Referee Magazine false double foul - April issue

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't recall being asked for one, but if you desire it, my belief is that the common 26 year-old doesn't have the emotional or mental maturity to command the respect of the coaches and the players and properly control the environment. That is what I truly believe that officiating is about. It's much more than just calling fouls and violations, which is where the focus of the standard 26 year-old is.

Feel free to disagree, but that's my honest opinion.

So, the 26 year-old offical, who may be in shape and able to get up and down the court with ease, should not be allowed to work at the highest levels because they do not, "have the emotional or mental maturity to command the respect of the coaches and the players and properly control the environment", while the 66 year-old official, who has 30-40 years of experience and commands a great deal of respect, should not be allowed because they cannot get up and down the court with the same ease as a 26 year-old?

At what age do the two (physical ability and experience) overlap? And how long do they overlap?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, the 26 year-old offical, who may be in shape and able to get up and down the court with ease, should not be allowed to work at the highest levels because they do not, "have the emotional or mental maturity to command the respect of the coaches and the players and properly control the environment", while the 66 year-old official, who has 30-40 years of experience and commands a great deal of respect, should not be allowed because they cannot get up and down the court with the same ease as a 26 year-old?

At what age do the two (physical ability and experience) overlap? And how long do they overlap?

I think there are 26 year olds that are much more physically able to do many things than someone at the age of 46, 56 or 66. And I think they can command respect if they have shown just like everyone else that you can do a good job. It is not impossible to gain that respect and in some cases it is easier because people see might see their up side compared to an older official.

I know this is a common comparison, but a 26 year old could be in the military for 8 years. And in this day and age could have been to war several times in this day and age. I think if that same 26 year old is capable of doing things that involve life or death, then they could easily work a basketball game at a high level. And that does not include the many other professions that require very high levels of stress and life or death situations (e.g. Police Officer, Fireman). I am sure there are 26 year olds running some businesses that might have more people accountable than any basketball game which is after all recreation.

Peace

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think there are 26 year olds that are much more physically able to do many things than someone at the age of 46, 56 or 66. And I think they can command respect if they have shown just like everyone else that you can do a good job. It is not impossible to gain that respect and in some cases it is easier because people see might see their up side compared to an older official.

I know this is a common comparison, but a 26 year old could be in the military for 8 years. And in this day and age could have been to war several times in this day and age. I think if that same 26 year old is capable of doing things that involve life or death, then they could easily work a basketball game at a high level. And that does not include the many other professions that require very high levels of stress and life or death situations (e.g. Police Officer, Fireman). I am sure there are 26 year olds running some businesses that might have more people accountable than any basketball game which is after all recreation.

Peace

You just saved me a whole lot of typing.

[M&M Guy]

Jeff, fwiw, I agree with you. I was just asking these questions for Nevada's sake, as he has been on record saying he feels officials should be subject to an upper age limit due to general physical abilities, and now he is advocating a lower age limit, due to experience limitations.

I would think age should not be a major determing factor, but rather each official's overall abilities should determine the level they are able to work.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I would think age should not be a major determing factor, but rather each official's overall abilities should determine the level they are able to work.

You are wise beyond my years.

Except for not knowing how to spell "determining".......

[fullor30]

Nevada

"I don't recall being asked for one, but if you desire it, my belief is that the common 26 year-old doesn't have the emotional or mental maturity to command the respect of the coaches and the players and properly control the environment. That is what I truly believe that officiating is about"

Sounds like your officiating philosophy is backwards. Since when do we as officials adjust our game to the perceptions, whims, moods of coaches and players. A 26 year old D1 obviously has earned the privilege to officiate going thru the normal scrutiny that any other official would. The minute he steps on the court, coaches and players had better give him the respect the uniform has earned, along with the person wearing it. The day we start adjusting our officiating to make coaches and players feel warm and fuzzy will surely be a sad one.

Conversely, If a head coach happened to be 23 years old, he/she would get the same respect from me as any other coach would. I respect the position and realize there is a reason they were chosen.

But again, believe as you wish.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Nevada

"I don't recall being asked for one, but if you desire it, my belief is that the common 26 year-old doesn't have the emotional or mental maturity to command the respect of the coaches and the players and properly control the environment. That is what I truly believe that officiating is about"

Sounds like your officiating philosophy is backwards. Since when do we as officials adjust our game to the perceptions, whims, moods of coaches and players. A 26 year old D1 obviously has earned the privilege to officiate going thru the normal scrutiny that any other official would. The minute he steps on the court, coaches and players had better give him the respect the uniform has earned, along with the person wearing it. The day we start adjusting our officiating to make coaches and players feel warm and fuzzy will surely be a sad one.

