Physical tests...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Judtech

One thing to consider is that for associations who are struggling to have enough members to cover games adding one more hoop to jump through could thin the number of people available or who are willing to go through them. (yes all puns intended)
While there are some associations that have plenty of officials there are others who need as many warm bodies as they can get. I personally have no problem submitting to one but can understand why some associations don't have them.

Depending upon the situation of the individual association, the fitness requirement can be mandatory for postseason eligibility, regular season Varsity games, regular season sub-varsity games, or any combination thereof.

[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?

[APG]

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.

[tomegun]

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

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.

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

Originally Posted by truerookie

@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.

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.

[Judtech]

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!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Judtech

So if I beat a fellow officials fitness score will have have grounds for action if my schedule does not improve?

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.

[Rob1968]

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.

[BBrules]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

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.

[tjones1]

None of the associations I belong to use them.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BBrules

Wishing I was doing 3 whistle because the physical demand is significantly less.

Not for me. I relish the physical, and mental, challenge of a two person varsity game, pretty much the only kind of games we work here in our little corner of the Land of Steady Habits. I know that the three person game is better for the kids, and better for the game, but I still love the challenge of a two person assignment, at any level.

[IowaMike]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

This is a great point. One of my varsity partners and I were discussing this last year and we both felt that it was much, much easier to officiate a three man varsity boys game than a two man soph boys game, particularly in the big school conferences. The play is more ragged, up and down, and unpredictable. We have to call a lot more fouls as well, and in general it is more of a challenge to our officiating skills both physically and mentally. You really don't have to be in great physical condition to officiate a three man varsity game; you can go very long periods of time without ever having to actually run. That's not the case in a two man game, particularly at the high school level.

I don't think physical testing is a bad idea necessarily; I've seen guys working varsity games in all the sports who literally cannot run anymore and really need to hang it up. But relegating the guys who don't measure up to the games that actually require more physical exertion seems like a poor solution to me. You also can't just drop those guys because lets face it, someone has to fill the games and you can't fill all of them with guys who look and move like Kobe Bryant.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by IowaMike

This is a great point. One of my varsity partners and I were discussing this last year and we both felt that it was much, much easier to officiate a three man varsity boys game than a two man soph boys game, particularly in the big school conferences. The play is more ragged, up and down, and unpredictable. We have to call a lot more fouls as well, and in general it is more of a challenge to our officiating skills both physically and mentally. You really don't have to be in great physical condition to officiate a three man varsity game; you can go very long periods of time without ever having to actually run. That's not the case in a two man game, particularly at the high school level.

I don't think physical testing is a bad idea necessarily; I've seen guys working varsity games in all the sports who literally cannot run anymore and really need to hang it up. But relegating the guys who don't measure up to the games that actually require more physical exertion seems like a poor solution to me. You also can't just drop those guys because lets face it, someone has to fill the games and you can't fill all of them with guys who look and move like Kobe Bryant.

This is a point often overlooked by guys doing the second game who complain about the length of the first game.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by IowaMike

This is a great point. One of my varsity partners and I were discussing this last year and we both felt that it was much, much easier to officiate a three man varsity boys game than a two man JV boys game, particularly in the big school conferences.

Agreed. I find it much more tiring (physically and mentally) and off-ball contact is something I really try to watch for - but it's difficult.

[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?