the military automatically stays in the military.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Additionally, why does our country set an age limit to vote and to drink alcohol? Perhaps we believe as a society that people under those ages are not mature enough to make informed decisions in those areas. Why don't they evaluate each individual for those?

Once again another flawed argument. There are age limits for officiating games as well. That age is not 21 in any state that I am aware of. In my state I believe you can be 17 to get a license if you pass several requirements. And so what? I know 20 year olds that are out of shape and fat. Their age has little or nothing to do with that. Once again you are putting an arbitrary limit on people based on a personal belief. It has nothing to do with fact and you have not told us why automatically at age 50 other than a prejudice that has little basis.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, sure is. I happen to think that both of those make good sense. There is no way that a 21 year-old is ready to control a HS environment.

Damn, I wish that I hadda known that back when I was 21.......and was in my sixth year of doing high school varsity games, in both football and basketball. And I had just became a white hat(Referee) in football too. Worked playoff games in both sports that year too. Geeze, now I find out that I wasn't ready for any of that. Bummer.

I also know guys that started doing T-ball games when they were 12/13 to make a few bucks, kept up with umpiring because they enjoyed it, and by the time that they hit 21 years old they had 8-9-10 years of experience. I'd like to be there, Nevada, when you tell people like that they're not ready to do a high school game.

We have a hard enough time getting and retaining officials in just about all sports. To arbitrarily tell good, solid officials who are both experienced and capable that we can't use them because they are either too young or too old is just simply asinine. To think that you can also set an imaginary date where an official automatically is unable to officiate further because it's the birthday, and instant and complete physical deterioration has set in, is just as asinine.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Damn, I wish that I hadda known that back when I was 21.......and was in my sixth year of doing high school varsity games, in both football and basketball. And I had just became a white hat(Referee) in football too. Worked playoff games in both sports that year too. Geeze, now I find out that I wasn't ready for any of that. Bummer.

I also know guys that started doing T-ball games when they were 12/13 to make a few bucks, kept up with umpiring because they enjoyed it, and by the time that they hit 21 years old they had 8-9-10 years of experience. I'd like to be there, Nevada, when you tell people like that they're not ready to do a high school game.

We have a hard enough time getting and retaining officials in just about all sports. To arbitrarily tell good, solid officials who are both experienced and capable that we can't use them because they are either too young or too old is just simply asinine. To think that you can also set an imaginary date where an official automatically is unable to officiate further because it's the birthday, and instant and complete physical deterioration has set in, is just as asinine.

1. So let me get this straight. You are saying that you did VARSITY high school games when you were 15 and 16 and you claim that you were fully ready and capable of running the show? That's hogswash, and you know it. You had some other officials there who were adults that carried you. You made a few calls here and there and likely did a serviceable job, but didn't have an ounce of game control. Someone else did that for you. BTW times were vastly different forty years ago!

2. The people who start officiating youth games at 12/13 do gain some valuable experience, however, it is not proper to contend that they have 8,9, or 10 years of experience by the time they hit 21. Those early years of kiddie ball just don't equate the same way as someone who was 25 and started working freshman and jv games with local HS association. There is a big difference in the environment.

3. In fact, the hard time getting and retaining officials is the very reason that most of these people are still out there. If there were greater numbers of officials and stiffer competition for games, this issue would take care of itself, but instead I see many associations pander to the older veterans for fear that they might quit if they aren't still being given the "big game" thus leaving the association short-handed the next season. I've argued that watching these old-timers continue to get the premium assignments year after year is a greater problem. The younger officials become discouraged and call it quits after five or six years of being stuck behind the old guys. IMO that is the biggest cause of the lack of retention of officials. There was a discussion on here not so long ago about female officials up in the Portland area quitting because they felt that they couldn't break through and get playoff games. One poster wrote that many were just on the verge of receiving those assignments when they quit. Clearly a case of dissatisfaction with paying their dues and waiting their turn. How many officials are lost in this manner because the "experienced" official was chosen for the semi-final?