Conversely, If a head coach happened to be 23 years old, he/she would get the same respect from me as any other coach would. I respect the position and realize there is a reason they were chosen.

But again, believe as you wish.

Well said imo.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Well said imo.

Thanks JR, I really believe that.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Jeff, fwiw, I agree with you. I was just asking these questions for Nevada's sake, as he has been on record saying he feels officials should be subject to an upper age limit due to general physical abilities, and now he is advocating a lower age limit, due to experience limitations.

I would think age should not be a major determing factor, but rather each official's overall abilities should determine the level they are able to work.

Some safeguards are necessary for the greater good even if they eliminate a few individuals who would otherwise do a good job.

I'll point out that the founding fathers of our country disagree with your individual approach and wrote into the Constitution certain age requirements for holding federal office. US House rep = 25 years, US Senate = 30, US President = 35. Now why do you think that they did that?
It seems that they didn't believe that those 18 and 20 year olds who fought in the war to establish this country were ready to lead it administratively.

Also given what life expectancy was back at that time and what it is now, I would argue that those numbers would be even higher if the Constitution were to be drafted today.

IMO 35-55 is the age range in which people have the most balance of physical ability and mental maturity/experience to handle the rigors of D1 basketball.

But as always each is entitled to his/her own opinion and I have no qualms with anyone expressing those thoughts (wrong as they may be).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Some safeguards are necessary for the greater good even if they eliminate a few individuals who would otherwise do a good job.

I'll point out that the founding fathers of our country disagree with your individual approach and wrote into the Constitution certain age requirements for holding federal office. US House rep = 25 years

I get it.

At 25, you have enough emotional and mental maturity to be a US House Rep member, but you still don't have enough emotional and mental maturity to officiate a D1 basketball game. Iow, you can help run a country of 300 million people at 25, but not a college basketball game.

[Adam]

JR, holding your feelings in like this is just going to hurt you in the long run.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I get it.

At 25, you have enough emotional and mental maturity to be a US House Rep member, but you still don't have enough emotional and mental maturity to officiate a D1 basketball game. Iow, you can help run a country of 300 million people at 25, but not a college basketball game.

Apparently at 60+ one can't read the following sentence and process the logic of it.

"Also given what life expectancy was back at that time and what it is now, I would argue that those numbers would be even higher if the Constitution were to be drafted today."

Life Exp 1789 - about 50? hold federal office at half of that.
Life Exp 2008 - about 80? half of that is 40ish.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Apparently at 60+ one can't read the following sentence and process the logic of it.

"Also given what life expectancy was back at that time and what it is now, I would argue that those numbers would be even higher if the Constitution were to be drafted today."

Life Exp 1789 - about 50? hold federal office at half of that.
Life Exp 2008 - about 80? half of that is 40ish.

And apparently at whatevertherhell age you are, you can't comprehend that the damn age requirement to be a House Rep HASN'T freaking changed since 1789. It's 25 years old as of right now, Nevada. April 3, 2008! If anybody was stoopid enough to agree with you, and they sureashell haven't, then the minimum age now in 2008 would be 40ish. They would have changed it. Or maybe even brought up the idea of raising the minimum age. Nobody has that I've ever heard of. That would tell a normal person something right there, methinks.

Your logic makes as much sense as your original dumb hypothesis.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

But as always each is entitled to his/her own opinion and I have no qualms with anyone expressing those thoughts (wrong as they may be).

True, but you are not in any position to make that decision (neither is anyone else here so this is not an attack on you). So really this conversation is irrelevant. This is just an internet discussion about like whose team is better than my team.

Peace

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Some safeguards are necessary for the greater good even if they eliminate a few individuals who would otherwise do a good job.

I'll point out that the founding fathers of our country disagree with your individual approach and wrote into the Constitution certain age requirements for holding federal office. US House rep = 25 years, US Senate = 30, US President = 35. Now why do you think that they did that?
It seems that they didn't believe that those 18 and 20 year olds who fought in the war to establish this country were ready to lead it administratively.

Also given what life expectancy was back at that time and what it is now, I would argue that those numbers would be even higher if the Constitution were to be drafted today.

IMO 35-55 is the age range in which people have the most balance of physical ability and mental maturity/experience to handle the rigors of D1 basketball.

But as always each is entitled to his/her own opinion and I have no qualms with anyone expressing those thoughts (wrong as they may be).

Believe as you wish.