Question about referees

 
I don't think so at the high school level. I know that I don't for baseball/softball.

I wouldn't be opposed to a physical assessment - though given the shortage in the numbers of officials across sports, anything that could decrease headcount is not a good thing.

That said, I don't think having physical fitness makes you a good official, or lacking physical fitness makes you a bad one. There's much more to the puzzle. No matter the physical abilities you do (or don't) possess, the mental tools have to be there.
 
Do referees have to take a physical or prove that they have the physical agility required to ref a match?

No.

That said, I don't think having physical fitness makes you a good official, or lacking physical fitness makes you a bad one. There's much more to the puzzle. No matter the physical abilities you do (or don't) possess, the mental tools have to be there.

While I agree that being physically fit doesn't make you a good official, lacking at least some minimum physical fitness does make you a poor official. Sometimes you have to move, you have to get out of the way, you have to stop kids from flying into a table or get down to look for the fall. Sometimes being in the right position (crucial to good officiating) takes some level of fitness.

Anyone at last year's DI Sectional at Wesland High School can attest to that.
 
I believe to be an official you should take a physical test, and also should have a wrestling background.

It's a complete joke that there are officials that never wrestled before imo.
 
I wittnessed an official in a dual meet who would stand and stomp his foot on the mat to call a pin. In my opinion, if this ref couldn't even get on the mat to see a pin, he should hang up his whistle. I don't feel that officials need to pass any kind of extensive physical, but there should be a minimum that is required of them.
 
Thanks everyone for their input. another question. Some referees will call stalemates quickly after a match has reached that point, while others will allow the match to progress for 20-30 seconds. Is there a hard and fast rule about calling stalemates or is it more subjective?
 
Thanks everyone for their input. another question. Some referees will call stalemates quickly after a match has reached that point, while others will allow the match to progress for 20-30 seconds. Is there a hard and fast rule about calling stalemates or is it more subjective?

You should have refman email you his word document on what is and isn't stalling. It is very well detailed on when to call stalling and when not to call stalling. Unfortunately I don't think most refs have the same approach as refman when it comes to stalling.
 
You should have refman email you his word document on what is and isn't stalling. It is very well detailed on when to call stalling and when not to call stalling. Unfortunately I don't think most refs have the same approach as refman when it comes to stalling.

He said stalemates not stalling.

When I am refereeing there are a lot of small things to look for when calling a stalemate. As someone who has wrestled, I can see when a situation can progress, and where it probably can't. It really is a judgment call for the most part. Are both guys dead locked? Is/Can one man improve? Things like this affect thinking.
 
He said stalemates not stalling.

When I am refereeing there are a lot of small things to look for when calling a stalemate. As someone who has wrestled, I can see when a situation can progress, and where it probably can't. It really is a judgment call for the most part. Are both guys dead locked? Is/Can one man improve? Things like this affect thinking.

wow you are right. Complete brain fart there. Well, still check out refman's word document!
 
Top