Physical tests...

[Adam]

My bad. I misunderstood.

[mikeref]

I whole heatedly agree that being in good physical shape is an absolute for being a good official. I also think having a mandatory physical test opens up a huge can of worms for any association. Who decides what test will be given? who decides the criteria for passing? Where does the criteria come from? Is there any medical or scientific evaluation associated with the criteria for passing, or is it just an arbitrary decision that members of an association make? Who must take the test? Everyone? Are there different standards for those who do grade school, freshmen, JV, varsity or college? What happens if and when you fail the "test"? How long do the sanctions last? A year, two, forever?
What if someone refuses to take the test? Are they automatically balckballed? While having a standard physical test is a great idea and I would support it, it must be well thought out and planned for. This is the type of situation that could cause a severe rift in any association. I think it is recipe for disaster unless it is thouroughly and completely evaluated before it is implemented. Even if it is scrutinized and well planned for, any association should be ready for unexpected fallout and ranging from disappointment to all out anger. Thoughts??

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by mikeref

Thoughts??

My thoughts are this wouldn't be an issue for me. If I couldn't pass and there aren't games for me then the game (basketball) is in capable hands. However, physical conditioning is one of my 5 things an official can and should do prior to stepping on the court. The game suffers when we can't get into position (I don't use "hustle" because that leads to fake hustle...right out of position) and when someone is physically struggling I think it takes away from their ability to focus on the task at hand.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mikeref

II think it is recipe for disaster unless it is thoroughly and completely evaluated before it is implemented.

Any association considering this better brush up on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by mikeref

Who decides what test will be given? who decides the criteria for passing? Where does the criteria come from? Is there any medical or scientific evaluation associated with the criteria for passing, or is it just an arbitrary decision that members of an association make?

Excellent points. I also note another comment that some of the guys who didn't do well on the physical test were long considered among the association's best officials. Now an arbitrary test has determined that reputations made on the court are no longer relevant? Because somebody invented a test? Where is the empirical evidence that 14 seconds in a shuttle run is significant enough to determine who does and who does not ref a basketball game?

Looks to me like an attempt to thin the ranks (no pun intended) and eliminate the competition by substituting arbitrary physical tests for valid game evaluation. If your partner is waddling to a meeting, he or she is waddling up and down the court, and it should be noted and acted on in evaluations. It is absurd to base officiating ability on a test imposed by a group of people who would naturally invent a test they could pass and declare it the minimum standard.

I've worked with gazelles who can memorize the rule book but who still know nothing about basketball

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Excellent points. I also note another comment that some of the guys who didn't do well on the physical test were long considered among the association's best officials. Now an arbitrary test has determined that reputations made on the court are no longer relevant? Because somebody invented a test? Where is the empirical evidence that 14 seconds in a shuttle run is significant enough to determine who does and who does not ref a basketball game?

Looks to me like an attempt to thin the ranks (no pun intended) and eliminate the competition by substituting arbitrary physical tests for valid game evaluation. If your partner is waddling to a meeting, he or she is waddling up and down the court, and it should be noted and acted on in evaluations. It is absurd to base officiating ability on a test imposed by a group of people who would naturally invent a test they could pass and declare it the minimum standard.

I've worked with gazelles who can memorize the rule book but who still know nothing about basketball

Or, like often happens, those reputations are no longer valid. It can take years for a reputation to change...either when the official is no longer able to keep up but keeps getting the top assignments or when the official has improved substantially but doesn't get better assignments. My guess is those officials, while considered by many to be top officials, haven't been recently seen on the court by many who think they're top.

Now, perhaps the threshold of passing was unreasonable but there is some level of fitness that should be a minimum....at some point, an official IS just too unfit to properly cover the game no matter how good of a play caller they are.

[APG]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Excellent points. I also note another comment that some of the guys who didn't do well on the physical test were long considered among the association's best officials. Now an arbitrary test has determined that reputations made on the court are no longer relevant? Because somebody invented a test? Where is the empirical evidence that 14 seconds in a shuttle run is significant enough to determine who does and who does not ref a basketball game?

Looks to me like an attempt to thin the ranks (no pun intended) and eliminate the competition by substituting arbitrary physical tests for valid game evaluation. If your partner is waddling to a meeting, he or she is waddling up and down the court, and it should be noted and acted on in evaluations. It is absurd to base officiating ability on a test imposed by a group of people who would naturally invent a test they could pass and declare it the minimum standard.

I've worked with gazelles who can memorize the rule book but who still know nothing about basketball

Most people already take at least a rules test to determine if they are eligible to officiate, and/or to decide what levels they are eligible to work. With the line of thinking in your post above, I'm assuming you have a problem with that also? Literally everything you have against a physical test could be applied to any test(s) you already have to take.

