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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is not just the opinion of one individual in his 30s. It is the stance taken by those who run the world's most popular sport. (The FIFA board which runs world soccer.) These people are not just young'uns either. They have significant experience in both sport and life. So how does that fit with your theory?

Why are people so resistant to this idea which could greatly improve officiating? Is it due to self-interest? Hmmmm....

Originally Posted by GarthB

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.

Ok, so how many of those officials take a fitness test each year? How are they tested? What drills are they put through? How is their "performance" graded? Are they ranked by their level of physical ability as well as what others think of their judgment, experience, and rules book test score?

For those in their 60's and 70's which you say should hang it up, are they still getting games? Why? It seems that they don't share your opinion of them. How do you feel when you have to work with these folks? Do you think that it is good for the HS game that they are out there?

What measures does your area take to assign games according to merit instead of merely by seniority?