Arrgy: Please reread my post. Regarding fitness, I suggested BASIC guidelines, including a 2-miler AND interval training (which would normally cover some of the stop/start effort by officials). If someone can suggest a better, fairer, more stringent test, I say, DO IT!
Regarding evals: I suggested submission of a VERY basic form to a (presumably qualified) assigner/evaluator, who follows up ONLY in the event of REPEATED problems.
Honestly, this is minimal stuff, and should be supported by ANY official who takes pride in his work and actually wants to meet a "standard." Those who don't? We're better off without them.
In your response to another poster, you refer to "Murray, the 65-year-old gym coach" and the irrelevance of suggestions or evals he may offer. Wow! Your concern is precisely why the eval process should cover a RANGE of input, and prompt follow-up ONLY in the event of a REPEATED problem.
By the way, Murray probably recognizes fitness (or lack of it) when he sees it, and HIS 40-plus years as an Educator/Coach may well imply a level of qualification in competitive sports that trumps even yours.
He's certainly worth a listen.
Ignoring reasonable, constructive input bespeaks a larger problem. And that would be arrogance.
