I agree. We are talking about proving you can run for a job that requires you to...wait for it...run! We also aren't talking about Olympic-level requirements.

Kind of reminds me of people in the Air Force complaining about the PT test.

Sure. I'll see if I can find the actual list.

If there's going to be physical tests for officials, then there should be mental tests for coaches. ;)

@Tomegun, fortunately I am not a real estate agent… Don’t want to be one either. So this would not apply to me. This company wants to maintain its 503( c ) status, yet want to put requirement on individuals for their service.

@Cameron, this same organization found these unfit officials useable when the cupboard was bare of officials to covers games for this organization. Now the cupboard is full we need to weed them out so younger officials can stay around… I will be the first to say once the economy picks back up these younger officials will find better ways to spend their time when the money start consistently.

@Navada. SEE comment address to Cameron.

@BNF, I cannot disagree with that. Yet, those jobs provide health insurance or contribute to health insurance for their employees. (Key word is employees). They also don’t have 503 ( c) status either. So that dog doesn’t fight…

Keep in mind, 1% of the population speaking here. It burns me up that people wants to implement system when things are good for them. Bunch of BullSh#t. Where was this process back in 2008?

I don't get the issue truerookie...organizations in all walks of life place requirements all the time to be eligible...heck, most state associations and well as local associations already have requirements one must meet to be able to call games...like scoring a certain score on a floor or paper test.

My thoughts are in theory, this is a great idea but only really practical if covering games isn't any issue. Otherwise, in areas hurting for officials, I don't think this could be realistically put in place...maybe if they restricted it to only varsity officials.

Guys, I was responding to bainsey's post about his SOCCER fitness test.
I already posted what our basketball association does in an earlier post. This one pertained to my soccer group.

Correct. And my time was 11:07. ;)

Come on man, you get my point! APG brought up a good point; what do you think about test score determining who gets games? Knowing the rules is something we have to (should) know too right?

My bad. I misunderstood.

Isn't that the very nature of a contract...that each side sets requirements that the other agrees to or doesn't agree to???

That's the nature of basic supply and demand. When the supply is high, the consumer can be more picky. And who is to say the organization didn't want to implement such a system in the past but just couldn't get it organized.

It is not necessarily the younger officials that are showing up due to the economy. Sure, they are there, but I see a lot of 40-60 year-old rookies looking to make a few bucks.

So if I beat a fellow officials fitness score will have have grounds for action if my schedule does not improve? Theoretically my written test scores are confidential so I would have no way to compare scores and any proceeding jump in schedule. But if I have 10 years in and someone else has 10 years in and I have better 'fitness' scores then they do wouldn't it be assumed I would have the better schedule? I have never been the swiftest or most agile person in the world, yet I was able to play the sport at a relatively high level. IMO, the criteria should be "Can this official keep up with the pace of the game for the entire time OF the game". If the official is incapable of doing that they should be assigned levels of games where they can meet this standard. If there is some empirical preseason fitness test that can do that, then I think it would be a more valid delineator.
Now leave me alone, I'm having some fried butter sticks I got from the Iowa state fair for a midnite snack!

Depends on how the test and assignments are set up.

If it's set up so those who score higher / run faster get better games, and you do and you don't, then you have a complaint.

But, mostly, they're set up as a minimum requirement and all who meet that requirment are eligible and the ranking of those who exceed the requirement doesn't matter.

Several difficulties arise in the use of physical fitness tests for officials.
In our area, only mens' varsity is using 3-man mechanics. Thus, the fitness of the officials at that level of games is not so much a factor. (We probably can agree that a 3-man game doesn't require the same physical exertion as a 2-man game.)
Very often, the lower levels of play are more strenuous, physically, because of the lack of structure, lack of organized play-running offenses, and poorer spacing of players on the court. Many of the younger - sub-varsity - games are played by participants who are trying to impress someone with their abilities, and so they run more.
There never can be an absolute standard or performance for such tests of the officials, just as there is no absolute standard for the performance of the players. Simply stated, we try to take the best for the highest levels of competition. If the over-all pool of applicants happens to perform better than the pool of some former group, then the selected few will be better. But, the games will go on. No one is going to say that the season will have to be cancelled because none of the applicants, whether players or officials, didn't meet a particular standard of performance.
And since the performance of either group is considered to rise with experience, there will always be some of the selected participants that are chosen for higher levels of competition based on factors that are quite foreign to some standard of physical performance. Just as the best point guard may not be able to dunk, but he/she can really manage the game, and distribute the ball, a particular official's game management, judgement, repoire (sp?) with the coaches and players, etc, may far out-weigh a somewhat lower level of pure athleticism.
Yes, I understand that the physical fitness of an official is only one of many factors considered in their ranking, and assignment to levels of play. As one in my area who has been held as an example of good physical performance for many years, I appreciate and welcome the advent of such criteria in the ranking/selection of officials. When all is considered, it must be a smaller factor in the cosideration of assignment to the higher leves of play.

Show-off. It's on now! :D

from the old fat guy
 

How true this is. After refing my lower level games I would hang around and see what I could pick up from the varsity refs, all the time wishing I was doing 3 whistle because the physical demand is significantly less. For the last few years I have really struggled with the weight issue and in spite of working out and running, it just doesn't go away after you passed 60 a few years ago. Going in, I knew I would not be doing any varsity games. I didn't care. I just wanted to ref. Had they told me I could only do middle school, that was OK. I just wanted to ref. As rotund as I was, I found that I could keep up with HS girls games, even varsity. I would struggle with a HS boys JV (big school) if I had already done a couple of games before it. That said, one of my mentors said, "you're behind the play sometimes, but you are getting the calls right." I studied the rules hard - got a 97% on my test - and I was coming along with application of the rules. The physical part was tough. Being fat brings its own problems in the form of injuries. I fought them all season. Too easy to injure, too long to heal. I gave it up this season. I guess this is longer than it needs to be to say I don't think a physical fitness test is a bad idea. I met one for years in the Army. But I have to agree with Rob, it is just part of the picture. It certainly shouldn't be the only issue to determine if someone should be a ref or not.

None of the associations I belong to use them.