It has been my observation that once an official goes to the top, he never goes back down. Most associations are very good about promoting deserving officials, but are very poor at demoting those who no longer perform as they once did. This creates a blockage at the top. Something must be done to relieve it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. So let me get this straight. You are saying that you did VARSITY high school games when you were 15 and 16 and you claim that you were fully ready and capable of running the show? That's hogswash, and you know it. You had some other officials there who were adults that carried you. You made a few calls here and there and likely did a serviceable job, but didn't have an ounce of game control. Someone else did that for you. BTW times were vastly different forty years ago!

2. The people who start officiating youth games at 12/13 do gain some valuable experience, however, it is not proper to contend that they have 8,9, or 10 years of experience by the time they hit 21. Those early years of kiddie ball just don't equate the same way as someone who was 25 and started working freshman and jv games with local HS association. There is a big difference in the environment.

3. In fact, the hard time getting and retaining officials is the very reason that most of these people are still out there. If there were greater numbers of officials and stiffer competition for games, this issue would take care of itself, but instead I see many associations pander to the older veterans for fear that they might quit if they aren't still being given the "big game" thus leaving the association short-handed the next season. I've argued that watching these old-timers continue to get the premium assignments year after year is a greater problem. The younger officials become discouraged and call it quits after five or six years of being stuck behind the old guys. IMO that is the biggest cause of the lack of retention of officials. There was a discussion on here not so long ago about female officials up in the Portland area quitting because they felt that they couldn't break through and get playoff games. One poster wrote that many were just on the verge of receiving those assignments when they quit. Clearly a case of dissatisfaction with paying their dues and waiting their turn. How many officials are lost in this manner because the "experienced" official was chosen for the semi-final?

It has been my observation that once an official goes to the top, he never goes back down. Most associations are very good about promoting deserving officials, but are very poor at demoting those who no longer perform as they once did. This creates a blockage at the top. Something must be done to relieve it.

1) No, I'm saying that I was ready by age 21 to be fully capable to officiate varsity games. And I was given the opportunity because other local people thought that I was ready. And the reason that I was ready was that I was allowed to gain the necessary experience and knowledge through the help of veteran officials who wanted to develop younger officials. I was taught how to be an official, and I was also working my azz off at the same time doing what I was being taught. I listened and learned because I wanted to be a good official. Using your recommended procedure, that just ain't ever gonna happen. And that's exactly why your proposed age limits might be the most ridiculous thing that you've ever written here. And for you, believe me, that's saying something.
As for not happening now? Our association regularly tries to recruit local high school students in the 15-16 year old range. We train 'em and use them in local house league and kids rec programs. If they go away to college, we'll find an association nearby that they can join to keep officiating, and also help get them into an intramural program. Hopefully, we'll get some of them back eventually with their love of officiating intact. Others that might not want to go to college still officiate locally, and they proceed up the ladder as they gain skill and experience. We always lose some, but the ones that we manage to keep are nothing but a help to our association. Of course, some never turn into good officials, but that doesn't mean that they don't turn into serviceable officials. I know that we aren't the only ones around doing that either.

2) Howinthehell can you be a spokesman for people that you know absolutely nothing about? You don't have a clue as to what each individual official is going to be like at any age or stage of their development. They're people, not cloned robots. They're all different and they all develop and mature differently. And that's why what you're proposing is so damn ridiculous. It assumes that every person is exactly the same, learns at the same rate, develops at the same rate, etc. That's nonsense and that's why you'll never see anything like what you're proposing ever happen. Sheer doodoo!

3) Didn't get picked for the big games again, did you?
Of course cronyism lives. The idea though is that you try to fix that problem, not something that is completely different and maybe isn't a problem. You don't fix that problem by installing hairbrain programs that have got diddley-squat to do with the problem. Yup, let's limit the opportunities of two different groups of officials by installing artificial age barriers. It doesn't matter how good of an official they are either. Or what kind of physical shape that they are in. All that matters is their birth date. I really hate to break this to you, Nevada, but if there is favoritism and cronyism present in an association, it's going to be used with 25-45 year old officials too. Someone in that age group might be going to State even though a 24 or 46 year-old official might be doing a much better job. You are just incredibly naive imo.

Nevada, you should evaluate and judge each official by what they can do on the floor, not by numbers on a birth certificate. Maybe in the Reno, Nevada area, every single official over the age of 50 is no longer competent to do the big games and no official under 25 is ready to do those big games either(as you are intimating), but I really don't think that holds true for the rest of the country-- and world. JMO of course.