Whether we like it or not, there should be a minimum level of physical fitness required to work games...it's part of the job...just like we test officials for a minimum amount of rules/mechanics/floor/etc. knowledge.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Most people already take at least a rules test to determine if they are eligible to officiate, and/or to decide what levels they are eligible to work. With the line of thinking in your post above, I'm assuming you have a problem with that also? Literally everything you have against a physical test could be applied to any test(s) you already have to take.

Whether we like it or not, there should be a minimum level of physical fitness required to work games...it's part of the job...just like we test officials for a minimum amount of rules/mechanics/floor/etc. knowledge.

I do agree with that, but rules tests also do not prove the ability for someone to show knowledge either. Those are silly too. And if it determines what level a person can only work that year, those are even dumber tests. In my opinion which is why what you work should be decided by people that observe you work, not by some test that ultimately means nothing when you have to memorize a word or specific phrase out of the rulebook. I do agree that we should be able to show some level of fitness, but that can be determined by more than a physical test. I can see you run once down the court and determine if you can keep up. A time on a clock is not going to determine that IMO.

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do agree with that, but rules tests also do not prove the ability for someone to show knowledge either. Those are silly too. And if it determines what level a person can only work that year, those are even dumber tests. In my opinion which is why what you work should be decided by people that observe you work, not by some test that ultimately means nothing when you have to memorize a word or specific phrase out of the rulebook. I do agree that we should be able to show some level of fitness, but that can be determined by more than a physical test. I can see you run once down the court and determine if you can keep up. A time on a clock is not going to determine that IMO.

Peace

Great points. Sometimes, it is helpful to have an impartial observer (i.e. someone who is not a member of that association) make that determination. If a guy is constantly getting beat (meaning on a break, that the official cannot get into a good position to see the play, but not meaning he has to beat the players down court and be standing at the end line waiting for them to arrive) or hangs back at T, or just looks like he is going to keel over mid-way through the 2nd qtr., it can be difficult for those who have been close to that official for a number of years to broach the subject. Especially, if that individual does a lot FOR the association.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do agree with that, but rules tests also do not prove the ability for someone to show knowledge either. Those are silly too.

Oh?

Last year, I ended my season with a JV boys game. My veteran partner called a team control foul on A10 during transition. He then started to line up the kids for B11's free throws.

I didn't see the foul, but an alarm went off in my head. We were in transition, so how else could A10's foul be anything but team control? I went to my partner to check on that, and we corrected it. Team B ball at the division line.

What readied me for that moment? Rules tests, or more specifically, the preparation for such tests. I can't think of a better way to drill these things into our heads.

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Most people already take at least a rules test to determine if they are eligible to officiate, and/or to decide what levels they are eligible to work. With the line of thinking in your post above, I'm assuming you have a problem with that also? Literally everything you have against a physical test could be applied to any test(s) you already have to take.

This leap of faith with respect to my thoughts on the subject makes assumptions not in evidence in my comments.

Rules tests are based on the application of rules to particular circumstances. I am told that most of the questions are based on situations that actually happened.

Having someone design some sort of shuttle test and "pick a number" is to require a test that, unlike the rules test, is not based on empirical research into actual situations, but, rather, which is based on a purely speculative concept of proper conditioning.

Evaluate the officials on what they do on the court, and leave off-the-field speculative testing to the NFL combine.

[APG]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

This leap of faith with respect to my thoughts on the subject makes assumptions not in evidence in my comments.

Rules tests are based on the application of rules to particular circumstances. I am told that most of the questions are based on situations that actually happened.

Having someone design some sort of shuttle test and "pick a number" is to require a test that, unlike the rules test, is not based on empirical research into actual situations, but, rather, which is based on a purely speculative concept of proper conditioning.

Evaluate the officials on what they do on the court, and leave off-the-field speculative testing to the NFL combine.

Except even with the rules test, you're still "picking a number" to determine who's eligible to work what level. Who's to say that someone that scores a 70 has sufficient rules knowledge to work a game? Why not bump it up to 80 or 90+ since as officials, we should know the rules inside and out?

You're point about some of the rules questions actually having happen or do happen in games is true, but a physical test could test many of the same movements that are required in a game...short sprints, quick stop and go movements, etc...and yes you'd have to pick a cut off...usually this cut off is going to be based on some research I feel.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

...I've worked with gazelles who can memorize the rule book but who still know nothing about basketball

I've worked with overweight officials who've memorized the rule book but can't get up and down the court to be in position to apply their rules knowledge.

So your statement doesn't really speak to the subject.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I've worked with overweight officials who've memorized the rule book but can't get up and down the court to be in position to apply their rules knowledge.

So your statement doesn't really speak to the subject.

I have worked with officials that can run like a deer. But when you put them under pressure to make calls, be consistent, deal with adversity, they cannot do it.

Peace

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have worked with officials that can run like a deer. But when you put them under pressure to make calls, be consistent, deal with adversity, they cannot do it.

Peace

So what you are saying is that they run like a deer and when the lights come on they act like one too?
I agree 100% about the verbiage of some of the test questions. It's like they spend days coming up with trick questions instead of coming up with real world questions!