Physical tests...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It may not be able to tell who knows them, but it is a good way to weed out those who don't.

Again that is what camp is for and evaluations during the season. There are other ways to better eliminate people from working, which is why I am glad I live in an era where camps are used to hire people or move them up. None of this testing nonsense to see if someone gets a single varsity game or not and certainly not a post season game based solely on some test question that makes no sense.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

So it IS an English test. There are 'always' exceptions. Whether they may be used or shall be used depends upon what exception you use. More often then not my first response to the questions are: It depends. Why I say there are some 'gotcha' questions is simply because there are some gotcha questions. Not all of them are but the ones that are vaguely worded and incomplete and open ended scream of 'gotcha'. I'm not saying testing is a bad thing, just how they are asked. A person may know the rules and call great game but because they misread a few questions they are going to be eliminated from 'better' games is where I have issues.

Calling it an English test is nothing more than an excuse for not knowing the rule.

If it seems vague, don't read anything into it...think the basic case, not what if something else unstated occurred. If you do, you're making it harder than it is supposed to be.

And missing a "few" questions is not going to cost anyone a game. Missing several questions might. Even if there are a few bad questions, that shouldn't be enough to make a meaningful diference...the rest of the officals should have trouble too..

Getting a 90+ or even 95 is not difficult. I know several people who are good officials who get that or better every year. The ones that get a 70 that appear to be a good official may be when everything goes smoothly but do you really want them out there when the less common stuff occurs. Will they know what to do? I know people like that...they just make stuff up....right or wrong. And that only causes problems.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Getting a 90+ or even 95 is not difficult. I know several people who are good officials who get that or better every year. The ones that get a 70 that appear to be a good official may be when everything goes smoothly but do you really want them out there when the less common stuff occurs. Will they know what to do? I know people like that...they just make stuff up....right or wrong. And that only causes problems.

I know more officials that can quote every rule and will insist they are right but have no common sense and no one wants to work for them. So I guess to each his own. I have screwed up rules in the past and did not realize it until later because the coaches, partners or fans had no idea the rule was screwed up, but the explanation was sound and the way it was handled was smooth. So not every misapplication causes a problem when even when we are right coaches think we are stupid or they think we do not know what we are doing in the heat of the moment. I have actually been banned from one place by a coach because he did not like the real rule application and wanted to split hairs with wording.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know more officials that can quote every rule and will insist they are right but have no common sense and no one wants to work for them. So I guess to each his own. I have screwed up rules in the past and did not realize it until later because the coaches, partners or fans had no idea the rule was screwed up, but the explanation was sound and the way it was handled was smooth. So not every misapplication causes a problem when even when we are right coaches think we are stupid or they think we do not know what we are doing in the heat of the moment. I have actually been banned from one place by a coach because he did not like the real rule application and wanted to split hairs with wording.

Peace

Let me say it again...demonstrating that you know the rules by doing well on the test is NOT the ONLY element needed to be a decent official. It is just one of several necessary pieces that suggest a person is likely a good official.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Let me say it again...demonstrating that you know the rules by doing well on the test is NOT the ONLY element needed to be a decent official. It is just one of several necessary pieces that suggest a person is likely a good official.

And the fact that you keep saying this, is the reason I keep saying what I say. Taking a test is not what makes you a good official or proves your rules knowledge, which is why I never ask anyone what they got on the exam or care if someone got a 95 or a 75. Either score means nothing to me and I think it is dump to give or take away assignments based on an arbitrary number. And playing with words does not prove you know a rule.

Peace

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by truerookie

@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?

With all due respect, are you overweight, Stats?

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Let me say it again...demonstrating that you know the rules by doing well on the test is NOT the ONLY element needed to be a decent official. It is just one of several necessary pieces that suggest a person is likely a good official.

So if some passes the test by 1 point are they decent? What about a perfect score? Words like 'suggest' and 'likely' also leave a lot of room to be interpreted. Something can be just as 'unlikely' as 'likely'. If you have to 'suggest' something then it obviously not something that is readily apparent. I am all for minimum standards and requirements to participate, but any sense of real measure should be as real world as possible, like say a camp setting. IMO you can get a better idea of how good an official is by watching them in 'their' environment which is on the floor, not in a chair taking a test.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Judtech

So if some passes the test by 1 point are they decent? What about a perfect score? Words like 'suggest' and 'likely' also leave a lot of room to be interpreted. Something can be just as 'unlikely' as 'likely'. If you have to 'suggest' something then it obviously not something that is readily apparent. I am all for minimum standards and requirements to participate, but any sense of real measure should be as real world as possible, like say a camp setting. IMO you can get a better idea of how good an official is by watching them in 'their' environment which is on the floor, not in a chair taking a test.

You think camps are a real measure....I can't think of anything more subjective than a camp.

What you can't get in a camp is the players to create a variety of scenarios. Most games go smoothly and you don't really get to see that side of the equation. Even if 1 or 2 things happen, it doesn't really expose whether an official knows what is going on or not overall. They may wing it and get lucky....or the evaluator doesn't know the rule (I've seen that occur). You'd need to watch dozens of games before you'd see an official faced with enough situations to know if they knew the rules.

Passing by 1 point "might" be decent, I don't know from that alone. Nor do I know from a perfect score alone. It takes a balance across all attributes....stronger performances in one area can make of for the others but it can't completely replace it. I'd even agree that on-court observations is the most important element but I think fitness and rules knowledge (that can only be covered in a test-like environment....without considering the exact format of the test) are also relevant.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You think camps are a real measure....I can't think of anything more subjective than a camp.

What you can't get in a camp is the players to create a variety of scenarios. Most games go smoothly and you don't really get to see that side of environment....

I think this is where we will disagree. LOTS of crazy scenarios come up at camps. It is subjective but IMO gives you a better idea of how good an official is.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You think camps are a real measure....I can't think of anything more subjective than a camp

The only real measure of an official's abilities are actual games during the season, because the games count and you have to deal with people that are likely more accountable. During the summer the camp games might have people that are not accountable to anyone so their behavior might be over the top or not what you would normally see. But camps are much better than taking a sit down test or having someone run up and down the court in a time trial. Also most officials are not going to be observed in a real game by someone to make that determination as their real abilities.

Peace