People Skills...

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Now Chuck I assume (gets us in trouble doing that, but I will do it anyway) that this is the statement that you find objectionable.

Good start. At least now, after 6 pages of posts, we agree on what is actually up for debate!

There was someone that had praised an official on this board for passing a written test but failing a floor test. When someone with a straight face can praise someone's officiating ability because they passed a written test, but failed the all important "floor test," I do not know about you, but that seems to say someone feels that tests mean a little more than what I personally feel is required to officiate.

Ok! This is good, this is an attempt at providing evidence. Now let's go look at the evidence. I asked you to quote passages where somebody stated that rules knowledge was the only thing necessary to be an outstanding official. You haven't bothered to quote anything, so I've done the legwork for you. (If we were still in college, you'd have to pay me big bucks for this )

Here's the thread you're referring to: http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=7540

I went back and looked at all the posts in the thread. I'll quote the passages that come closest to saying what you claim.

posted by Blackhawk 357
Hang in there. If you have the passion for the game like it sounds, you will be a very good official.

posted by woolnojg
You can still be a good official. Experience tells me it takes about 3 years to become a good official. You're still in your 1st

posted by Jurrasic Park Pork Ref
What's the problem? You know the rules,love the game and want to continue to be a part of it. Go ahead and damn well do it then! There's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't! . . . If your mentor thinks that you're gonna make a good ref,then you probably will. . . Don't give it up. We need good officials-and they don't come ready made!

Tony also posted a reply but he did not mention rules at all, nor did he comment on whether the original poster had the tools to be an outstanding official. He did mention using good mechanics.

Those are all the replies that are even slightly germaine to our discussion. And just for the record, here's part of the original post.

posted by jdccpa
my floor test last week was a disaster. I did a game with a former patched official of many years experience who was also doing his floor test; next to him I looked bad. Plus I was bad.

So here's a few comments. First, notice that the original poster himself admits that he knew the rules and yet was a bad official. So he clearly does NOT think that rule knowledge is all it takes to be an outstanding official.

Second, notice that none of the posts that I've quoted says that he actually is a good official.

DownTownTonyBrown makes that point that he probably wasn't quite as bad as he thought (being too hard on himself), but nobody says that he really is a great official b/c he passed his written test or that he just got screwed by the evaluator.

Blackhawk says "you will be a very good official".

Woolnojg says "you can still be a good official. Experience tells me it takes about 3 years to become a good official."

JR says, "if your mentor thinks that you're gonna make a good ref, then you probably will."

Not one of the posts in that thread says that the official in question is a good official. He's obviously NOT a good official. He just failed his floor test. But b/c he loves the game and seems willing to put in the work to get better, he probably will be a good ref someday.

Notice that not one of the posts says "You already passed the written test, therefore you are clearly an outstanding official." They all say that he needs more work, despite knowing the rules.

So while I genuinely appreciate your effort to present some kind of evidence for your position, it doesn't support your position at all. Nobody actually believes that rule knowledge is the ONLY thing that's necessary to be an outstanding official. And you still have shown nothing to prove otherwise. He knows the rules, yet still needs to do more to be an outstanding official. We all agree with you, Jeff.

Since that is the only real evidence you've offered, and it clearly does not support your position; and since I've stated repeatedly that we all agree with you that rule knowledge is not sufficient to make an outstanding official; will you now admit that you spoke too hastily on this subject, that you were incorrect in your judgment, and that you will no longer make that false claim?

Chuck