I don't think it was a shot. I think it was intended to be a compliment. You may be a new guy (rookie), but you want to get better, you're willing to discuss and learn and you're on your way to being a good official. You're NOT a 7th year guy who's still only doing rec leagues (weaker partner).

Scrapper, initially, I did not see it as a compliment. I viewed it as a shot based on the content of the thread. However, now you have pointed it out. I can err on the compliment side aspect.

Right. I was calling you what you call yourself, a rookie. And doing it in a good way. You are NOT a weak partner, even if you're in over your head, sometimes.

In answer to your question about what to call someone who's done several years of rec only, I'd say it depends largely on their attitude. When they first come into "official" ball, are they willing to take the next step? Do they listen to suggestions and try to get better? Then they're rookies-who-are-working-hard. Or taking-the-next-step. Or if they get into a tough game, but give it their best, they're in over their head, but working hard and learning fast. Otherwise, they're just "weak partners".

Rainmaker, everything is cool. It has been about four years since I researched and found this site. At the time, I thought it would be interesting to identify myself as a rookie to the people on this site. Informing them, I am/was new to the avocation. I have grown tremendously as an official from those on this site. Even the ones who may have stated, I should take my officials shirt and work at Champ's shoe store.;) They know who they are!!

It is my belief that in some capacity we all can be viewed as a weak partner to others. I believe it is safe to say we all have weaknesses. Thus, labelling someone else as a weak partner in my opinion is inappropriate. I know I have weaknesses I'm human.;)

So what would be a better term for that partner that is making your life a living hell? IMO, "weak" is being nice.

Now we can try to break down why they are "weak" and that can lead to different descriptions:

1. New...now this is where we all were at one point and while it isn't always fun, very few of us hate working these games if the new official is trying to get better.

2. The rec ref...these guys hate real reffing because of the politics, IOW, their way didn't cut it so real reffing is beneath them. They won't use the proper mechanics, they are 5 years behind in rule changes, and you won't have much of a chance to make them better...or your day easier.

3. The cash cow ref...these are the guys with the $10 dollar, light weight, collared ref shirts...usually untucked...metal, pea whistle, no mechanics, have never seen a rule book much less read one. IOW, our worst nightmare.

Now, it's possible to have overlap as well. The #1 fast on the way to #2 or #3. Usually, it's the combo of #2 and #3 that is the worst.

Blindzebra, you have raised some valid points. You also imposed a question upon me which I will answer.

Your question: So what would be a better term for that partner that is making your life a living hell? CLUELESS!;)

Why are you so upset what people call a partner? If you are not completely competent in anything, then someone might have to carry the crew or organization in order for something to go right. It is a lot easier to work with people that are equally versed and have similar experience. When a person does not have that they are weak on some level. This is why when officials have a choice, they pick the more experienced official most of the time. Why there weak is not always the issue. Some officials are very willing to be helped or take advice and other officials think they have everything figured out.

Peace

Are those the flashing lights of the PC police I see?
 

Huh? The term weak is too strong? That's a new one on me. :confused:

Somewhere out there in the world is the greatest referee working today. Somewhere else out there is the worst ref working today. The rest of us fall somewhere in a continuum between these two exceptional officials. Which means that each of us is weaker than some partners and stronger than others. It's not derogatory, it's a fact of life that must be dealt with on the court.

I merely posed a question which grew out of an unpleasant, very real situation. In asking my question I have not called anybody out; I have not named any names. My question isn't even about the official who inspired it; it's about how to better handle the next one. And there will be a next one. To try and steer the conversation around the truth for the sake of preserving the tender feelings of some official who is not present, has not been named, and is unknown to anybody else in the conversation is just plain silly and dilutes the usefulness of the discussion. :rolleyes:

No, no, no. He was talking about the OTHER Mark. :p

Old School.

Your talking about Old School. Right?

JRut, I'm not upset about anything.

Who?????????

OK....Then why do you care what they call a partner that is not as competent?

Peace

I do not believe it proper to label someone in that manner. Especially, when they may not be aware of it.

Is it so hard to say? I worked with an official who is still developing as an official.